How to evaluate regulatory monitoring software.
Start with the sources your institution needs, then test how a supplier turns a publication into a useful assessment. Compare the same requirements across providers and keep their answers alongside the evidence you have inspected.
This checklist is a practical procurement aid from Comperse. Adapt it to your institution’s supplier-review process.
Download the supplier review checklist (.txt) ↓
Define the job before comparing suppliers.
List the regulators, publication types, institutions and teams in scope. Decide whether you need help discovering updates, assessing their relevance, or managing implementation through to completion. That distinction gives your demonstrations a clear purpose.
Official sources may already cover part of the discovery task. For example, the FCA offers daily and weekly news and publications emails. Ask what the paid service adds to your current review: consolidation, institution-specific analysis, workflow support or another requirement you can test.
Eight areas to inspect.
Source and publication coverage
Which regulators, publication types and rule changes are included in the proposed subscription?
Evidence to request: A source-by-source inventory, sample documents and any exclusions or activation conditions.
Institution-specific relevance
How does the service use our entity type and activities to identify relevant developments?
Evidence to request: A demonstration using an agreed institution profile, including one relevant and one out-of-scope publication.
Alert timing
How often is each source checked, and when do assessments reach the dashboard and email?
Evidence to request: Publication, detection and delivery timestamps for sample updates; the schedule and handling of missed runs.
Assessment quality and traceability
Can we verify the summary, scope, dates and suggested actions against the original publication?
Evidence to request: An assessment with working source links, clear date labels and an explanation of the review and correction process.
Team workflow
Which review steps happen in the product, and which stay in our existing process?
Evidence to request: A walkthrough of user access, review actions and any claimed assignment, export or integration features.
Onboarding and support
What setup, training and ongoing support are included?
Evidence to request: An onboarding plan, support channels and hours, escalation arrangements and any contracted response targets.
Data handling and security
What information does the service need, where is it processed and who can access it?
Evidence to request: Applicable privacy and contractual documents, retention/deletion arrangements, subprocessors and evidence for claimed security controls.
Commercial scope and exit
What does the price cover, and what happens at renewal or termination?
Evidence to request: Written terms covering users, sources, add-ons, support, contract length, notice periods and access to records on exit.
Use a publication you can verify.
Choose a publication relevant to your institution and agree what you want the demonstration to establish. A useful starting test is whether your team can trace an assessment to the original source and distinguish the regulator’s dates from internal review targets.
- Find the source. Open the original publication from the assessment. Check its reference and version.
- Check the scope. Ask the supplier to explain why the update relates to your entity type and operations.
- Examine the dates. Identify publication, consultation, effective and reporting dates where relevant. Keep proposed dates and internal targets clearly labelled.
- Review the suggested actions. Ask which parts follow from the source, which require judgement and what further information your team would need.
- Test the next step. Follow the update into the part of your review process the supplier says it supports.
For a pilot, agree a defined period and a small set of representative publications. Record results against your requirements, including gaps and follow-up questions. Avoid treating a polished example as evidence that every source and workflow performs the same way.
Keep an evidence record for each requirement.
Use these four fields in your own comparison document. The downloadable checklist repeats them for all eight areas above.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Requirement | The outcome your institution needs and whether it is essential or preferred. |
| Supplier answer | The supplier’s response, including any limits and items described as planned. |
| Evidence requested / received | The document, demonstration or sample inspected, with its date and any outstanding request. |
| Pilot result | What you tested, what happened and what remains unresolved. Mark untested items as untested. |
Decide on essential requirements before reviewing results. A strong score elsewhere should not conceal an unresolved requirement that your institution considers necessary.
Bring the checklist to a Comperse walkthrough.
Comperse provides daily UK regulatory monitoring and email updates, with institution-specific assessments and source links. We can walk through the product against your coverage and review requirements.
Start with the publication coverage breakdown, or explore the review context for international banks’ UK branches. The questions above cover a broader supplier evaluation; confirm the scope included in your proposed service during the walkthrough.