Every check is a bet that you know enough.
The question is not whether a search finds something. The question is whether the result is complete enough, current enough and documented enough to support a decision someone else can review. Before you bring a person on board, subscribe to an investment or take on a mandate, you make a decision with incomplete information. The question is never whether you check — but with what. Your own browser. A language model. A KYC tool that runs in-house anyway. A forensic boutique you keep for the serious case.
Each of these routes answers part of the question “who am I dealing with?” — and none covers it fully. A search result is not a process. A chatbot summary is not a decision record. This page places them: factually, without disparaging the alternatives — each has its place. The point is to find the right place for your question.
Four routes, one question — and four different limits.
The honest answer: you probably need more than one route. For a fast first look, the software often suffices. For the borderline case, the human steps in. For the exception, the boutique. The table shows where the line runs.
| Self-Googling | Language model (e.g. ChatGPT) | KYC / screening tool | Forensic boutique | Indicium report | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What it does at its core | Sift freely available hits | Summarize existing knowledge, draft text | Sanctions, PEP, watchlist screening | In-depth research by analysts, often with an on-site component | Structured risk examination across the spectrum: automated to analyst-led |
| Source basis | What the search engine shows | Training cut-off, possibly web access — no guarantee of completeness | Defined lists, narrowly drawn | Very broad, case-dependent | Broadly based, structurally documented |
| Documentation | None — you keep tabs open | Chat history, not reviewable | List hit log | Detailed report | Reviewable report, complete for regulators and proceedings |
| False-positive handling | You | You | Rule-based, high hit rate without context | Analyst | Software logic; human final review in the Hybrid- and Boutique-Report |
| Speed | Minutes to hours, without depth | Minutes, no guarantee | Seconds for the list check | Days to weeks | Software in minutes · Hybrid/Boutique: days to weeks |
| Best for | First impression | Preparation, drafting | Mandatory regulatory screening | Highly sensitive individual cases | From fast pre-check to analyst-led depth |
Self-Googling shows what’s visible — not what counts.
Your own research is free, instantly available and often enough for a first impression. It shows the LinkedIn page, the press release, the association register. The problem isn’t what you find — it’s what you don’t find and still take to be complete. An open insolvency in another jurisdiction. A change of managing director that never made it into the German index. A name match that leads you to the wrong person.
And even if you find everything: you have nothing in hand. Twelve open browser tabs are not a report you present to a regulator or a court. This is exactly where the Software-Report comes in — the same speed, but structured, broader, and in the end a reviewable, documented report.
Software-Report: from €79, three reports free to try after your demo →A language model phrases things brilliantly — and stands behind nothing.
Language models are excellent at ordering what exists and putting it into words. For preparing a conversation, structuring an argument, clean phrasing — unbeatable. What they can’t do: stand behind the accuracy of a factual claim about a real person.
A model knows its training cut-off, not yesterday’s entry. It can invent a source that sounds plausible and doesn’t exist. And it keeps no reviewable log of who checked what, when. For a decision with regulatory or procedural significance, that’s the wrong basis — not because the tool is bad, but because it was built for a different task.
The Indicium report uses the strength of automation — speed, breadth, structure — and combines it with what a free language model doesn’t deliver: traceable sources and a document you can present.
This is what a reviewable, documented report looks like →KYC tools answer the mandatory question — not the real one.
A good screening tool is indispensable in regulated business: sanctions lists, PEP status, watchlists — in seconds, verifiable, regulatorily clean. If you need that, keep it. Indicium doesn’t replace it.
But the question “is this person on a list?” is not the same as “who am I dealing with here?” Lists are narrowly drawn and context-poor. They produce plenty of false positives a human must resolve — and they say nothing about the reputational pattern, the quiet entanglement, the friction point that’s on no list and still tips the balance.
The Indicium report operates one level above: a broader risk picture, structurally assessed, with human final review in the Hybrid- and Boutique-Report where context decides. Mandatory screening and risk understanding — one doesn’t preclude the other.
Where the report goes beyond the list check →A forensic boutique is the right answer — to a rare question.
For the highly sensitive individual case there is no substitute for analyst-led in-depth research: the contested matter, the internal investigation with consequences, the deal where a single missed detail costs millions. There, human, experience and time belong in play — and that’s exactly where Indicium too delivers analyst-led work: the Boutique-Report, fully analyst-led.
The point is proportionality. Engaging a boutique for every single check ties up days to weeks and a budget most cases don’t justify. The reality of most organizations: many routine checks, some borderline cases, few genuine exceptions.
This is exactly what the Indicium spectrum is built for — one axis, three depths: the Software-Report solves the bulk in minutes. The Hybrid-Report adds human final review where it gets tight. The Boutique-Report goes to full analyst-led depth when the case demands it. You pay for depth only where depth changes something.
The spectrum: Software · Hybrid · Boutique →What we deliberately do not claim.
No provider on this page — us included — can sell you certainty. We deliberately do not say a report creates certainty about a person. No one serious can promise that. What we deliver is the structured, fully documented basis you can present to a regulator or in proceedings — so your decision is reviewable, even years later.
The difference isn’t in the promise. It’s in what you’re left with: open tabs, a chat history, a list hit — or a reviewable, documented report.
Which report fits your question? →Everything above concerns the report — the snapshot of a check. Indicium Radar is something else: continuous monitoring instead of a one-off check, grown out of our executive-search work to guard against backdoor hires. Currently in early access — with a fixed term, a named alert latency and a price per monitored mandate.
Get to know Radar early access →