Pick the vendors you are looking at and start scoring. The questions and weights below are this category’s staff-reviewed standard, applied for you — there is nothing to set up. Everything works without an account, and nothing leaves your browser until you ask it to.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
All 12 vendors in this category.
This field moves extremely fast; a vendor citing accuracy figures against outdated deepfake-generation techniques is not evidence of current effectiveness. Insist on recency of the test set used to measure accuracy.
Real-time detection during a live call (e.g., CEO-fraud voice-cloning scenarios) is a materially harder and more valuable capability than post-hoc file analysis; ask for a measured latency figure if real-time is claimed, since added delay affects usability.
A credible vendor is honest about the fundamental cat-and-mouse dynamic in this category and describes a real update cadence, rather than implying permanent, static effectiveness against all future generation techniques.
False positives in this category carry real business disruption risk (blocking a genuine urgent instruction); a vendor should state a measured false-positive rate and describe how a flagged-but-legitimate case gets resolved quickly.
This category spans very different use cases with different technical approaches; a vendor's general-purpose claim should be grounded in a specific, relevant production reference rather than accepted at face value.
Detection with no workflow integration point provides limited real protection; ask specifically how a detection actually intercepts or flags the at-risk business process in practice, not just in a demo.
An interpretable explanation (specific detected artifacts) is more useful for escalation decisions and any downstream legal/forensic process than an opaque confidence score alone.
Look for transparent pricing that reflects the real cost difference between blanket real-time monitoring and selective/spot-check analysis, since always-on real-time detection is materially more resource-intensive.
Strong answers describe a real, tested response workflow with a concrete fraud-prevention example, not just confirmation that detection and flagging occur.
Given detection findings could be used to justify serious action (termination, legal claims), ask for a specific answer on evidentiary defensibility, not just detection accuracy in isolation.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from individual detection events — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Voice-deepfake detection models can have real accuracy disparities across languages and accents — ask for an honest, specific answer rather than an unqualified accuracy claim that may reflect only the primary training-data demographic.
This is a real, common buyer question given the functional overlap with identity-verification's own liveness-detection capabilities — a vendor should give an honest answer about the boundary and complementarity.
Detection accuracy against yesterday's deepfakes says little about resilience against deepfakes specifically crafted to evade this detector — ask for evidence of genuine adversarial red-teaming, not just a static accuracy benchmark.
Strong answers give a concrete, customer-validated timeline for actual business-process integration, not just standalone tool availability, and are honest about the customer-side effort required.
These questions and weights are the reviewed standard for this category — start scoring straight away. To change them, or to import your own questions from a spreadsheet and reuse them on every evaluation, create a free buyer account.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).