KYC AML Guide: the Clock shows the average reeding time of the blog07 min Read


KYC AML Guide: the Clock shows the average reeding time of the blogJune 22, 2023

KYC Outsourcing vs. In-house Systems Pros and Cons

Every year, the compliance policies become more stringent. Today's dilemma for banks and financial institutions is whether to have KYC outsourcing or implement an in-house system. In this blog, we'll examine the pros and cons of each method to assist businesses in making a decision.

Belal Mahmoud

KYC Product Consultant

XYZ Corporation is a rapidly expanding fintech firm that offers online payment services to millions of customers around the world. As the company grows, it faces the challenge of performing KYC checks on its customers efficiently and accurately to comply with regulatory requirements and reduce the risk of money laundering.

The company’s management considers two options in this scenario: outsourcing KYC or developing an in-house KYC system. Let’s look at the advantages and disadvantages of each approach:

What is KYC Outsourcing?

The phrase “KYC outsourcing” refers to third-party KYC service providers. When deciding which approach to take, a good rule of thumb is to eliminate those that are repeated or labor-intensive, while keeping those that require additional analysis, confidential data, or contact with local authorities. KYC/AML outsourcing services include

Through KYC outsourcing, businesses can benefit from the expertise and resources of these professional providers, allowing them to focus on their core business while meeting regulatory requirements.

KYC Outsourcing Pros and Cons

Pros of KYC Outsourcing:

Expert Services

Companies that outsource KYC/AML services gain access to industry experts who are up to date on new regulations and best practices. They have the knowledge and experience to assist businesses in developing and managing effective compliance programs that save money and resources.

Enhanced security:

By outsourcing KYC/AML services to a trusted provider, businesses can improve their security and reduce the risk of a data breach. A trustworthy provider should have adequate security measures in place to protect sensitive information and ensure compliance with data privacy regulations.


Companies that outsource can save time and resources that would otherwise be spent on hiring and training employees, developing technology infrastructure, and ensuring ongoing compliance. This can result in exorbitant costs and system implementation.


Third-party KYC providers can scale up to meet the needs of the company, whether it is dealing with a large number of new customers or expanding services to new markets.

Cons of KYC Outsourcing:

Loss of data control:

Outsourcing the KYC process entails providing data management and compliance services directly. Companies must choose trustworthy vendors to ensure data security and regulatory compliance.

Dependency on Third-party:

Dependence on an external provider implies reliance on its performance and availability. Any error or delay on the supplier’s part could jeopardize the review process and the company’s reputation.

What is an In-house KYC system?

In-house KYC is when a company establishes and manages its own KYC department to manually onboard new customers.

  • Document checks
  • Watchlist Screening

Investing in technology, hiring and training employees, and implementing processes and procedures to manage client due diligence and risk assessment are all part of this. Companies with an in-house system have greater control over all KYC processes, including data privacy and security. They can modify the processes to meet your unique requirements and have control over the hiring process.

Pros of In-house KYC system:

Control and security:

By maintaining internal systems, businesses gain greater control over their data and compliance services. They can put in place strong security systems and internal controls that correspond to their needs.

Customization and Integration:

In-house systems can be designed to meet the specific needs of the company, integrating with existing systems and processes.

Retention of Information:

Building an internal team allows businesses to retain knowledge and skills within the organization, promoting a more thorough comprehension of their specific business functions.

Cons of In-house KYC system:

Capital Resources:

Creating and maintaining an internal KYC system necessitates a substantial investment in technical resources, personnel, and ongoing training. This can be costly, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses.

Employee turnover:

Businesses may face challenges as a result of employee turnover or attrition within their in-house KYC team. Training new employees and ensuring consistency in KYC procedures can be disruptive and have an impact on operational efficiency.

Ongoing maintenance:

To stay compliant with changing regulations and technological advancements, an in-house KYC system requires continuous updates, upgrades, and monitoring. This ongoing maintenance can be time-consuming and costly.

Compliance Updates:

To ensure effective compliance, businesses must continue to invest in employee training and stay current with ever-changing regulations. This can be difficult and time-consuming.


Companies should carefully weigh the pros and cons, perform a cost-benefit analysis, and consider the company’s long-term sustainability goals before making a decision. Working with a reputable third-party KYC provider can also be a good choice, combining the advantages of experience and flexibility while still retaining some control. Finally, businesses must select an approach that best meets their needs and priorities. The KYC AML guide is here to assist you in selecting the best solution for your company.


KYC AML Guide: the Facebook share KYC AML Guide: the Linkedin share KYC AML Guide: the Twitter share
Belal Mahmoud
KYC AML Guide: the Linkedin share

Belal possess over 8 years experience in the KYC Identity Verification industry. He has consulted KYC solutions for over 20 new economy companies at DIFC and ADGM while ensuring a seamless technical integration and helped in jurisdictional compliance audits.