Home / Companies / Didit / Blog / Post Details
Content Deep Dive

Didit vs Paravision: a hosted KYC API against liveness components

Blog post from Didit

Aggregate trend data notice

Excluded from normalized aggregate trends after staff review: 3056 posts were attributed to March 2026; 671 shared March 14, 2026. The preceding six-month median was 13.5 posts.

Review evidence: 3,056 posts in March 2026; 671 shared March 14, 2026; preceding six-month median 13.5. Reviewed August 9, 2026.

This company's pages remain public, but its content is excluded from normalized aggregate trends. Unfiltered raw trends and advanced filtering are available to Accelerate and Lead accounts.

Post Details
Company
Date Published
Author
Didit
Word Count
2,126
Company Posts That Month
14
Language
English
Hacker News Points
-
Post removed?
No
Summary

Didit is presented as an identity-verification platform aimed at solution providers and integrators that combines KYC, fraud signals, AML screening, monitoring, case management, and business verification within a single account and record. Its published full KYC bundle costs $0.33 per completed check, including document verification, passive liveness, face matching, and device/IP analysis, while many additional services, such as database checks, digital IDs, NFC, AML, transaction monitoring, wallet screening, and KYB, are separately priced. In contrast, Paravision is described as offering face-recognition, liveness, age-estimation, and search components through SDKs and containers, but with quote-based pricing rather than publicly listed unit rates. Didit claims coverage for more than 14,000 document types across over 220 countries and territories, database validation in 45 countries, six national digital-ID schemes, and tools for duplicate-account detection, blocklists, reusable KYC, and automated or human-assisted investigations. The material also cites security certifications, a Spanish government-related attestation, adoption by more than 3,000 companies, and customer case studies reporting lower verification costs and reduced manual-review time. It recommends evaluating a migration through a parallel pilot that compares completion rates, completed-check costs, review workload, fraud-detection results, webhook reliability, and historical-record imports.

Trends Found in this Post
Trend Post Mentions Total Month Mentions Posts Companies MoM
AI Coding Assistant 3 814 184 89 -58%
MCP 3 4,439 399 125 -63%
Use This Data

Use this post, company, and trend context to find content marketing opportunities, perform competitive analysis, or address product feature gaps via the Plushcap MCP server or the Plushcap API.