Assessment
Salv sells AML and fraud tools to banks, fintechs, and payment firms: screening for sanctions, PEPs, and adverse media; real-time and post-event monitoring; customer risk scoring; and Salv Bridge for exchanging investigation intelligence with other institutions. Use it when the compliance team wants modular fincrime software and a way to share cases across firms, not only rules inside one bank.
Estonia's e-Ariregister shows 2025 revenue (muugitulu) of EUR 3,646,424 for Salv Technologies OÜ, up about 15% from EUR 3,161,628 in 2024. That is roughly US$3.9-4.0 million. The company says more than 100 European financial institutions use the platform. It holds ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and publishes a SOC 2 Type 2 report under ISAE 3000.
Salv fits a European bank, fintech, payment firm, or banking-as-a-service provider that wants screening, monitoring, and shared investigations in one SaaS suite. It is a weaker fit for a US-only programme that needs deep North American data vendors first, or for a buyer that only needs a single identity-document check at signup.
Rating by criterion
Each of the eight criteria below is scored out of 100.
Sector criteria
Salv's published core is screening (sanctions, PEP/RCA, adverse media), monitoring, and risk scoring rather than a full document-selfie onboarding kit. Buyers that need passport capture still pair Salv with an identity vendor. Coverage is strong for watchlist and customer-risk work once the person is on file.
Transaction monitoring and customer risk scoring sit next to Salv Bridge, which lets firms send and receive investigation intelligence. Company materials claim large cuts in false positives and higher recovery of stolen funds when institutions share cases. That collaborative layer is the main differentiator versus a rules-only monitor.
The product is modular SaaS so a team can start with screening or monitoring and add Bridge later. Named customers in public testimonials include Swedbank Estonia and Kroo Bank. API and case-workflow depth should be confirmed in a demo; marketing pages emphasise analyst UI and rule control.
Salv markets itself to regulated European institutions and publishes ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type 2. Screening and monitoring support AML programmes that need explainable alerts. Buyers still map Salv's logs to their own regulator's reporting formats.
Vendor criteria
Screening, monitoring, risk scoring, and Bridge form a coherent fincrime suite. Monthly feature delivery is claimed on the site. Depth is highest for European collaborative AML; document KYC UX is thinner than pure identity vendors on this Index.
Sales-led enterprise onboarding is the path. Public self-serve pricing and SLA pages are thin. Testimonials from Baltic and UK banks suggest implementation support for compliance teams, but buyers should confirm timelines in the contract.
No self-serve public rate card appears on salv.com. Pricing is sold through sales. That holds the score down versus vendors that publish per-check or seat prices.
MSA length, data-processing terms, and exit assistance are not summarised on the marketing site. Security certifications are public; commercial terms need a quote pack.
Against its peers
These are the other companies in KYC, AML and identity, with their ratings.
Fact file
| Legal entity | Salv Technologies OÜ (14518700), Estonia |
|---|---|
| 2025 revenue | EUR 3,646,424 (e-Ariregister) |
| Customers (company-stated) | 100+ European financial institutions |
| Security | ISO/IEC 27001:2022; SOC 2 Type 2 (ISAE 3000) |
| Founded | 2018 |
| CEO / CTO | Taavi Tamkivi / Sergei Rumjantsev |
Competitive landscape
Peers a buyer would compare.
Salv: 73
- Salv73
- Napier AI75
- ComplyAdvantage80
- Unit21Not reviewed
- FeaturespaceNot reviewed
Comparisons
Key leadership
Taavi Tamkivi founded Salv and is chief executive. Sergei Rumjantsev co-founded the company and is chief technology officer.
How this review was created
This profile gives our own assessment of Salv to companies selecting a KYC, AML & identity provider. The Fintech Index receives nothing for featuring a firm, for sponsorship, or for advertising, and Salv gave us no payment for the profile.
The rating equals the average of eight criteria, with every criterion running from 0 to 100. Four address buyer needs in this sector, and four address the company together with its commercial terms.
Ratings are our editorial judgment, made from public information: pricing and legal pages, product documentation, compliance disclosures, and filings. Fact-checking took place on October 5, 2026.