How to choose a document verification API — beyond the demo.
Test vendors on AI-generated docs, tampered PDFs, recycled real documents, and explainable evidence — not just sample IDs from their own marketing site.
Inspects EXIF, software signatures, edit history, and structural fingerprints.
Originals are processed in encrypted memory and removed after analysis. Reports stay redacted by default.
API selection often comes down to who showed the slickest demo — not who handles the worst cases. The cost of a poor choice is migrations, fraud losses, and missed regulator deadlines.
Use a structured rubric: forensic depth, AI-generation detection, evidence format, latency, retention, audit, and total cost.
Choosing a vendor blind to AI-generated docs
Black-box scores that fail audit
No webhook or audit-log support
Hidden per-call surcharges at scale
Where in your product does verification gate value? List each one.
Latency, evidence format, retention, regional residency, audit log access.
Same test set across 2–3 APIs. Score detection, latency, evidence, and cost.
Wrap the chosen API in your own abstraction so swapping later is cheap.
Evidence-first responses: per-field signals (MRZ, math, ELA, font, metadata) over a single black-box score.
AI-generation detection that keeps pace with current generative models, not just last year's templates.
Stable verdict IDs, signed webhooks, and immutable audit logs so engineering, fraud, and compliance can share one source of truth.
Honest pricing: predictable per-call cost, no hidden surcharges on PDFs or multi-page documents, and a free tier for individual or developer evaluation.
No single vendor wins on every dimension. Identity-first vendors win on selfie/ID matching and KYC orchestration. Document-automation vendors win on data extraction from financial statements. TrueDoc wins on forensic depth and AI-generated document detection — including choosing a vendor blind to ai-generated docs.
An honest evaluation tests each on the cases your team actually sees, not the demo set from each vendor's marketing site.
TrueDoc is not an identity verification platform. There is no selfie capture, no liveness, no biometric matching, no government-database lookup. If your primary problem is "does this person match this ID," TrueDoc is the wrong tool — or the wrong tool alone.
Where TrueDoc fits: the document itself needs to be verified, AI-generated forgeries are part of your fraud surface, or your reviewers need per-field evidence they can defend in an audit.
The fastest path is parallel-run. Keep your current vendor in production, route a copy of inbound documents to TrueDoc, and compare verdicts on a real 30-day sample. Disagreements are the interesting cases — those are where forensic depth or AI-generation detection typically changes the outcome.
Most teams keep both providers, scoped to the problems each is best at, rather than ripping and replacing in one cutover.
No credit card. Redacted report in under a minute.