Transaction Monitoring vs Manual Auditing

Developers should learn transaction monitoring when building or maintaining systems for banks, fintech companies, payment processors, or any organization handling financial data to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) regulations meets developers should use manual auditing when dealing with high-risk applications, such as financial systems or healthcare software, where errors can have severe consequences. Here's our take.

Transaction Monitoring

Nice Pick

Developers should learn transaction monitoring when building or maintaining systems for banks, fintech companies, payment processors, or any organization handling financial data to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) regulations

Pros

• It's crucial for preventing financial crimes, reducing operational risks, and ensuring regulatory compliance, with use cases including real-time fraud detection in payment gateways, suspicious activity reporting in banking apps, and compliance monitoring in cryptocurrency exchanges
• Related to: anti-money-laundering, know-your-customer

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Manual Auditing

Developers should use manual auditing when dealing with high-risk applications, such as financial systems or healthcare software, where errors can have severe consequences

Pros

• It's essential for reviewing custom business logic, assessing security in sensitive areas like authentication, and ensuring regulatory compliance (e
• Related to: code-review, security-auditing

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Transaction Monitoring is a concept while Manual Auditing is a methodology. We picked Transaction Monitoring based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Transaction Monitoring wins

Based on overall popularity. Transaction Monitoring is more widely used, but Manual Auditing excels in its own space.