u/Spare_Discount940

We built our entire onboarding stack around Socure two years ago because the US identity coverage is genuinely strong. The problem showed up when we started onboarding users from LATAM and Southeast Asia in any real volume.

Pass rates dropped in ways that were hard to diagnose because the rejections were not clean failures. They were low confidence scores that pushed sessions into manual review at a rate that made the queue unmanageable. Support conversations kept circling back to the same answer which was that the model performs best on US identity documents.

We are now mid-evaluation looking at Au10tix and Trulioo as the leading alternatives with international document coverage. The thing I cannot get a straight read on is whether the gap is a training data problem that any vendor without US-first origins handles better, or whether it is something about how we had Socure configured.

If anyone has moved off Socure specifically for international coverage reasons and what did you land on?

What hygiene practice you were not taught in your childhood and learned it later in life?

We run quarterly audits on our identity verification layer and the document fraud detection results consistently diverge from what the vendor reports, not dramatically but enough that it has become a recurring compliance conversation.

The divergence follows a consistent pattern where the vendor counts a session as a pass or fail while our audit examines what came through and whether a trained document reviewer would have flagged what the automated system passed.

The gap is widest on manipulated documents rather than outright fakes, subtle alterations to expiry dates or address fields that document fraud detection clears while a human reviewer would catch almost immediately.

Whether this is a model limitation or a detection threshold configuration problem that can be tuned, the vendor has not been able to give a clear answer on that distinction yet.