How bureau data benchmarking supports compliance, fraud prevention and more

When most people think of credit bureau benchmarking, they think of price. And yes, that’s a big part of it. We regularly help clients save 25% to 50% on their data contracts. But the benefits go much further.

Benchmarking shows where costs are creeping up and where your data strategy could be falling short. That might mean relying on stale bureau files, missing early signs of fraud, or leaving compliance gaps unchecked.

That risk is only increasing. With growing regulatory pressure around affordability, fairness and vulnerability, many firms are already reassessing the quality and structure of their data supply. But without external context, it’s hard to know whether your current setup is still fit for purpose… Or how it compares to what the market now considers standard. Benchmarking gives you that clarity and a solid audit trail to back it up.

Here’s how.

#1. Regulatory alignment

Affordability and vulnerability remain high on the regulatory agenda, and with scrutiny intensifying under Consumer Duty, firms need to be confident that the data underpinning their decisions is still appropriate and robust.

But that’s not always the case. We regularly see credit providers relying on bureau data sets that haven’t kept pace, whether that’s limited income visibility, outdated indicators of financial stress, or insufficient coverage in key population segments.

Benchmarking provides a structured way to assess whether your current bureau setup supports accurate, compliant decisioning. This isn’t just from a pricing perspective, but from a regulatory one. It gives you a clear view of how your data compares to market standards and where peers in your sector are taking a more proactive approach to avoid risk.

Consumer Duty deadline: July 2025

Under Consumer Duty, firms must demonstrate that they’ve taken reasonable steps to ensure their products and decisions deliver fair outcomes, particularly for vulnerable customers. And with the next Board Report deadline fast approaching in July 2025, senior leaders will be expected to show how they’ve assessed data inputs, identified gaps, and acted to improve outcomes.

This is key because in November, The FCA reviewed the first annual Consumer Duty board reports from 180 firms across sectors, which revealed significant gaps in how firms are demonstrating compliance with data quality requirements. Recent sector feedback has led the FCA to produce a new webpage which consolidates the principles of the Duty to one place, emphasising that regulatory scrutiny around data inputs is intensifying.

If affordability or creditworthiness decisions are being made using data with known limitations, that risk sits with the firm (not the bureau).

Ultimately, it gives compliance and risk leaders a practical way to validate that their bureau inputs are still fit for purpose. And if they’re not, it flags where changes are needed, whether that’s replacing outdated data, adding specialist coverage, or tightening how bureau sources are governed internally.

When firms are expected to evidence both fair value and data suitability, that insight helps you challenge the status quo with confidence and make informed decisions about where change is genuinely needed.

#2. Fraud prevention

Benchmarking helps expose where those weaknesses lie. By comparing your bureau coverage against others with similar risk profiles, you can identify areas where your data may be leaving you more exposed and where additional or alternative sources are helping peers strengthen their defences.

Rather than reacting to fraud trends after the fact, it gives you a clearer picture of where targeted improvements could materially reduce exposure, especially in high-risk or underserved segments.

With the increasing sophistication and speed of fraud attacks, having that level of visibility should be a core part of protecting your portfolio.

Cifas’s recent Fraudscape 2025 report recorded a record 421,000 fraud cases in 2024 — a 13% increase on the previous year — driven primarily by a 5% rise in identity fraud and a staggering 76% jump in account takeover attempts. In particular, SIM swap fraud exploded by 1,055%, with nearly 3,000 cases impacting airtime accounts

#3. Audit-ready decisioning

Bureau selection is increasingly coming under the lens of audit, compliance, and regulatory review. Whether it’s explaining why a particular data source was chosen, or justifying why others weren’t, firms are expected to show clear, evidence-based reasoning.

Benchmarking gives you that defensibility. It creates a documented trail showing how your bureau choices align with market standards, internal risk appetite, and the needs of your credit strategy, rather than legacy contracts or untested assumptions.

That becomes particularly valuable when scrutiny increases. Whether you're refreshing a scorecard, responding to a model audit, or reviewing outcomes under Consumer Duty, having a structured view of your data inputs (and how they compare to peers) allows you to respond with confidence and clarity.

It moves bureau selection away from subjective preference or legacy habit and anchors it in objective, evidence-based analysis that can stand up to internal and external scrutiny.

Real example

We’ve seen this play out during scorecard reviews and risk model refreshes. Preparing for a model validation audit, one client used benchmarking data to demonstrate why they’d retained one bureau for core data but opted for a secondary provider for affordability checks. The documented rationale helped them pass the audit without delay or remedial action.

Bonus benefit: Strengthening strategy beyond compliance

While regulatory alignment and fraud prevention are key drivers, benchmarking also uncovers opportunities to optimise your broader credit strategy. For instance, it highlights underused data sets, overengineered contracts, and areas where alternative providers may offer stronger performance for specific credit journeys.

For example

Firms operating in BNPL or motor finance often discover that a one-size-fits-all bureau setup doesn’t reflect the nuances of subprime or near-prime populations. Benchmarking highlights where specialist providers are delivering better performance in those segments and helps justify diversifying data sources to improve decision quality without compromising on control.

We’ve seen firms identify quick wins, such as removing unused services or renegotiating minimum spends — as well as longer-term shifts, like adopting a multi-bureau model or bringing in specialist data to enhance decisioning for underserved segments.

Crucially, this isn’t about chasing marginal gains. Firms need to ensure data investments are aligned to outcomes — whether that’s sharper segmentation, improved acceptance rates, or better loss forecasting.

Benchmarking provides the visibility to make those decisions strategically, with a clear view of how your current setup compares to what’s possible.

More than a cost conversation

Benchmarking has long been seen as a way to negotiate better bureau rates — and for good reason. But the firms making the most of it use those insights for far more than cost control.

They’re identifying compliance risks early. Strengthening their fraud controls. Making more informed decisions about which data to trust, when, and why. And crucially, they’re building a defensible position for every one of those decisions.

Start with a benchmarking exercise if you’re reviewing your bureau contracts, data quality, or risk architecture. It doesn’t require much to get going, but the visibility it gives you can reshape the conversation.

Start your free TrueRate price check. Get a full benchmark in 48 hours.