CMP // Comparison · Trade surveillance

Trade surveillance vendors compared.

Regulators are pulling comms surveillance evidence more aggressively than ever. Every retail broker needs a defensible position across voice, chat and trade. Here is the vendor landscape in 2026.

Comms and trade surveillance stopped being a bank-only conversation the moment MiFID II and ASIC RG 271 landed on retail-derivatives brokers. In 2026, every retail broker with more than £30m revenue is expected to have both — and to be able to produce evidence quickly under a regulator ask.

This comparison covers the four vendors most commonly evaluated by brokers, plus the shape of a bespoke build partner filling the gaps.

Scoring criteria

How this comparison is scored.

core

MiFID II / FCA COBS 11.8 posture

Explicit control mapping regulators will accept.

core

ASIC RG 271 posture

Vulnerable-customer coverage across channels.

core

Voice + WhatsApp + Telegram + email

Full channel coverage for retail-broker sales floors.

important

AI-first false-positive reduction

Modern LLM triage rather than legacy rules alone.

important

Broker-specific tuning

Retail-broker patterns vs generic bank pattern library.

important

Firm data residency

UK, EU, offshore options.

Vendors evaluated

The vendors.

Nasdaq Trade Surveillance (SMARTS)

Enterprise contracts, £150k+ annual.

Long-standing trade-surveillance heavyweight.

Strengths
  • • Regulator-comfortable
  • • Deep trade-pattern library
  • • Enterprise-grade
Watch-outs
  • • Bank-shaped pricing
  • • Legacy UX
  • • Comms coverage requires other vendors
Best forLarger brokers with active regulator scrutiny.

Behavox

Enterprise contracts.

Comms-heavy surveillance with AI-first false-positive reduction.

Strengths
  • • Modern AI stack
  • • Deep multi-channel coverage
  • • Strong bank presence
Watch-outs
  • • Bank pricing
  • • Broker-specific tuning shallow
Best forBrokers with comms as the primary risk vector.

Smarsh

Per-seat + platform.

Comms capture + surveillance, wide industry footprint.

Strengths
  • • Broad channel coverage
  • • Enterprise procurement paths
Watch-outs
  • • Legacy pattern library
  • • Retail-broker fluency shallow
Best forGroups already on Smarsh for other lines of business.

Global Relay

Per-seat, enterprise.

Regulated comms archive with growing surveillance layer.

Strengths
  • • Regulator-comfortable archive
  • • Wide coverage
Watch-outs
  • • Archive-first, AI second
  • • Not broker-tuned
Best forBrokers who need archive first, surveillance second.

KJ Capital

AI Diagnostic £15k / 2 weeks · AI Build from £75k / 6–12 weeks · AI Operator from £8k/mo.

Bespoke AI systems, engineered for the firm's own P&L and regulator envelope.

Strengths
  • • Every layer designed around the firm's stack, data and rules — not a SKU forced onto them.
  • • Compliance-safe by construction (policy · retrieval · evals architecture).
  • • Founder-led, financial-sector-native — brokers, hedge funds, wealth managers only.
Watch-outs
  • • Not a self-serve SaaS — six-to-twelve-week engagements, not a signup.
  • • Not the cheapest option for firms that only need a light bolt-on to an existing product.
Best forFirms whose competitive advantage lives in owning the AI layer rather than renting it.
Scorecard

Vendor matrix.

CriterionNasdaq Trade Surveillance (SMARTS)BehavoxSmarshGlobal RelayKJ Capital
MiFID II postureMatureMatureMatureMatureFirm-specific control map
Retail-broker tuningGenericPartialGenericGenericFirm-specific
False-positive reduction (LLM triage)BasicDeepBasicBasicDeep + firm-tuned
Full channel coverageTrade-firstYesYesYesOrchestrates across vendors
Verdict

What we would actually do.

The winning shape is one enterprise vendor as the regulated system-of-record, plus a bespoke LLM-triage layer on top that reduces the reviewer load by 60–80%. Ripping out an incumbent enterprise vendor is rarely worth it; wrapping one with a firm-specific triage brain almost always is.

KJ Capital's Trade Surveillance & Comms productised build is exactly this — £110k / 8 weeks — sitting on top of your incumbent, owning the review-time and false-positive numbers.

FAQ

Can we replace Nasdaq SMARTS or Behavox?

Rarely worth the incumbent-risk. Wrap them with a firm-specific triage layer instead.

How much does LLM triage reduce reviewer load?

In production, 60–80% reduction in cases needing full human review, with a paper-trail regulators accept.

How defensible is LLM triage to a regulator?

Defensible when the triage layer produces reasoning for every flag and every dismiss, versioned and archived.

What about voice?

Voice is table-stakes in 2026. Incumbents cover it; bespoke layers add retail-broker-specific pattern detection.

Where does the data live?

Depends on vendor. Bespoke triage layer can run in firm VPC.

Want the bespoke option scoped for your firm?

The £15k AI Diagnostic is a two-week engagement that produces a costed build plan mapped to your stack, your regulator and your P&L.