Automated screening
Fast, standardised database and watchlist checks. Useful when the task is primarily identification, compliance screening or high-volume triage.
Market fit · the right level of evidence
Why Aperture may be the right first move.
If you are comparing Aperture with screening, due diligence, consulting, software or internal research, focus on the unresolved question your decision still depends on.
Focused scope.Faster mobilisation.Lower initial commitment.
Our niche
The professional evidence layer between screening and full-scale investigation.
Aperture Research Works
Focused independent evidence assurance. Human-evaluated, source-traceable research around the decision and evidence burden that actually matter.
Published entry pricing from US$750.
Full-scale specialist or global investigation
Appropriate where the matter genuinely requires broader investigative infrastructure, field enquiries, specialist teams, source interviews or other capabilities outside Aperture's model.
You may not need less quality. You may simply need less investigation. Aperture is deliberately narrower than a global investigations firm. That allows clients to buy substantial decision-relevant evidence without automatically buying breadth, infrastructure or methods the decision may not require.
When Aperture is the smarter first move
Start with the decision. Scope the evidence around it.
The matter can be materially advanced by testing a defined decision, evidence problem or related set of questions.
Remote-first research, structured workflows and technology-assisted discovery can reduce procedural friction where the evidence is accessible.
You want professional evidence work without commissioning a much broader investigation before you know it is necessary.
You need to see what is established, contradicted, uncertain, missing and responsibly usable for the decision.
Spend proportionately before you investigate comprehensively.
A focused Aperture engagement may resolve the material uncertainty, narrow the problem or show whether deeper specialist expenditure is justified. That can reduce avoidable professional cost and decision delay without pretending that narrower scope is the same service as a full investigation.
Recognisable market anchors
Different providers solve different levels of the problem.
Kroll, K2 Integrity, Mintz Group, Nardello & Co. and Control Risks are used here as recognisable examples of broader investigations, diligence, intelligence or risk providers. They are not presented as offering the same service as Aperture, and this is not a ranking.
Focused independent evidence assurance
Remote, source-traceable work around a defined decision or evidence problem using public-source and lawfully supplied material.
Best fit: the client needs material claims tested quickly and proportionately before a larger transaction, appointment, dispute, publication, specialist engagement or investigation.
Commercial difference: lower published entry pricing and faster mobilisation are possible because the service is narrower by design.
Global investigative due diligence
Broader global investigative due diligence with large-scale data, local offices and human-source capability. A stronger fit where wider investigative infrastructure is required.
Official source →Integrity and investigative due diligence
Broader risk, integrity and investigative capability, including complex multijurisdictional matters. A stronger fit when the required work goes beyond a remote evidence-assurance scope.
Official source →Investor diligence and investigations
Enhanced due diligence combining public records, source enquiries and proprietary technology. A broader model where discreet enquiries or additional investigative methods are required.
Official source →Bespoke investigations
Broader bespoke investigations supported by open-source research, interviews, digital forensics and other methods outside Aperture's ordinary model.
Official source →Global risk and intelligence
Broader strategic risk, integrity, political and regulatory intelligence capability. A stronger fit where the decision requires that wider risk infrastructure.
Official source →Public market pricing context
What a narrower Aperture engagement might cost.
Different scope. Different delivery model. Lower initial commitment. The public figures below are specific engagements or contract records, not standard rate cards. The Aperture figures are indicative ranges for a narrower remote evidence-assurance route addressing a similar decision problem within Aperture's published scope. They are not like-for-like quotations.
Kroll · AML due diligence
£27,000
Public UK contract award for AML due diligence.
Indicative Aperture route: US$5,000–US$10,000 for focused public-source counterparty or due-diligence work where the decision can be answered remotely.
Potential advantage: materially lower initial expenditure because broader investigative infrastructure is not included.
Public contract record →Potential advantage: materially lower initial expenditure because broader investigative infrastructure is not included.
Kroll · management due diligence
£47,246
Public UK contract award for management due diligence.
Indicative Aperture route: US$8,000–US$16,000 for a focused investigative research dossier within Aperture's remote scope.
Potential advantage: substantial evidence work at a more proportionate cost where field or human-source capability is unnecessary.
Public contract record →Potential advantage: substantial evidence work at a more proportionate cost where field or human-source capability is unnecessary.
K2 Integrity · risk assessment
US$43,840
Public risk-assessment engagement covering a broader programme review.
Indicative Aperture route: US$7,500–$20,000 for a focused evidence or reality-assessment matter within Aperture's scope.
Potential advantage: lower commitment and faster mobilisation where the client needs the material evidence question resolved rather than a broader programme review.
Public engagement record →Potential advantage: lower commitment and faster mobilisation where the client needs the material evidence question resolved rather than a broader programme review.
Mintz Group · public project pricing
No comparable fixed project figure established
Mintz publishes services and technology information, but no sufficiently comparable fixed project price was established for this comparison.
Aperture reference: US$750 Quick Evidence Check; focused reviews from US$1,500–US$3,000; larger work priced by evidence burden and scope.
No price-gap claim is made without comparable public pricing.
Official Mintz source →No price-gap claim is made without comparable public pricing.
Nardello · internal investigation
More than US$150,000 invoiced
A New York court record describes a whistleblower investigation and more than US$150,000 in invoiced professional fees.
Indicative Aperture route: US$15,000–$30,000+ for a complex multistage remote evidence matter where the required work remains within Aperture's model.
Potential advantage: a materially lower-cost route where interviews, field work or forensic capabilities are not required.
New York court record →Potential advantage: a materially lower-cost route where interviews, field work or forensic capabilities are not required.
Control Risks · public risk-services example
£50,000
Public Ofcom contract for bespoke external online security checking, included as market context rather than equivalent due-diligence pricing.
Indicative Aperture route: US$8,000–US$16,000 for a narrower evidence-led dossier addressing a bounded remote research problem.
Potential advantage: lower cost where the decision does not require broader security or risk infrastructure.
Public contract record →Potential advantage: lower cost where the decision does not require broader security or risk infrastructure.
The commercial point is proportionality, not imitation. Aperture can often accomplish substantial decision-relevant evidence work for materially less money and with less procedural friction because we do not sell the same breadth of service. If the evidence shows that broader investigative capability is necessary, we make that boundary visible rather than pretending otherwise.
The practical question
Why commission a broad investigation before you know whether one is necessary?
A focused Aperture engagement can establish what is known, test important claims, identify contradictions and gaps, and show whether further specialist expenditure is justified. For the right matter, that can provide a faster and more economical route to useful decision evidence.