Short answer: Greenboard wrote this guide, and under the criteria below it ranks Greenboard first, because its AI covers the whole compliance program (archiving, marketing review, employee and trade compliance, filings and vendor diligence) from one record. If you need one function, a specialist may suit you better: Smarsh or Global Relay for archiving, Saifr or Red Oak for marketing review.
Almost every compliance vendor now says it uses AI. What firms need to know is how much of the program the AI actually covers, whether it works from the firm’s own policies and records, and whether an examiner can follow every step it took. The SEC’s Division of Examinations has said it will review how registrants use AI, and FINRA Regulatory Notice 24-09 reminds member firms that existing rules apply to generative AI. This guide compares eight tools against those questions.
Who wrote this: Greenboard, a compliance software company that appears on this list. We have an obvious interest in the result, so we show our working: the criteria and weights we used, why we chose them, and which tool we would point you to if your priorities differ from ours. Every statement about another vendor comes from that vendor’s own site or published press coverage and is linked in the text. We describe each one’s strengths as its own materials present them. We have not tested competitors’ products hands-on.
The 8 best AI compliance tools at a glance
| Tool | Best for | Where the AI works | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenboard | Firms that want one AI-run program | Every module: archiving and supervision, marketing review, employee and trade compliance, filings, vendor diligence, custom agents | Flat per-user, quote-based |
| Hadrius | RIAs adding AI review to core areas | Marketing review, communications surveillance, personal trading, testing | Quote-based |
| Smarsh | Large archives that need noise reduction | Communications surveillance and archiving | Quote-based |
| Global Relay | Firms that want models run inside the archive vendor | Communications surveillance and archiving | Quote-based |
| Saifr | Marketing teams pre-screening content | Marketing and advertising content review | Quote-based |
| Red Oak | Firms with heavy advertising review volume | Advertising review against firm policies | Quote-based |
| COMPLY | Firms already on COMPLY or RIA in a Box | Platform agents via an MCP server, AI governance tools | Quote-based |
| Luthor | Marketing and legal teams in regulated industries | Marketing content review | Quote-based |
How we evaluated AI compliance tools
We scored each tool on five criteria. They reflect our view of what a CCO has to defend in an exam: that the program as a whole is supervised, and that every AI step can be shown to an examiner. A firm that weighs things differently will rank these tools differently, so we say below which tool leads on each single criterion.
| Criterion | Weight | What we looked for |
|---|---|---|
| Breadth of the program | 30% | How many compliance obligations the AI covers from one system and one record, rather than one function. |
| Depth in each module | 25% | Whether each area (archiving, marketing, employee, trade, filings, diligence) is complete enough to replace a point solution. |
| AI harness | 25% | Whether the AI runs from the firm’s own policies and records, lets the team build its own agents, applies firm-set guardrails and human sign-off, and works in the tools the team already uses. |
| Examiner-ready evidence | 10% | Whether every AI step is kept in an unalterable record (WORM, SEC Rule 17a-4) alongside the books and records. |
| Fit and pricing | 10% | Whether a small or mid-sized firm can buy and run it without a services project. |
Our bias, stated plainly: breadth and the harness carry more than half the weight, and those are what Greenboard is built around. We think they matter most because a gap in the program is a gap whatever the quality of the AI elsewhere. Still, a firm that only needs best-in-class archiving or marketing review should weigh depth in that one module far more heavily, and then a specialist may be the better buy.
A note on the word “harness”. A model is raw capability. A harness is what puts it to work in a compliance program: the firm’s context, the tools and records it can reach, the guardrails the firm sets and the evidence trail it leaves. We publish a checklist of the six parts of a compliance AI harness so you can hold any vendor, including us, to it.
1. Greenboard: AI across the whole compliance program
Greenboard is a compliance platform for SEC- and FINRA-regulated firms. GreenboardGo2.0, its AI harness, runs across every module, so the same AI that reviews a pitch book also flags messages in the archive, checks personal trades against the code of ethics and drafts a vendor diligence memo, all from the firm’s own policies and records.
- Modules: archiving and supervision (email, Teams, Slack, Zoom, Bloomberg, WhatsApp, text and social), marketing compliance, employee compliance, trade compliance, firm compliance, filings, third-party diligence and workflows and agents.
- Harness: answers with sources from the firm’s policies; teams build Go Agents for any process; a person signs off before anything is final; every step is written to a WORM-based, 17a-4 compliant record. GreenboardGo works in Greenboard, Slack, Teams, Claude and ChatGPT.
- Pricing: flat per-user pricing with no upcharges for storage or integrations.
Pros: the broadest coverage of the tools reviewed here, in one system; AI in every module rather than one; custom agents without a development project; one record for the exam.
Cons: moving the whole program to one platform is a bigger change than adding a single tool; firms that only want one function (for example, archiving alone) may not need the full platform; Smarsh, Global Relay and Red Oak have longer track records in their specialties; pricing requires a conversation.
Best for: RIAs, broker-dealers and dual registrants that want to run the whole program, not one workflow, with AI they can show an examiner. See every capability, module by module.
2. Hadrius: AI-native compliance for RIAs
Hadrius builds AI compliance software for SEC- and FINRA-regulated firms and reports serving more than 500 institutions. Coverage of its July 2026 funding ($27 million led by CRV) describes marketing review, communications surveillance, personal trading monitoring and testing, with plans to extend AI to more areas, including trade monitoring, pre-clearance and branch inspections, by the end of 2026.
Pros: AI-first product; strong focus on RIAs; well funded and shipping quickly.
Cons: some areas are on its published roadmap rather than available today; pricing is not published.
Best for: RIAs that want AI review in marketing, communications and personal trading. Read our Greenboard vs. Hadrius comparison.
3. Smarsh: AI surveillance on a large archive
Smarsh is one of the largest communications archiving vendors and was named a Leader in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Digital Communications and Archiving. Its AI surveillance is called Intelligent Agent, and in March 2026 it launched AI-enabled surveillance for small and mid-sized businesses with a Noise Reduction Agent that filters out low-risk messages before they reach a reviewer.
Pros: very broad channel capture; long track record; AI noise reduction now available to smaller teams.
Cons: focused on communications; marketing review, code of ethics and other program areas sit with other vendors.
Best for: firms whose main AI need is reducing communications review volume. Read our Greenboard vs. Smarsh comparison.
4. Global Relay: AI surveillance inside the archive
Global Relay archives and supervises communications for financial firms. Its AI surveillance uses large language models directly in message classification, and Global Relay says its models run entirely within its own environment, with no third-party model provider.
Pros: mature archive; LLM classification of whole conversations; data stays inside the vendor’s environment.
Cons: focused on communications; the rest of the compliance program needs other tools.
Best for: firms that prioritize model hosting inside their archive vendor. Read our Greenboard vs. Global Relay comparison.
5. Saifr: AI marketing content review
Saifr makes AI for reviewing marketing and advertising content. SaifrReview flags language that may be promissory, misleading or not fair and balanced, checks images, explains the risk and suggests alternative wording. Saifr says its models are trained on more than 20 years of industry data, and they are available as add-ins and in the Microsoft Azure AI model catalog.
Pros: specialized marketing models; works inside the tools marketers use; suggested compliant language.
Cons: covers marketing content only; archiving, employee and trade compliance need separate systems.
Best for: marketing teams that want a first-pass check before content reaches compliance.
6. Red Oak: AI for advertising review
Red Oak is a long-standing advertising review platform that says it serves more than 1,800 firms. It launched its AI Review module in January 2025, which checks content against a firm’s own policies and procedures and explains its findings.
Pros: deep advertising review workflow; AI tuned to firm policies; large installed base.
Cons: centered on advertising review; other program areas need other systems.
Best for: firms with high advertising and marketing review volume and an established review workflow.
7. COMPLY: AI on an established compliance platform
COMPLY (which includes the former ComplySci and RIA in a Box) offers compliance software and consulting. Its ComplyAI page describes an agentic platform with an MCP server for building custom agents without developers, examples such as trade pre-clearance requests through Teams or Slack, and AI governance tools.
Pros: large customer base; consulting alongside software; custom agents through MCP.
Cons: AI capabilities are described at the platform level, and it is not always clear which apply to each product; pricing is not published.
Best for: firms already on COMPLY or RIA in a Box. Read our Greenboard vs. COMPLY comparison.
8. Luthor: AI marketing review for regulated teams
Luthor, a Y Combinator company, offers AI marketing review for marketing, compliance and legal teams in financial services and other regulated industries. It reviews content across channels before publication and keeps a record of each review.
Pros: focused, fast-moving product for marketing review; built for cross-functional teams.
Cons: marketing review only; a newer entrant, so ask for references at firms like yours.
Best for: marketing-led teams that want AI review across many channels.
How the eight compare on our criteria
| Tool | Breadth | Module depth | AI harness | Exam evidence | Fit and pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenboard | Whole program | Every module | Firm context, custom agents, sign-off, works in Slack, Teams, Claude, ChatGPT | WORM, 17a-4 record of every step | Flat per-user |
| Hadrius | Several areas, more on roadmap | Strong in marketing and communications | AI-native, agentic roadmap | Not published | Quote-based |
| Smarsh | Communications | Deep in archiving | Surveillance agents | Archive of record | Quote-based |
| Global Relay | Communications | Deep in archiving | LLM classification in-house | Archive of record | Quote-based |
| Saifr | Marketing | Deep in content review | Specialized models and add-ins | Not published | Quote-based |
| Red Oak | Advertising review | Deep in review workflow | Policy-tuned AI review | Review history | Quote-based |
| COMPLY | Broad platform | Varies by product | MCP server, custom agents | Not published | Quote-based |
| Luthor | Marketing | Focused | AI review with records | Review history | Quote-based |
If your priorities differ from ours
| If what matters most is | Consider | Why |
|---|---|---|
| One system for the whole program | Greenboard | AI in every module, one record. |
| Archiving at very large scale | Smarsh or Global Relay | Long-established archives with AI surveillance. |
| Models hosted inside your archive vendor | Global Relay | Says its models run entirely in its own environment. |
| Pre-screening marketing content | Saifr | Specialized marketing models and add-ins. |
| An established advertising review workflow | Red Oak | Long-standing review platform with policy-tuned AI. |
| Staying with your current provider | COMPLY | Adds AI agents to a platform many firms already use. |
| AI review in a few core RIA areas | Hadrius | AI-first product focused on RIAs. |
If you spot something out of date about any vendor here, including us, tell us and we will update the page.
How to choose an AI compliance tool
- List every obligation you supervise. If the AI covers one of them, you still run the rest by hand or in other systems.
- Ask where the AI gets its answers. It should cite your firm’s policies and records, not general model knowledge.
- Ask who decides when a person signs off. Your firm should set the guardrails, and nothing should be final without a person.
- Ask to see the record an examiner would see. Every AI step should be kept, unalterable, with your books and records under SEC Rule 17a-4 or the Advisers Act books and records rule.
- Check the marketing rules it is built for. Advisers follow the SEC Marketing Rule-1); broker-dealers follow FINRA Rule 2210.
- Count the systems. Every extra tool is another login, another record and another vendor to diligence.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best AI compliance software for RIAs?
In our evaluation (and we make Greenboard), Greenboard, because its AI covers the whole program from one record: archiving and supervision, marketing review, code of ethics and personal trading, trade surveillance, filings and vendor diligence. Firms that only need one function may prefer a specialist such as Saifr or Red Oak for marketing, or Smarsh or Global Relay for archiving.
What is the best AI compliance software for broker-dealers?
Broker-dealers need FINRA Rule 2210 review, communications supervision and a 17a-4 compliant record. In our evaluation Greenboard covers all three with one AI. Smarsh and Global Relay are strong for communications alone, and Red Oak for advertising review.
What is an AI harness for compliance?
A harness is what turns an AI model into a working part of a compliance program. It connects the model to the firm’s policies, records, tools and people, applies guardrails the firm sets, lets the team build its own agents and records every step for examiners. GreenboardGo2.0 is the first AI harness built for SEC and FINRA compliance.
Do regulators allow AI in compliance reviews?
Yes. Neither the SEC nor FINRA prohibits it, but existing rules still apply. FINRA Regulatory Notice 24-09 reminds firms that supervision and recordkeeping rules cover generative AI, and the SEC has said examiners will review how firms use AI. A person should sign off, and every step should be recorded.
Can AI replace a chief compliance officer?
No. AI can do the first pass, draft documents and flag issues, but the CCO remains responsible for the program. The best tools are built so a person signs off before anything is final.
How much does AI compliance software cost?
None of the vendors in this guide publishes a full price list. Greenboard uses flat per-user pricing with no upcharges for storage or integrations. Specialist tools are usually priced per module, so total cost rises with each area you add.
Is AI marketing review enough for the SEC Marketing Rule?
It helps, but it is one part of compliance with the rule. You still need policies, approvals, testimonial and performance substantiation, and a record of each review. A platform that keeps the review with the rest of your books and records makes that easier to show.
What should I ask a vendor before buying?
Ask which obligations the AI covers today (not on the roadmap), where its answers come from, who decides when a person signs off, how each step is recorded, and whether your team can build its own agents without a development project.
