Comparison methodology & source register
Current sources. Visible limits. No invented superiority.
When two sources, reports or propositions conflict, the useful question is not which one sounds stronger but which one the underlying evidence can actually support.
Rules of comparison
Five controls keep the page defensible.
Why these five firms
Comparator selection is based on overlap, not fame.
Kroll, K2 Integrity and Mintz Group are treated as the closest direct benchmarks because their current public materials show substantial overlap with transaction, investment, counterparty, executive and evidence-led decision work. Nardello & Co. and Control Risks are retained as broader investigations benchmarks because they combine diligence with wider field, source, forensic, political-risk or security capability.
This ordering does not mean one provider is better than another. It helps a buyer understand which operating model is proportionate to the question.
Named provider source register
Official capability sources
Kroll
Investigative due diligence using global experts, commercial/proprietary databases, local offices, automation and human-source networks.
Official source →K2 Integrity
Investment due diligence that tests claims, undisclosed relationships and other risks, ranging from targeted screens to multijurisdictional investigations.
Official source →Mintz Group
Investor and corporate due diligence using public records, litigation analysis and discreet source inquiries; Verity accelerates initial diligence research.
Official source →Nardello & Co.
Bespoke due diligence supported by open-source research, source/witness interviews, digital forensics and wider investigative methods.
Official source →Control Risks
Commercial and integrity due diligence combined with political/regulatory intelligence, human intelligence, data-led analysis and AI-supported screening.
Official source →Public pricing source register
Documented engagement values used as market context
Kroll · £27,000
Homes England anti-money-laundering due diligence, Project Craster.
Contracts Finder →K2 Integrity · US$43,840
New Jersey EDA risk assessment. Public records also show multiple other K2 integrity-monitoring/risk engagements at different values.
New Jersey public contract register →Nardello · >US$150,000 invoiced
New York court record for an internal whistleblower investigation; US$163,254.45 was sought in unpaid professional fees.
New York court record →Control Risks · £50,000
Ofcom bespoke online security checking. This is included as a public risk-services price example, not as direct due-diligence pricing.
Contracts Finder →Mintz Group · no comparable public fixed price established
No reliable current public project figure was used for a direct price comparison.
Official Mintz source →Review status
Last reviewed: 13 August 2026
Capability and speed statements were rechecked against official provider materials on 13 August 2026. Public pricing examples are historical records of specific scopes, not current standard price lists. The page may state that Aperture's published entry price is lower than the public engagement values shown because that is observable from the cited figures; it must simultaneously state that Aperture is a different, narrower service and not an equivalent substitute.