AlgoCandy vs SentroWeb: Which AML & CDD Platform Fits Singapore CSPs Better?

For Corporate Service Providers (CSPs) in Singapore, selecting an AML and CDD platform is no longer just about name screening. Regulators increasingly expect structured workflows, clear audit trails, and evidence-based ongoing monitoring.

Among the available options, AlgoCandy and SentroWeb are two platforms most CSPs will encounter. I have worked in the corporate secretarial industry for close to a decade and have used both systems in real onboarding, review, and ongoing compliance scenarios. This article focuses on how these platforms perform in daily CDD operations, rather than on marketing claims or feature lists.

Different Product Philosophies

The fundamental difference between AlgoCandy and SentroWeb lies in how each product is designed to support CSP operations.

AlgoCandy is built as an end-to-end CDD execution platform. It aims to cover the full compliance lifecycle, from client onboarding to ongoing monitoring, within a single workflow.

SentroWeb, by contrast, is primarily positioned as an AML screening tool. While it includes some CDD-related functions, its core strength remains screening rather than structured CDD execution.

This difference becomes increasingly apparent once the systems are used beyond basic name checks.

Core Functional Coverage

From a practical CSP workflow perspective, the following table highlights how each platform supports key compliance tasks.

Even without additional explanation, the table already shows why the two platforms feel very different in real-world use.

How CDD Is Performed in Practice

AlgoCandy: Client-Involved and Workflow-Driven

AlgoCandy structures CDD as a collaborative process between the client and the CSP. Clients are guided through online onboarding, KYC questionnaires, electronic signatures, identity document uploads, and biometric verification.

Once the client completes the required steps, CSP staff primarily focus on reviewing submissions, validating information, and conducting risk assessments. All actions and decisions are recorded within a single case file, which significantly simplifies audit preparation and internal reviews.

SentroWeb: CSP-Led and Tool-Centric

With SentroWeb, the CDD process remains largely manual and CSP-driven. Client information is typically collected via email or document templates, after which secretarial staff manually enter the data into the system.

Documents are then exported and sent for signing using third-party tools. If corrections are needed, parts of the process must be repeated. Because clients are not directly involved in system input or signing, efficiency gains are limited, particularly when handling complex ownership structures or multiple revisions.

Risk Assessment and Review Handling

Both platforms base their risk assessment logic on ACRA guidance. However, the way they handle review history differs significantly.

AlgoCandy preserves historical risk assessments and review records, allowing CSPs to demonstrate how risk levels evolved over time. SentroWeb overwrites previous assessments and does not maintain a complete historical audit trail.

For CSPs managing long-term client relationships, this distinction becomes increasingly important during inspections and compliance reviews.

Ongoing Monitoring in Daily Operations

Ongoing monitoring is another area where implementation matters more than feature labels.

AlgoCandy integrates monitoring results directly into each client case. Alerts can be linked to risk reassessments and scheduled review cycles, creating a continuous compliance record.

SentroWeb offers ongoing monitoring as a separate module. Users must manually track alerts and determine how they affect CDD and risk ratings. While reminders are available, configuration is largely manual and fragmented.

Efficiency Impact on CSP Operations

Both platforms claim to reduce CDD processing time compared to traditional manual workflows. Based on real operational use, the difference between them is substantial.

A full CDD using SentroWeb typically takes around two hours. The same process using AlgoCandy can often be completed in approximately twenty minutes, sometimes even less.

The time savings do not come from faster screening alone, but from consolidating data collection, verification, signing, and review into a single workflow.

User Interface and Usability

AlgoCandy follows modern SaaS design principles, with clearer navigation and more intuitive workflows. New users generally require minimal onboarding time.

SentroWeb’s interface is functional but dated. First-time users often need additional guidance to locate features and understand process flows, which can slow adoption.

Client Experience During the CDD Process

Client cooperation plays a critical role in successful CDD execution. Poorly designed workflows can lead to frustration and delays.

AlgoCandy provides a client journey similar to bank onboarding, with guided steps and clear instructions. Most information is submitted in one structured flow.

SentroWeb requires repeated client interaction through emails and document revisions. This increases friction and can negatively affect client experience, especially for time-sensitive cases.

Overall Assessment

From a CSP operational perspective, AlgoCandy offers broader compliance coverage, higher CDD execution efficiency, stronger audit traceability, and a smoother client experience.

SentroWeb remains suitable for firms whose primary requirement is AML screening. AlgoCandy is better suited for CSPs seeking a structured, end-to-end, and future-ready compliance workflow.

Having used both systems in real cases, the practical differences become clear once they are applied beyond basic screening tasks.