Two AML Reports Show Different Wallet Risks: How to Compare Them

First establish that the reports assess the same thing

Put the complete reports beside each other, including their identifiers and generation times. A cropped green or red badge omits the information needed for a meaningful comparison. Copy the full address, selected blockchain, asset and whether the report screened an address or one transaction.

The same address text can exist on multiple EVM networks. An address assessment can also describe a broader activity history than an assessment of one deposit. Those are differences in the object being measured, not necessarily conflicting findings.

Chainalysis describes direct and indirect exposure and configurable screening controls. Elliptic Lens also describes risk scoring based on its intelligence and the customer's configured rules. These product descriptions establish that scope and configuration matter; they do not tell us the settings used in your two reports.

A comparison worksheet you can fill in

This is a worksheet, not a published comparison of two customer reports. No real report pair or benchmark scores are claimed here. Leave unavailable fields marked 'not disclosed'; do not infer them from a colour or price tier.

Treat the denominator carefully. Exposure described as a share of incoming value is not necessarily comparable to a share of all activity or a category score. If the report does not define the percentage, ask the provider before calculating a difference.

An entity label can describe a service or cluster, while the displayed address is only one member. Ask whether the report's evidence applies to that exact address, the wider cluster or a linked transaction. A claim about a service is not, by itself, a finding about the individual behind your counterparty.

Checklist: resolve the discrepancy without inventing a threshold

1. Preserve both original reports and the conditions under which you ordered them.
2. Verify network, address and object type; correct an input mismatch first.
3. Align the reporting period where the providers allow it.
4. Find the category that causes the difference, then locate its cited transactions.
5. Record direct and indirect links separately, with dates and amounts.
6. Ask each provider which finding and rule produced its result; request correction only for a specific demonstrable error.

Educational example: one report screens an address's history and another screens only the latest incoming transfer. Even if their labels differ, the initial finding is 'scope mismatch'. The next action is to obtain comparable scopes, not declare either report inaccurate.

Another example: a report cites an address that differs in the middle characters. That is a checkable input or evidence problem. Keep the original PDF, show both full addresses and ask for a corrected report. Avoid resubmitting modified screenshots as if the vendor issued them.

What the comparison can tell an exchange

A useful note says: 'These reports use the same network and address, but different screening dates. Report B attributes transaction X to category Y; Report A does not state whether that category was checked. Please clarify which transaction or source-of-funds evidence your review requires.' Replace every placeholder with evidence you actually hold.

A lower score does not establish that an exchange must accept the funds. Its own rules, information and account review can differ. If a restriction already exists, follow the specific request and the Chainalysis flag guide, rather than shopping for a favourable badge.

For an assessment, provide both unedited reports, public transaction references and the exchange's wording. Exchange unfreezing support can address the response package; analytics can examine the disputed connection. Neither task can erase confirmed blockchain history.