Priced per verification, by volume and by the assurance level you require. No per-seat licence, no platform fee, no minimum commitment, and no charge for recognising a person you have already verified. The one thing not on this page is a number, and the last section says why.
Three inputs decide what a verification costs, and all three are things you already know about your own product. None of them is a licence, a platform tier or a headcount.
Not a seat, not a month, not an account. You are charged for a verification that ran, and the bill moves only when your verification volume moves. Nothing is priced against how many of your people can see a result, because there is no console for them to see it in.
Monthly verification volume is the number that matters most to the price, and it is the number we ask for first. What it does to the per-verification figure is settled in your contract rather than printed on a page, because we would rather negotiate it with your actual numbers in front of both of us.
The levels are declared by you and enforced by the server, and they do not cost the same to deliver. A chip-backed verification reads a passport's NFC chip and resolves its signature chain to a national root offline, against a store of 588 certificates across 112 countries; a web capture of a document photograph does none of that work. The price follows the work.
| Line | How it behaves |
|---|---|
| per verification | The billable unit. One verification that ran, at the assurance level you declared for it. |
| assurance level | A price input. Chip-backed verification costs more to deliver than a photo-only web capture, and is priced accordingly. |
| monthly volume | The other price input. Agreed with you; no curve, band or step is published here. |
| re-verification | No charge. Recognising someone you have already verified runs against a token you already hold. |
| per-seat licence | None. There is no dashboard, so there is nobody to seat in one. |
| platform fee | None. No onboarding fee, no annual access fee. |
| minimum commitment | None. No floor volume, no committed term required to start. |
This is the most important line on the page, and it is the one most likely to look like a mistake to anyone who has bought identity verification before.
When a person you have verified comes back, there is nothing to verify again. Recognising them runs against a token you already hold — issued to you, isolated to you, and worthless to any other client of ours because the same person resolves to a different token for each of them. The check is a lookup against something already in your possession, so we do not invoice it.
That is the revenue line this architecture deliberately gives up.
The incumbent model charges per check because it holds the evidence — images and biometric templates retained for years — and the straightforward way to monetise a retained gallery is to run the comparison again and bill for it. We keep no images and no biometrics, so there is no gallery to re-run against, and the per-re-verification line that pays for it does not exist here. It is not a promotional allowance and it cannot be withdrawn in a renewal, because there is no mechanism underneath it to switch back on.
What this does to your own forecast is the part worth modelling: a returning user costs you nothing, so the bill tracks new verifications rather than total activity. For a platform whose users come back weekly, that is a different curve from the one you are being quoted elsewhere.
What is held, and what is not →A pricing page that refuses to print a price owes you the reason, so here it is, with the uncomfortable half included.
JERIX has had one third-party integration live since 30 August 2026, and a second one in build. A published table would be an extrapolation from a single data point — a curve drawn through one observation, dressed as a schedule. We know what that verification costs us to deliver for that integration, at that volume, in that mix of assurance levels. We do not yet know what it costs at ten times the volume or at a different mix, and the honest version of that sentence is this page rather than a table.
A number invented now is a number to walk back in the contract.
The other half is plainer: two founders, pre-funding, negotiating with platforms considerably larger than the company. A figure published today is a ceiling in every conversation that follows it and a floor in none of them. We would rather tell you that than print a number we intend to qualify in the first call — and if you are comparing us against vendors who do publish, that comparison is fair and you should make it.
Not shippedThere is no rate card, no tier list, no published volume curve and no self-serve checkout. Blocked on a second and third live integration at different volumes — enough observations to publish a structure we would still stand behind a year later. Until then the number comes by email, per platform.
Two facts, in an email. You do not have to sit through a discovery call to find out whether we are in range, and we would rather not spend one on a question that has a two-line answer.
An approximate figure is fine, and a range is fine. If it is seasonal — a ticketing peak, a season launch, a regulatory deadline with a date on it — say so, because the peak matters more to the shape than the average does.
If you already know which of humanity, low, substantial or high your flow requires, name it. If you do not, say what the law or the risk actually demands of you and we will tell you which level answers it — including when the answer is a lower one than you were planning to buy.
Answered by email, by one of the two founders, with the assumptions it depends on written beside it. No deck and no routing into a sequence. If the number does not work for you, that is a useful outcome reached in a day instead of a month.
The procurement and security questions a price triggers are answered on their own page, in the same voice as this one, with the gaps marked.
A walkthrough is available if you want one, and it is not a condition of getting a price. Either way you are talking to one of the two people who built the system.
Request a walkthrough