Hummingbird and FinQub: the case, on one record
If you landed here looking for a Hummingbird alternative, this is the honest answer: FinQub is not one. Hummingbird owns the case. FinQub owns the record the case is built from. Here is how they fit together, with a worked example.
Hummingbird owns the case
Hummingbird is a strong case-management and investigation product. When an alert is escalated, it gives analysts a place to investigate, consolidate evidence, write the narrative, and file the SAR or STR. It is purpose-built for the team that works cases all day, and it is good at it. By construction, it begins where the case begins: post-alert.
FinQub owns the record the case is built from
FinQub is the single source of truth for fintech risk decisions. It sits beneath the case tool and lands every signal from every vendor on one record per customer: the KYC result, the wallet exposure, the sanctions screen, the transaction-monitoring output, and the decision each one informed. That includes the decisions that never escalate to a case, which is most of them, and which a case tool does not hold.
A vendor signal is a signal, not a decision. FinQub records the decision, who made it, the override if there was one, and the policy version that applied. It does not draft or file the SAR. That stays in the case tool.
What the loop looks like, end to end
One Subject. One alert. Two tools doing different jobs on the same record.
The alert lands on the same Subject record as every other signal already there: KYC pass, KYB UBO-confirmed, sanctions clear, Chainalysis low exposure, six months of monitoring history.
What the case tool keeps: the investigation surface, the narrative, the SAR itself. What the record keeps: every signal that ever touched the customer, every policy version that applied, every disposition that closed, every override that fired. Two tools, one loop.
Side by side, on what each one is for
| Capability | Hummingbird | FinQub |
|---|---|---|
| Investigate alerts and work the case | Yes | No |
| Draft and file the SAR or STR | Yes | No |
| Hold the narrative the regulator reads | Yes | No |
| Hold signals from every KYC, KYB, sanctions, fraud, and monitoring vendor | No | Yes |
| Hold the decisions that never became a case | No | Yes |
| Pin a decision to the policy version that applied | No | Yes |
| Look back at any past decision as it stood | Partial | Yes |
| Examiner-ready signed exam packet on one query | Partial | Yes |
| Swap a vendor (e.g. switch KYC providers) without losing history | n/a | Yes |
How they work together
The two work in one loop. The record feeds the case: when an alert warrants investigation, the analyst opens Hummingbird with the cross-vendor evidence already assembled, rather than compiling it across consoles first. The case writes back to the record: the disposition Hummingbird produces lands on the same record, so the look-back is complete.
What FinQub adds that a case tool is not built to provide is the corpus an examiner subpoenas when they want to know what you knew but did not escalate, and the ability to reconstruct any past decision, escalated or not, as it stood. Different jobs, same stack.
Frequently asked questions
Is FinQub a Hummingbird alternative?
Not really. Hummingbird is case management: it owns the investigation, the narrative, and the filing once an alert is escalated. FinQub is the record everything is built from, including the large share of decisions that never become a case. They sit at different layers, and many teams run both.
Does FinQub do case management?
No. FinQub aggregates signals into one record per customer and records the decisions made on it. It does not draft or file SARs and does not replace an investigation surface. When a case is warranted, the case is worked in Hummingbird, and the disposition is written back to the record.
Why would I want both?
Hummingbird gives your analysts a strong place to investigate and file. FinQub gives them a complete record to investigate from, and gives an examiner a queryable look-back across every decision, escalated or not. The record feeds the case; the case writes back to the record.
Does FinQub integrate with Hummingbird directly?
Yes, by design. Hummingbird is a first-class integration target. The record feeds Hummingbird with the cross-vendor evidence already assembled when an alert is escalated, and Hummingbird's case disposition writes back to the same Subject record. No double entry, no copy-paste.
How does the Hummingbird SAR disposition flow back to the FinQub record?
When an analyst files (or declines to file) in Hummingbird, the disposition, the case ID, the filer, the narrative summary, and the policy rationale land on the Subject record as a recorded event. The record holds both: the signals that led to the case and the disposition that closed it. An examiner running a look-back six months later sees the complete arc on one record.
Do we have to use Hummingbird? Does this work with other case tools?
It works with any case tool, including in-house tools. The integration pattern is the same: signals feed the case tool; the case tool's disposition writes back to FinQub. Hummingbird is the most common case tool in our buyer base, which is why this page exists, but FinQub is case-tool-agnostic.
FinQub runs on your own vendor stack as the single source of truth for fintech risk decisions, alongside the tools you already use. See how the record feeds a SAR investigation, or book a short walkthrough below.