Skip to content
The Algorithm
vs Cognizant×Financial Services
Why Financial Services companies switch

The Algorithm vs. Cognizant in Financial Services — Fintech

Cognizant's fintech practice applies offshore staff augmentation to a regulatory environment that requires current, specific compliance expertise. There is a better model.

The Problem

What Cognizant gets wrong in Financial Services

Cognizant's fintech practice applies offshore staff augmentation to a regulatory environment that requires current, specific compliance expertise. AML/KYC requirements, fintech charter compliance, and the emerging state-level AI governance regulations that affect automated decisioning systems are not well-served by an offshore team that processes requirements written by onshore compliance consultants.

Fintech product companies on Cognizant managed services contracts face the same dependency problem as payer and insurance clients: the production system is managed by an offshore team, changes require a statement of work, and the internal capability to manage the system independently atrophies over time. For a fintech operating on six-week release cycles, a change request process that takes four weeks to scope and eight weeks to deliver is not a technology partnership — it is an obstacle.

The TriZetto breach record is a fintech-specific concern for payment and lending platforms that interact with Cognizant-managed infrastructure. A fintech that processes payment data through a Cognizant-integrated system inherits the security posture of that integration layer.

TriZetto data breach undetected 12 months
Multiple class-action lawsuits
Helpdesk gave hackers network passwords (Clorox $380M suit)
Laid off 700+ US medical scribes to offshore
The Algorithm

What we deploy instead

We build fintech technology systems with AML/KYC, PCI DSS, and AI governance compliance embedded from the first architecture decision. No managed services dependency. Your team owns the production system.

Fintech delivery cadence: two-week sprints, production code at each milestone, compliance validated at every commit. Full IP transfer at close.

Compliance

SOC 2 and PCI DSS built into the architecture from day one — enforced automatically by ALICE at every commit.

Delivery

Fixed-price engagements. Production system in 8-20 weeks. No discovery phase. No change orders.

Team

Domain-qualified engineers with financial services experience. The senior engineer who scopes the engagement is the senior engineer who delivers it.

IP

Full source code and documentation transferred at close. No licensing. No managed services dependency.

Compliance

The compliance difference

AML/KYC, PCI DSS, ECOA, CCPA/GDPR, SOC 2. Fintech compliance is architecture. We build it that way — not as a managed services overlay.

soc 2
pci dss
aml kyc
ccpa
gdpr
Typical Engagement

What switching from Cognizant looks like

Fintech technology engagement: 10-18 weeks. Team: 8-14 engineers with fintech regulatory experience. Fixed price. Full IP transfer.

Week 1

Architecture review and scope definition. We review existing deliverables and identify gaps.

Weeks 2-4

Scope locked, team assembled, first sprint underway. Working code from week two.

Weeks 8-12

First production milestone — a working integration or system component, not a document.

Close

Full IP transfer. Source code, documentation, operational runbooks. Your team runs the system.

DECISION GUIDE

Failed Vendor Recovery Playbook

Step-by-step framework for recovering from a failed Cognizant engagement — from emergency stabilisation through full re-platforming. 4-phase playbook covering stabilise, assess, transition, and normalise.

X

Replacing Cognizant in Financial Services? We've done this before.

SOC 2-compliant financial services engineering. Fixed price. Production in 8-20 weeks.

Start the Conversation
Related
Compare
vs Cognizant
Compare
All Comparisons
Market
Financial Services — Fintech
Solution
Failed Vendor Recovery
Solution
Compliance Remediation
Get Started
Contact Us
Engage Us