Sphinx

What do they actually do

Sphinx builds AI “compliance analysts” that take on KYC/AML casework for banks, fintechs, and crypto platforms. Their agents log into a customer’s existing systems, gather evidence across data sources, resolve alerts, and draft decisions with step‑by‑step reasoning—designed to reduce manual reviews and triage backlogs. The company emphasizes setup that requires no APIs or engineering work and claims agents behave like an analyst inside current workflows Sphinx site YC profile.

The product centers on onboarding and investigations: adverse media, sanctions/PEP checks, KYB/UBO mapping, transaction‑monitoring alert resolution, and audit‑ready trails. It highlights transparent decisions with evidence, regulator‑friendly auditability, and SOC 2 Type II certification; the site also describes end‑to‑end coverage from onboarding through reporting and states “no integration, no training” with minutes‑level onboarding Sphinx site.

Who are their target customer(s)

• Frontline compliance analyst at a bank or large fintech: Spends most of the day triaging false‑positive alerts and repeating checks across systems, leading to backlogs and slow resolutions. Sphinx pitches agents that resolve alerts with evidence to reduce manual volume YC Sphinx site.
• Chief Compliance Officer at a fast‑growth fintech/neobank: Needs to scale onboarding without hiring proportionally more analysts; manual KYC/AML reviews create bottlenecks and customer drop‑offs that hit revenue. Sphinx positions faster, auditable onboarding with minimal setup YC Sphinx site.
• AML/KYC operations lead at a crypto exchange or high‑risk payments firm: Manages high alert volumes under intense regulatory scrutiny and needs fast, auditable decisions to contain operational risk and potential penalties. Sphinx markets crypto use cases and auditability for regulator reviews Sphinx crypto Sphinx site.
• Product or engineering leader responsible for compliance integrations: Cannot afford weeks of engineering work or a replatform; needs something that plugs into existing tools with minimal developer effort. Sphinx claims agents that work inside current systems with no integration required Sphinx site.
• Investigations / risk analyst who must defend decisions to regulators: Needs clear evidence, reasoning, and audit trails for every disposition so cases hold up under external review. Sphinx emphasizes transparent decisions and regulator‑friendly audit logs Sphinx site.

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Founder‑led pilots via YC/warm intros to compliance leaders at fintechs and crypto firms, offering short trials that deploy without engineering work and show live audit trails; convert using outcome‑focused case studies and reference analysts Sphinx site YC.
• First 50: Use early case studies for targeted outbound to similar profiles (CCOs, AML ops leads) and run webinars/demos showing agents inside existing workflows; add a small BD team and a productized 2–4 week onboarding package to convert trials Sphinx site.
• First 100: Add channel partners (consultancies, KYC/IDV vendors, SIs), hire an enterprise AE to handle bank procurement/SLA requirements, and publish a trust pack (SOC 2, security docs, standard contracts, audited case studies) to reduce procurement friction Sphinx site.

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

Closest software TAM is the AML systems/software market at about $33.9B in 2025, with forecasts toward $75.2B by 2030 Juniper Research. The broader compliance cost burden is roughly $206.1B annually (2023), indicating the economic pain Sphinx targets LexisNexis.

Bottom-up calculation:

There are ~8,776 commercial banks globally; spreading $33.9B across them implies an average of ~$3.9M per bank per year on AML systems (33.9B/8,776) IBISWorld Juniper. Expanding to 10k–30k institutions (adding fintechs/crypto/payments) implies ~$3.4M–$1.1M average vendor spend each (33.9B/10k to /30k).

Assumptions:

• Sphinx sells into the existing AML systems/software budget line items (not all-in compliance costs).
• Average spend is used for sizing; real spend skews by institution size and risk profile.
• Fintechs, crypto, and payments providers expand the buyer pool beyond ~8.8k banks.

Who are some of their notable competitors

• ComplyAdvantage: AML risk‑intelligence and transaction‑monitoring platform with sanctions/PEP/adverse‑media data and ML/rule engines; overlaps on reducing false positives but is primarily a data + API/engine stack vs. Sphinx’s in‑workflow agents ComplyAdvantage Sphinx.
• Alloy: Identity decisioning and onboarding orchestration used by fintechs to stitch data vendors and rules; competes on lowering manual reviews but focuses on orchestration and rule engines rather than agentic, audit‑first case resolution Alloy Sphinx.
• Unit21: No‑code fraud + AML platform with rule builders, explainable ML, case management and regulatory filing; competes on investigator workflows and automation but centers on a configurable platform you run vs. Sphinx’s autonomous agents in existing tools Unit21 Sphinx.
• Chainalysis: Crypto compliance and blockchain forensics (KYT, Reactor) for exchanges and VASPs; overlaps in crypto compliance but Chainalysis is data/analytics‑centric while Sphinx targets agent‑driven investigations across crypto and fiat stacks Chainalysis Sphinx crypto.
• Elliptic: Blockchain analytics for wallet and transaction screening with cross‑chain tracing; overlaps where fast, auditable crypto screening is needed, but Elliptic delivers data/monitoring engines vs. Sphinx’s end‑to‑end investigative agents Elliptic Sphinx.