Entity Bind vs AWS Entity Resolution
Cheap, inside your own account, and it needs no new vendor. It also matches only what you loaded.
Keep AWS Entity Resolution for the matching you already do inside your own estate. Entity Bind takes the rows your columns cannot settle: we go to the register for the deciding fact, refuse below a published floor, and write a receipt somebody can read months later.
Your company master has to survive somebody else’s audit, and every merge in it needs a reason a person outside your team can read. This page compares on that axis: what each side is for, where the alternative is stronger, and what we would do in your place.
AWS Entity Resolution: Cheap, inside the account you already have, and it needs no new vendor, contract or security review. Entity Bind: It matches your tables against your tables. We bring outside evidence, refuse below the floor, and charge nothing for the refusal.
5 of the 12 rows in the table below go to AWS Entity Resolution and 7 go to Entity Bind. The rows on their side are the reason to keep what you already run; the rows on ours are what we would add beside it.
The short answer
AWS Entity Resolution is matching as a managed service inside the account you already have. It reads from S3 and Glue, runs rule-based, machine-learning or provider-backed matching, writes match groups back where your pipeline can pick them up, and costs a published $0.25 per thousand records processed — the vendor's own list price, which we have not audited. There is no new supplier, no new data processing agreement, no new security review and no new place your data lives, and that combination wins a great many internal arguments on its own merits. What it is not is a decision layer. It matches the records you loaded against the records you loaded, it bills on rows processed rather than on rows matched, and it returns no citation, no calibrated confidence and no reasoned refusal. Where the job is deduplicating two internal tables, it is the whole answer.
The answer for your own rows needs your own rows: a few hundred of them, with the matches you already have beside them.
Start freeOn this page
What Entity Bind adds beside AWS Entity Resolution
Run both, and this is the half we do. Each of these is a job the other side of this page is not built for.
- The evidence that decides your hard rows is in a company register rather than in your tables.
- You need a citation, a calibrated confidence and a receipt per decision rather than a match group.
- You would rather pay nothing for the rows that cannot be decided than pay for every row read.
- You need identifiers out the other side — an LEI, a register-qualified company number, a CIK, a ticker — not just clusters of your own ids.
- Somebody has to check whether the matches you already hold are wrong, and be able to show why.
A stewardship queue and a supplier file before a payment run want different halves of that list. Create your Free workspace to inspect your own rows, or contact us for a guided review of the checks your workflow needs.
Start freeThe case for AWS Entity Resolution
Read these before the table. On some evaluations one of them settles the question on its own, and if it settles yours, keep what you have and put us beside it.
- The procurement answer is already yes. It sits inside an agreement your legal team signed years ago, under IAM roles and keys your security team already reviewed.
- Price. A published $0.25 per thousand records processed — their own figure, unaudited by us — is cheap enough that the cost conversation usually ends there.
- Your data does not move. It reads from and writes to your own buckets and catalogue, inside your own account, with your own encryption keys.
- It is native to the lake. If your file already lives in S3 and Glue, there is no pipeline to build and no export to govern.
- Three matching approaches in one service — rule-based, machine-learning, and provider services that reach third-party data through AWS Data Exchange — chosen per workflow.
- Managed scale and operations. Batch or incremental, run by somebody else, with no cluster of yours to keep alive.
Requirements that point to AWS Entity Resolution
- The job is deduplicating your own tables against each other and the evidence you need is already in them.
- Your data platform is AWS and adding a vendor is a fight you would rather not have.
- Value per row is low and volume is high enough that a per-decision price does not work.
- You need something running in a Glue job next week, wired to storage you already govern.
- Nobody downstream will ever have to defend an individual merge from evidence.
If one of those is your requirement, say so when you write to us. We will tell you where the answer is AWS Entity Resolution, and what running Entity Bind beside it would add: an independent verdict on each match, with the register page that supports it. Cheaper for both of us than finding out in month three.
Entity Bind and AWS Entity Resolution, dimension by dimension
Every row carries a verdict. 5 go to AWS Entity Resolution, 7 to Entity Bind and 0 are even. Both columns are filled in on every row, so a verdict can be read against what each side actually does about it.
| Dimension | AWS Entity Resolution | Entity Bind | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procurement and review | Already inside an agreement you have signed, with a security posture your team has already assessed. | A new supplier, with no SOC 2, no independent validation and no production reference in a regulated firm. That is a real cost and it lands before any technical question. | AWS Entity Resolution |
| Price | A published $0.25 per thousand records processed, their own figure, which we have not audited. | One credit shallow, five deep, zero for an abstention or a replay — a different unit and, on a large clean file, a larger number. | AWS Entity Resolution |
| Where the data goes | Your account, your buckets, your keys. Nothing crosses a boundary you have not already drawn. | Hosted, with a no-egress depth setting that makes no external call at all — and at the depths that resolve the hard tail, the record's fields reach the model provider and the registries. | AWS Entity Resolution |
| Fit to an existing lake | Native to S3, Glue and Lake Formation. No pipeline to build. | An HTTP API or an MCP tool. You write the integration, and there is no marketplace listing or warehouse-native connector today. | AWS Entity Resolution |
| Operations at scale | Managed, elastic, and somebody else's pager. | Managed too, and measured on fixtures of 317 companies and the continuous-integration gate's own fixture rather than at lake scale. We have not run your volume. | AWS Entity Resolution |
| Paying for rows that did not decide | Billing follows records processed, matched or not. | An abstention costs zero credits at every stage, including the ones that spent the most getting there, and so does a byte-identical replay. | Entity Bind |
| Evidence outside your tables | None natively. Third-party data arrives through a provider service you licence separately. | The register, read directly and cited per field with its source URL, licence, retrieval date, last-confirmed date and confirmation count. | Entity Bind |
| What the confidence means | A service-defined match confidence on a service-defined scale. | How often decisions like this one turned out right, read at the cautious end of the range: the 95% Wilson lower bound over the population the decision belongs to, recomputed from counts by the test suite so an edited constant fails the build. Confidence bounds depend on the recorded evidence population; there is no universal score for every match. Read match_confidence_basis and the evidence. A 0.99 filter can return some v8 adjudicated matches while excluding valid identifier matches, so validate its coverage cost on your own inputs. | Entity Bind |
| Refusing to answer | A match group, or no group. There is no reasoned abstention to act on. | A match below 0.90 confidence is unrepresentable. The record comes back as an abstention with a ranked shortlist instead. It carries a ranked shortlist, a typed cause and the field that would settle it. | Entity Bind |
| Auditability of one decision | Workflow-level output and job metrics. | A decision id that reopens the features, thresholds, cited evidence and model and prompt version, and re-scores from the stored features. | Entity Bind |
| Identifiers you get back | Match groups over the identifiers you supplied. | The crosswalk: LEI, company number qualified by its register, CIK, ticker, EUID and national numbers, with D-U-N-S reported as not configured because no wired source supplies it. | Entity Bind |
| Checking matches you already hold | Not the shape of the product. | Send your record with the match your incumbent proposed and it is accepted, withheld or contradicted independently, reported per provider, per jurisdiction and per evidence tier. | Entity Bind |
Three limits sit behind every comparison in this section — what we hold, where we stand and how ready we are — and the comparison hub states all three at full size. The figures in our own column were measured on internal fixtures; the accuracy page carries the method and the population behind each one.
- No SOC 2. It has not been started.
- No independent external validation of the accuracy figures. Every fixture is one we built.
- No production customer holdout. The evidence is internal.
A table cannot weigh those rows against your file, and neither can a fixture of ours — your own records are the only ones that settle it.
Start freeBuilt for, and wrong for
Neither of these depends on which alternative you are weighing. They are the two answers that decide whether the comparison above is worth your time at all.
Teams with a company master they have to defend — an MDM or stewardship queue, a CRM after a migration or a merger, a supplier file before a payment run, or counterparty onboarding that has to survive an audit.
Buying breadth as the product: we hold a fraction of an incumbent’s records and are not building a global company graph. Entity Bind resolves companies and organisations only. It does not resolve people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions exposure, emissions or geolocation, and its results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy.
Where the figures on this page come from
Only the numbers that are not ours are listed here. Each one is the vendor’s own published claim. We have not audited anybody’s coverage figure, and as far as we know neither has anybody outside the company that published it.
- AWS Entity Resolution pricing
The vendor's own published list price, recorded as a claim. We have not audited it, and cloud pricing changes without anybody telling us. Recorded on 2026-09-02.
The method behind our half of this comparison
2 articles that set out how the decision is made and measured, rather than how it compares.
- GuideCalibration and confidence scoresWhat a calibrated confidence actually means, how expected calibration error is computed, why a similarity score is not a probability, and why an LLM's self-reported confidence is neither.
- GuideCompany identifiers explainedCompany number, LEI, CIK, ticker, SIREN and SIRET, DUNS, VAT, EUID and ISIN. What each identifies, who issues it, what it does not guarantee, and which ones actually decide a match.
Prefer to put it to a person? Talk to us instead →
The other options you are weighing
The other 11 comparisons, on the shelves the hub uses. Four are not vendor contests: two are the options that beat most vendors most of the time — the fuzzy match you already run, and building it yourself — and two are categories we refuse rather than compete in.
Data providers and registers
Entity Bind vs OpenCorporates
2/9 rows to themAn excellent register mirror. A register mirror is not a decision.
Entity Bind vs Companies House
3/12 rows to themFree, authoritative, and the right answer for a lot of UK teams. It is one of our sources too.
Entity Bind vs PermID
4/11 rows to themFree permanent identifiers, and largely unrivalled in capital markets. We do not issue them.
Resolution engines and platforms
Entity Bind vs Senzing
5/12 rows to themA mature engine you run yourself, at no cost per decision. It resolves what you give it.
Entity Bind vs Splink
5/12 rows to themFree, open source, and it weighs the evidence properly: Fellegi–Sunter, done right. Our scoring stage is the same family.
Entity Bind vs Tamr
5/12 rows to themMachine-learning mastering at enterprise scale. It learns your labels — including the wrong ones.
Entity Bind vs MDM platforms
5/12 rows to themThey are the system of record. We are a decision layer beside one, and we write nothing.
What you would otherwise do
Not what we are
Questions about Entity Bind and AWS Entity Resolution
We are already on AWS. Why would we add a vendor at all?
Often you should not, and the test is where the evidence lives. If the columns that decide your matches are already in your tables — an account number both systems carry, a domain, a registration number — then the managed service is cheaper, closer to your data and easier to approve. The case for anything else starts when the deciding evidence is outside your estate, in a register, and somebody has to fetch it, cite it and be accountable for the call.
Can we use both?
Yes, and it is the design we would suggest. Let the managed service do intra-file deduplication at lake scale, where its price and its position in your account are unbeatable, and route only the rows it leaves unresolved or the clusters you are unsure about to us. Those are the rows where outside evidence changes the answer, and they are usually a small fraction of the file, which keeps the per-decision cost small in absolute terms.
Does our data leave our account if we call you?
Yes, at the depths that need it. The no-egress depth setting is enforced in code at both egress points, so those records reach neither a model provider nor a registry — but they get the deterministic and probabilistic stages only, which for a genuinely hard row means an abstention rather than an answer. Beyond that depth the record's fields and any free-text context reach the model provider, and the registries see the queries we make on your behalf.
Is $0.25 per thousand not simply cheaper than five credits?
On the arithmetic, yes. It is also two different units: theirs is per record read into a workflow, ours is per decision, with abstentions and replays free. What decides it is not the unit price but whether the cheap answer is the one you need. If a wrong merge produces an untidy report, the cheap unit is the right one. If it produces a payment to the wrong company, an onboarding a regulator asks about, or a contract with an entity that dissolved in 2019, the evidence is what you are buying and the price per row is not the interesting number.
Settle it against AWS Entity Resolution on your own rows.
Create your workspace, verify your email and run your first company file. The Free plan needs no card. Create API keys in your workspace when you need an integration.
300 credits. No card.
For a guided review of your file, explore the Merge Safety Sprint →