--- title: "An outside match layer beside your MDM" summary: "They are the system of record. We are a decision layer beside one, and we write nothing." canonical_url: https://entitybind.com/compare/informatica-and-reltio last_updated: 2026-10-12 copy: full --- # An outside match layer beside your MDM > They are the system of record. We are a decision layer beside one, and we write nothing. Canonical page: https://entitybind.com/compare/informatica-and-reltio Last updated: 2026-10-12 ## Entity Bind vs MDM platforms They are the system of record. We are a decision layer beside one, and we write nothing. Keep MDM platforms 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. MDM platforms: The system of record, with the stewardship workflow, hierarchy management and downstream publication that implies. Entity Bind: A decision layer beside one. We hold no master, write nothing back, and give the platform an outside opinion with a citation. - Our recommendation: Run both - Rows to MDM platforms: 5 of 12 - Rows to Entity Bind: 7 of 12 - Rows genuinely even: 0 Settle it on your own data: A sample with the matches your current process already produced. We accept, withhold or contradict each one, with a citation you can open. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) Self-service. Create your workspace online and verify your email to start matching company records. Free starts with 300 credits and no card. Paid monthly plans are available in workspace Billing; VAT is added where applicable. Usage is tracked without automatic overage charges. [Trust and security](https://entitybind.com/trust) 5 of the 12 rows in the table below go to MDM platforms 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. By [James Rooney](https://entitybind.com/about), founder of Entity Bind · Last revised 12 October 2026 ## The short answer Informatica and Reltio are master data management platforms: the system of record for a party master, with the stewardship workflow, survivorship policy, hierarchy management, governance and downstream publication that implies. Buying one is a programme rather than a purchase, and if what you need is a golden record published to twenty consuming systems with an approval trail on every change, that is precisely what these platforms are for and nothing on this site replaces one. Entity Bind is a decision layer beside an MDM and not a candidate to be one. It holds no master, runs no stewardship queue and writes nothing to your systems. What it adds is the one thing a platform cannot supply itself: an outside opinion. Send a record with the match the platform proposed and it is accepted, withheld or contradicted against an admission policy your stewards did not write and cannot move, with a citation to a register page and a receipt that reopens at a URL. The answer for your own rows needs your own rows: a few hundred of them, with the matches you already have beside them. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) ## What Entity Bind adds beside MDM platforms 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. - Your match rules were tuned by your own stewards, and nothing in the estate can disagree with them from outside. - The stewardship queue grows faster than anyone can work it and nobody can price it. - Somebody has to defend a merge to an auditor a year later, from evidence rather than from a threshold. - You want a per-provider, per-jurisdiction breakdown of where the platform's proposed matches are wrong. - You want to test the match layer against a real file without touching the platform or its release cycle. 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 free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) ## The case for MDM platforms 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. - They are the system of record. Versioned golden records, a survivorship policy deciding which source wins when two of them disagree, source precedence, and a place the whole organisation agrees to look — none of which exists here. - Multidomain by design: customer, supplier, product, location, asset. We do company and organisation identity and nothing else. - Stewardship as a product. Queues, roles, approvals, four-eyes review, task assignment and a complete change history that an auditor can walk. - Publication downstream. Connectors and syndication into SAP, Salesforce, Snowflake and the rest of the estate, so a corrected record actually reaches the systems that consume it. We write nothing anywhere. - Managed hierarchies you can edit, version and override — legal, tax and sales structures that are not the same tree and are not derivable from any register. - Governance and lineage tooling, enterprise references, assurance documentation and an answer to every procurement question a large organisation asks. ### Requirements that point to MDM platforms - You need a system of record for party data and you do not have one. - The requirement spans domains — products, locations, assets — rather than companies alone. - Stewardship workflow, approvals and role separation are the deliverable. - Corrected records have to be published into consuming systems automatically. - Procurement requires an established platform vendor with an assurance package and callable references. If one of those is your requirement, say so when you write to us. We will tell you where the answer is MDM platforms, 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 MDM platforms, dimension by dimension Every row carries a verdict. 5 go to MDM platforms, 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 | MDM platforms | Entity Bind | Edge | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | System of record | The master itself: golden records, versions, survivorship policy, and the place the organisation agrees to look. | None. We hold a catalogue of what your tenant has resolved and a receipt per decision, and we are not where your business reads its customer. | MDM platforms | | Stewardship workflow | Queues, roles, approvals, four-eyes review, task assignment, a full change history. | A review queue with a typed cause and the column that would settle each row, and reviewer-approved merges recorded against the reviewer, excluded from the automated population every accuracy figure is measured over, and withheld on replay. That is a queue, not a stewardship application. | MDM platforms | | Domains covered | Customer, supplier, product, location, asset. | Companies and organisations only. Not people, not products, not locations in their own right. | MDM platforms | | Publishing downstream | Connectors and syndication into the consuming estate. | Nothing is written to your systems, by design. That is a safety property and it is also a limit: a correction here does not reach your CRM unless you carry it there. | MDM platforms | | Hierarchies | Managed, editable, versioned hierarchies — including the legal, tax and sales structures that no register publishes. | Ownership from the global LEI system's level two records and the UK persons-with-significant-control register only, with the basis and certainty on every edge and the unwalked path reported. Bounded by identifier adoption. | MDM platforms | | Independence of the match opinion | The platform's confidence is computed by the rules being questioned. There is no outside view inside it. | An admission policy that is ours, published, enforced in code, and independent of any coverage target including our own. Your stewards can disagree with it; they cannot quietly move it. | Entity Bind | | Time to a first answer | A programme. Design, source onboarding, rule tuning, stewardship rollout. | A free preview we run over your file, which calls nothing and spends nothing, then a sample through the full cascade. | Entity Bind | | Why this match | The rule that fired, on data the platform holds. | A decision id that reopens the features, thresholds, cited register evidence with URLs, and the model and prompt version where one ran. | Entity Bind | | Behaviour when the evidence is thin | An escalation to a steward, on rules whose thresholds are yours. | A match below 0.90 confidence is unrepresentable. The record comes back as an abstention with a ranked shortlist instead. The abstention names the cheapest of your own columns that would make the row decidable, which turns a backlog into a data-acquisition decision with a price on it. | Entity Bind | | Provenance and freshness | Lineage tooling at the level of sources and jobs. | Per field, in every response: source id, source URL, retrieved and first-seen dates, last confirmed, confirmation count, licence, resale flag and age in days. The entity reports the age of its stalest field, not its freshest. | Entity Bind | | What you may store and resell | A licence position held in contracts and reviewed periodically. | A refusal on the write path before any write, resale reported per field, an unreadable licence read as not-resellable, and resale rights on the open-licensed subset on the Scale plan. | Entity Bind | | Checking the platform's own matches | Not something a platform does to itself. | Accept, withhold or contradict on each proposed match, reported per provider, per jurisdiction and per evidence tier rather than as one blended agreement rate. | Entity Bind | Our evidence basis: internal fixtures only · independent validation held: none Three limits sit behind every comparison in this section — what we hold, where we stand and how ready we are — and the [comparison hub](https://entitybind.com/compare#not-a-contest) states all three at full size. The figures in our own column were measured on internal fixtures; the [accuracy page](https://entitybind.com/accuracy) carries the method and the population behind each one. ### What we do not hold - 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 free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) ## Built 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. ### Built for 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. ### Wrong for 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. ## 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. - [Survivorship and golden records](https://entitybind.com/guides/survivorship-and-golden-records) (Guide): Merging records is only half the job. Field-level survivorship, source precedence, temporal facts, per-field provenance, and why last-confirmed beats first-seen. - [What is entity resolution?](https://entitybind.com/guides/what-is-entity-resolution) (Guide): Entity resolution decides which records refer to the same real-world thing. What it is, why company identity is hard, deterministic versus probabilistic matching, and why fuzzy matching is not entity resolution. ## 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](https://entitybind.com/compare/opencorporates) (2/9 rows to them): An excellent register mirror. A register mirror is not a decision. - [Entity Bind vs Companies House](https://entitybind.com/compare/companies-house-api) (3/12 rows to them): Free, authoritative, and the right answer for a lot of UK teams. It is one of our sources too. - [Entity Bind vs PermID](https://entitybind.com/compare/lseg-permid) (4/11 rows to them): Free permanent identifiers, and largely unrivalled in capital markets. We do not issue them. ### Resolution engines and platforms - [Entity Bind vs Senzing](https://entitybind.com/compare/senzing) (5/12 rows to them): A mature engine you run yourself, at no cost per decision. It resolves what you give it. - [Entity Bind vs Splink](https://entitybind.com/compare/splink) (5/12 rows to them): Free, open source, and it weighs the evidence properly: Fellegi–Sunter, done right. Our scoring stage is the same family. - [Entity Bind vs AWS Entity Resolution](https://entitybind.com/compare/aws-entity-resolution) (5/12 rows to them): Cheap, inside your own account, and it needs no new vendor. It also matches only what you loaded. - [Entity Bind vs Tamr](https://entitybind.com/compare/tamr) (5/12 rows to them): Machine-learning mastering at enterprise scale. It learns your labels — including the wrong ones. ### What you would otherwise do - [Entity Bind vs Fuzzy matching](https://entitybind.com/compare/fuzzy-matching) (3/10 rows to them): Free, already there, and perfectly good until a wrong merge costs money. - [Entity Bind vs Build it yourself](https://entitybind.com/compare/building-it-yourself) (3/11 rows to them): The right answer if entity resolution is your product. Several teams have done it well. ### Not what we are - [Entity Bind vs Enrichment vendors](https://entitybind.com/compare/zoominfo-and-clearbit) (5/12 rows to them): A different product, not a competitor. They sell contacts and firmographics; we resolve identity. - [Entity Bind vs Screening tools](https://entitybind.com/compare/sanctions-screening-tools) (7/12 rows to them): We are not a screening tool and must not be used as one. This page is scope, not competition. ## Questions about Entity Bind and MDM platforms ### Do you replace our MDM? No. There is no stewardship application, no publication to downstream systems, no multidomain model and no golden record you could point twenty consuming systems at. What there is, is a second opinion on the matches the platform proposes, with a citation and a receipt. If you switched off the MDM to buy this, you would lose the system of record and gain an API. ### Where does this actually sit in the architecture? Beside the platform and read-only. The usual shape is a batch first: export the party master, or the slice of it nobody trusts, and get back which of your rows are the same company in terms of your own record ids, which of the platform's proposed matches we would not have made, and what we could not decide. After that, some teams wire the resolve call into the point where a new party record is created, so the match is adjudicated before it lands rather than after it has propagated. ### Our platform already produces a match score. Why would we want a second one? Because that score was computed by the rules being questioned. When the rules are wrong they are wrong consistently, and a confidence derived from them cannot tell you so. The value of an outside opinion is not that it is cleverer; it is that it is independent, that its threshold is published rather than configured, and that when it disagrees it can show you a register page you can open in about thirty seconds. ### Both platforms now have agent and MCP stories. Does that not commoditise you? The transport, yes. Several products in this category expose agent routes, and exposing one is distribution rather than positioning — we say the same thing on the Senzing page. What does not commoditise is whose policy decides: a match layer inside a platform inherits that platform's thresholds and its incentives, and the reason to have an independent one is precisely that it does not. ## Settle it against MDM platforms 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. [Start free](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) · [Plans and prices](https://entitybind.com/pricing) 300 credits. No card. For a guided review of your file, explore [the Merge Safety Sprint](https://entitybind.com/audit-pack). --- The 0.90 confidence floor. It is an acceptance contract, not calibration evidence: it says what we refuse to return, not how often an accepted match is right. Read it with the coverage it costs. Internal fixtures only. The historical 2026-08-29 per-tier recording covers 317 GB companies with identifier-rich arrivals seeding the catalogue first; the context tier includes country and registered-town prose. Its legacy replay has no full-prompt-verified calls and cannot certify current calibration. The September 5 CI reports cover 1,176 labelled pairs and 705 records over 250 companies using offline stubs. These are not independent customer holdouts or live production validation; the 99% minimum-input product target remains unmet. Scope is company and organisation identity only — not people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions or emissions. Results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy. This is the Markdown copy of https://entitybind.com/compare/informatica-and-reltio, assembled from the same data the page renders and carrying every sentence, table row, figure and question the page's main content carries. The HTML page is canonical; it adds the layout, the navigation and the interactive parts (the ask panel, the forms), which a copy can name but not run. Every page on the site, with a line on each: https://entitybind.com/llms.txt.