Fraud detection and tenant screening is perhaps the fastest-moving frontier in multifamily today.
This is borne out of necessity: according to a recent NMHC survey, over 93% of multifamily owners report having been a victim of fraud in the past 12 months. Of the almost 80% of owners reporting an increase in fraud over the past year, they on average report a 40.4% year-over-year increase in the rate of fraud.
Increasingly, multifamily operators are finding themselves in an arms race with prospective renters mis-representing their income and financial state–if not their entire identity. And with many cities’ housing courts backed up and eviction a monthslong process, the cost of getting fraud detection wrong is painfully high.
For better or worse, there are more tenant screening and fraud detection tools available today than ever. While this means there are many great options in the market, it also makes it increasingly challenging for multifamily operators to understand the landscape and pick the tool best suited to their property.
This report will shine a light on a crowded proptech sector by analyzing the options in the market today, drawing from conversations with our Advisory Council of 60+ real estate operations leaders. We’ll make specific recommendations on the tools that are well-reviewed and how they compare to others.
The State of Tenant Screening and Fraud Detection
Most operators already use traditional screening tools through their PMS or resident screening provider. These checks—credit, criminal, and eviction history—are designed to evaluate whether an applicant is likely to pay rent on time and avoid lease violations. They work well for assessing risk when the applicant is truthful. But as fraud has increased, especially online, these traditional tools often aren’t enough to confirm that applicants are who they claim to be or that the documents they submit are legitimate. That’s where fraud detection tools come in.
Evaluating the fraud detection tools available first requires understanding the types of fraud that a multifamily operator is likely to encounter:
First-party fraud: First-party fraud–the most common form of application fraud–involves an applicant using their real identity but somehow misrepresenting themselves—typically inflating income, faking employment, or hiding prior evictions. For operators, this often means a resident who quickly falls behind on rent, leading to costly collections, skips, or evictions.
Third-party fraud: In this case, the person moving in is not the real applicant. Instead, they used stolen or synthetic identities to pass screening. Operators may discover the fraud only after chargebacks, law enforcement inquiries, or when the “real” identity holder disputes the lease. Third-party fraud is particularly fraught; the risk is not just lost rent but also exposure to compliance issues, reputational damage, and even physical danger to other residents and employees.
In general, fraud detection tools will do some combination of identify verification, income verification, and document verification. Identity verification is the best tool to combat third-party fraud, and some operators even require it to schedule an in-person tour of a property. Income and document verification, on the other hand, counter first-party fraud.
While some operators rely solely on document verification to verify that applicants are who they say they are, there’s reason to believe this is no longer sufficient. From multifamily industry expert Dom Beveridge in Thesis Driven last year:
Synthetic fraud, mentioned earlier, exemplifies how fraud continues to change. Some vendors believe the high correlation between fake credit records and fake supporting documents means most applicants will fail document checks. However, some operators are not so sure.
“Falsified SSNs and the misuse of CPNs are significant challenges,” says Phyllis Metevier, Director of Applicant Screening at Dallas-based LUMA Residential. A CPN is a nine-digit number similar to a Social Security number (SSN). CPNs may be sold to consumers to hide poor credit history or bankruptcies or to build credit.
At the same time, the line between “traditional tenant screening” and fraud detection tools are blurring as tenant screening products are incorporating fraud detection technologies in an attempt to create “all in one” solutions. So multifamily operators face a binary choice: stick with the out-of the-box screening tool that comes with their property management system, or go with a focused point solution? While the PMS tool is likely lower cost and easier to integrate than a point solution, there are good reasons why many operators choose to go with third-party tools.
In the next section, we’ll dive into specific providers, including our Advisory council’s take on each.
The Vendor Landscape
While the crowded tenant screening and fraud detection market offers dozens of tools with similar value propositions, for today’s report we analyzed eleven tools:
- RentGrow
- RealPage Screening
- Yardi Resident Screening
- AppFolio Screening
- Snappt
- TransUnion SmartMove
- CheckpointID
- CoreLogic SafeRent
- VERO
- Rentsense by CredHub
We also considered the following tools, but not enough members of our Advisory council were familiar with them to give them a score:
- Experian Connect
- Verifast
- Certn
- TrustHab
- Get100
- RentPrep
- RentSense
- LeaseLock
- RentSpree
- Intellirent
Some of those tools are quite new–such as Get100–so we will hopefully have more data points in our next assessment of this space.
In addition, Advisory council members noted that they also use ApprovedShield, Findings, Union Leasing, EliseAI, and Zillow Rentals, although those were not on the initial survey and we do not therefore have enough data points to fully evaluate those tools.
The Advisory Council survey produced two winners: one PMS-provided tool (Yardi’s RentGrow) and one independent tool (Snappt), although a number of tools performed well overall.
🥇 WINNER: RentGrow Rating: 7.5
Pros
- Improved fraud filtering: “Process appears to have improved filtering out tenants who pay first move in costs and then never another dime,” suggesting stronger defenses against common application fraud.
- Adaptable to regulation: RentGrow “does not make rental decisions or set eligibility criteria … that’s determined solely by the property manager,” which helps operators stay compliant in a changing legislative environment.
- Integrated with PMS: Available through Yardi ScreenWorks Pro, providing workflow continuity for Yardi users.
Cons
- Application drop-off: More applicants “start but never get completed.” While this may mean fraudsters are deterred, it could also signal friction for legitimate applicants.
🥇 WINNER: Snappt Rating: 7.4
Pros
- Strong fraud prevention focus: Operators view Snappt as “a solid solution to prevent fraud and verify employers and income documentation or linking banks.”
- Detailed reporting: Provides “good data” and “detailed reports,” giving leasing teams clearer visibility into applicant documentation.
- Improved fraud detection: Capabilities have “improved in the last couple years,” helping to filter out more fraudulent applicants.
Cons
- Lack of complete Yardi integration: An operator noted that Snappt isn’t integrated with Yardi ScreeningWorks, so it requires parallel workflows.
- Workflow friction: Operators note “separate workflow, extra logins, and potential for false positives” that can frustrate applicants and “increase application drop-off.”
- Not bulletproof: Some operators find it “less sophisticated than newer, multi-layer verification tools.”
#3: RealPage Screening Rating: 7.3
Pros
- Ease of use: Operators describe it as “easy to use. integrates well,” which reduces training needs for onsite staff.
- Strong integration: Works smoothly within RealPage’s ecosystem, keeping workflows centralized.
- Expanding product set: Some operators are using “their IDV product” and moving to “IDVP as well as their income verification product,” suggesting ongoing development and broader fraud-prevention options.
Cons
- Slow turnaround times: “Background checks take several days, sometimes up to 10,” creating leasing delays. Operators note competitors provide results much faster.
- Reliance on onsite staff for income verification: Historically, “income has … been verified by onsite teams,” adding manual workload and potential for inconsistency.
#4: TransUnion SmartMove Rating: 7.0
Pros
- Quick turnaround: Operators note it is “clear and easy to use and quick turnaround,” which helps speed up leasing decisions.
- Simple integration: Used through direct PMS integrations or via Apartments.com, making access straightforward.
- Unique renter score: Provides a “renter credit score” specifically designed for rental decisions, giving more tailored insights than a standard FICO.
Cons
- Narrow scope: Credit-focused approach can be limiting—“credit isn’t necessarily the only or best screening input when income, assets, etc. are also influencing factors.”
- Different scoring model: The renter credit score “is different than a typical standard credit score,” which may create confusion for teams used to traditional credit metrics.
- Limited fraud checks: Feedback doesn’t point to strong fraud detection or income verification, making it less robust compared to best-of-breed tools.
#T-5: Yardi Resident Screening Rating: 6.7
Pros
- Comprehensive suite of tools: Includes “ID verification, credit screening, employer verification and documents verification,” covering the basics most operators need.
- Convenient for Yardi users: Direct integration into the PMS reduces the need for third-party systems.
- Comparable base pricing: Costs are generally similar to competitors at the entry level.
- Improving over time: Some operators note, “it has been several years so I would imagine it has improved in that time frame.”
Cons
- Lagging behind newer solutions: Multiple operators noted Yardi is “12–18 months behind the new offerings in this space,” and that “residents that Yardi screening permitted to pass [were] caught immediately” by best-of-breed tools like Findigs.
- Weak on fraud detection: “Was an acceptable platform until application fraud became a concern. Needed to expand on fraud detection procedures.”
- Clunky workflows: The system “requires manual review of all offer letters, unverifiable income, or pay statements outside the allowable date range,” increasing admin burden.
Basic income verification: Lacks robust real-time data connections compared to specialist tools. - Hidden costs: While base pricing is competitive, “extras quickly raise the price.”
#T-5: CheckpointID Rating: 6.7
Pros
- Easy to implement: Operators say “it is an easy solution to implement,” requiring minimal setup.
- Generally reliable: One noted, “we have never had issues with the product. It always delivered as promised.”
- Basic deterrent value: Provides a straightforward ID scan, which can deter some lower-level fraud attempts.
Cons
- Limited scope: “Does not include broader fraud detection beyond IDs,” leaving gaps in areas like income or document verification.
- Less effective against advanced fraud: Operators note “fraud has progressed past fake IDs into other areas,” making the tool feel outdated. At least one operator reported, “we recently canceled this product,” citing limited value compared to newer solutions.
- Efficiency issues: Errors during ID scans sometimes require rescanning; one operator commented it is “not as efficient as some of the newer screening tools.”
- Adoption friction: Some renters, especially those “not super comfortable with manipulating a cellphone,” may struggle with the process.
#7: AppFolio Screening Rating: 6.5
Pros
- Convenient for AppFolio users: Operators consolidated because “AppFolio is our main PMS,” streamlining workflows into one platform.
Cons
- Less robust than alternatives: Some operators note they have “tried Vero, on-site and other tools,” suggesting AppFolio’s screening wasn’t compelling enough on its own.
#8: VERO Rating: 6.1
Pros
- Effective fraud prevention in practice: At one large property, “only 1 resident on the delinquency list was screened through Vero,” suggesting strong performance in reducing bad debt.
- Adoption at scale: Being piloted or used at larger properties, indicating it can handle higher application volumes.
Cons
- High cost: Operators describe it as “very expensive,” making it harder to justify versus competitors.
- Capability concerns: One operator noted they “changed paths due to concerns with [VERO’s] capabilities,” suggesting gaps in functionality.
#9: CoreLogic SafeRent
Several advisory council members noted they had moved away from SafeRent in the past due to it not having the “details and fraud detection capabilities” of newer offerings.
In addition, Advisory council members recommended that multifamily operators consider Findings, Union Leasing, EliseAI, and Approved Shield as well. Findings, Union, and EliseAI each received a positive review despite not being on the initial survey, and Approved Shield was positive reviewed for quality despite being “3x as expensive” as Yardi screening.
Advice from the Advisory Council
Specific tools aside, the Advisory Council offered advice to multifamily operators evaluating the fraud detection and tenant screening space:
1. Choose tools that integrate fully with your existing systems and processes
A fraud detection solution should plug directly into your property management system (PMS) and align with the way your teams already work. True integration means your staff and applicants never need to enter the same information twice, and the tool can pull data from payroll, banking, or other verification sources without manual steps. “Make sure it doesn’t just integrate with your PMS but also integrates into your processes,” said a multifamily operator. Avoid tools that require workarounds or force your team to manage data in multiple places.
2. Prioritize a smooth, fast prospect experience
The best fraud prevention happens without prospects feeling like they’re jumping through hoops. That means mobile-friendly verification steps, clear instructions, and fast turnaround times. Delays in ID or income verification can cause applicants to disengage or rent elsewhere. “The current challenges… revolve around minimizing any actual or perceived friction for the customer,” said an advisory committee member. Each added step should feel natural and easy, not like an interrogation.
3. Bundle verifications into the natural application flow
Integrating ID checks, credit/criminal reports, and income verification directly into your existing touring and application process prevents applicants from having to complete them in separate systems or at separate times. For example, ID verification can happen pre-tour, credit checks upon application, and income verification immediately after conditional approval—all without extra logins. “All three verifications must be successfully completed for someone to proceed with moving in,” said a multifamily operator.
4. Reduce tool fragmentation to speed decisions
Using multiple standalone fraud prevention tools can create delays and confusion for both leasing teams and applicants. A unified platform that handles screening end-to-end reduces the number of vendors you manage, shortens turnaround times, and allows faster approvals. “A fully integrated platform streamlines workflows… by eliminating the friction caused by multiple third-party tools,” noted an advisory committee member. The payoff is clear: quicker decisions, fewer abandoned applications, and more signed leases.
5. Balance automation with clear decision ownership
Automation can speed screening, but you need a clear plan for who reviews borderline cases. Decide whether this will be handled by onsite leasing staff, a centralized screening team, or a single decision-maker. “Who is doing the screening? Onsite? A centralized team? One person? Or do you want automated screening?” asked a multifamily operator. The right division of labor ensures no application gets stuck waiting for someone to act.
6. Make it easy and affordable for residents to participate
Prospects shouldn’t be burdened with complicated steps or high costs just to apply. Keep the verification process short, accessible on any device, and reasonably priced. “Keep it simple and inexpensive for the tenant to use,” advised a multifamily operator. A difficult or costly process can deter high-quality applicants and lead to negative word-of-mouth.
7. Confirm depth, accuracy, and legal compliance
Even when a tool integrates well and runs smoothly, it must deliver a complete and compliant screening. This includes a national criminal search, eviction history, credit check, and modern income verification—while following Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA) guidelines. “Get a complete picture… and ensure all applicants are screened the same way,” said a multifamily operator. A legally compliant system protects you from risk and ensures fairness for applicants.
Future Directions in Fraud Detection
Multifamily operators see tenant screening evolving toward tools that are faster, easier to use, and more deeply integrated into both leasing workflows and the resident journey. A central challenge is simplifying a process that is inherently multi-step while keeping it accurate and compliant. As one operator put it, “How can we make it easier and faster for the onsite team and the prospect to go through a fairly complex multi steps process?”
Automation and Integration
Operators consistently emphasize automation as a priority. “As much of the process must be automated,” noted one operator. Automation reduces staff workload and helps prevent bottlenecks, especially for high-volume portfolios. Future tools will likely integrate more directly with property management systems, payment platforms, and payroll data, reducing the need for applicants or leasing staff to manually upload documents.
Ongoing Resident Screening
Operators also see potential in extending fraud detection beyond the initial vetting process. One respondent suggested “ongoing screening to flag if a resident may become a potential issue during their tenancy.” Early identification of residents at risk of delinquency could allow landlords to offer payment plans, prepare for turnover, or manage vacancy risk more proactively.
New Partnerships and Pricing Models
Cost remains an important factor. One operator pointed to Bilt’s potential role in offering fraud detection “free or at a lower rate” as an example of how partnerships or bundled services could expand access to screening. Lower pricing models may allow smaller operators to adopt more sophisticated tools.
Beyond Fraud Detection
Some operators look to AI-driven tools that go beyond fraud prevention. “AI powered research tools to determine fair market rents and HUD AMI rents for USDA and other programs” could complement screening by giving operators more context on applicant qualifications relative to affordable housing standards.
Expanding Data Sources
Other operators expressed interest in incorporating new data streams and incentive structures. For example, some proposed tools that encourage applicants to share financial data through integrations with platforms like Plaid or Stripe. Others mentioned the potential value of “landlord reviews of tenants that can be pulled,” creating a broader dataset of rental history outside of traditional credit and eviction records.
Pre-Verification and Lead Quality
Finally, some operators suggested flipping the entire verification model on its head, moving the vetting step to before an application is even submitted–essentially, a tenant whitelist. “Pre-verification software that acts as a filter prior to lead generation” could save staff time and reduce wasted tours by screening out high-risk applicants before they enter the pipeline. This shift would align fraud detection with marketing and lead qualification, rather than treating it as a step that begins only at application.
–
The fraud detection and tenant screening segment is perhaps the most dynamic in proptech, and no vendor has yet “won” the market. The tools that are best-in-class today may not be so tomorrow, as the fraud arms race requires constant vigilance and evolution–especially as AI tools make it easier than ever to create high quality fake identification documents, pay stubs, bank statements, and more, and sluggish housing courts make the cost of being wrong increasingly high.
–Brad Hargreaves
