Eftsure built its business around a basic flaw in bank payments. For years, Australian organisations could type in a payee name, pair it with the wrong BSB and account number, and still send the money.
That gap created a market for an independent verifier. Eftsure would call suppliers, check banking details and flag suspicious changes before payment.
In 2026, that original gap is closing. Australia and New Zealand now have bank-led Confirmation of Payee services. Similar name-checking systems are established in the UK and increasingly mandated in Europe.
Eftsure has not become irrelevant overnight. But its original sales pitch no longer looks as distinctive as it did a decade ago.
Old gap
Eftsure was founded in 2014 by Ian Mirels, Mike Kontorovich and Mark Chazan. Its proposition was simple. Australian businesses were moving more money digitally, but bank systems were not checking whether the payee name matched the account number behind a payment.
That created a clear operational risk. If a fraudster changed the banking details on an invoice, the bank could still process the payment. The same was true if an employee keyed in the wrong account.
A finance team might believe it had paid a real supplier. The money could instead go to an account controlled by a criminal.
The timing suited Eftsure. Fake invoices, business email compromise and payment-redirection scams were becoming routine risks for accounts payable teams.
The weakness was easy to explain. The payment system trusted numbers. Criminals exploited the gap between those numbers and the names attached to them.
Eftsure's answer was to sit between the business and the payment. It checked supplier details, verified account information and flagged changes before money left the organisation.
For many finance teams, that was useful. Banks were not doing enough at the point of payment.
Banks move
The problem for Eftsure is that banks have now started fixing the same weakness.
In Australia, the banking industry's Confirmation of Payee rollout began in July 2025. The service checks the account name, BSB and account number before payment. It returns a match, close match or no-match message.
The banking industry spent AUD $100 million building the national system. By March 2026, it was live across 82 financial institutions and more than 143 million accounts.
That is a major change to the market Eftsure first addressed. The basic "does this account name match?" check now appears inside ordinary banking journeys.
CommBank, NAB, Westpac and ANZ all describe versions of that protection in their retail channels. Wise does too.
Wise says Australian personal and business customers can check whether the recipient name matches when they set up a new AUD recipient. It also notes that PayID already confirms the recipient's name when that proxy is used instead of a BSB and account number.
That matters because the function is no longer confined to specialist anti-fraud software. It now sits inside normal payment flows.
What once looked like a premium control is becoming a standard banking feature.
Across Tasman
New Zealand has followed the same path.
Banks began rolling out Confirmation of Payee in late 2024, with implementation across digital channels expected in 2025. The service checks whether the account holder name appears to match the account number before payment.
By April 2026, GetVerified said almost 100 million payments had already been checked before being sent.
The behavioural effect is important. Users are more likely to pause when a bank tells them a payee name does not match. That pause is the control. It gives the payer a chance to stop, check and call the supplier through a trusted channel.
That is the kind of intervention anti-fraud vendors once argued only they could create. It is now being built into the banking layer.
The wider international pattern points in the same direction. The UK's Confirmation of Payee service is now used by hundreds of organisations and covers most Faster Payments activity. In Europe, Verification of Payee is becoming a regulatory requirement for euro-area providers.
Eftsure is not facing a one-country shift. It is facing the gradual conversion of payee-name verification into payment infrastructure.
Bank limits
There is still a case for saying Eftsure is not fully displaced.
Bank-led Confirmation of Payee is usually advisory rather than mandatory. A payer can often proceed after a warning.
The service may reduce risk, but it does not remove poor judgement, rushed approvals or weak internal process.
Coverage is also uneven across some business channels. Some corporate banking portals, file uploads, batch-payment workflows and older business products may not surface the same checks as consumer online banking.
Large organisations often make payments through enterprise resource planning systems, treasury tools and bulk files. Those workflows are more complex than a single user entering a new payee in a banking app.
There is also a deeper issue. A bank can tell a payer whether a name looks right when a payment is created. It cannot manage supplier onboarding. It does not decide whether a vendor master-file change was authorised. It does not ensure duties are separated. It does not store all approval evidence in a company's procurement process. It does not prove that an invoice is commercially legitimate.
Those are not small details for a large enterprise. They are the control environment.
Product shift
Eftsure's current product language reflects that reality.
The company now presents itself around vendor management, payment protection, segregation of duties, audit and reporting, and broader supplier controls. It also offers a guarantee of up to USD $1 million against some verified-payment losses caused by social engineering.
That is a wider proposition than simple bank-detail checking. It suggests Eftsure understands that domestic account-name verification is becoming harder to defend as a stand-alone service.
The company has also moved beyond its original Australian base. It announced a US launch in 2024. It later disclosed new investment and combined with France's Sis ID to add international payment verification. By the end of 2025, it said it supported vendor verification in nearly 40 countries.
That tells its own story. If domestic bank rails are becoming smarter, a specialist vendor has to find value elsewhere. Cross-border complexity is one place to look. Enterprise workflow is another.
Hard verdict
So is Eftsure out of date? Not quite.
Is its original pitch losing force? Clearly.
The specific flaw that made the company easy to explain in 2014 is being corrected by banks, payment schemes and providers across Australia and New Zealand.
For smaller organisations using modern banking channels, the case for paying a separate specialist just to verify bank details is much weaker than it once was.
That does not mean invoice fraud has disappeared. It has not. Payment redirection, fake invoices and business email compromise remain material risks.