Metrics That Matter: KPIs and KRIs for Compliance & BSA/AML in 2026

In 2026, it is not enough to say your compliance and BSA/AML programs are effective – you need metrics that prove it. Regulators, partner banks, and boards increasingly expect clear, concise reporting that shows where risk is rising, where controls are working, and where pressure points are emerging. Yet many organizations are still buried in activity counts and spreadsheets that track everything and explain nothing.

This article focuses on metrics that actually matter for Compliance and BSA/AML in 2026. We will distinguish between KPIs and KRIs, show how to align them with your risk assessments and CMS, and offer practical examples of what to track across governance, policies, training, monitoring, complaints, BSA/AML operations, and sanctions. We will also walk through how to turn those metrics into straightforward dashboards for senior management and the Board—so your reporting tells a clear, risk-focused story instead of just adding more numbers to the pack.

Based KPIs vs. KRIs: Getting the Basics Right

Before you build dashboards or send new reports to the Board, you need clarity on what you are measuring and why. Most organizations use the terms “KPIs” and “KRIs” interchangeably, which leads to cluttered reporting and confusion about what the numbers actually mean. In 2026, the goal is to use KPIs to show how well your program is performing and KRIs to show where risk is building or controls may be under stress.

Clarify the Difference Between KPIs and KRIs

Think of KPIs as indicators of how the machine is running, and KRIs as indicators that the machine may be overheating. For compliance and BSA/AML:

• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
  • Measure the efficiency and effectiveness of processes and controls.
  • Focus on timeliness, throughput, coverage, and completion.
  • Examples:
    • % of required training completed by due date.
    • % of planned monitoring and testing completed vs. plan.
    • Average time to review and disposition AML alerts.
  • Key Risk Indicators (KRIs)
    • Measure changes in risk exposure or signs that controls may be failing.
    • Focus on backlogs, exceptions, complaints, and adverse outcomes.
    • Examples:
      • Growth in alert backlog or age of open alerts.
      • Increase in complaints tied to a specific product or fee.
      • Number and severity of repeat or past-due audit/compliance issues.

Make Metrics Decision-Useful, Not Just Interesting

A metric earns space on a dashboard only if it helps leadership ask better questions and make decisions. To keep KPIs and KRIs meaningful:

• Define what movement means
  • For each metric, be clear about what “good,” “caution,” and “unacceptable” look like (e.g., thresholds, ranges, or trend expectations).
• Tie each metric to an action
  • If the number worsens, what will you do differently – add staff, change process, retune rules, increase monitoring, escalate to the Board?
• Limit the list
  • It is better to have 10–15 well-defined KPIs/KRIs per area than 40 metrics that no one can interpret or act on.

Align Metrics with Your Risk Assessment and CMS

Once you’re clear on KPIs vs. KRIs, the next step is deciding what to measure. That shouldn’t be driven by whatever your systems can easily export; it should be driven by your risk assessment and Compliance/BSA/AML program structure (CMS). In 2026, examiners and partner banks are increasingly asking some version of: “Show us how your reporting ties back to your risk profile.” Your metrics need to make that link obvious.

Start from Your Risk Assessment, Not from a Data Dump

Begin with your existing risk assessments – compliance, BSA/AML, sanctions, enterprise risk – and identify the areas you’ve already labeled as high or increasing risk. That is where your most important KPIs and KRIs should live. For each major risk category (e.g., BSA/AML, UDAAP, fair lending, IT/cyber, third-party risk), ask:

• What would we expect to see if risk is increasing here? (KRIs)
• What would we expect to see if our controls are working as designed? (KPIs)

This keeps you focused on metrics that confirm or challenge the assumptions in your risk assessment, instead of generic activity counts.

Map Metrics to the Core Elements of Your CMS

Next, make sure your metrics give a view of how well your compliance framework is functioning overall—not just one or two processes. A practical way to do this is to map metrics to the main CMS components:

• Governance and oversight – Are management and the Board getting the right information and acting on it?
• Policies and procedures – Are they current, aligned with practice, and updated when risk or regulations change?
• Training and awareness – Are the right people trained on the right topics, and does training reduce errors?
• Monitoring, testing, and audit – Are you executing your plan, finding issues, and validating remediation?
• Issues, complaints, and customer harm – Are you identifying, escalating, and resolving problems in a timely way?

For each component, identify a small set of KPIs and KRIs that, together, give a fair picture of performance and risk. If a CMS element has no associated metrics, that’s a gap.

Cover Inherent Risk, Control Performance, and Outcomes

Effective dashboards show three things at once:

• Inherent risk – Indicators of exposure (e.g., volumes, high-risk customer counts, new product launches).
• Control performance – KPIs that show how well your processes and controls are operating (e.g., timeliness, coverage, completion).
• Outcomes – KRIs that reflect the results (e.g., findings, complaints, losses, SAR trends, regulatory feedback).

When you design your 2026 metric set, test it against these three lenses. If you only report on outcomes (e.g., number of findings), you miss early warning signs. If you only report on activity (e.g., number of trainings delivered), you miss whether risk is actually increasing or decreasing.

Core Compliance Program KPIs and KRIs for 2026

With the risk and CMS alignment in place, you can start defining which compliance metrics belong on your 2026 dashboards. The goal here is not to capture everything, but to build a focused set of KPIs and KRIs that give a fair view of how your compliance program is performing and where risk is building.

Governance & Oversight

These metrics show whether compliance is getting the right level of attention from leadership and the Board.

• KPIs
  • % of scheduled Compliance Committee / Board compliance updates completed as planned.
  • Timeliness of delivering compliance reports to management and the Board (e.g., days before meeting).
  • % of Board and Committee members who received required compliance/BSA training in the last 12 months.
• KRIs
  • Number of high/critical issues outstanding past their due dates.
  • Number of repeat findings cited by regulators, auditors, or partner banks.
  • Volume and severity of regulatory or partner bank inquiries (and how many involve escalated concerns).

Policies, Procedures, and Change Management

These metrics show whether your written framework and change discipline are keeping up with your risk and regulatory environment.

• KPIs
  • % of high-risk policies and procedures reviewed and updated within their required cycle (e.g., annual).
  • Average time from regulatory change identification to policy/procedure update.
  • % of material product/system changes that include documented compliance review and sign-off.
• KRIs
  • Number of incidents or findings tied to outdated, missing, or inconsistent policies/procedures.
  • Number of “after-the-fact” compliance reviews discovered during audits (indicating change management breakdowns).

Training and Awareness

These metrics indicate whether people know what they are supposed to do—and whether training is actually influencing behavior.

• KPIs
  • Completion rate for required compliance training by audience (Board, senior management, frontline, high-risk functions).
  • % of new hires completing required training within defined onboarding timelines.
  • Time from major regulatory or product change to rollout of related training or job aids.
• KRIs
  • Number of findings or errors where root cause is documented as a knowledge/training gap.
  • Trends in exception rates or error rates in processes immediately following training (up or down).

Monitoring, Testing, Audit, and Issues Management

These metrics show whether you are executing your assurance activities and dealing with what they uncover.

• KPIs
  • % of planned compliance monitoring and testing completed vs. plan (year-to-date).
  • % of internal audit and compliance findings with management action plans in place.
  • % of issues closed by their target due dates (by risk rating).
• KRIs
  • Number and severity of repeat findings across exams, audits, and monitoring.
  • Aging of open issues (e.g., high-risk issues > 90 days past due).
  • Number of findings downgraded or reclassified without documented justification.

Complaints, Disputes, and Customer Harm

These metrics tie directly to consumer impact and are often a focal point for regulators and partner banks.

• KPIs
  • Complaint volume over time, segmented by product, channel, and root cause.
  • Average time to acknowledge and resolve complaints and disputes.
  • % of complaints resolved within internal SLA and/or regulatory timeframes.
• KRIs
  • Trend in complaints related to specific themes (fees, disclosures, servicing, collections).
  • Number of complaints escalated to regulators, partner banks, or social media crises.
  • Value and frequency of fee refunds or remediation actions tied to complaint themes.

Taken together, these compliance KPIs and KRIs provide a structured view of governance, framework health, execution, and customer impact. The next step is to do the same for BSA/AML and sanctions, where metrics must capture not only operational performance (e.g., alert handling) but also evolving risk in customer profiles, products, and geographies.

BSA/AML & Sanctions: KPIs and KRIs That Actually Matter

For BSA/AML and sanctions, leadership and the Board need visibility into two things:

• Whether day-to-day operations (alerts, investigations, filings) are under control, and
• Whether underlying risk is growing faster than your program can handle. The metrics below help you tell that story without drowning everyone in operational detail.

Customer & Product Risk Profile

These metrics show how your risk exposure is changing over time.

• KPIs
  • % of high-risk customers with CDD/EDD completed or refreshed on time.
  • % of periodic KYC/CDD reviews completed vs. plan, by risk tier.
  • % of new high-risk customers/products onboarded through approved enhanced procedures.
• KRIs
  • Growth rate in high-risk customers, geographies, industries, or product lines (quarter-over-quarter, year-over-year).
  • Number of active customers/accounts missing required KYC/CDD elements beyond defined grace periods.
  • Significant shifts in product mix toward higher-risk activity (e.g., cross-border, cash-intensive, crypto, higher-risk corridors).

Alerts, Investigations, and SAR/CTR Activity

These metrics indicate whether your team can keep up with alert volume and meet regulatory timelines.

• KPIs
  • Average time from alert generation to initial review and final disposition.
  • % of alerts reviewed and dispositioned within defined SLAs (e.g., 30 days).
  • SAR and CTR filing timeliness (e.g., % filed within regulatory timeframes).
  • % of cases with complete, documented investigation narratives and supporting evidence.
• KRIs
  • Alert backlog: volume and age of open alerts by type (transaction monitoring, sanctions, fraud, etc.).
  • Trend in SAR volumes and key typologies by product/channel, especially sudden increases or unexplained drops.
  • Number of late SARs/CTRs or missed filings identified through QA, audit, or regulators.
  • High proportion of “false negative” issues found via look-backs or independent reviews.

Sanctions Screening and Transaction Monitoring Performance

These metrics focus on critical controls that carry significant regulatory and reputational risk.

• KPIs
  • % of transactions, beneficiaries, and counterparties successfully screened through approved sanctions tools.
  • % of sanctions alerts reviewed within defined timeframes.
  • % of monitoring scenarios/rules reviewed or tuned within the required cycle (e.g., annually).
• KRIs
  • Volume and aging of open sanctions alerts; number breaching defined thresholds.
  • Number of true hits vs. false positives; sudden shifts that may indicate tuning or configuration problems.
  • Number of blocked/rejected transactions and underlying causes.
  • Material findings from sanctions and monitoring model validations (e.g., missing risk scenarios, poor data quality, ineffective thresholds).

Staffing, Capacity, and Tool Effectiveness

These metrics help you demonstrate whether your BSA/AML and sanctions teams are resourced to handle current and projected risk.

• KPIs
  • Average monthly case load per analyst/investigator compared to defined capacity targets.
  • % of BSA/AML and sanctions staff completing required role-specific training on schedule.
  • Time to onboard and train new analysts to full productivity.
• KRIs
  • Persistent overtime or contractor reliance to keep up with BAU alert volume.
  • Sustained backlogs or missed SLAs following volume spikes, new product launches, or geographic expansion.
  • Significant deficiencies or “matters requiring attention” from independent BSA/AML reviews and model validations that remain unresolved.

Regulatory, Audit, and Law Enforcement Feedback

These are high-impact signals of how your program is perceived externally.

• KPIs
  • Number of BSA/AML and sanctions exams or independent reviews completed on schedule.
  • % of BSA/AML findings with action plans approved and tracked.
• KRIs
  • Number and severity of BSA/AML and sanctions-related exam findings, enforcement actions, or partner bank conditions.
  • Volume of law enforcement inquiries and 314(a)/(b) activity and emerging patterns in those requests.
  • Repeat BSA/AML findings across multiple exam or audit cycles.

Together, these BSA/AML and sanctions KPIs/KRIs give management and the Board a concise view of exposure, operational strain, and external feedback. The next step is packaging these and your compliance metrics into dashboards tailored for management vs. the Board, so each audience gets the right level of detail to understand where risk is moving and what you’re doing about it.

Designing Dashboards for Management and the Board

Once you know what to measure, the next challenge is how to present it. Good dashboards let leadership see, at a glance, where to lean in and what to ask about. Bad dashboards bury them in numbers with no clear message. For 2026, aim for simple, repeatable views tailored separately for senior management and the Board.

Start with a Few Design Principles

Before you build anything in Excel, Power BI, or your GRC tool, ground your dashboards in a few basic rules:

• Keep it focused: each dashboard should fit on 1–2 pages.
• Emphasize trends and exceptions, not just single-point snapshots.
• Pair charts with short commentary explaining what changed and why.
• Use consistent color-coding (e.g., red/yellow/green) and definitions across all packs.

Management Dashboards: Operational Detail and Early Warnings

Management needs enough detail to run the program and react quickly when indicators move the wrong way.

For Compliance, a monthly or quarterly management dashboard might include:

• CMS overview panel
  • % of policies reviewed on time (by risk level).
  • Training completion rates and overdue counts by department.
  • % of monitoring/testing completed vs. plan; open issues by severity and age.
• Complaints and issues panel
  • Complaint volumes and trends by product and channel, top 3–5 root causes.
  • High/critical issues open past due; new vs. closed issues this period.
• Regulatory/partner activity panel
  • New inquiries, exam updates, partner bank requests, and their status.

For BSA/AML, a management dashboard might add:

• Alert and case workflow panel
  • New alerts, alerts closed, and backlog over time (stacked bar or line chart).
  • Average days to disposition alerts; % within SLA.
• SAR/CTR and sanctions panel
  • SAR/CTR volumes and timeliness; late or missed filings.
  • Sanctions alert volumes, backlog, and true-hit vs. false-positive ratios.
• Staffing and capacity panel
  • Cases per analyst vs. target range, overtime usage, open headcount.

Board and Committee Dashboards: High-Level Risk Story

The Board and Board committees need a risk picture, not an operations report. Their dashboard should be stable in format from meeting to meeting and focus on direction, not minute detail.

A typical quarterly Board/Committee dashboard could include:

• Top-line risk summary
  • Overall Compliance risk rating and BSA/AML risk rating with simple trend arrows (↑, ↓, ↔) since last meeting.
  • Brief narrative: 3–5 bullets on key drivers (e.g., new products, volume changes, major incidents, exam feedback).
• Key Compliance KPIs/KRIs (5–10 metrics)
  • High/critical issues past due.
  • Repeat findings count.
  • Complaint trends and any emerging themes of concern.
  • Progress against annual monitoring/testing and audit plans.
• Key BSA/AML KPIs/KRIs (5–10 metrics)
  • Alert backlog and trend.
  • SAR volumes and timeliness; late filings.
  • High-risk customer growth vs. staffing.
  • Status of major BSA/AML remediation items or model validation findings.

Separate “Core Pack” from Deep Dive

To keep discussions focused:

• Use a standard “core pack” every meeting (same structure, same core metrics) so trends are easy to follow.
• Add rotating deep-dive pages on specific topics (e.g., complaints, sanctions, fintech partners) when needed, rather than expanding the core pack every time.

Data Quality, Ownership, and Governance

Even the best-designed metrics and dashboards will fall apart if the underlying data is weak or if no one clearly owns it. By 2026, regulators and partner banks are increasingly skeptical of “pretty” dashboards that can’t be reconciled back to systems or explained consistently. Your metrics framework needs basic data governance behind it.

Define Each Metric Clearly

Start by making sure every KPI and KRI has a shared, written definition. That avoids debates in meetings about what a number really represents. For each metric, document:

• Name and purpose – What the metric is called and why it exists (what risk or control it is meant to show).
• Exact definition – How it is calculated (numerator/denominator, inclusions/exclusions, time period).
• Source systems – Where the data comes from (case management tools, LMS, core, AML system, GRC, complaint system, manual logs).
• Frequency – How often it is updated (monthly, quarterly, per meeting).

A simple “metrics dictionary” goes a long way in preventing confusion and building confidence in your dashboards.

Assign Owners and Responsibilities

Every metric should have a person or function who stands behind it. Without clear ownership, metrics become orphaned and quality degrades over time. For each KPI/KRI:

• Data owner – Responsible for extracting, validating, and delivering the number on time.
• Control owner – The person/function accountable for performance against the metric (e.g., BSA Officer for alert backlog; Head of Operations for complaint SLAs).
• Escalation path – Who is notified if the metric breaches a threshold, and who decides on remediation steps.

This structure makes it clear who answers questions when a number looks off or moves in the wrong direction.

Put Basic Quality Checks Around Key Metrics

Not every metric needs heavy QA, but the ones going to the Board or regulators should not be “best guesses.” Build simple checks into your process:

• Reconcile to source systems periodically – For example, verify that complaint counts match system totals, or alert volumes match AML system exports for a sample period.
• Spot-check calculations – Occasionally recalculate metrics manually or by a second person to confirm formulas remain correct after system or report changes.
• Flag breaks and one-off adjustments – If you restate a metric or change how it is calculated, call that out explicitly in the dashboard and in your dictionary.

The goal is not perfection; it is to be able to credibly explain how numbers were derived and why management trusts them.

Integrate Metrics into Existing Governance Routines

Finally, your metric process should plug into governance you already have – not become a standalone side project.

• Tie to existing committees – Use Compliance Committee, BSA/AML Committee, Risk Committee, and Board/Audit Committee meetings as the natural home for metric review.
• Make metrics part of the agenda, not an attachment – Build discussion of key movements (up or down) into standing agenda items, with clear follow-ups assigned where needed.
• Update your policies – Briefly reference metrics and reporting expectations in your Compliance and BSA/AML program documents so examiners can see they are part of your formal framework.

With clear definitions, ownership, and basic quality controls in place, your 2026 KPIs and KRIs become something leadership can rely on – not just look at.

Common Pitfalls with Compliance & BSA/AML Metrics

Even with good intentions, many organizations end up with metrics and dashboards that are busy but not useful. Recognizing common traps upfront will help you design a 2026 metrics framework that actually supports decision-making instead of just adding noise.

Pitfall 1: Metric Overload – Reporting Everything, Highlighting Nothing

It is easy to pull dozens of fields from systems and drop them into a slide deck. The result is often a dense pack of tables and charts where nothing stands out.

• Why it’s a problem: Leadership and the Board cannot quickly see what matters; important signals get buried.
• How to avoid it: Limit core dashboards to a focused set of KPIs/KRIs (e.g., 10–15 for Compliance and 10–15 for BSA/AML). Use appendices or deep-dive packs only when needed.

Pitfall 2: Activity Counts Without Risk Context

Many reports are dominated by counts—number of trainings, number of alerts, number of complaints—without any indication of whether those numbers are good, bad, or expected.

• Why it’s a problem: Counts alone don’t show risk; an increase could be a positive sign (better detection) or a warning (controls under stress).
• How to avoid it: Pair activity metrics with context—trends, thresholds, ratios, and narrative. For example, show alert volume alongside backlog, SLA performance, and staffing.

Pitfall 3: No Targets, Thresholds, or Definitions of “Good”

If a Board report shows “Complaint volume: 425,” the obvious question is: So what?

• Why it’s a problem: Without targets or thresholds, stakeholders cannot tell whether performance is acceptable or requires action.
• How to avoid it: Define “green/yellow/red” ranges or qualitative expectations for key metrics, and display them visually (e.g., traffic lights, arrows). Make sure those thresholds are documented and periodically reviewed.

Pitfall 4: Inconsistent Definitions and Data Sources

Different teams may count “complaints,” “high-risk customers,” or “open issues” differently. That leads to debates in meetings and erodes trust in the numbers.

• Why it’s a problem: Inconsistency undermines credibility with management, the Board, regulators, and partner banks.
• How to avoid it: Maintain a simple metric dictionary with definitions, formulas, and sources. Align terminology across Compliance, BSA/AML, Operations, and Risk so everyone is speaking the same language.

Pitfall 5: Static Reports That Don’t Drive Action

If dashboards are reviewed but nothing changes—no follow-ups, no resourcing shifts, no scope adjustments—they quickly become a formality.

• Why it’s a problem: Metrics lose value and can even hurt your credibility if they highlight issues that never move.
• How to avoid it: Build actionability into your governance: when a metric goes red or a trend deteriorates, it should trigger discussion, assigned owners, and documented next steps.

Pitfall 6: Ignoring Qualitative Context

Numbers rarely tell the whole story on their own. A spike in SARs, complaints, or sanctions hits might mean risk is rising – or that detection just improved.

• Why it’s a problem: Over-reliance on raw figures can lead to misinterpretation and overreaction (or underreaction).
• How to avoid it: Always pair dashboards with short narrative commentary explaining major movements, one-time events, and structural changes (e.g., new products, system changes, enforcement trends).

By explicitly designing around these pitfalls, you can keep your 2026 metrics framework focused, credible, and actionable. The next step is to turn all of this into a practical build-out plan – a structured way to identify your core metrics, stand up dashboards, and embed them into your regular reporting and governance cycles.

Practical Steps to Build or Upgrade Your 2026 Metrics Framework

You do not need a full-blown data warehouse project to improve your metrics in 2026. You do need a structured, incremental approach. The goal is to move from scattered reports and ad hoc numbers to a core set of KPIs and KRIs that are defined, owned, and used consistently in management and Board reporting.

Step 1 – Start with a Short “Core Set” of Metrics

Begin by identifying a small number of KPIs and KRIs that truly matter for your organization:

• Pick 10–15 metrics for Compliance and 10–15 for BSA/AML that:
  • Tie directly to your risk assessments and CMS elements.
  • Reflect real pain points (e.g., backlogs, repeat findings, complaint themes).
  • You are confident you can produce reliably.
• Prioritize metrics that leadership already asks about informally—those are usually good candidates for formalization.

You can always add more later; the priority is to get a clean, credible core set in place.

Step 2 – Define Each Metric and Assign Owners

Once you have the shortlist, formalize it. For each metric:

• Write a one-line purpose statement (“What risk or performance does this metric show?”).
• Document the exact formula, inclusions/exclusions, and time period.
• Identify source systems and the person/function responsible for pulling and validating the data.
• Confirm who “owns” performance against the metric (e.g., BSA Officer, Head of Operations, Compliance Officer).

Capture this in a simple metrics dictionary—even a tab in Excel is enough to start.

Step 3 – Build Prototype Dashboards and Test Internally

Before you roll anything out to the Board, build and test draft dashboards with your internal teams:

• Create management-level views first (more detail, operational focus).
• Mock up a Board/Committee-level summary using a subset of the same metrics.
• Share prototypes with a few key stakeholders (Compliance, BSA, Risk, Operations) and refine:
  • Are the visuals clear?
  • Do the metrics prompt the right questions?
  • Is anything missing or redundant?

Use this feedback cycle to adjust layout, groupings, and commentary before formalizing.

Step 4 – Integrate Metrics into Existing Reporting Cycles

Next, embed the dashboards into meetings that already exist instead of creating parallel processes:

• Add a standard metrics section to Compliance Committee and BSA/AML Committee packs.
• Build a consistent quarterly dashboard into Board/Audit/Risk Committee materials.
• Make sure metrics are discussed, not just attached—include talking points and identified follow-ups for any red or deteriorating indicators.

Over a few cycles, you can fine-tune which metrics stay in the “core pack” and which move to appendices or deep dives.

Step 5 – Use 2026 to Test, Refine, and Harden the Framework

Treat 2026 as both deployment and calibration:

• Track where metrics cause confusion or require frequent explanation – those may need better definitions or alternative measures.
• Validate accuracy periodically by reconciling metrics back to systems and sample records.
• Adjust thresholds and targets as you learn what “normal” looks like and where real risk lies.
• Feed audit and monitoring results back into the metric set:
  • If audits repeatedly cite an area with no metrics, consider adding one.
  • If metrics never move or never drive action, consider revising or retiring them.

By the end of 2026, you should have a stable, defensible metrics framework that is tied to your risk profile, embedded in governance, and ready to support future exams and partner reviews.

From there, the natural next question is whether you have the time and internal capacity to design and maintain this framework alone. That is where a partner like RADD can help—by reviewing your current reporting, defining the KPIs and KRIs that matter most, and building dashboards that give management and the Board a clear, actionable view of Compliance and BSA/AML risk.

How RADD Can Help

Building a focused, risk-based metrics framework is hard to do on top of day-to-day Compliance and BSA/AML responsibilities. RADD can help you move from fragmented reporting and spreadsheets to a concise, examiner-ready set of KPIs, KRIs, and dashboards for 2026.

We start by reviewing your current management and Board reports, normalizing what you already track, and identifying what is missing or low-value. From there, we help define a practical core set of Compliance and BSA/AML KPIs/KRIs tied directly to your risk assessments and CMS, and document them in a simple metrics dictionary with clear formulas, data sources, and owners.

RADD can then design management and Board-level dashboards that tell a clear story: where risk is moving, where controls are under pressure, and what leadership is doing about it. We also help you embed these metrics into existing governance (Compliance Committee, BSA/AML Committee, Audit/Risk Committee) and put basic data quality checks and ownership around them so the numbers are reliable when regulators, partner banks, or the Board start asking detailed questions.

Conclusion

Strong Compliance & BSA/AML programs are no longer judged only by policies and procedures; they are judged by the quality of the metrics and reporting that surround them. In 2026, your KPIs and KRIs should give a clear view of how your controls are performing, where risk is building, and whether your resources and governance are keeping pace. When you align metrics with your risk assessment and CMS, focus on a core set of indicators, and present them in clean, repeatable dashboards for management and the Board, you move from “numbers for their own sake” to a set of tools that actually support decisions, resourcing, and remediation.

If your current reporting feels noisy, reactive, or hard to defend to regulators and partner banks, now is the time to tighten it up.

Click here to schedule a discovery call with RADD. Let’s review your existing Compliance and BSA/AML reporting, define the KPIs and KRIs that matter most for your 2026 risk profile, and build dashboards that give senior management and the Board a clear, documented view of your risk.