The Convergence Dividend: What Happens When Fraud and Cyber Stop Working in Silos

Across the Accertify client base, we kept seeing fraud and cyber teams increasingly joining forces, whether working under the same organizational umbrella, or just collaborating more often. That raised an interesting question for us. Does fraud performance change as a result of this convergence?

Historically, Fraud and Cyber teams have operated in silos, reporting up different chains and working from different data sets and platforms. But we all know that attackers don’t respect org charts. A bot-driven credential stuffing attack doesn’t stop being a “cyber problem” the moment it turns into a fraudulent transaction. The two disciplines are already looking at the same threats through different windows. In theory, teams that tear down that wall should see more of the full picture and pinpoint more of what the other side would have missed alone. We had a name for it: Better Together. What we didn’t have was proof.

So we set out to get some. Accertify partnered with Liminal to survey 250 senior fraud, security, and risk decision-makers at 250 different organizations across five industries, to find out whether “Better Together” holds up against real operating data, not just intuition.

It turns out that fraud and cyber really are better together. Organizations where fraud and cybersecurity have converged show meaningfully greater fraud precision than organizations where the two still operate separately. We measured precision using a “Precise Yes” score that compares how much organizations approve against how much they lose to fraud. It’s a way of quantifying not just how often an organization says yes to a transaction, but how precisely.

Here’s the number: converged organizations approved $1,084 more for every $1 lost to fraud chargebacks than organizations where fraud and cyber remain siloed. That’s not a rounding difference. It’s the difference between incremental improvement and a fundamentally different level of precision.

What were the highest-performing organizations actually doing differently? Four operating patterns showed up consistently among the most converged organizations: fraud and cyber teams sharing data across a common pipeline, sharing accountability for two or more threat types instead of splitting them by department, fraud risk appearing as a regular topic at the Board level, and the two functions ultimately reporting into a single organizational structure.

But surprisingly, there was an optimal way and a suboptimal way to convergence. Done in the wrong order, organizations can perform worse than fully siloed organizations. The sequence matters. So which step should come first? Which combinations create outsized lift? See the full findings on fraud-cyber convergence performance. 

The Convergence Dividend: Quantifying What Fraud-Cyber Convergence Actually Delivers, our joint research with Liminal, breaks down the full maturity framework: four stages of convergence, the common in-between stage many organizations get stuck in, and the sequencing that separates the elite from the rest.

Download the full report →

Want to know exactly where your organization stands along the convergence maturity framework? Contact Accertify for an executive briefing.

Source: The Convergence Dividend: Quantifying What Fraud-Cyber Convergence Actually Delivers, Accertify + Liminal, 2026. n=250.