Data Accuracy Benchmarks: SICCODE vs Generic Providers

Data Accuracy Benchmarks: SICCODE.com vs Generic Providers | SICCODE.com

SICCODE.com vs Generic Providers

Updated: 2025 · Reviewed By: SICCODE.com Industry Classification Review Team (regulatory, economic, and data governance specialists) · Editorial Neutrality Standards · Governance Standards

This page documents the evidence behind SICCODE.com’s verified SIC & NAICS accuracy, cohort stability, and auditability—showing how governed, human-verified classification outperforms typical unverified directory, scraped-code, and low-cost API feeds across analytics, AI modeling, market intelligence, and compliance workflows.
Quick Facts
96.8% verified accuracy Validated benchmark (2015–2025) using expert review and challenge testing.
20M+ U.S. establishments Coverage designed for enterprise analytics, compliance, and targeting.
Cohort stability Versioned rollups reduce drift and preserve longitudinal comparability.
Auditability Rationale metadata + change logs support reproducible analysis.
On this page

Verified SIC and NAICS classifications are foundational for analytics, AI modeling, market intelligence, and regulatory compliance. This page presents the evidence behind SICCODE.com’s superior accuracy, stability, and auditability—showing how verified classification outperforms generic, unverified data sources in decision-critical environments.

Why Accuracy Matters for Analytics, AI & Compliance

Inaccurate industry classification creates downstream errors in market analysis, segmentation, forecasting, AML/KYC modeling, and regulatory reporting. Organizations relying on self-reported or keyword-derived codes often experience noisy cohorts, misaligned peer groups, unstable dashboards, and increased compliance risk.

Financial impact: Misclassification reduces targeting precision (missed segments, wasted impressions, inefficient territory planning) and can skew market sizing and performance KPIs because one incorrect label propagates into cohorts, rollups, and models.

Two Practical Risk Models (Plug In Your Numbers)
Marketing waste model Estimate wasted spend caused by misclassified targeting.
Wasted Spend ≈ Total Spend × Misclassification Rate × (1 − Match Quality)
Compliance review load model Estimate extra reviews created by misclassified entities.
Extra Reviews ≈ Total Onboardings × Misclassification Rate

Compliance & risk: In regulated workflows, incorrect SIC/NAICS can affect KYC/AML onboarding, OFAC/sanctions screening, ESG rollups, and sector-based reporting where internal audit teams expect documented rationale and stable, reproducible assignments.

Verified codes reduce these risks by providing stable, evidence-backed, regulator-ready industry labels. Learn how verified classification works in Our Verification Methodology.

Back to top

SICCODE.com vs Generic Providers

Generic Process (Typical)
  • Scraping or directory category ingestion
  • Keyword match → coarse mapping
  • Low confidence output (often opaque)
  • Unversioned updates → drift over time
SICCODE.com Process (Verified)
  • Multiple data sources + normalization
  • ML-assisted candidate ranking
  • Human review/verification of edge cases
  • Rationale metadata + versioned releases
  • SICCODE.com: Dual-source validation, ML-assisted predictions, human-reviewed assignments, rationale metadata, lineage logs, and version-controlled updates.
  • Generic Providers: Self-reported or scraped keywords, inconsistent rollups, limited review, and no visibility into how or when a code was assigned.

Definition: “Generic providers” refers to typical directory-based datasets, scraped-code feeds, and low-cost API sources that often conflate directory categories with official SIC/NAICS standards and do not provide governed verification, rationale metadata, or versioned change logs.

Back to top

Data Quality Benchmark Table

Metric SICCODE.com Generic Provider (Average) Key Advantage
Accuracy rate (validated) 96.8% (verified) 1 Varies; often estimated in unverified datasets Reduces false positives/negatives in targeting, risk tiering, and cohort analysis
Cohort stability (time-series drift) Low (versioned rollups + deltas) 2 Medium–High (untracked changes) Maintains longitudinal integrity for forecasting and ML training sets
Auditability Rationale metadata + change logs 3 Minimal/none Supports internal/external audits and reproducible analytics
Classification sources Multi-source (official + proprietary signals) 4 Often 1–2 (directory/site content) Improves completeness and confidence for complex businesses
Update cadence Rolling updates with deltas Irregular; no delta reporting Reduces drift and explains changes over time

Metric notes: [1] Accuracy definition · [2] Drift/stability definition · [3] Auditability definition · [4] Sources definition

“Generic” = typical scraped or directory-based providers without formal verification. Where generic accuracy is referenced, it is commonly an estimate because many providers do not publish validation methodology, audit trails, or challenge-testing results.

Back to top

SICCODE.com Benchmarks & Impact

  • 250,000+ organizations supported
  • 300,000+ analytics and marketing implementations analyzed
  • Full U.S. coverage with extended 6-digit depth and adjacency intelligence
Illustrative Impact Examples
  • Credit risk: If 1-in-5 entities are misclassified in an unverified dataset, risk tiering and peer-group comparisons can be materially distorted—leading to incorrect policy or underwriting assumptions.
  • AI/ML: High cohort stability helps prevent training-set drift, improving reproducibility and reducing unexpected performance degradation over time.

Benchmarks reflect validated performance across workflows from 2015–2025. See comparative analysis at Data Accuracy Benchmarks.

Back to top

How Our Benchmarking Methodology Works

Comparison Process (Methodology Diagram)
1) Establish ground truth Apply governed SIC/NAICS definitions and reviewed evidence to define the correct primary activity for sampled entities.
2) Run challenge testing Compare SICCODE.com assignments versus generic outputs (when available) using consistent mapping and evaluation rules.
3) Measure outcomes Compute accuracy, drift/stability, auditability coverage, and change-control transparency for reproducible analytics.

Benchmarking uses multi-industry sampling and challenge testing. Sample composition and size can vary by audit cycle; what remains consistent is the use of governed SIC/NAICS definitions, normalized evidence, and expert adjudication of ambiguous cases.

Metric Definitions (How to Interpret This Page)
  • [1] Accuracy: agreement of primary industry assignment with a reviewed “ground truth” set defined by governed SIC/NAICS rules and expert adjudication.
  • [2] Drift/Stability: the degree to which cohort membership changes over time due to non-versioned updates or inconsistent rollups; low drift supports longitudinal analysis.
  • [3] Auditability: availability of rationale metadata, timestamps/versioning, and change logs to reproduce and explain assignments.
  • [4] Sources: breadth of evidence inputs (official definitions plus normalized business activity signals) used to support correct primary activity determination.
  1. Regulatory-driven definitions: Official SIC/NAICS rules encoded as structured eligibility logic. Details at Our Verification Methodology.
  2. Feature extraction: Text, entity, network, and geospatial features harvested from normalized sources.
  3. ML + human review: Models propose candidates; senior analysts adjudicate edge cases. Meet the team at About Our Data Team.
  4. Versioning & auditability: Each assignment contains timestamped rationale, reviewer metadata, and delta logs. Framework explained in Governance Standards.

Back to top

Common Issues in Generic Databases

  • Keyword over-reliance: Content and marketing language mapped to industries that don’t reflect the primary business activity.
  • Primary-activity confusion: Secondary products/services override true principal activity.
  • HQ/branch duplication: Duplicate entities inflate counts and distort targeting and risk models.
  • Unstable rollups: Non-versioned updates break time-series continuity.
  • SIC/NAICS misalignment: Confusing frameworks or using outdated versions can distort reporting.

Back to top

Benefits by Use Case

Compliance & Risk Teams
  • Audit-ready evidence and reproducible change control
  • Improved sector-based screening, monitoring, and reporting workflows
  • Reduced false positives/negatives from misclassified entities
Marketing & Sales Teams
  • Precise targeting and cleaner segment definitions
  • More stable cohorts for lift measurement and attribution
  • Reduced spend waste from incorrect industry inclusion
Finance, Credit & Analytics Teams
  • Cleaner peer groups and more reliable market sizing
  • Lower drift improves forecasting and time-series comparability
  • Higher signal quality for AI modeling and feature engineering
AI/ML & Data Science Teams
  • Reduced training-set drift and better reproducibility
  • Explainability via rationale metadata and governed rollups
  • Improved model stability across refresh cycles

Explore additional use cases in Marketing ROI Improvements.

Back to top

What Sets SICCODE Apart

  • Human-verified classification: Expert review for ambiguous or high-impact cases
  • Governed verification framework: Documented rules, evidence handling, and change control
  • Rationale metadata: The “why” behind the code—supporting auditability and explainability
  • Versioned releases: Stable rollups and delta-aware updates for reproducible analytics
  • Enterprise-ready structure: Clean identifiers and normalization for BI/CRM integration

Back to top

About SICCODE.com

SICCODE.com is the Center for NAICS & SIC Codes. Our U.S.-based classification and data governance teams support enterprises, regulators, and analytics platforms with verified data, documented lineage, and structured accuracy frameworks designed for high-value decision-making.

Back to top

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “96.8% verified accuracy” mean?
It means SICCODE.com’s primary industry assignments met the validated benchmark in multi-industry sampling and challenge testing with expert review across 2015–2025.

How do you validate classification accuracy?
Validation uses governed SIC/NAICS definitions, normalized evidence collection, ML-assisted candidate ranking, and human adjudication of ambiguous cases. See Our Verification Methodology.

Is this just web scraping?
No. Generic datasets often rely on scraped text or directory categories. SICCODE.com uses governed SIC/NAICS definitions, multi-source normalized evidence, ML-assisted candidate ranking, and expert review for ambiguous cases—plus rationale metadata and versioned change logs.

How do you ensure data doesn’t drift over time?
We publish governed rollups and manage updates using versioning and delta-aware release practices. This preserves longitudinal comparability and makes changes explicit for reproducible analytics and compliance workflows.

Do you provide both SIC and NAICS?
Yes. SICCODE.com supports SIC and NAICS classifications and enterprise workflows that require mapping, version awareness, and governed rollups.

What is “rationale metadata”?
Rationale metadata is the documented “why” behind a code assignment—supporting explainability, audit readiness, and consistent application of standards.

How often is the data updated?
SICCODE.com uses rolling update cycles with delta-aware refresh practices to reduce drift while preserving longitudinal comparability.

Back to top

Related pages: About Our Business Data · How It Works · Why SICCODE · Data Verification Policy