Data Protection
BigID
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by BigID, Inc. · bigid.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
BigID at a glance
- Vendor
- BigID, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates BigID 1/5, the mean of 6 judges. BigID, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
BigID, Inc. was judged on captured developer documentation, and the scores follow that shape. Integrations and automation is the standout at 7-8: the vendor states any action performable in the UI can also be done programmatically, publishes tutorials for managing data sources, scan profiles and access requests, documents streaming analysis from Kafka and Kinesis, and offers a connector framework writable in any HTTP language with Swagger files and external vault support. Rights and incidents scores 4-5 on asynchronous, petabyte-scale access-request execution, request validation and verification, embeddable self-service and consumer-ready reports. Everything else sits low: privacy management at a flat 1, framework coverage 0-1, pricing transparency 0-1 (no prices on the captured pages), and sovereignty 0-1 — the single 1 reflecting connectors shippable as Docker images runnable in an organization's own clusters while the platform presents as multi-tenant SaaS. The widest spread is audit readiness at 1-3, where judges weighed documented report exports against no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles or evidence packs.
Speaks for it
- Vendor-stated API parity — any action performable in the UI can also be done programmatically — backed by tutorials for data sources, scan profiles, access requests and metadata export
- Asynchronous access-request scans documented at petabyte scale, with request validation and verification through the privacy portal API
- Connectors writable in any HTTP language, distributed as Docker images, with Swagger files, pagination control and external credential-vault support
- Self-service access requests embeddable into an account portal, with short, personal-info and full reports across JSON, CSV and PDF
- Streaming data analysis documented for Kafka and Kinesis, plus export of classification and object metadata to external tools
Held against it
- No public information on records of processing, impact assessments, processor management or technical and organizational measures
- No public information on statutory deadline clocks, breach registers or 72-hour authority notification, leaving the incident half of rights handling undocumented
- No public information on which privacy regimes are operationalized, beyond consent records and purposes of processing inside access-request reports
- No sovereignty attributes on record, with no public information on hosting location, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list
- No public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles or authority-ready evidence packs, with audit readiness spread 1-3
Best for
- You need to automate data-subject access requests across petabyte-scale estates and embed self-service into your own account portal
- Your engineering team can script its own integrations and wants an API-first platform with tutorials and a build-your-own connector framework
- You already run discovery and classification and want streaming analysis of Kafka and Kinesis with classification and object metadata exported to external tools
Avoid if
- You need breach and incident handling — a breach register, the 72-hour clock, statutory deadline tracking — in the same tool; the captured pages evidence the access half only
- Your privacy program has no engineering support; the automation documented is developer-first and leans on what IT can script
- You must show an authority the state of your documentation on a given date; the reports documented are subject-facing outputs and audit readiness scored 1-3
- You need the platform itself inside your own environment or under a stated jurisdiction; it presents as multi-tenant SaaS, with 'no sovereignty attributes on record'
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Records & DPIA depth | 0.5 of 5 |
| Data subject rights & incidents | 2 of 5 |
| Privacy regime coverage | 0.5 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 1 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
Records & DPIA depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The DSMS core: records of processing (RoPA/VVT), data protection impact assessments, processor/DPA management and TOMs — how deeply the legal artifacts are modeled and connected.
0 — Document templates in a folder tree; the "register" is a Word file with version numbers in the filename.
3 — A structured RoPA with basic fields and a DPIA questionnaire, but processors, TOMs and legal bases live outside the system.
5 — RoPA and DPIA as linked modules with templates; processor management and TOM assignment exist but are shallow, and group reuse is copy-paste.
8 — A connected data model — processing activities linked to systems, processors, TOMs and legal bases — with DPIA triggers derived from the record, reusable group templates, and outputs a supervisory authority accepts.
10 — Privacy records as a system of record: the RoPA drives DPIAs, processor management and TOM coverage from one data model, multi-client/mandate capability included, and the documentation is audit-ready without manual assembly.
The External DPO
For a practice built on a RoPA that drives everything else, I found no public information on records of processing, DPIA workflows, processor management or TOMs — the only register-like traces are consent records and purposes of processing surfacing inside access-request reports. That is discovery output, not a legal-records model I could put in front of a supervisory authority, and multi-client or mandate handling is invisible. 1
The In-House Counsel
The captured pages are developer documentation for subject requests and connectors; we found no public information on records of processing, impact assessments, processor agreement management, or technical and organizational measures being modeled as linked modules. The only adjacent signal is that the subject-access report can carry consent records and purposes of processing, which is report output rather than a maintained register. 1 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
The captured pages document data discovery and DSAR profiles — which data sources to search for a person's data — but I found no public information on records of processing, DPIA questionnaires, processor and DPA management, or TOMs. The closest thing is a DSAR report that includes purposes of processing and consent records, which is an output rather than a register I maintain, so my core legal paperwork would live outside this system. 1
The Lead Auditor
The captured pages are developer documentation for subject-request automation, and we found no public information on records of processing, impact assessment handling, processor agreements or technical and organizational measures. The only structured artifact evidenced is the request profile that defines which sources to search for a person, which is fulfillment tooling rather than the legal register a supervisory authority asks to see. 1 2
The IT Integrator
The captured developer pages say nothing about records of processing, DPIAs, processor management or TOMs; the only trace of legal artifacts is that data subject reports include consent records and purposes of processing. I found no public information on how the legal register side of a DSMS is modeled — from my seat that matters less than the plumbing, but here the plumbing is all that's on show. 1
The Skeptic
The only artifacts resembling legal records are 'consent records' and 'purposes of processing' listed as contents of a consumer-facing PDF report — a report field, not a data model. We found no public information on a records-of-processing register, DPIA tooling, processor management, or technical and organizational measures. 1
Data subject rights & incidents
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The operational half of the DSMS: data subject request handling with statutory clocks, breach register and authority notification, deletion concepts that actually delete.
0 — Requests arrive by email and live there; breaches are a phone call and a memo.
3 — A request log and a breach list exist, but deadlines are manual, intake is unstructured, and deletion rules are documentation rather than workflow.
5 — DSR workflows with the Art. 12 clock tracked, structured breach register with the 72-hour clock, deletion concepts assignable to records; automation is reminders.
8 — Intake channels for requests (portal/form), identity-check support, deadline automation with escalation, breach severity assessment and authority-report output, deletion rules tied to the RoPA with execution tracking.
10 — Rights and incidents as operations: end-to-end request handling an authority audit walks through, breach workflows that produce the Art. 33 notification, and deletion automation with evidence that the deletion happened.
The External DPO
The access-request half is real automation: profile-driven searches across petabyte estates run asynchronously, request validation and filtering through the privacy portal APIs, self-service embedding in client portals, and consumer-ready PDF reports. We found no public information on statutory deadline clocks, breach registers, seventy-two-hour authority notification or deletion execution — and incidents are half the mandate. 1 2
The In-House Counsel
The right of access is real here — profiles define the sources to search, requests can be validated and verified, consumer-ready PDF reports come back, and self-service can be embedded in an account portal at petabyte scale. But the compliance spine I would have to defend is undocumented: we found no public information on a statutory deadline clock with escalation, a breach register, authority notification output, or deletion execution tracking. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
The request side is genuinely operational: API-driven DSAR execution at petabyte scale, request validation and verification, self-service embedding into an account portal, and consumer-facing reports including consent records and purposes of processing. I found no public information on statutory deadline clocks or escalation, breach registers, or 72-hour authority notification — the incident half of this work is invisible in the captured pages, which caps an otherwise strong request workflow. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
Request execution is genuinely operational: APIs find the individual across petabyte-scale sources asynchronously and produce short, full and consumer PDF reports including consent records and purposes of processing, with a portal API for retrieving, validating and verifying requests and self-service embedding. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking, escalation, a breach register with the 72-hour clock, or deletion execution evidence — the pages evidence the access half only. 1 2
The IT Integrator
Rights execution is genuinely automated: profiles drive asynchronous scans at petabyte scale, requests can be validated and verified through the privacy portal API, and short, personal-info and full reports drop out with self-service embeddable into an account portal. But I found no public information on statutory deadline clocks with escalation, a breach register with 72-hour authority notification, or deletion execution tied to records — the incident half of this criterion is absent from the captured pages. 1 2
The Skeptic
The request half is genuinely operational: asynchronous DSAR scans across petabytes of data, self-service embedding into an account portal, request validation and verification, attribute identifiability scoring, and consumer-ready report formats across three types. We found no public information on statutory deadline tracking or escalation, and we found no public information on a breach register, the 72-hour clock, authority notification, or deletion concepts — the entire incident half is undocumented in the captured pages. 1 2 3
Privacy regime coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which privacy regimes the product actually operationalizes — GDPR, BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy, EU AI Act privacy duties — and whether one record maps across them or each regime is a fresh island.
0 — One regime, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".
3 — GDPR plus one national law as separate checklists; the same processing activity is documented once per regime.
5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer duties (AI Act, ePrivacy changes) present as content packs of varying depth.
8 — Broad current coverage with one-record-many-regimes mapping and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.
10 — Regime coverage as a living product: multiple privacy regimes on one data basis, per-country variants, and documented update cadence when the law moves.
The External DPO
We found no public information on which privacy regimes are operationalized — GDPR variants, Swiss nDSG, ePrivacy or AI Act duties — nor any one-record-many-regimes mapping; the only regime-flavored artifacts are consent records and processing purposes inside an access-request report format. For cross-border mandates that is an unknown I cannot price. 1
The In-House Counsel
Everything captured speaks the vocabulary of data subject requests, which hints at GDPR-style duties, but we found no public information on which privacy regimes the product operationalizes or whether one record maps across GDPR, national variants, UK rules, or AI Act duties. I cannot credit regime coverage the pages never describe. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
The only regime vocabulary that appears anywhere is GDPR-adjacent — DSARs, consent records, purposes of processing — with no evidence of BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act duties, and no sign of one record mapping across regimes. I found no public information on which privacy regimes the product operationalizes. 1
The Lead Auditor
The only regime signal in the captured material is GDPR-flavored output — purposes of processing and consent records in the subject report — with no visible mapping across regimes or per-country variants. We found no public information on which privacy regimes the product operationalizes beyond that, or on any update cadence when the law moves. 1
The IT Integrator
The captured material references data subject rights, consent records and purposes of processing, but never names which privacy regimes are operationalized, and no cross-regime mapping or country-variant content appears. I found no public information on regime coverage beyond these GDPR-adjacent concepts. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on which privacy regimes the product operationalizes — the captured developer documentation shows no GDPR, BDSG, nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy or AI Act mapping, and no cross-regime record model. The nearest signal is consent records and purposes of processing inside a DSAR report, which is one GDPR-flavored report field rather than regime coverage as a product. 1
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.
3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.
5 — Versioned records, standard report generators for the core registers, evidence attachments per activity; assembling a full audit file still takes days.
8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management and authority reports current at a click, auditor access roles.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous documentation status per regime and scope, exportable proof packs an auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".
The External DPO
Structured report generators are documented for access requests — short, personal-info and full reports in JSON, CSV or PDF, the full report carrying source lineage an auditor could at least follow. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or an answer to "show me the state on date X". 1
The In-House Counsel
Reports in JSON, CSV and PDF plus APIs to export classification and object metadata give a reporting layer, but we found no public information on revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, or auditor access roles. For an authority asking to see the state of documentation on a given date, nothing captured answers that question. 1 2
The Drafted Generalist
Reports in PDF, CSV and JSON plus an export of classification metadata to external tools mean paper can come out, roughly the level of standard report generators. I found no public information on versioned records, revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or answering "show me the state on this date" — I would still be assembling the audit file by hand. 1 2
The Lead Auditor
The exports evidenced are subject-facing reports in PDF, CSV and JSON plus a metadata export of classifications to external tools — none of these constitute an auditor's evidence pack. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or the ability to reconstruct the documented state on a given date, which is the first question I put to any system of record. 1 2
The IT Integrator
The reporting evidenced is data-subject-facing — short, personal-info and full reports — plus an API path to export classification and object metadata to external tools. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or evidence packs an authority would accept as-is. 1 2
The Skeptic
The platform exports classification and object metadata programmatically, and a 'full report' includes internal information such as data sources and column names — a start on evidence, but these are outputs, not trails. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, audit-scoped evidence packs, or authority-ready reports. 1 2
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, ticketing, API — and automates the recurring privacy work instead of re-typing it.
0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.
3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.
5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.
8 — Real connector set (ticketing, HR or asset sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, workflow automation with delegation and escalation, useful AI assistance with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, bidirectional sync with the estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil (reviews, attestations, evidence pulls) rather than renaming it.
The External DPO
This is where the billable hours get saved: a developer portal with automation tutorials, a stated claim of full API parity with the UI, programmatic DSAR and data-source management, streaming analysis of Kafka and Kinesis, an MCP server, and a connector framework where any HTTP service becomes a source, with Swagger files and vault-backed credentials. We found no public information on SSO/SCIM, webhooks, or workflow automation with delegation and escalation, which is what separates strong from infrastructure-grade here. 2 3
The In-House Counsel
This is the strongest area by far: a documented developer portal, tutorials automating data-source management, scans and subject requests, a stated commitment that anything the interface can do the API can do, streaming analysis of Kafka and Kinesis, and a connector framework distributed as Docker images with external vault support and Swagger files. The gaps are operational plumbing I would still need — we found no public information on single sign-on or SCIM provisioning, native ticketing connectors, webhooks, or delegation and escalation workflows. 1 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
Strongest area by far: a developer portal with tutorials for executing DSARs and managing scan profiles via API, a stated claim that any action in the UI can be done programmatically, streaming analysis of Kafka and Kinesis, and a custom connector framework in any programming language with Docker distribution, swaggerfiles, credential vaults and pagination control. I found no public information on webhooks, SSO/SCIM, or ticketing and HR connectors, so the automation leans on what IT can script rather than guided workflows I can run myself. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
This is the one area with real depth: the developer portal documents UI-to-API parity, tutorials automating scans, data sources, subject requests, metadata export and duplicate detection, streaming analysis from Kafka and Kinesis, a six-endpoint custom connector contract with Swagger files, Docker-distributed scanners, credential vault integration and an MCP server. We found no public information on live ticketing or HR connections, single sign-on with SCIM, webhooks, or workflow delegation with escalation, which is what separates a strong API from a connected workflow layer. 1 2 3
The IT Integrator
This is the strongest ground: a documented REST API with a published claim that any UI action can be done programmatically, step-by-step tutorials for managing data sources, scan profiles and DSARs, streaming ingestion from Kafka and Kinesis, and a connector SDK in any HTTP language with Swagger files, pagination and external vault support — automation that actually removes re-typing rather than renaming it. What stops it short of infrastructure-grade is the estate sync I feed from: I found no public information on directory import from AD or Entra, SSO or SCIM, webhooks, or native ticketing and HR connectors on these pages. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
This is where the substance lives: a developer portal with tutorials, the vendor's own claim that 'Any action that can be performed in our UI can also be done programmatically', a documented six-endpoint connector contract with swagger files for custom connectors in any language, credential vault integration, Docker-distributed scanners, and streaming ingestion from Kafka and Kinesis. A mention of a cloud MCP server comes with no detail on what it actually does, and we found no public information on SSO/SCIM, webhooks, or named ticketing and HR connectors. 2 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the compliance record of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. A platform that maps your processing is itself your most concentrated processing.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your RoPA.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The External DPO
The platform that would map thirty clients' processing is itself my most concentrated processing, and we found no public information on vendor jurisdiction, hosting region or named data centers, DPA, TOMs or a subprocessor list. Nothing in the captured pages lets me verify where the compliance record would live or under whose law. 1 2 3
The In-House Counsel
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on where the platform is hosted, on a published data processing agreement, or on the subprocessor list — for a system that would itself hold the map of my company's processing. The only faint signal is that connectors ship as Docker images runnable inside the organization's own clusters, while the platform itself presents as multi-tenant SaaS. 2 3
The Drafted Generalist
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and across the captured pages I found no public information on the vendor's jurisdiction, hosting location, data centers, a DPA, or a subprocessor list. For the system that would hold the compliance record of my whole company, that silence means I cannot see whose law it sits under. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
The captured material is entirely developer documentation, and we found no public information on the vendor's legal entity, hosting locations, data processing agreement or subprocessor list. For a platform that would itself hold the company's most concentrated processing record, nothing here lets a buyer assess jurisdictional exposure at all. 2
The IT Integrator
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and the captured developer pages contain nothing on hosting location, data centers, a DPA or subprocessors. For a platform that would hold the company's compliance record, I found no public information on where that record lives or under whose law. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
We found no public information on the vendor's entity jurisdiction for hosting purposes, hosting location or named data centers, a DPA, or a subprocessor list — for a platform whose job is scanning an organization's entire data estate, that silence about its own chain is the finding. The captured developer pages simply never address it. 1 2 3
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.
0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, entity counts or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.
5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a 10-client consultancy is a two-minute exercise.
The External DPO
No prices appear on any captured page, and we found no public information on editions, modules, per-client scale steps, setup fees or how consulting is unbundled. Without a single public number, the invoice for a ten-client consultancy is not computable from public material. 1 2 3
The In-House Counsel
The captured pages carry no price figures at all; we found no public information on edition pricing, module boundaries, user or entity scale steps, setup fees, or how consulting is packaged. A buyer cannot begin to compute an invoice from anything captured here. 2
The Drafted Generalist
The captured pages carry no pricing information, and I found no public prices for editions, modules, user or entity boundaries, or services — the real invoice is not computable from what is shown. That is the norm in this market rather than a verdict, but a buyer still cannot budget from the captured pages. 2
The Lead Auditor
We found no public information on edition prices, module costs, billing periods, or how consulting is packaged; the captured developer pages carry no pricing whatsoever. A buyer cannot compute any part of the invoice from this material, so every configuration is a sales conversation. 2
The IT Integrator
The captured pages carry no price figures at all — no editions, modules, billing periods or service packages. I found no public information on pricing, so a buyer cannot compute anything close to the real invoice from this material. 1 2 3
Questions about BigID
Is BigID European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where BigID is based.
Where does BigID store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does BigID have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to BigID?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | datenschutz (4/5), Dastra (3/5) and caralegal (3/5) highest among the other 41 Data Protection products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is preeco | datenschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: BigID alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (developer.bigid.com/api/bigid-api-dsar-tutorial, developer.bigid.com/api/bigid-api, developer.bigid.com/connectors/writing-a-rest-connector). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (developer.bigid.com/api/bigid-api-dsar-tutorial, developer.bigid.com/api/bigid-api, developer.bigid.com/connectors/writing-a-rest-connector). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 2 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Data subject rights & incidents — found from sitemap developer.bigid.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap developer.bigid.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap developer.bigid.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →