Free EBA validator

An EBA validator checks a supervisory filing against the validation rules the European Banking Authority publishes with its reporting framework, such as a total that must equal the sum of its parts. Line4 Check is a free EBA validator for xBRL-CSV and XBRL-XML filings that runs in your web browser.

No. Your file never leaves your computer. Your browser downloads the Line4 engine (WebAssembly) and EBA's rules from line4.ai, then opens and checks the file on your own computer. Nothing is uploaded or stored. If you ask for the report by email, only the report you see is sent to Line4, not the file.

Filings for EBA reporting framework 4.2, 41 modules. FINREP: FINREP 9 and FINREP solo data points; COREP: COREP own funds, COREP leverage ratio, COREP liquidity coverage (delegated act), COREP large exposures, COREP net stable funding ratio, COREP additional liquidity monitoring metrics and COREP market risk (FRTB); Other bank returns: Asset encumbrance, Funding plans, Interest rate risk in the banking book, ESG risks, G-SII indicators, Financial conglomerates and Intermediate EU parent undertakings; Resolution: Resolution reporting (RESOL1), Resolution reporting (RESOL2), MREL and TLAC, MREL decisions and Bail-in impracticability notifications; Investment firms: Investment firms (class 2), Investment firms (class 3), Investment firms group capital test and Investment firms threshold monitoring; Remuneration: Remuneration benchmarking (credit institutions), Remuneration benchmarking (investment firms), Remuneration diversity benchmarking, Gender pay gap (credit institutions), Gender pay gap (investment firms), High earners (credit institutions), High earners (investment firms), Approved higher ratios (country level) and Approved higher ratios (institution level); Supervisory benchmarking: Supervisory benchmarking: credit risk, Supervisory benchmarking: IFRS 9, Supervisory benchmarking: market risk and Supervisory benchmarking: initial market valuation; Payments and crypto-assets: Payment fraud (PSD2), MiCA token reporting and MiCA own funds. Each can be an xBRL-CSV report package or an XBRL-XML instance: drop the package .zip (or all the CSV files from its reports folder, including FilingIndicators.csv and parameters.csv), or the .xbrl file (or a .zip holding just that file). Both formats run the same checks. EBA itself accepts only xBRL-CSV for reference dates from March 2026; XBRL-XML is the older format. EBA's Pillar 3 disclosure and instant payment modules have no active checks (EBA has switched them all off), so there is nothing to run there.

Yes. Line4 Check runs all 2,404 of EBA's active NSFR checks, across templates C 80.00 to C 84.00, in your browser, on an xBRL-CSV package or an XBRL-XML instance. By Line4's count every one of them is a warning in EBA's 4.2 package: a failure does not block the return, but your supervisor can ask you to explain it. Try EBA's own NSFR sample from the list above.

Yes, all 4,092 of EBA's active IRRBB checks in reporting framework 4.2, across templates J 01.00 to J 11.02: the worst-case EVE and NII, the breakdowns of sensitivity, repricing cash flows and parameters. None of them blocks a filing in EBA's 4.2 package; all are warnings.

Yes: 2,487 of EBA's 2,581 active resolution, MREL and TLAC checks (96%) across five modules, the RESOL1 and RESOL2 resolution planning reports (templates Z 01.01 to Z 17.00 and Z 07.01.1 to Z 09.04), MREL and TLAC (M 01.00 to M 07.00), MREL decisions and bail-in impracticability notifications. The checks not run yet are mostly checks on text cells of open tables. It runs EBA's rules, not the Single Resolution Board's own data quality checks.

Yes. The ALMM maturity ladder and the other additional liquidity monitoring metrics (C 66.01 to C 71.00): all 11,990 of EBA's active ALMM checks. Asset encumbrance (F 32.01 to F 36.02): all 2,115 of EBA's active asset encumbrance checks. COREP large exposures (C 26.00 to C 29.00): 88 of EBA's 89 active checks.

Yes: all 2,399 of EBA's active PSD2 fraud reporting checks, across templates Y 01.01 to Y 08.01. This is the file a national authority sends the EBA each half-year, adding up the fraud data of its payment service providers under Article 96(6) PSD2 and the EBA Guidelines on fraud reporting (EBA/GL/2018/05). By Line4's count one EBA rule can block it, the one that says no credit transfer total may be negative; the rest are warnings.

Yes. Funding plans (P 01.01 to P 05.00), which the largest banks in each Member State report by 15 March under EBA/GL/2019/05: all 1,384 of EBA's active funding plan checks. By Line4's count all of them are warnings in EBA's 4.2 package.

Yes: 304 of EBA's 312 active benchmarking checks (97%) across the four benchmarking modules of reporting framework 4.2, credit risk (C 101.00 to C 105.03), IFRS 9 (C 111.00 to C 118.00), market risk (C 107.01 to C 120.06) and initial market valuation (C 106.00 to C 106.02).

EBA reporting framework 4.2: the validation rules EBA publishes with the 4.2 taxonomy, with EBA's own severity for each rule (blocking or not) and without the rules EBA's severity package switches off. Earlier and later frameworks, such as 4.0, 4.3 and 4.4, are not covered yet.

125,729 of the 126,450 checks EBA has active in these 41 modules (99%), every one of them in 25 modules; the list above gives each module. EBA writes many rules out once per row or column, and each written-out check counts once; checks EBA has switched off are not counted. The few not run yet are mostly COREP checks that compare one sheet of an open table with another (one exposure class with another, for example), sums over countries or entities whose EBA formula also counts the total itself (FINREP and financial conglomerates), checks on text cells of open tables (mostly resolution reporting), and a handful that compare dates, need exact equality after arithmetic or add up a cell that may be empty. Four FINREP checks are left out on purpose: their EBA formula also takes in cells of other templates, where the reference processor can fail a correct filing.

No. It is a free check to catch problems before you submit. Your competent authority's own validation decides whether a filing is accepted, and it also runs XBRL checks and filing rules that Line4 Check does not run, or runs only in part.

EBA marks every validation rule as blocking or non-blocking. Errors are failed blocking checks, which normally stop a filing being accepted. Warnings are failed non-blocking checks, which your authority may still ask you to explain.

Yes, 15 of them: the ones the open-source reference processor also checks on xBRL-CSV packages. They cover how report.json, parameters.csv and FilingIndicators.csv are written, the decimals for each kind of number, the reference date, the entity, currencies, facts reported twice with different values, nil and empty values, and how each value is written (EBA XBRL Filing Rules 5.9, rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.9, 2.8, 2.10, 2.16, 2.18, 2.19 and 2.23, and 4 of EBA's extra rules for xBRL-CSV). Some are checked in part. Not checked yet: a filing indicator for every template, facts in templates marked as not reported, coded values from the wrong list and the format of key values such as dates. Where EBA's current filing rules and the reference processor differ, Line4 Check follows EBA: amounts may be accurate to ten thousands (decimals -4) for filings submitted since 1 April 2025.

It reads the instance in one pass, in the browser, and matches each fact to EBA's datapoint by its concept and dimensions, exactly as EBA's own xBRL-CSV metadata defines them, so the same checks run on both formats. Filing indicators come from find:fIndicators. It then checks 27 of EBA's filing rules for XBRL-XML (rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.9, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5), the ones the open-source reference processor also reports for EBA: encoding, one schemaRef, filing indicators, contexts (one subject, one reference date, instants only, no segment), duplicate facts, precision, decimals, nil facts, units and currencies, and namespace prefixes, some in part. Facts that are no datapoint of the module are reported, not silently dropped. Duplicated contexts are not flagged: EBA's own samples repeat one, and the reference processor does not report them for EBA. As for xBRL-CSV, amounts may have decimals -4, as EBA's current filing rules allow.

EBA fills its sample filings with dummy values to show the format, not to pass the rules, so thousands of failures on the sample are expected. A real filing usually fails far fewer.

Every blocking error Line4 Check reports on EBA’s sample filings for the first four modules (FINREP 9 and COREP own funds, leverage ratio and liquidity coverage) was checked one by one against the open-source reference processor, with samples of its other results and every one of the 11,386 checks added on 9 November: 14,204 checks, all with the same result. So were 12,372 checks on another EBA package and on edited copies of the samples, with templates left unfiled, cells left out, values set exactly on the rounding boundary and conditions switched on and off. For the 37 modules added on 10 November, every check Line4 Check runs was compared with the same processor on EBA’s own sample for each module (65,880 results) and on 113 edited copies (173,035 results, with sums cleared and broken, values on the rounding boundary, signs flipped, cells left out and templates unfiled): all the same. The filing-rule checks were compared with the same processor on 166 edited packages and broken files: the same verdict and rule codes on 160. The other 6 differ for known reasons: EBA’s current rules allow decimals of -4 for amounts (two files), EBA allows a fact repeated with exactly the same value, an empty last line, and two kinds of value Line4 Check does not check yet. XBRL-XML was tested the same way: EBA’s xBRL-CSV sample of every module, converted to XBRL-XML, gives the same result as the xBRL-CSV package on every one of its checks (127,113 in all); on EBA’s own XBRL-XML sample of every module and on edited copies (filing indicators switched off, nil facts, precision instead of decimals), 80,024 checks were compared with the reference processor, all with the same result. The XBRL-XML filing rules were compared on 99 instances: the same verdict and rule codes on 93. The other 6 differ for known reasons: decimals -4 for amounts (two files), a relative schemaRef the processor cannot open, a one-currency check the processor also applies to the LCR tables EBA asks for in each currency, and two files where it adds messages that follow from the same error. The browser version gives the same result as Line4’s command-line engine, check for check, on 92,947 test runs (264.4 million check results), in both formats, including all 51 of EBA’s official xBRL-CSV sample packages, its XBRL-XML samples and 919 deliberately broken or edited files. It is a prototype, not certified software.

On our test MacBook in Chrome, EBA's FINREP sample (14,148 facts, 20,514 checks) is checked in 10 to 25 milliseconds. The first check also downloads EBA's FINREP rules (595 KB) and prepares them in about 60 milliseconds; after that they are kept for the next file. Firefox takes a few times longer, still well under a second. XBRL-XML takes longer to read: EBA's own FINREP sample as XBRL-XML (13 MB) is read and checked in about a fifth of a second in Chrome (about half a second for the first XBRL-XML file, which also downloads and starts the XML reader), and a 230 MB instance in about 4 seconds, in the background so the page stays responsive; Firefox takes several times as long. Every result shows how long the check took on your own computer.

Yes. There is no account, no upload and no limit on how many filings you check (each package can be up to 300 MB). After a result you can leave your email address to get the report by email, if you want it.