ActiveCampaign (Automation) vs Evalanche

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

The visual builder with split and branching paths, goals with per-funnel drop-off visibility, and entry points from form submissions, field states, segment changes, deal-stage changes and external apps like Typeform and Calendly are all documented, with email and automation split testing on the higher tiers. We found no public information on frequency capping or suppression across journeys, on priority when a contact qualifies for several at once, or on versioning of a live journey — the collision handling that decides whether orchestration survives contact with reality.

Evalanche

"Automatisiere Kampagnen und Customer Journeys regelbasiert und datengetrieben" plus a named Campaign Designer gets me to simple condition-based automation, but the evidence says nothing about waits, branching, per-contact journey state, or what happens when journeys collide — I cannot place a contact in a journey from this evidence. That is anchor-3 territory at best.

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

Points are awarded or deducted on attributes and behaviour, separate scoring models exist per line of business, product- and topic-specific scores are documented, and real-time scoring feeds milestones that route leads to reps and auto-create CRM deals. My reservation is the AI layer: win probability and predictive insights are described with no per-record signal visibility, no score history and no documentation of how the models decide — nothing I could use to assess them as automated decision-making — and we found no public information on score decay or follow-up service levels.

Evalanche

Scoring & Profiling is claimed, with lifecycle qualification and structured handover to sales, but there is no decay, no score history per contact, no routing rules, and nothing documenting how scores are computed. For my purposes the decisive gap: "Scoring & Profiling" appears twice as a feature name with zero documentation a DPO could use for an Art. 22 assessment — so it sits between the bare additive score and the configurable-scoring anchor.

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

Email, SMS, WhatsApp, forms, landing pages, site messages and ad audiences on Google, Facebook and LinkedIn are documented around one contact record, with behavioural segmentation and AI personalisation drawing on the same data. SMS broadcast is limited to the US, UK and Australia with MMS in the US and AU only, push arrives only via integration, and we found no public information on a shared suppression list or cross-channel frequency capping — the points where one consent state across channels would show itself.

Evalanche

Confirmed: email with hyperpersonalised newsletters and a LeadPage designer, dressed up as "Crossmedia- & Multichannel-Kommunikation" without a single second named channel. No SMS, no push, no ad audiences, no on-site personalisation, and nothing on shared suppression or unsubscribe handling across channels — I will not credit a marketing adjective as a channel.

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

Double opt-in is real at the API level — a form-attributed write inherits the form's double opt-in and stays unconfirmed until the contact confirms, with the subscribe date and IPv4 origin recorded — and consent-ready opt-in forms and SMS opt-in management are documented. Against that, site tracking is recommended to every account, anonymous visits are attached to a named person the moment they register on a form, and the privacy policy states it does not apply where the company processes information as a processor on behalf of clients, so the published rights to access, erase and object cover the vendor's own marketing rather than a customer's contact data. We found no public information on switching tracking off for one person, suppressing profiling per person, deleting derived scores alongside raw events, or any documentation of the automated decisions that would support an Art. 22 assessment.

Evalanche

The entire consent story is "Rechtskonformes Adressmanagement" plus a GDPR/ISO badge — no double opt-in, no stored consent record with source, no per-contact tracking switch, no retention for inactive records, no profiling suppression, no documented erasure that reaches derived scores. Worse, the vendor's own policy requires newsletter signup as consideration for test access and ebook downloads, which tells me consent is treated as a tradeable good rather than evidence to be reproduced per person.

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

The contact sync endpoint is documented in real depth — lookup by id, WhatsApp id, email, then phone with duplicate rejection, permission-dependent writes, form attribution inheriting double opt-in, and a source label that lets an integration recognise its own updates — alongside account-contact objects, Salesforce field sync, real-time score sync to CRMs and Deep Data ecommerce joins. Anonymous site activity is resolved to a named contact on form registration; we found no public information on field-level conflict resolution between systems, replay of failed syncs, or custom objects.

Evalanche

"Schnittstellen zu CRM & Co." and a CRM-centric lead flow that keeps existing core systems is the whole story: no named CRM, no sync direction, no field mapping, no deduplication, no conflict rules, and the only API mentioned is a statistics export. The join that decides the implementation is undocumented, and where identity resolution stands is unknown — above CSV-only, below the one-way-sync anchor.

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

The controller and contracting entity is ActiveCampaign, LLC of Chicago, data residency is not confirmed on the captured pages, transfers are named to the United States, Australia, Ireland, Brazil and Costa Rica, and we found no published subprocessor list — the Nylas connection surfaces only inside the privacy policy, with US Cloud Act exposure noted for it. Standard Contractual Clauses and Data Privacy Framework certification are stated as the transfer basis, with FTC enforcement and JAMS dispute resolution, so for EU residents' behavioural profiles the entire safeguard is a US-based transfer instrument rather than European processing.

Evalanche

German hosting confirmed ("wird vollständig in Deutschland betrieben"), a German contracting entity in the Munich registry, ISO 27001, and an AVV with the hosting provider — the bones of rubric level 5 are there. But no platform subprocessor list is published anywhere in the evidence, the pipeline itself flags residency and subprocessor exposure as unconfirmed, and the vendor's own site runs US transfers under the DPF — so I cannot take the end-to-end claim on faith.

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

All four tiers are public with billing period and feature boundaries unusually explicit — Starter starts at $15 /mo, Plus at $49 /mo, Pro at $79 /mo and Enterprise at $145 /mo, all billed annually, with send limits stated as multiples of the contact limit — and onboarding, migration and coaching are stated as free in every plan. The contact ladder itself is what stays dark: the pages say pricing scales with contact volume without publishing volume prices, the SMS, WhatsApp, transactional email, AI and CRM add-ons are marked available without prices, and we found no public information on overage rates or VAT treatment.

Evalanche

"Transparente Tarife ohne versteckte Kosten" with no price, tier, contact limit or send volume on any captured page — the transparency is asserted, not published. PowerPlan onboarding and Professional Service are offered with no costs stated, so a buyer can compute nothing; the honest claim of transparency without a single number is what saves this from a clean zero.