Marketing Automation
ActiveCampaign (Automation)
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ActiveCampaign, LLC · www.activecampaign.com
Compare with Evalanche → Compare with HubSpot Marketing Hub → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
ActiveCampaign scores highest on lead management and channel coverage: separate scoring models per line of business, points added and deducted, real-time scoring that routes high scorers to reps and creates CRM deals, and email plus SMS and WhatsApp add-ons, forms, site messages and ad audiences on Google, Facebook and LinkedIn. It scores lowest on sovereignty and consent and profiling: the contracting entity is ActiveCampaign, LLC of Chicago, the captured pages give no public information on where client data is hosted, and the privacy policy states it does not apply where the vendor processes as a data processor. Journey orchestration sits at a flat 6, capped by no public information on frequency capping, suppression or priority across journeys. The widest split is CRM and data: a 7 credits the documented contact-sync lookup order, a 5 rests on conflict rules, error logs and rate limits being absent from the captured pages. On sovereignty the 3s credit the stated SCC and Data Privacy Framework basis; the 2s weigh unconfirmed residency and no published subprocessor list. Weighted totals range 4.5 to 6.0.
Speaks for it
- Lead management at 6-7: separate scoring models per line of business, points added and deducted, and milestones that route leads to reps and auto-create CRM deals.
- Channel coverage at 6-7: email, SMS and WhatsApp add-ons, forms, landing pages, site messages and ad audiences on Google, Facebook and LinkedIn.
- A contact sync API with a documented lookup order across id, WhatsApp id, email and phone, form attribution that inherits double opt-in, and a source label integrations can recognise.
- Public prices on all four plans — Starter $15, Plus $49, Pro $79, Enterprise $145 per month billed annually — with free onboarding and migration on every plan and a 14-day free trial with no credit card needed.
Held against it
- Sovereignty at 2-3: contracting entity ActiveCampaign, LLC of Chicago, and we found no public information on where client data is hosted or on a published subprocessor list.
- Consent and profiling at 3-4: site tracking is recommended to every account and switched at account level only, while the published privacy policy does not cover the vendor's processor role for client contact data.
- No public information on frequency capping, suppression or priority when a contact qualifies for several journeys — the collision gap that keeps journey orchestration at 6.
- The published prices are starts-at figures without the contact count they cover; the SMS, WhatsApp, transactional email, CRM and AI add-ons are unpriced, and Starter caps automation at five actions per automation.
- No public information on field-level conflict rules, sync error logs, replay of failed syncs or API rate limits, and the Salesforce sync direction is not stated.
Best for
- You need behaviour-based lead scoring with separate models per line of business, automated routing to reps and score-threshold deal creation synced to your CRM in real time.
- You run email-led campaigns and want SMS and WhatsApp as add-ons on one contact record, with audiences on Google, Facebook and LinkedIn.
- You want public tier pricing with free onboarding and migration, and can validate on a 14-day free trial with no credit card needed before committing.
Avoid if
- You are a regulated EU business building behavioural profiles of named residents: the contracting entity is US-based, the safeguards named are transfer instruments (SCCs, the Data Privacy Framework, JAMS), and the pages disclose session replay and categories of identifiers sold to data enrichment providers.
- Your compliance team needs documented retention and per-contact tracking controls for client contact data: the published privacy policy states it does not apply where the vendor processes as a data processor.
- You must be able to explain AI-generated scores to individuals: the win-probability and lead-quality models come with no public documentation of how an individual score was computed.
The scores
Journeys & orchestration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Multi-step automation: triggers, branching, waits, and — the part that decides whether it survives contact with reality — what happens when journeys collide.
0 — Autoresponders on a single trigger; no branching, no waits, no conditions.
3 — Linear sequences with simple conditions, one entry trigger per journey, and no visibility into where a contact currently sits.
5 — A visual builder with branching on attributes and behaviour, waits and goals, entry and exit conditions, and per-contact journey state visible.
8 — Event-driven entry from external systems, frequency capping and suppression across journeys, priority when a contact qualifies for several, versioning of a live journey, and testing against real records.
10 — Orchestration is coherent across the whole programme: one decision layer deciding what a person receives next regardless of which journey wants to send it, holdout groups for measurement, and a journey a colleague can read months later without a diagram.
The Demand Gen Lead
The builder branches on contact actions and behaviours, goals are tracked with drop-off visibility and fallback follow-ups, and entries fire from real events — site and app actions, deal-stage changes, form tools and segment moves. What the captured pages give me nothing on is collision handling: I found no public information on frequency capping, suppression across journeys, priority when a contact qualifies for several, or versioning of a live journey, and that is the part that decides whether a programme survives a quarter. 2 4 5 7
The Sales Ops Manager
A branching builder with conditions pivoting on contact behaviour, goals with fallback to a follow-up campaign or channel switch, and event-driven entry from site and event tracking and over 900 apps is well evidenced. We found no public information on waits and time delays, per-contact journey state, or what happens when journeys collide — no frequency capping, suppression, or priority across journeys. 2 4 5 10
The Data Protection Officer
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. 2 4 5 7
The Lifecycle Marketer
The builder shows branching on behaviour, goal tracking with channel-switch fallbacks, and event-driven entry from site tracking and 900-plus apps, which is genuine orchestration. What decides whether a programme survives contact with reality is missing from the captured pages: I found no public information on frequency capping across journeys, suppression or priority when a contact qualifies for several, versioning of a live journey, holdout groups for measurement, or a per-contact view of where someone currently sits. 2 4 5
The Solution Architect
The builder is genuinely documented: split and branching paths, goals with funnel visibility showing who moves through and where people drop off, and entry from contact-field states, segment moves, deal-stage changes, site events and 900-plus app triggers. What the captured pages leave open is collisions: I found no public information on frequency capping, suppression across journeys, priority arbitration, or versioning of a live journey. Starter is capped at five automation actions per automation, so the real orchestration product begins one tier up. 2 4 5
The Skeptic
A drag-and-drop builder with split and branching paths, goals that show who is moving through a funnel and where people drop off, and entry points from site and app events, deal-stage changes, contact-field states, segment entry and score milestones. What I cannot find is anything about journeys colliding — frequency capping, suppression across journeys, priority when a contact qualifies for several, versioning of a live journey — nor any stated wait steps. 2 4 5 7
Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Scoring, qualification and handover to sales — including whether the customer can explain to a lead why the system decided what it decided.
0 — No scoring or lifecycle model; every contact is treated alike.
3 — A single additive score with fixed rules, no decay, no lifecycle stages and no routing.
5 — Configurable scoring on attributes and behaviour with decay, lifecycle stages, and routing to owners or teams with notification.
8 — Multiple scoring models per product or region, negative scoring, account-level scoring alongside contact-level, SLA on follow-up, and score history visible per contact.
10 — Scoring is explainable and accountable: the contribution of each signal visible per record, model changes versioned with their effect on the funnel, routing rules auditable, and predictive scoring — where offered — documented well enough for a DPO to assess it as automated decision-making.
The Demand Gen Lead
Scoring is genuinely built out: separate models per line of business, points deducted as well as awarded, category- and product-level scores, real-time scoring from visits and clicks, automated routing to reps and deal creation once a contact's score reaches a defined point, with scores syncing to the CRM in real time. I found no public information on account-level scoring, follow-up SLAs or per-contact score history — without the history behind the number, sales trusts it less. 2 5 6
The Sales Ops Manager
Separate scoring models per line of business, product- and content-theme-level scores, negative scoring via point deduction, real-time scoring from site and event tracking, routing to reps, score-triggered deal creation, and real-time score sync to the CRM are all documented. We found no public information on score history per contact, an SLA on follow-up, account-level scoring, or any per-signal explanation of a record's score. 6 10 2
The Data Protection Officer
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. 2 5 6
The Lifecycle Marketer
Separate scoring models per business line, points that can be deducted, category- and product-level scores, real-time updates, threshold-triggered workflows that create CRM deals, and routing of high scorers to reps are all documented, and re-engagement segments for gone-quiet contacts show a lifecycle instinct. I found no public information on account-level scoring alongside contact-level, score decay, an SLA on follow-up, score history visible per contact, or documentation of the AI win-probability scoring thorough enough for a DPO to assess it. 5 6 7
The Solution Architect
Separate scoring models per line of business, points awarded and deducted on attributes and actions, real-time scoring from site and event tracking, and score milestones that create CRM deals and assign high scorers to reps — most of the demanding level is evidenced. I found no public information on score history per contact, account-level scoring, follow-up SLAs, or decay. The predictive layers, including win probability drawing on AI analysis of every deal, come with no documentation of how a score was computed for an individual record, which nobody can defend in front of a lead. 5 6
The Skeptic
Points-based scoring you can add to and deduct from, separate models per business line, category- and product-specific scores, real-time updates, and automated routing of high scorers to a rep with a CRM deal created when a score milestone is reached. But the pages are silent on score decay, lifecycle stages, per-contact score history and account-level scoring — and the AI win-probability and lead-quality scores ship with nothing a customer could use to explain a decision. 5 6
Channels & personalisation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the platform can actually send and personalise: email, SMS, push, on-site content, ads audiences — judged on what shares one profile and one suppression list.
0 — Email only.
3 — Email plus one further channel, managed separately with its own list and no shared suppression.
5 — Email, SMS or push and web forms driven from one contact profile, with dynamic content blocks and shared unsubscribe handling.
8 — The above plus on-site personalisation, ad-audience sync to the major networks, cross-channel frequency capping, and content personalised on behaviour rather than only on stored fields.
10 — Channel is a delivery detail: one profile and one consent state across every channel, next-best-channel selection, and personalisation that draws on the full behavioural record without the marketer assembling it by hand.
The Demand Gen Lead
Email, SMS, WhatsApp, site messages, forms and landing pages run off one platform, with retargeting and prospecting audiences to Google, Facebook and LinkedIn, and personalisation driven by behaviour rather than stored fields alone. Push arrives only via integration, and I found no public information on cross-channel frequency capping or next-best-channel selection — the collision problem again. 2 4 8 9
The Sales Ops Manager
Email, SMS and WhatsApp add-ons, forms, landing pages, site messages and ad audiences to Google, Facebook and LinkedIn all run from one platform, with behaviour-based segmentation and predictive sending for personalisation. Push arrives only via integration, and we found no public information on cross-channel frequency capping or a shared suppression list across channels. 2 4 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
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. 2 4 8 9
The Lifecycle Marketer
Email, SMS, WhatsApp, site messages with web personalisation flags, and ad audiences across Google, Facebook and LinkedIn are evidenced, and personalisation leans on behaviour and predictive sending rather than stored fields alone. My sticking point is the collision layer: I found no public information on cross-channel frequency capping or one consent state across channels — SMS and WhatsApp arrive as add-ons with their own consent tooling. 2 8 9 11
The Solution Architect
Email, websites, site messages, forms, landing pages and ads to Google, Facebook and LinkedIn are documented channels, with SMS and WhatsApp as add-ons on the same contact record, and personalisation on behaviour — segments built on behaviour, lead scores combined with website and event tracking, and web personalization flags visible in the API. Push notification arrives only via integration, and I found no public information on cross-channel frequency capping or shared suppression across channels. Strong breadth, thin on the guarantees that keep one person from being hit five times in a day. 2 4 8 10 11
The Skeptic
Email plus SMS and WhatsApp add-ons, site messages, forms, landing pages, web personalisation and ad audiences on Google, Facebook and LinkedIn, all feeding one contact profile that combines lead scores with site and event tracking. Push exists only via integration, and I found no public information on cross-channel frequency capping, a shared suppression list across channels, or next-best-channel selection. 2 8 10
Consent, tracking & profiling
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The platform builds behavioural profiles of named people. Consent capture and proof, tracking that can be limited, retention, and whether automated decisions about individuals are documented and contestable.
0 — Tracking always on and undocumented, single opt-in, no consent record, no retention rule, no way to exclude a person from profiling.
3 — Double opt-in available with a timestamp, cookie tracking that cannot be disabled per contact, and retention described as the customer's problem.
5 — Double opt-in as documented default with a stored consent record including source, per-channel consent states, tracking switchable per contact, and stated retention for inactive records.
8 — Consent reproducible as evidence with the wording versioned, profiling suppressible per person, retention executed per data category, documented handling of access and erasure requests including derived scores, and a cookieless or first-party tracking mode.
10 — Built for the accountability principle: a per-contact history of what was tracked, scored and decided, automated decision-making documented well enough to support an Art. 22 assessment, profiling off by default for anyone who has not consented to it, and deletion that removes derived scores as well as raw events.
The Demand Gen Lead
The product profiles named people — site tracking is recommended to everyone and anonymous visits are attached to contacts on form fill — while the consent side shows double opt-in at form level with the opt-in IP and subscribe date recorded, consent-ready forms and SMS opt-in management. But site tracking switches at account level rather than per contact, the privacy policy covers only ActiveCampaign's own processing of individuals, and I found no public information on retention of client contact data, erasure handling for derived scores, or a cookieless tracking mode. 3 8 10 11 12
The Sales Ops Manager
Double opt-in is evidenced at the API with the subscribe date and opt-in IP recorded, plus consent-ready forms and opt-in management in the SMS add-on. The captured privacy policy states it does not apply where the vendor processes data on clients' behalf, so retention, per-channel consent states and per-contact tracking switches for customer contact data are unevidenced, and site tracking is switched at account level and recommended for everyone. 3 8 10 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
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. 3 8 10 12
The Lifecycle Marketer
Double opt-in is evidenced through form-inherited confirmation with subscribe date and IPv4 recorded, the SMS add-on carries opt-in management and consent tools, and the privacy policy states access, erasure and objection rights. Against that, site tracking is recommended to everyone as a core feature with only account-level enable and disable, retention is tied to the account's lifetime with no stated rule for inactive records, identifiers and internet activity categories are sold to data enrichment providers, and I found no public information on excluding a person from profiling, a cookieless mode, or erasure that removes derived scores. 3 2 10 11 12
The Solution Architect
The sync API stores a real opt-in record — subscribe date, the IPv4 address the contact opted in from, a source label, and form attribution that inherits the form's double opt-in confirmation — which is more than a bare timestamp. Against that, site tracking is recommended as a core feature for everyone, anonymous visit activity is associated to contacts who later register a form, and I found no public information on a per-contact tracking switch, per-channel consent states, or retention for inactive records. The privacy policy states it does not apply where the vendor processes personal information as a processor on behalf of clients, so the rules for clients' contact data are not described on these pages. 3 10 12
The Skeptic
Double opt-in is available per form with a subscribe date and the IPv4 address of the opt-in recorded, and the SMS add-on carries opt-in management tools. Against that, site tracking switches on and off at account level with a domain whitelist, and I found no public information on suppressing tracking or profiling per person, on retention of customer contact records — the published privacy policy states it does not apply where the vendor processes as a data processor — on versioned consent wording, or on a cookieless mode, while the vendor's own pages describe session replay and categories of identifiers sold to enrichment providers. 3 8 11 12
CRM integration & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The join that decides the implementation: how the platform and the CRM stay in agreement about who a person is, and what happens when they disagree.
0 — CSV import and export; no CRM integration and no identity resolution.
3 — One-way sync into a named CRM on a schedule, with duplicates resolved by hand and no conflict rules.
5 — Bidirectional sync with at least one major CRM, field mapping, deduplication rules, and a sync error log somebody can act on.
8 — Configurable conflict resolution per field, account and contact objects both modelled, custom objects supported, near-real-time sync with retry, and a documented API with rate limits.
10 — One record, two systems, no ambiguity: identity resolution across anonymous and known states, field-level ownership defined per system, replay of failed syncs, and a data model the customer can extend without vendor services.
The Demand Gen Lead
The contact sync endpoint is documented in unusual depth — a defined lookup order across id, WhatsApp id, email and phone, upsert semantics, per-action permissions, and a source tag so integrations skip their own writes — and account and contact objects are both modelled. The hard part is what I cannot see: field-level conflict rules, a sync error log, replay of failed syncs and API rate limits are all absent from the captured pages, and the Salesforce sync direction is not stated; anonymous visitor identification hints at anonymous-to-known resolution but the identity model is not laid out. 2 5 12 13
The Sales Ops Manager
The contact sync API documents real identity handling: a lookup order across id, WhatsApp id, email and phone with a uniqueness rejection, a source label so an integration skips its own writes and loops are prevented, permission-aware writes, and account-contact relationships replacing deprecated organisation nodes. We found no public information on field-level ownership per system, configurable conflict resolution per field, or a sync error log somebody can act on, and the Salesforce field sync's direction is not stated. 2 5 6 12
The Data Protection Officer
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. 5 6 10 12 13
The Lifecycle Marketer
The sync endpoint documents a deterministic lookup order across id, WhatsApp id, email and phone with upsert semantics and permission gating, Account-Contact endpoints model accounts alongside contacts, Salesforce field sync and Deep Data ecommerce joins are described, and anonymous site activity is associated to contacts who register with a form — a real anonymous-to-known bridge. I found no public information on bidirectional field sync, configurable conflict resolution, replay of failed syncs, or API rate limits. 2 5 10 12 13
The Solution Architect
The contact sync endpoint is unusually well documented: a deterministic lookup order across id, WhatsApp id, email and phone, with email fallback so a duplicate is not created, explicit rejection rules, and a source label carried into the webhook so an integration can recognise and skip its own writes. Accounts and contacts are both modelled, anonymous site activity attaches to contacts who register a form, and lead scores sync to the CRM in real time. But I found no public information on custom objects, field-level conflict resolution, a sync error log, or API rate limits — the limit nobody mentions until the integration starts failing at 2am. 2 5 6 10 12
The Skeptic
The API documents a contact upsert with a defined lookup order across id, WhatsApp id, email and phone, plus form attribution, permissions, and account-contact endpoints; anonymous site visits associate to a contact on form registration; and Salesforce field sync, Dynamics and deep ecommerce data are named. But the CRM sync is never stated as bidirectional, and I found no public information on field-level conflict rules, a sync error log, replay of failed syncs or documented API rate limits. 2 5 10 12 13
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where behavioural profiles of named EU residents are processed, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors see them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it — which given the profiling is heavily.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed, behavioural data leaving the EU with no stated basis.
3 — EU data residency for storage while tracking, sending or support access remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — tracking scripts, AI scoring, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: every profile, event and derived score processed in the EU by European subprocessors, certification published, and no transfer requiring a Schrems II argument to survive.
The Demand Gen Lead
The contracting entity is ActiveCampaign, LLC in Chicago, the API lives on a US-named domain, and the stated basis for moving EU data is the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses — a transfer argument, not a residency answer. Nylas, a US-headquartered provider, is named for the optional email connection, and I found no public information on EU hosting for client data or a published subprocessor list. For behavioural profiles of named EU residents I weigh that heavily. 3 11 12
The Sales Ops Manager
The contracting entity is ActiveCampaign, LLC of Chicago, transfers run to locations including the United States, and the stated mechanisms are the Data Privacy Framework and Standard Contractual Clauses under FTC enforcement, with Google Analytics and a US email-connection provider in the chain. Data residency is unconfirmed and no subprocessor list was captured, so behavioural profiles of EU residents ride on a Schrems II argument — heavy given what this platform profiles. 3
The Data Protection Officer
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. 3
The Lifecycle Marketer
The contracting entity is ActiveCampaign, LLC of Chicago, transfers go to the United States, Australia, Ireland, Brazil and Costa Rica, and I found no public information on hosting location or a complete subprocessor list; SCCs and the Data Privacy Framework are named as transfer mechanisms. For behavioural profiles of named EU residents — session replay, site tracking, sourcing from credit bureaus — the captured pages show nothing evidencing EU processing end to end, which given the profiling I weigh heavily. 3
The Solution Architect
The contracting entity is ActiveCampaign, LLC of Chicago, transfers are named to the United States, Australia, Ireland, Brazil and Costa Rica, and I found no public information on where client data is hosted. Transfers do carry a stated basis — Standard Contractual Clauses and Data Privacy Framework certification with JAMS dispute resolution are documented — which lifts this above the floor. The named chain shows Nylas, Inc., a U.S.-headquartered provider behind an optional email feature, and Google Analytics running within the services; I found no public information on EU hosting as a standard arrangement. 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is ActiveCampaign, LLC of Chicago, we found no public information on EU hosting of customer data or on a published subprocessor list, the API host sits at api-us1.com, and a US-headquartered provider (Nylas) backs an optional email feature. The safeguards named are Data Privacy Framework self-certification, SCCs, a JAMS dispute route and a UK representative — a transfer regime to argue under, not a sovereign chain. 3 11
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual invoice for their contact base and send volume — including the tier where automation actually begins, overage, and mandatory onboarding — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation, and onboarding fees are never mentioned.
3 — A contact-tier headline exists, but the tier where journeys, scoring or CRM sync begin is unstated, as is any mandatory implementation fee.
5 — Contact-tier prices public with billing period and send limits stated, but at least one commonly needed capability sits in an unpriced enterprise tier.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with contact and volume limits, feature boundaries, overage rates, onboarding costs, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given contact count, send volume and feature set, including overage, additional users and any implementation fee stated outright.
The Demand Gen Lead
All four tiers carry public prices with billing period, send limits stated as multiples of the contact count, user counts and unusually clear feature boundaries — automation exists from the entry tier with a five-action cap — and onboarding and migration are free on every plan. But the contact count those "starts at" prices actually cover is not stated, the SMS, WhatsApp, CRM and AI add-ons carry no prices, and I found no public information on overage rates or VAT treatment, so the real annual invoice is not computable from public pages alone. 2 4 9
The Sales Ops Manager
All four tiers are public with billing period, send limits as multipliers of the contact limit, user counts, per-plan feature boundaries and free onboarding. The prices are starts-at figures without the contact count they cover, the SMS, WhatsApp and CRM add-ons carry no prices, and we found no public information on overage rates, VAT treatment or minimum term — so the real annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 4 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
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. 2 4 9
The Lifecycle Marketer
All four plans are priced publicly with billing period, send limits as multiples of the contact limit, user counts and feature boundaries including where unlimited automation actions begin, and onboarding and migration are stated as free. The real annual invoice is still not computable: I found no public prices for the SMS, WhatsApp, AI and CRM add-ons, only "starts at" figures without a contact-count ladder, and overage rates and VAT treatment are unstated. 2 4 7 9
The Solution Architect
All four tiers are public with billing period, send multipliers and user counts, feature boundaries are visible (Starter is capped at five automation actions per automation), and onboarding and migration are stated as free in every plan. The SMS, WhatsApp, transactional email, CRM and AI add-ons are listed without prices, and I found no public information on overage rates, VAT treatment, or the contact-volume steps behind the starting-at-$15-per-month figure. So a real annual invoice cannot be worked out from these pages alone. 2 4 9
The Skeptic
Four plans are priced publicly at $15, $49, $79 and $145 per month billed annually, with send limits stated as multiples of the contact limit, user counts per tier, and onboarding and migration published as free on every plan. But each price only starts at a figure without the contact count it covers, SMS, WhatsApp, transactional email and AI sit as unpriced add-ons, automation is capped at five actions per automation on the cheapest plan where unlimited begins one tier up, and I found no public information on overage rates, VAT treatment or the minimum term. 2 4 9
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 2 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Data residency. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Nylas backs only the optional email-connection feature, and this privacy policy covers ActiveCampaign's own processing rather than client Contact Data, but Nylas, Inc. is a U.S.-headquartered provider, so exposure applies regardless of server region.
- 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.
- 33 product 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
- 22 pricing 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
- 14 compliance 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
- 14 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
- 7 legal 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
- 3 support 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
- 2 data 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 11 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Journeys & orchestration — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Journeys & orchestration — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Channels & personalisation — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Channels & personalisation — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Consent, tracking & profiling — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Consent, tracking & profiling — found from sitemap developers.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap developers.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap www.activecampaign.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →