Marketing Automation

ActiveCampaign (Automation)

Rest of world Report an error

Panel 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

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Demand Gen Lead v1.0 · The Sales Ops Manager v1.0 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Lifecycle Marketer v1.0 · The Solution Architect v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 5 Oct 2026

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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Sees a profiling system, not a mailing tool. Wants consent reproducible per person, tracking that can be switched off for someone who never agreed to it, deletion that removes derived scores as well as raw events, and scoring documented well enough to assess under Art. 22.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Journeys & orchestration

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Channels & personalisation

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Consent, tracking & profiling

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

CRM integration & data model

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built 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

Do you know more about ActiveCampaign (Automation)? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →