ActiveComply vs ComplianceTech
Compliance & QC head-to-head · axis by axis, same rubric for both
Level Equity (growth investor, September 2025)
CLC Compliance Technologies, Inc.
| Axis | ActiveComply | ComplianceTech |
|---|---|---|
| Production impact | 3.5 | 3.1 |
| Functionality & depth | 4.3 | 3.6 |
| Integrations & ecosystem | 3.5 | 2.8 |
| Adoption & support | 4.3 | 3.3 |
| Return on spend | 3.8 | 3.6 |
| Overall | 3.9 | 3.3 |
ActiveComply wins 5 of 5 axes. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
What the rubric says
ActiveComply and ComplianceTech are both scored in Compliance & QC. ActiveComply carries an overall of 3.9, ComplianceTech an overall of 3.3. The widest gap between them is Adoption and support, at 1 of a point. That axis measures whether the team adopts it and gets unstuck. ActiveComply takes it, 4.3 to 3.3.
Where the five axes separate
On Adoption and support the record favours ActiveComply, 4.3 against 3.3. On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours ActiveComply, 3.5 against 2.8. On Functionality and depth the record favours ActiveComply, 4.3 against 3.6. On Production impact the record favours ActiveComply, 3.5 against 3.1. On Return on spend the record favours ActiveComply, 3.8 against 3.6.
Pricing posture
ActiveComply does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, priced by module. ComplianceTech does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, subscription by product.
Deployment and who each one targets
Deployment for ActiveComply: Cloud, social platform and web monitoring. Deployment for ComplianceTech: Cloud, data upload driven. Segment focus for ActiveComply: Lenders whose loan officers market on their own social accounts and branch sites. Segment focus for ComplianceTech: Banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, and regulators analysing HMDA and fair lending data. The two entries name different buyers.
What each record credits
ActiveComply: Discovery finds unregistered and impostor loan officer profiles, not just accounts you listed. ActiveComply: Pre-Review screens content before it publishes, shifting work from cleanup to prevention. ActiveComply: Separate modules cover website compliance and remote workstation inspection, beyond social feeds. ComplianceTech: The NCUA uses LendingPatterns and Fair Lending Magic, so you analyse like your examiner. ComplianceTech: Peer benchmarking against market HMDA data comes built in, not assembled by you. ComplianceTech: Product line spans analysis, HMDA, CRA, and 1071 filing, plus fair servicing.
What each record holds against them
ActiveComply: Covers marketing compliance only; no loan-level QC, HMDA analysis or regulatory testing. ActiveComply: No LOS, CRM or marketing automation integration is named on the site. ActiveComply: Quote-only pricing that swings with how many of the five modules you take. ComplianceTech: No integrations named anywhere, so every analysis cycle starts with a manual extract. ComplianceTech: Analysis only, with no remediation workflow and no loan-level QC. ComplianceTech: Capability splits across several separately branded tools, which complicates pricing and training.
Which one fits which shop
Best fit for ActiveComply: A compliance officer who cannot see what the field is posting. Best fit for ComplianceTech: A compliance officer who needs peer benchmarking on HMDA data without building it in-house.
What each entry concludes
ActiveComply: ActiveComply watches loan officer social profiles, branch sites, rogue accounts and marketing that skipped review. ActiveComply: It sweeps nine named platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, Zillow and Yelp. ComplianceTech: ComplianceTech, run as CLC Compliance Technologies, sells fair lending and HMDA analytics, not compliance workflow. ComplianceTech: LendingPatterns handles market and peer analysis; Fair Lending Magic runs disparity testing.
The short answer
ActiveComply finishes ahead on the published rubric, 3.9 to 3.3. The margin comes mostly from Adoption and support. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
Both tools are scored on the same weighted rubric, production impact carries the most weight. Comparisons are never sponsored. Disclosure →