ComplianceEase vs ActiveComply
Compliance & QC head-to-head · axis by axis, same rubric for both
SitusAMC
Level Equity (growth investor, September 2025)
| Axis | ComplianceEase | ActiveComply |
|---|---|---|
| Production impact | 4.5 | 3.5 |
| Functionality & depth | 4.9 | 4.3 |
| Integrations & ecosystem | 4.9 | 3.5 |
| Adoption & support | 4.4 | 4.3 |
| Return on spend | 4.4 | 3.8 |
| Overall | 4.7 | 3.9 |
ComplianceEase wins 5 of 5 axes. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
What the rubric says
ComplianceEase and ActiveComply are both scored in Compliance & QC. ComplianceEase carries an overall of 4.7, ActiveComply an overall of 3.9. The widest gap between them is Integrations and ecosystem, at 1.4 of a point. That axis measures how well it reaches the rest of the stack. ComplianceEase takes it, 4.9 to 3.5.
Where the five axes separate
On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours ComplianceEase, 4.9 against 3.5. On Production impact the record favours ComplianceEase, 4.5 against 3.5. On Return on spend the record favours ComplianceEase, 4.4 against 3.8. On Functionality and depth the record favours ComplianceEase, 4.9 against 4.3. On Adoption and support the record favours ComplianceEase, 4.4 against 4.3.
In Compliance & QC the rubric weights Functionality and depth heaviest, at 35 percent. That is why the two overalls sit where they do.
How the weights turn axes into a score
Production impact carries 20 percent of the Compliance & QC score. It measures whether the tool moves volume, pull-through or cycle time. Functionality and depth carries 35 percent of the Compliance & QC score. It measures whether it handles the messy loans and not just the clean file. Integrations and ecosystem carries 20 percent of the Compliance & QC score. It measures how well it reaches the rest of the stack. Adoption and support carries 10 percent of the Compliance & QC score. It measures whether the team adopts it and gets unstuck. Return on spend carries 15 percent of the Compliance & QC score. It measures what the spend returns, which is not the same as being cheap.
Pricing posture
ComplianceEase does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, typically per audit. ActiveComply does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, priced by module.
Deployment and who each one targets
Deployment for ComplianceEase: Cloud, embedded in LOS workflows via integration. Deployment for ActiveComply: Cloud, social platform and web monitoring. Segment focus for ComplianceEase: Originators, aggregators, and investors needing loan-level federal and state regulatory testing. Segment focus for ActiveComply: Lenders whose loan officers market on their own social accounts and branch sites. The two entries name different buyers.
What each record credits
ComplianceEase: Broad published LOS list, Encompass through Calyx, LendingPad, Byte, and more. ComplianceEase: Loan-level federal and state audits graded by severity, not flat pass or fail. ComplianceEase: TRID Monitor runs inside partner LOS platforms, including a documented Mortgage Cadence integration. ComplianceEase: Originators and investors run the same engine, so fewer fights over whose result governs. 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. ActiveComply: September 2025 Level Equity investment and a new chief executive fund the roadmap.
What each record holds against them
ComplianceEase: ICE Mavent is native in Encompass, so Encompass-centric shops have a shorter path. ComplianceEase: Quote-only, per-audit pricing rises with volume just as margins thin. ComplianceEase: The 150 million audits and 200-plus client figures are unverified vendor numbers. ComplianceEase: Reports findings only; remediation and the QC defect programme live elsewhere. 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. ActiveComply: Monitoring depth depends on each platform’s API and terms, outside vendor control.
Which one fits which shop
Best fit for ComplianceEase: A lender that needs automated TRID and state compliance testing before the loan leaves the building. Best fit for ActiveComply: A compliance officer who cannot see what the field is posting.
What each entry concludes
ComplianceEase: ComplianceEase is the audit engine much of the industry has quietly standardised. ComplianceEase: It runs loan-level federal and state tests plus TRID monitoring. ComplianceEase: Findings come back severity-graded through RiskIndicator, inside the originator’s workflow. ComplianceEase: SitusAMC bought it in 2020 and kept integrations wide, from Encompass and Mortgage Cadence down to LendingPad. ComplianceEase: Integration reach decides it: on-list LOS shops get compliance testing as a pipeline step, not a separate exercise. 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. ActiveComply: The call is simple: if your originators market on personal accounts at scale, almost nothing else covers. ActiveComply: If they do not, you do not need. ActiveComply: It does no loan file QC and no regulatory testing.
The short answer
ComplianceEase finishes ahead on the published rubric, 4.7 to 3.9. The margin comes mostly from Integrations and ecosystem. 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 →