LoanLogics vs ActiveComply
Compliance & QC head-to-head · axis by axis, same rubric for both
Sun Capital Partners affiliate (July 2021)
Level Equity (growth investor, September 2025)
| Axis | LoanLogics | ActiveComply |
|---|---|---|
| Production impact | 4.5 | 3.5 |
| Functionality & depth | 4.9 | 4.3 |
| Integrations & ecosystem | 4.4 | 3.5 |
| Adoption & support | 4.1 | 4.3 |
| Return on spend | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Overall | 4.5 | 3.9 |
LoanLogics wins 4 of 5 axes. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
What the rubric says
LoanLogics and ActiveComply are both scored in Compliance & QC. LoanLogics carries an overall of 4.5, ActiveComply an overall of 3.9. The widest gap between them is Production impact, at 1 of a point. That axis measures whether the tool moves volume, pull-through or cycle time. LoanLogics takes it, 4.5 to 3.5.
Where the five axes separate
On Production impact the record favours LoanLogics, 4.5 against 3.5. On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours LoanLogics, 4.4 against 3.5. On Functionality and depth the record favours LoanLogics, 4.9 against 4.3. On Return on spend the record favours LoanLogics, 4 against 3.8. On Adoption and support the record favours ActiveComply, 4.3 against 4.1.
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
LoanLogics does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only. ActiveComply does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, priced by module.
Deployment and who each one targets
Deployment for LoanLogics: Cloud, with an API developer portal. Deployment for ActiveComply: Cloud, social platform and web monitoring. Segment focus for LoanLogics: Originators, correspondents, and servicers automating document-driven loan quality review. 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
LoanLogics: IDEA and CARBN extraction feeds audit rules, so review starts from validated data. LoanLogics: LoanBeam handles self-employed and variable income, a top post-close defect source. LoanLogics: LoanHD runs pre-closing, post-closing, pre-funding, HMDA and TRID in one exception-driven system. LoanLogics: SitusAMC and LauraMac both list LoanLogics, two-sided proof of connectivity. 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
LoanLogics: Ownership unverified past the 2021 Sun Capital deal; the site names no parent. LoanLogics: Four separately branded products make scoping and pricing harder, training too. LoanLogics: No named LOS connector list; the site points to an API portal instead. LoanLogics: Extraction accuracy varies by document type, so test against your own file mix. 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 LoanLogics: A QC team drowning in document review rather than in audit questions. Best fit for ActiveComply: A compliance officer who cannot see what the field is posting.
What each entry concludes
LoanLogics: LoanLogics attacks loan quality from the document layer, not the questionnaire layer, and that separates it from conventional. LoanLogics: IDEA classifies and extracts data from loan documents, and CARBN handles classification and data validation. LoanLogics: LoanBeam calculates income, including the self-employed cases that cause most defects. LoanLogics: LoanHD then runs rules-based pre-closing, post-closing, pre-funding, HMDA and TRID workflows on the extracted data. LoanLogics: The deciding question is whether your QC bottleneck is people reading documents, because that is the constraint. 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
LoanLogics finishes ahead on the published rubric, 4.5 to 3.9. The margin comes mostly from Production impact. 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 →