Act-OnMarketing automation for your entire customer lifecycle
vs
IterableAI Customer Engagement Platform for Real-Time, Personalized Experiences
Comparison · Marketing Automation · weekly run Nov 2
Act-On vs Iterable
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
Iterable is the stronger AI pick in Marketing Automation: it has a visibility score of 3.6 versus 1 for Act-On, and ranks ahead in 100% of the answers that name both.
Choose Act-On if…
- AI answers describe it more positively (33% vs 29% positive)
- Favored for mid-market demand generation
- Lower total cost of ownership
- Fast deployment
Choose Iterable if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (3.6 vs 1)
- You need SOC 2 Type 2 or ISO 27001 or HIPAA or Data Privacy Framework or Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules or Global Privacy Rules for Processors coverage
- You prefer a larger, established vendor (501–1,000 employees)
- Good fit for growth-stage, retail, and media organizations running cross-channel campaigns
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 2
| Metric | Act-On | Iterable |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 1% | 3.6% |
| Change vs last week | New | New |
| Rank in Marketing Automation | #31 | #20 |
| Share of voice | 0.5% | 1.6% |
| Mentions this run | 3 | 9 |
| Positive in AI answers | 33% | 29% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
Act-On 0pp · Iterable 0pp over 0 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
Iterable leads on 3 of 3 engines
ChatGPT
AI Mode
Perplexity
Act-OnIterable
Head to head in AI answers
2 engine answers name both brands
0Act-On ranked higher
2Iterable ranked higher
| Prompt | Engine | Act-On | Iterable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which marketing automation vendors do analysts recommend? | ChatGPT | #12 | #4 |
| Official website of the top marketing automation platform vendors | ChatGPT | #14 | #8 |
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | Act-On | Iterable |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Usage-based | — |
| Entry price | $900 / mo | — |
| Free plan | No | — |
| Compliance | — | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, Data Privacy Framework, Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules, Global Privacy Rules for Processors |
| Support | Standard support package with email-based support, Premium support package, recommended for Enterprise | Community and expert-led programs |
| Founded | 2008 | 2013 |
| Headquarters | Portland, Oregon, United States | San Francisco, California |
| Employees | 201–500 | 501–1,000 |
| Funding | Round of $4M, about six months before the 2011 Series C · $82M raised | Series E · $342M raised |
| Best for | Midsize and enterprise marketing teams focused on growing revenue through lifecycle marketing, including distributed organizations such as franchises and branch offices. | Global brands that want marketers to run real-time, cross-channel engagement without engineering dependency. |
Plans side by side
Iterable
Pricing not available.
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
Act-On
- Favored for mid-market demand generation
- Lower total cost of ownership
- Fast deployment
Iterable
- Good fit for growth-stage, retail, and media organizations running cross-channel campaigns
- Suited to high-growth, mobile-heavy consumer startups needing real-time multi-channel engagement
- Strong for product-led growth and behavioral, real-time cross-channel messaging
- Named among leading analyst-backed marketing automation shortlists
- Good choice for high-scale consumer engagement
- Pricing not transparent; generally requires custom quotes
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “Act-On vs Iterable”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/act-on-vs-iterable, data of Nov 2, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.