Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Act-On Software vs Structured comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 18, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Act-On Software
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.7
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Marketing Automation (15th)
Structured
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Channel Marketing Automation Software (1st), Partner Relationship Management (PRM) (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Marketing Applications solutions, they serve different purposes. Act-On Software is designed for Marketing Automation and holds a mindshare of 2.1%, up 0.8% compared to last year.
Structured, on the other hand, focuses on Channel Marketing Automation Software, holds 13.2% mindshare, up 8.9% since last year.
Marketing Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Act-On Software2.1%
Salesforce Marketing Cloud11.9%
HubSpot Marketing Hub10.0%
Other76.0%
Marketing Automation
Channel Marketing Automation Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Structured13.2%
E2open Channel Application Suite19.2%
Impartner PRM15.0%
Other52.6%
Channel Marketing Automation Software
 

Featured Reviews

it_user82449 - PeerSpot reviewer
Business Systems Manager at a consultancy with 501-1,000 employees
The adaptive nurturing, segmentation, multiple lead scoring rules, and simple CRM integration stood out the most.
The CRM integration with Act-On is better with Salesforce and had more value for sales representatives than it did with Microsoft Dynamics CRM; that was MS CRM's downfall. Act-On Anywhere is a nice feature for general users, but the tracking in CRM is lost, and Marketing team subject lines do not carry over on the email templates.
reviewer2757024 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director, Partner Marketing at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Co-branded content has reached partners faster and personalized campaigns have improved engagement
It's fairly easy to implement StructuredWeb within my existing marketing processes, probably a seven or eight on a scale of 1 to 10. Navigating through what they call the small journeys for setting up the marketing campaigns is more complicated; I'd rate that probably a five, as we're just starting some of that process now, and one of the reasons we haven't started until now is that it's quite complicated. The complexity in navigating the setup hasn't affected the speed of launching marketing campaigns significantly; there are some internal processes that contribute. The biggest issue that affected our speed of launching was the content upload process, where certain formats are easy for StructuredWeb to upload, while others take more time and are more manual. StructuredWeb is very focused on partner marketing and certainly competes as a best-of-breed solution. There are other platforms that have elements of what StructuredWeb offers, but from what I've seen, it's very high for a partner marketing-specific platform. The effectiveness of the personalized content delivery in enhancing partner engagement is a very strong component; however, the only criticism we've received from partners is that sometimes our rules about what can be edited on the content are too restrictive for them. They would appreciate seeing us exercise more flexibility and less control. But that's an internal policy issue, not a problem with StructuredWeb. Managing personalized content for different partners within StructuredWeb really comes down to partner size and resources. Larger partners typically use the platform to occasionally co-brand the content and then download it without extensive editing. In contrast, smaller partners, who may not have their own marketing platforms, engage in more extensive editing on the StructuredWeb platform and sometimes deploy from there and sometimes from their own platform. We haven't really utilized the AI assistant for creating and distributing marketing content yet. There are two AI models: one internal and one external, where we haven't launched the external one available to our partners via the platform. The internal one has been experimented with, but due to turnover in staff, those initially trained are no longer with us, so we feel we're back to square one. Additionally, the AI component is somewhat tedious due to our AI council regulations within Imnissa, which has restricted us from using all capabilities from StructuredWeb. I would rate StructuredWeb an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Before I joined, my company used a larger, more expensive but more popular software, and after switching to this, my team can still do everything it needs to for cheaper."
"It is now much easier for us to send and segment emails, analyze our results and make smarter decisions."
"Our organization was operating blindfolded before implementing Act-On."
"Consolidating everything in one single tool—StructuredWeb—has allowed us to save costs through the process and solve for lower management costs from our perspective, and also helped us to provide a better experience for our partners because now everything is in the same tool instead of managing two different tools that do not talk to each other easily, improving the experience for partners."
"The best part is that they have these Assistant AI and Edit AI capabilities that truly allow our partners to take our demand gen campaigns and essentially utilize our back-end data to build out accurate claims around our technologies."
"The most glaring benefit I've observed from using StructuredWeb for partner marketing is the ability to get out co-branded materials in a much faster fashion, which keeps our partners engaged."
 

Cons

"One area of improvement would be ability to use dynamic content fields. It is available, but not to the fullest extent where it would help me."
"If anything, it would be the pricing. I get nervous about how many partners will use the service, as it is based on a schedule."
"Areas that may have room for improvement include continuing to evolve as AI continues to evolve; the capabilities and the use cases of how AI can be used for partners are areas they are developing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Marketing Automation solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Marketing Services Firm
21%
Wholesaler/Distributor
13%
Retailer
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise1
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for StructuredWeb?
The pricing for StructuredWeb is not cheap; it's certainly one of the more expensive projects of its type within the company. However, it is cheaper than E2open used to be for VMware, which had a l...
What needs improvement with StructuredWeb?
To improve the solution, I think the most important change would be expanding the number of files supported for import. One of the ongoing issues we've had is the platform's ability to consume cont...
What is your primary use case for StructuredWeb?
My main use cases for StructuredWeb are twofold: one is for posting content for our reseller partners to consume and co-brand with, which is primarily for our larger reseller partners. For smaller ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
StructuredWeb
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NYU, Tableau, Xerox, ASPCA, Lego Education, Hoopla, Avery Dennison and SolarWorld.
IBM, ServiceNow, Ingram, Veeam, Google, Zoom, Qlik, Arrow, Dell, Microsoft, TD Synnex, HPE
Find out what your peers are saying about Act-On Software vs. Structured and other solutions. Updated: November 2025.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.