CourtImmo vs Actelo
Category : UX-focused IOBSP suiteOfficial site
Actelo is praised for its ergonomics (4.9/5 over 211 reviews) and no-commitment model. CourtImmo plays on another field: document AI that removes data entry, with 2-minute client intake where Actelo keeps a largely manual but polished flow.
In short
Actelo is recognized for its ergonomics (4.9/5 over 211 Capterra reviews) and equips more than 1,000 brokers with no commitment. It is a solid, well-liked suite whose document AI stays secondary.
CourtImmo vs Actelo
AI & automation
Credit-specific
Client experience
Model & architecture
Compliance support
Strengths of Actelo
- Reference-level ergonomics and customer satisfaction (4.9/5)
- No commitment and public degressive pricing
- Large installed base (1,000+ brokers)
Limits versus CourtImmo
- AI document extraction and automated intake still limited
- No white-label
- Partial consolidation and insurance modules
Pricing
- CourtImmo: from 79€/month (Solo plan, all included, no commission)
- Actelo : 75€ then 50€/user (degressive)
Why brokers choose CourtImmo
Native AI document extraction: file data entry drops from about 45 minutes to 2 minutes.
100% paperless and modern full web, with no software to install and no legacy stack.
Transparent SaaS subscription, with no commission taken on your files.
Built for the six IOBSP broker profiles, from solo to white-label network.
Frequently asked questions
Actelo is highly rated, why choose CourtImmo?
Actelo’s ergonomics are excellent, but the flow stays manual. CourtImmo automates collection and data entry with AI, saving hours per file on top of a modern interface.
Is CourtImmo also commitment-free?
CourtImmo is subscribed monthly with a free trial and included onboarding, to test on your own files risk-free.
Compare for yourself, on your files
Try CourtImmo in real conditions and measure the time saved from the very first file.
Comparison based on publicly available information, for informational purposes. Cited brands belong to their respective owners. Last editorial review: 2026-06-04