Olark vs LiveChat: Which One Should You Choose?
Quick answer
LiveChat is the more capable product across nearly every dimension — more channels, deeper integrations, a genuine developer platform, and better-documented AI — but it costs roughly two to four times as much per seat once you're past a single agent. Olark is the pick if budget is the deciding factor and your needs are genuinely simple: a dependable chat box and nothing more. Most teams comparing these two are really asking 'do I need LiveChat's depth, or would Olark's simplicity save real money' — and for a small team with basic needs, that savings is substantial enough to be the whole decision.
- Both are veteran live-chat platforms from the same era of the category — Olark since 2009, LiveChat (via Text S.A.) since 2002 — and both still sell a human-staffed chat console as the core product, with AI added on afterward as a separate, metered layer.
- Pricing diverges sharply: Olark's classic seat is $29/agent/mo (down to $19 on a two-year commit) with a real if limited free tier; LiveChat has no free plan and its realistic entry point is $49/agent/mo Team, since Starter is capped at one user.
- LiveChat is the deeper product almost everywhere that matters: 200+ marketplace integrations, first-party no-code apps for every major website builder, and a genuine public developer platform, versus Olark's shallower integration catalog where several 'integrations' are just copy-paste embed code.
- Both bolt AI on separately rather than including it — Olark's AI Website Agent is a flat $400/month annual commitment with one seat included; LiveChat's AI Agent is billed at $0.99/resolution but lives on a separate Text-plan structure outside the core LiveChat subscription.
- Olark's real advantage is simplicity and price: a dependable, well-reviewed chat console (4.7/5 ease-of-use sub-score) at a fraction of LiveChat's per-seat cost for a small team with basic needs.
- Pick LiveChat if you need integration depth, multi-channel messaging, or plan to build custom tooling on top. Pick Olark if you want the cheapest dependable chat box and have no near-term need for anything more.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Olark | LiveChat |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | $29/agent/mo (down to $19 on a 2-year term); free tier capped at 20 chats/mo | $19/agent/mo Starter (capped at 1 user); realistically $49/agent/mo Team for a real team, no free tier |
| Number of native channels | Web chat plus email follow-up only; WhatsApp and SMS are tagged 'Olark Classic' (legacy product) | Web chat, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, SMS, email, Apple Messages, in-chat voice/video |
| AI availability | Aiden AI Website Agent, scoped to answering from live site content and uploaded documents | An autonomous AI Agent with no-code 'Skills,' plus separate agent-assist AI (Reply Suggestions, Summaries) included in the core plan |
| AI resolution accuracy | No published resolution rate and no independent benchmark found | Vendor claims 74% resolution; no independent corroboration, and review themes emphasize human-agent polish over AI deflection |
| AI pricing model | Flat $400/month billed annually ($4,800/yr), one seat included — an all-or-nothing enterprise-style commitment | $0.99/resolution beyond a small allowance, but gated to a separate Text-plan structure rather than the core LiveChat subscription |
| Website-builder integrations | Shallow — Shopify, Squarespace, and Webflow all resolve to pasting a code snippet; the WordPress plugin carries a 'may no longer be maintained' warning | First-party, no-code apps for WordPress, Wix, Squarespace, and Webflow — the best coverage in this category |
| CRM integrations | A wider list than expected for its size — Salesforce, HubSpot, SugarCRM, Nutshell — but transcript-and-contact push rather than deep sync | A vendor-built Salesforce app doing real work, plus HubSpot; largely one-directional push rather than bidirectional sync |
| Analytics depth | Chat volume, response time, and CSV reports, plus a beta AI Analyst; no AI deflection-rate or modern CSAT dashboards | A genuinely deep reporting suite — data summaries, ecommerce reports, staffing prediction — though the best parts sit at the $79/agent tier |
| API/webhook extensibility | A surprisingly strong JavaScript API, webhooks, and an MCP server for a tool this size | A full public developer platform — Agent Chat API, Configuration API, RTM WebSocket, OAuth 2.1, publishable marketplace apps |
| Pricing transparency | Poor — three unreconciled pricing stories currently live on Olark's own site simultaneously | Clean for the core seat price, but the AI Agent's real cost lives on a separate page entirely |
| Independent review reputation | 4.5/5 with a 4.7/5 ease-of-use sub-score, and reviewers describing multi-year runs without outages | A strong 4.5-4.6/5 across a much larger review base, with usability and support named repeatedly |
Our verdict
Both of these companies have been selling essentially the same idea — put a chat box on a website and staff it well — since the early days of live chat as a category, and the age shows in a good way for both: mature, dependable chat mechanics that reviewers trust. Where they diverge sharply is everything built around that core console. LiveChat has spent its extra scale on real depth: 200+ marketplace integrations, first-party no-code apps for every major website builder, a genuinely deep reporting suite, and a public developer platform most competitors don't bother building. Olark stayed narrow — web chat and little else natively, a shallower integration catalog where several listed 'integrations' are just documented copy-paste embed code, and a WordPress plugin that WordPress.org itself flags as possibly unmaintained. That depth gap is exactly why LiveChat costs two to four times as much per seat: Olark's discounted long-term rate is $19/agent, LiveChat's realistic entry tier is $49/agent once you're past a single user, and a four-person team pays roughly $76-116/month on Olark versus $196/month on LiveChat's Team plan. Both handle AI the same unglamorous way — as a bolt-on rather than an included feature. Olark's is a blunt, all-or-nothing $400/month annual commitment; LiveChat's is metered per resolution but lives on a separate 'Text plan' structure you have to go find, so neither pricing page tells you the real total up front. Neither vendor's AI resolution claims have independent corroboration, so don't let either one be the deciding factor. My honest read: if you have any need for channels beyond a website widget, integration depth, or the possibility of building custom tooling later, LiveChat's extra cost buys real capability. If your needs are genuinely simple — a dependable chat box, nothing more — Olark does that job well and saves real money doing it.