ActiveFence Competitors – Comparing the Top 8 Alternatives

ActiveFence is one of the leading trust and safety platforms for detecting harmful content across text, images, video, and audio. Its AI-driven models help platforms protect users from toxicity, misinformation, and abuse at scale. But it's not the only option available, and depending on your use case, it might not be the best fit.

If you're building community features, managing user-generated content (UGC), or running a platform where safety and compliance are critical, it's worth comparing other moderation tools. Some services offer stronger developer APIs or more granular model control. Others specialize in real-time chat, automation, or human-in-the-loop review.

In this guide, you'll get a side-by-side look at how ActiveFence compares to top competitors like Stream, Hive Moderation, Besedo, CleanSpeak, Community Sift, WebPurify, Sightengine, and Checkstep. We'll break down their pricing, features, and key differentiators to help you find the right fit for your trust and safety stack.

ActiveFence Moderation Overview

ActiveFence provides a full-stack trust and safety platform designed to detect, prevent, and manage harmful content across online communities.

Its AI models analyze text, images, video, and audio to identify risks like hate speech, grooming, misinformation, and violent extremism. The platform blends automated detection with human expertise and configurable policy tools, giving teams a scalable way to monitor UGC and enforce community guidelines across formats and regions.

While its heritage lies in detecting online harms like extremism, CSAM, and disinformation, the company has expanded its focus to AI safety and compliance, providing tools for risk detection, human-in-the-loop review, and model governance across generative systems.

Today, ActiveFence positions itself as an end-to-end trust and safety and AI security partner, combining machine learning, policy expertise, and threat intelligence to help enterprises deploy safe, compliant, and resilient AI applications.

Advantages of ActiveFence

• Comprehensive coverage across formats: ActiveFence analyzes text, images, video, and audio for a wide range of harms, including hate speech, extremism, Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), and misinformation. Its multimodal approach helps platforms handle complex, cross-media threats consistently.
• Domain-specific intelligence: Beyond AI detection, ActiveFence maintains an evolving database of threat indicators and behavioral patterns drawn from global intelligence sources. This makes it especially strong at identifying emerging risks like coordinated misinformation or new slang-based evasion tactics.
• Customizable policy controls: Teams can tailor detection thresholds and moderation policies to match platform guidelines or regional compliance standards. This flexibility helps balance safety enforcement with community norms.
• Human-in-the-loop review: For edge cases and high-risk categories, ActiveFence supports human review workflows that combine automated triage with expert analysis, which is useful for industries with strict oversight or brand sensitivity.
• Scalable infrastructure: ActiveFence is built to process large volumes of content in near real time, supporting enterprise-scale moderation pipelines and integrations with existing trust and safety tooling.
• Expanded focus on GenAI security: Beyond traditional content moderation, ActiveFence now helps enterprises secure large language models and AI applications from prompt-based attacks, data leaks, and policy violations.

Drawbacks of ActiveFence

• Limited transparency into models: ActiveFence’s detection models and training data are proprietary, which can make it difficult for teams to understand how specific moderation decisions are made or to audit false positives.
• Enterprise-focused pricing: Pricing is tailored for large organizations and not publicly listed. This can make it less accessible for startups or smaller apps looking to experiment or scale gradually.
• Less developer control: While the platform offers API-based integrations, customization options are limited compared to open or modular solutions. Developers can’t retrain or extend models directly.
• Complex onboarding process: Because ActiveFence combines machine learning, human review, and policy setup, implementation often involves a longer onboarding period than purely API-driven moderation tools.
• Closed ecosystem: ActiveFence operates as a full-service solution rather than a modular API suite, meaning teams looking for a mix-and-match or open-source approach may prefer lighter-weight alternatives.

Main Features

ActiveFence combines automated detection, policy management, and human intelligence to provide end-to-end content moderation.

Its key capabilities include:

• GenAI security and compliance tools: A new suite of capabilities focused on protecting large language models (LLMs) and AI applications from malicious or unsafe inputs and outputs. This includes prompt injection detection, policy enforcement for generative models, and data leakage prevention.
• Multimodal detection: Analyzes text, images, video, and audio simultaneously to identify a broad spectrum of harmful content, from hate speech and grooming to deepfakes and extremist propaganda.
• Customizable policy engine: Lets teams define moderation rules and thresholds aligned with their platform guidelines or compliance needs, allowing different tolerance levels for specific contexts or user groups.
• Threat intelligence feed: Continuously updated data on emerging risks, language trends, and coordinated abuse patterns, helping moderation systems adapt to evolving online behavior.
• Workflow automation: Built-in routing and escalation tools streamline moderation pipelines by automatically flagging, prioritizing, or assigning content for review based on severity and confidence scores.
• Reporting and insights: Dashboards and analytics provide visibility into content trends, enforcement accuracy, and risk areas, supporting transparency and compliance documentation.
• API integration: ActiveFence integrates with existing trust and safety stacks, allowing automated content checks before publication or during user interaction in real time.

Primary Use Cases

ActiveFence is designed for organizations that need large-scale, cross-platform moderation and threat detection.

Common use cases include:

• Social media and community platforms: Detects and removes harmful UGC, including harassment, hate speech, and coordinated misinformation campaigns, across text, images, and video.
• Gaming and virtual worlds: Monitors chat, voice, and player interactions for toxicity, grooming, or exploitation, supporting both automated and human-in-the-loop moderation.
• Online marketplaces: Flags prohibited listings or fraudulent activity in real time, helping maintain trust and compliance with platform and regulatory policies.
• Media and streaming platforms: Identifies explicit, violent, or extremist content in user-uploaded video and live streams before publication or distribution.
• Education and collaboration tools: Supports moderation of chat, discussion boards, and shared media to create safer digital classrooms and community environments.
• Enterprise and government platforms: Used for monitoring compliance and security in regulated industries, where threat detection extends to misinformation or disinformation campaigns.
• AI security: Offers tools for detecting malicious prompts, protecting large language models, and securing agentic AI systems against misuse.

ActiveFence Pricing

ActiveFence uses a custom, enterprise-tier pricing model that varies based on moderation volume, content types analyzed, and the combination of AI and human review services required. Pricing is not publicly listed, and most deployments are configured through direct engagement with their sales team.

Teams looking for transparent or usage-based pricing may find alternatives like Sightengine, WebPurify, or Stream easier to evaluate.

What to Consider: ActiveFence Versus a Competitor

When comparing ActiveFence to other moderation providers, the key decision often comes down to control, transparency, and flexibility. ActiveFence offers a comprehensive, managed trust and safety solution, but that also means less hands-on control over how models are tuned or deployed.

Here are a few questions to help guide your decision:

Do you want a fully managed system or modular tools?
ActiveFence handles moderation end to end, including model tuning and policy enforcement. If you’d rather customize moderation logic or integrate only specific features (like image detection or text analysis), a modular alternative may be a better fit.

How important is transparency?
Because ActiveFence’s models are proprietary, it’s harder to audit or explain individual moderation outcomes. Open or API-driven solutions provide more visibility into filtering logic and thresholds.

Do you need real-time performance?
If your app relies on instant chat or in-session detection, latency can matter. ActiveFence supports near-real-time processing, but platforms purpose-built for in-app experiences may deliver faster integration and response times.

Do you need more than moderation?
Some providers offer additional APIs for real-time communication features, like chat, video, audio, and feeds. This allows you to unify engagement and moderation within the same platform. If you’re already building interactive or community-driven experiences, an all-in-one ecosystem may reduce overhead and simplify your stack.

ActiveFence Versus the Top 8 Alternatives

Active Fence vs. Stream

Stream provides a minimal-setup moderation API that helps teams detect and filter harmful user-generated content across text, images, and video. While ActiveFence delivers a full-service trust and safety platform designed for enterprise-scale policy enforcement, Stream builds moderation directly into its communication APIs, so detection and enforcement happen inside the same stack that powers your app's conversations and media sharing.

Stream Versus ActiveFence

The core distinction between platforms comes down to control and scope. ActiveFence handles moderation as a full-service operation. Teams rely on its infrastructure, human analysts, and policy systems to identify and remove harmful content across platforms. That model is powerful for large organizations with dedicated trust and safety teams and complex compliance needs.

Stream, by contrast, is built for product and engineering teams who want to embed moderation directly into their app logic without outsourcing the process. The platform connects multiple AI services under the hood, including computer vision and natural language models, and augments them with Stream's own AI models to fill contextual gaps. The result is a hybrid approach: a solution that "just works" out of the box, while still giving developers flexibility through APIs and dashboards.

Because moderation is an add-on to Stream's existing suite (Chat, Video and Audio, and Activity Feeds), it doesn't need to cover its costs through premium enterprise contracts. That makes Stream far more cost-effective than standalone moderation vendors, especially for startups or growing communities that want enterprise-grade safety tools without a sales cycle.

Why Choose ActiveFence: 

• Combines AI detection with human intelligence and policy enforcement

• Backed by threat intelligence research across misinformation, extremism, and coordinated abuse

• Offers managed trust & safety operations for enterprises that prefer full-service moderation

Why Choose Stream: 

• Works out of the box, combining AI services with Stream's own models for reliable, multi-layered moderation

• Cost-effective; enterprise-grade moderation at a fraction of the cost of standalone providers

• Use intuitive dashboard for quick setup, or build custom moderation logic using robust APIs and webhooks

Stream Pricing

Stream Moderation pricing includes a flexible Pay-As-You-Go model with $100 in free monthly credits that cover messages, images, and video.

• Included:

  • LLM and NLP-based engines and semantic filtering 

  • Access to all moderation features

• Billing rates:

  • Messages: $2.00 per 1,000

  • Images: $4.00 per 1,000

  • Video Files: $0.80 per minute of video

  • Live Video: $4.00 per 1,000 frames

An Enterprise plan is also available with volume discounts and advanced features, including SAML and SSO support, 99.999% SLA, an LLM review layer.

Active Fence vs. Hive Moderation

Hive Moderation is an AI-first platform for detecting visual and textual content violations. It operates like an "AI supermarket," offering a growing catalog of pre-trained models that identify nudity, violence, drugs, hate symbols, and other harmful media across images, video, and text, all accessible through a single, developer-friendly API. While ActiveFence offers a broader trust and safety ecosystem that blends AI detection with human intelligence and policy management, Hive focuses on speed, scalability, and developer-friendly access through APIs.

Hive Moderation Versus ActiveFence

The biggest distinction lies in delivery and control. ActiveFence operates as a full-service partner: teams integrate with its API, but most moderation work (model management, human review, and threat research) happens inside ActiveFence's ecosystem. That's ideal for platforms that want to outsource trust and safety operations entirely or need human analysts for sensitive categories such as extremism or CSAM.

Hive takes the opposite approach. It's a developer-first platform, giving teams direct access to pre-trained models through simple REST APIs. Those models cover image, video, text, and audio, identifying categories like nudity, violence, hate symbols, weapons, and drugs. Hive also provides an interactive dashboard for quick setup and real-time monitoring, so teams can start moderating within hours rather than weeks.

A major advantage of Hive is its speed and customizability. Its models run on high-performance infrastructure optimized for real-time inference, making it suitable for livestreaming apps, social platforms, or dating apps that can't afford moderation latency. Hive also supports custom model training, allowing enterprise clients to adapt classifiers to their brand standards or edge cases—a flexibility that managed systems like ActiveFence don't offer directly.

On the other hand, ActiveFence shines in the human intelligence and context it brings to moderation. Its analysts track evolving threat networks, disinformation campaigns, and cultural shifts in language, areas where pure AI models can struggle. 

ActiveFence Advantages

• Includes human-in-the-loop review and policy enforcement workflows

• Provides intelligence reporting and continuous monitoring of emerging threats

• Designed for enterprise compliance and managed operations

Hive Moderation Advantages

• Plug-and-play API access with fast response times and developer documentation

• Custom model training for industry-specific detection needs

• Transparent, usage-based pricing for predictable scaling

Hive Moderation Pricing

Hive offers a Pay-As-You-Go model with transparent billing and free monthly credits.

• Free tier: $50 in free credits per month

• Billing rates:

  • Text: $0.50 per 1,000 requests

  • Visual: $3.00 per 1,000 requests 

  • Audio: $0.80 per minute of video

• Enterprise plan: Custom pricing with access to all Hive Models and Hive Moderation Dashboard

Active Fence vs. Besedo

Besedo is a long-standing content moderation provider that blends AI automation with human review to manage text, image, and video content across marketplaces, dating apps, gaming, and social platforms. While both ActiveFence and Besedo offer hybrid moderation models, their focus areas differ: ActiveFence specializes in online harms and threat intelligence, whereas Besedo prioritizes trust, fraud prevention, and content quality within user-to-user platforms.

Besedo Versus ActiveFence

Where ActiveFence acts as a threat intelligence and compliance partner, Besedo operates as a content quality and safety service provider. Both offer hybrid moderation models that combine machine learning with trained human moderators, but their approaches differ in context, scope, and workflow design.

Besedo is particularly strong in contextual understanding. It trains its AI and human moderators on the nuances of marketplace and dating platform behavior, such as misleading product listings, fake profiles, or scam indicators. The platform also includes AI-assisted labeling tools that help its human moderators work faster and more consistently, improving accuracy without slowing throughput.

In contrast, ActiveFence's moderation model is designed for macro-scale intelligence, including identifying and preventing the spread of organized misinformation campaigns, extremist content, or coordinated harassment. It's less about individual post accuracy and more about pattern recognition across billions of data points and multiple platforms.

From a deployment perspective, Besedo offers both fully managed services and AI-only automation, giving clients flexibility to choose a hybrid setup. ActiveFence's model is more all-encompassing: organizations typically rely on its end-to-end workflow (AI detection, human review, threat analysis, and policy enforcement) within a single managed environment.

Pricing also reflects this difference. Besedo's costs vary based on content volume and the AI-to-human review ratio, while ActiveFence structures pricing for enterprise partnerships that include intelligence and compliance layers.

ActiveFence Advantages

• Provides global threat intelligence and early detection of coordinated abuse

• Covers high-risk content categories like extremism and misinformation

• Designed for large-scale, cross-platform moderation

Besedo Advantages

• Strong focus on fraud, scams, and quality control for marketplaces and dating apps

• Flexible deployment: choose AI-only, human-only, or hybrid workflows

• Includes AI-assisted review tools for faster decision-making

Besedo Pricing

Besedo offers custom pricing based on moderation volume, service level, and AI-to-human review ratios. Pricing is available upon request.

Active Fence vs. Cleanspeak

CleanSpeak, developed by Inversoft, is a real-time content moderation engine built for chat, forums, and multiplayer games. It's a developer-focused solution that runs on-premises or in private clouds, giving teams complete control over data and moderation rules. While ActiveFence offers a fully managed, intelligence-driven platform, CleanSpeak is designed for developers who want to own and customize their moderation logic from end to end.

CleanSpeak Versus ActiveFence

Deployment and ownership are the key differentiators. ActiveFence operates as a managed service, meaning the data, workflows, and detection models live within its ecosystem. CleanSpeak, on the other hand, is software that can be deployed on-premise or in your own private cloud, allowing full data sovereignty. That makes it particularly appealing to organizations in industries like gaming, finance, and education that have strict privacy or compliance requirements.

CleanSpeak's moderation is primarily text-based but highly configurable. Teams can define complex filtering rules, use regular expressions and blocklists, and even incorporate sentiment or context analysis. It also includes an admin dashboard and moderator queue, so internal teams can review flagged messages and approve or reject them manually. This gives developers and community managers direct visibility into how moderation decisions are made—something ActiveFence, as a managed solution, abstracts away.

ActiveFence, however, covers a much broader range of content modalities and risk types. It's built to identify harms across text, images, video, and audio, and to surface patterns that extend beyond one platform or community. That makes it better suited for organizations managing multiple products or large-scale user ecosystems that need intelligence-driven moderation, not just rule-based filtering.

Another meaningful distinction is speed to integration. CleanSpeak requires setup, deployment, and configuration, which is perfect for teams with DevOps resources who want total control. ActiveFence, while not API-only, provides a managed onboarding process that integrates into existing trust and safety pipelines but requires vendor involvement to fully deploy.

ActiveFence Advantages

• Covers multiple content types (text, image, video, audio) with AI + human review

• Offers cross-platform intelligence for complex or emerging risks

• Provides enterprise moderation analytics and reporting

CleanSpeak Advantages

• Fully self-hosted, offering complete data ownership and privacy

• Highly configurable filters and policies for text-based content

• No external dependencies; runs entirely within your infrastructure

CleanSpeak Pricing

CleanSpeak offers custom pricing based on deployment type, user volume, and support level. Quotes are provided on request for both cloud and self-hosted installations.

Active Fence vs. Community Sift

Community Sift, developed by Two Hat (a Microsoft company), is a content moderation platform purpose-built for online communities, games, and social platforms. It uses AI models, dynamic language lists, and real-time classification to protect users, especially minors, from harassment, grooming, and hate speech. Since its acquisition by Microsoft, Community Sift has become a key part of Microsoft's broader safety ecosystem, powering moderation for products like Xbox and Minecraft, and integrating with the company's Responsible AI and Digital Safety initiatives.

While ActiveFence is built for large-scale trust and safety operations that span multiple threat categories (from misinformation to extremism), Community Sift focuses more narrowly on player safety, chat moderation, and child protection.

Community Sift Versus ActiveFence

Community Sift is engineered for instant moderation. It uses adaptive language models that continuously learn slang, emerging phrases, and cultural shifts across multiple languages. Because it's part of the Microsoft family, Community Sift also benefits from deep integrations with Azure services and Microsoft's global safety infrastructure, allowing developers building on Azure PlayFab or Microsoft Game Stack to embed moderation directly within their workflows.

What also sets Community Sift apart is its contextual scoring system. Rather than applying static blocklists, the platform evaluates messages based on severity, user history, and reputation. This allows communities to tailor their enforcement levels; for example, you can mute users temporarily for mild profanity while permanently banning severe harassment. It also enables progressive moderation, where a player's past behavior influences future enforcement.

ActiveFence, by contrast, operates at a much broader scope. It's designed for multi-platform trust and safety, not just chat. Its AI models and human analysts detect harmful content across text, images, video, and audio. It also provides threat intelligence and policy enforcement workflows, helping organizations understand how harms spread and evolve.

The two platforms also differ in how they're delivered. Community Sift is a cloud-hosted, real-time API that can be integrated into your chat backend or game server. It handles classification and response instantly. ActiveFence is a managed service, where moderation operations, analysts, and compliance reporting live within its own environment.

ActiveFence Advantages

• Covers a broader range of harms, including misinformation and extremist content

• Includes policy management and global threat intelligence for coordinated abuse

• Built for large-scale enterprise trust and safety programs

Community Sift Advantages

• Optimized for real-time chat and gaming communities

• Adaptive language engine that learns slang and context over time

• Granular user reputation system for progressive enforcement

Community Sift Pricing

Community Sift pricing is available by request and depends on message volume and moderation scope. Microsoft also offers custom enterprise plans for large gaming or community platforms.

Active Fence vs. WebPurify

WebPurify is a long-established moderation service that provides APIs for profanity filtering, image moderation, and video review. It's designed for fast integration and reliable, automated screening of user-generated content. While ActiveFence targets large enterprises with full-service trust and safety operations, WebPurify focuses on simplicity, speed, and affordability for teams that want a straightforward moderation layer.

WebPurify Versus ActiveFence

WebPurify takes a hybrid approach to moderation that's refreshingly transparent. While many providers rely exclusively on AI models, WebPurify explicitly acknowledges that AI alone isn't enough for complex or borderline content. The company invests heavily in its own in-house human moderators, never outsourced or crowdsourced, who review flagged content alongside AI models.

Developers integrate WebPurify through simple REST APIs for text profanity filtering, image moderation, and video review. The text API automatically detects profanity, hate terms, and sexual language in over 15 languages, while image and video APIs flag nudity, weapons, and other inappropriate visual content. For higher accuracy, WebPurify offers live moderation services, where its trained human teams review flagged content in real time.

ActiveFence, by comparison, sits much further up the trust and safety stack. It combines AI-driven detection with policy enforcement, human review, and global threat intelligence to help large organizations identify and mitigate risks like coordinated misinformation, terrorism-related media, or grooming behavior. It's not a quick API integration; it's a managed system designed for scale, compliance, and complexity.

ActiveFence Advantages

• Built for high-risk content categories like extremism, misinformation, and exploitation

• Includes human moderation and policy enforcement workflows

• Provides detailed threat intelligence for ongoing monitoring

WebPurify Advantages

• Hybrid AI + human moderation for text, images, and videos

• Simple REST APIs for quick integration into any app or CMS

• Transparent pricing and optional live moderation for nuanced content

WebPurify Pricing

• Profanity Filter: $15/month for standard plan with two simultaneous requests; scales up with volume

• Live Image Moderation: $0.02 per photo

• Video Moderation: $0.15 per minute

• Enterprise plans available with SLAs, volume discounts, and human review options

Active Fence vs. Sightengine

Sightengine is a developer-focused content moderation API that uses AI to detect nudity, violence, weapons, drugs, and other harmful content in text, images, and video. It's designed for fast, automated detection with transparent pricing and full API access. While ActiveFence provides a full-service trust and safety platform with policy enforcement and human review, Sightengine focuses on speed, flexibility, and direct developer control.

Sightengine Versus ActiveFence

Sightengine offers a modular, developer-friendly design. This includes specialized AI models for specific tasks, like detecting nudity, weapons, drugs, gore, hate symbols, and explicit text. Each model runs as its own API endpoint, allowing teams to combine or disable classifiers as needed. That level of control appeals to developers who need to fine-tune moderation logic to their product's unique tone, audience, or risk profile.

In contrast, ActiveFence packages all moderation components into a single managed system. This approach is ideal for enterprise customers who value outcomes and compliance over configurability.

Another key difference is transparency. Sightengine provides public documentation and pricing, letting teams test the product instantly without vendor interaction. Its AI models can be integrated in minutes, making it perfect for startups or fast-moving engineering teams. ActiveFence, while more robust, requires a sales and onboarding process.

Ultimately, Sightengine appeals to developers who want precision and agility, while ActiveFence serves organizations that need scale, human review, and governance.

ActiveFence Advantages

• End-to-end trust and safety platform with human-in-the-loop review

• Detects coordinated threats beyond single-image or message moderation

• Designed for enterprise-scale compliance and monitoring

Sightengine Advantages

• Modular AI models that can be mixed and matched for specific content types

• Transparent documentation and pricing for quick testing and deployment

• Developer-friendly APIs with flexible, real-time inference and customization options

Sightengine Pricing

• Starter Plan: $29/month for 10,000 operations

• Growth Plan: $99/month for 40,000 operations

• Pro: $399/month for 200,000 operations 

• Enterprise: Custom pricing for high volume and additional model tuning

Active Fence vs. Checkstep

Checkstep is an AI-powered trust and safety platform that helps organizations moderate user-generated and AI-generated content with transparency and auditability. Like ActiveFence, it targets enterprise-level moderation needs, but its emphasis is on compliance, explainability, and model governance, making it particularly appealing for teams working with regulated or AI-driven products.

Checkstep Versus ActiveFence

Checkstep offers transparency and accountability. It provides a review interface and model management layer where teams can track how different AI systems perform, compare model outputs, and document moderation outcomes. This makes it particularly attractive to organizations working under AI governance or compliance mandates, such as those outlined in the EU AI Act or industry-specific regulations.

While ActiveFence focuses on delivering moderation outcomes, using its own proprietary detection stack and human reviewers, Checkstep focuses on moderation operations and oversight. It doesn't just help detect harmful content; it helps teams measure fairness, precision, and recall across their moderation models. That difference makes Checkstep a natural complement to, rather than a replacement for, detection-focused tools like ActiveFence or Hive.

Another distinction is model flexibility. Checkstep is model-agnostic, meaning teams can plug in any AI service (including third-party APIs like OpenAI, AWS, or Sightengine) and monitor performance through a unified dashboard. ActiveFence, by contrast, operates as a closed ecosystem, where detection models and intelligence data are proprietary and managed entirely by the vendor.

In practice, that means large platforms might use ActiveFence to power detection and analysis, and Checkstep to govern, audit, and report on how those systems perform.

ActiveFence Advantages

• Broadest coverage of online harms, including extremism and coordinated abuse

• Backed by global threat research and intelligence analysis

• Managed moderation workflows for large-scale or sensitive operations

Checkstep Advantages

• Governance and audit tools for compliance and AI accountability

• Model-agnostic platform compatible with multiple AI detection services

• Helps teams meet regulatory and ethical AI requirements with built-in reporting and metrics

Checkstep Pricing

Checkstep uses custom, usage-based pricing available by request, tailored to moderation volume and feature needs. Enterprise contracts include dedicated support, compliance tooling, and optional human review modules.

Alternatives Comparison Chart

Is ActiveFence Right For You? 

If your platform faces high-risk content categories, like extremism, coordinated misinformation, or child safety, ActiveFence offers one of the most comprehensive trust and safety stacks available. Its blend of AI, human moderation, and threat intelligence is built for large-scale platforms that need more than automated filtering.

But ActiveFence isn't the right fit for every team. If you want real-time, developer-controlled moderation inside chat or community products, platforms like Stream or CleanSpeak may suit you better. If you need fast, modular APIs with transparent pricing, tools like Sightengine or WebPurify can help you get started in minutes.

Ultimately, your choice depends on what kind of moderation you need to own:

• Choose ActiveFence if you want a managed system backed by intelligence research and human review.

• Choose an API-based provider if you want control, transparency, and faster iteration cycles.

Most providers offer free tiers or usage credits, so you can test moderation performance in your own app before committing. Experiment with a few to see which balance of accuracy, flexibility, and cost fits your product best.