Floatbot vs Kompato AI (2026)
This is software against a license, a choice about where the conduct duty lives before it is a choice about features. Floatbot sells a creditor the machinery to make the collections call itself. Statutory choreography runs inside the conversation, with debt collector identification, recording notices and mini Miranda warnings at the correct moments, plus state payment restrictions. Contact frequency is tracked against federal limits, calling hours are enforced, consent is captured in real time, and every interaction is transcribed and timestamped. Voice analysis detects caller stress and hands to a human with full context, and settlement calculation adapts to hardship. Kompato AI is a licensed collection agency that happens to run on agents. It holds the license and embeds the FDCPA, the TCPA and Regulation F's seven contacts in seven days cap as code. It negotiates payment plans on unscripted calls and charges on outcomes, with no fee where nothing is collected. It holds SOC 2, PCI DSS and ISO 27001, where Floatbot names no certification. Each publishes the number the other does not. Floatbot's is conduct measured: agencies at 99.7 percent compliance audit scores against 82 to 88 percent for human only teams. Kompato's is automation stated: 96.4 percent of queries resolved with 3.6 percent escalated to humans, and scale from ten thousand to over a million accounts in 45 days. The structural asymmetry is the finding. Kompato holds the license and prices the recovery risk, so it is positioned to answer who pays when an agent follows a rule wrongly, and it still publishes no liability position. At Floatbot the question has no addressee other than the creditor. Neither names a customer, and each carries one claim to read as written, an absolute at one and three irreconcilable uplift figures at the other.
- Collections stays yours. The conduct machinery, disclosures, frequency, hours, consent and records, runs inside your own operation, so the customer relationship and the recovery economics never leave the institution.
- The conduct outcome is measured. Reported audit scores of 99.7 percent against 82 to 88 percent for human only teams is evidence about the thing this category is bought to fix.
- Distress has a designed path. Stress detected in the caller's voice hands the conversation to a human with full context, and settlements calculate against hardship rather than a fixed script.
- The license moves with the work. A licensed agency is itself accountable for conduct, complainable about and sanctionable, which no software purchase achieves, and the vendor prices its own compliance risk into its fees.
- The economics are outcome only. No fee where nothing is collected aligns the agency with recovery, and the published 96.4 percent resolution with 3.6 percent escalation states the automation level plainly.
- Assurance is enumerated. SOC 2, PCI DSS and ISO 27001 held gives a vendor review three artifacts where the software alternative on this page names none.
This comparison is published by AI FinTech Index, an independent research platform that publishes independent ratings of AI vendors for financial services. Floatbot and Kompato AI are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI FinTech Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Floatbot | Kompato AI | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Customer & Banking Agents | Customer & Banking Agents |
| Founded | 2017 | 2024 |
| Headquarters | Milpitas, California, United States | United States |
| Website | floatbot.ai | kompatoai.com |
Side by Side
Select any grade to read the note behind it.
| Axis | F Floatbot |
K Kompato AI |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model Risk Management and Transparency | ||
| Operational and Outcome Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and Data Stewardship | ||
| GLBA and Data Privacy Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| Regulatory Status and Licensure | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| AI Liability and Recourse | ||
| Model Supply Chain Disclosure | ||
| Core Systems and Integration Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Institution and Segment Coverage |
The short version of each
Floatbot
Floatbot sells a creditor the machinery to run the collections call itself, with statutory choreography inside the conversation. Identification, notices and mini Miranda warnings arrive at the correct moments, alongside state payment restrictions, frequency tracked against federal limits and calling hours. Consent is captured in real time and every interaction is transcribed. Stress detected in the caller's voice hands the conversation to a human, and settlements are calculated against hardship. According to the AI FinTech Index, the conduct outcome is measured, with agencies at 99.7 percent compliance audit scores against 82 to 88 percent for human only teams. Around it, no customer is named, no certification is enumerated and no model provider is disclosed. There are no retention or consent terms for emotional inference on people in financial distress, and the zero hallucination claim is an absolute no system can guarantee. The conduct consequence rests entirely with the creditor, since the software carries no license and no published liability position.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Kompato AI
Kompato AI operates as a licensed collection agency that runs on generative agents. It embeds the FDCPA, the TCPA and Regulation F's seven contacts in seven days cap as code, and negotiates payment plans on unscripted calls. It scores portfolios, selects channel and timing per debtor, and charges on outcomes with no fee where nothing is collected. It holds SOC 2, PCI DSS and ISO 27001. According to the AI FinTech Index, the automation is stated plainly, with 96.4 percent of queries resolved, 3.6 percent escalated, and scale from ten thousand to over a million accounts in 45 days. The other half is unfinished. Holding the license positions Kompato to publish who pays when an agent follows a rule wrongly, and it still publishes no liability position. It names no customer and cites three irreconcilable uplift figures with no baselines. Nothing states whether collections payment behavior informs its credit data science parent's scoring work.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Floatbot better than Kompato AI for agentic collections?
They allocate the collections risk differently, which matters more than the feature lists. Floatbot is software a creditor runs, keeping collections in house with conduct machinery built into the call, so the conduct duty stays with the institution. Kompato is a licensed collection agency running on agents, so the party doing the collecting is itself accountable, and it charges only on outcomes. Keeping the operation or placing the accounts is the real decision. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does Kompato AI's collection license change?
It changes who answers for conduct. A licensed agency can itself be complained about and sanctioned, and an agency pricing on outcomes carries its own compliance risk in its fees, where a software vendor's customer carries everything. The unfinished half is that Kompato is structurally positioned to publish who pays when its agent follows a rule wrongly, and no liability position appears, which says how far this market still has to travel. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does each vendor's headline number actually measure?
Different things, and the difference is instructive. Floatbot measures conduct, reporting agencies at 99.7 percent compliance audit scores against 82 to 88 percent for human only teams. Kompato states automation, 96.4 percent of queries resolved with 3.6 percent escalated, and operational scale from ten thousand to over a million accounts in 45 days. One number is about behaving correctly, the other about running autonomously, and each vendor answers only one. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which claims are worth reading as written?
Two claims deserve exact reading. Floatbot's zero hallucination statement is an absolute no generative system can guarantee, and it works against otherwise credible conduct evidence. No error rate is published behind it. Kompato publishes three different uplift figures on the same measure with no stated baselines, so it is unclear which number is the number, which matters before the fee model is agreed. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does neither vendor disclose?
Neither names a customer institution, neither names a model provider beneath conversations with people in debt, and neither publishes a liability position. Kompato adds a boundary question its ownership creates: whether payment behavior gathered in collections informs its parent's credit scoring work. Floatbot adds one its product creates, with no published retention or consent terms for emotional inference on distressed callers. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where does each publish the most, and the least?
Floatbot publishes most on the conduct machinery inside the call and a measured compliance outcome. It names no certification and publishes no retention or consent terms for its emotional inference. Kompato publishes most on its license, the rules it embeds as code, its security certifications and its automation rate. Its uplift figures do not reconcile, and it publishes no liability position despite holding the license. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Customer & Banking Agents page.
The risk allocation is the substance and neither vendor completes it. Kompato holds the license, prices recovery risk through outcome only fees, and is therefore structurally positioned to publish who pays when an agent follows a rule wrongly. It does not, which shows how far this market has to travel. Floatbot is software, so the conduct consequence stays with the creditor entirely, and no liability position is published there either. Neither names a customer institution.
Each carries a claim to read as written. Floatbot's zero hallucination statement is an absolute no system can guarantee. Kompato publishes three different uplift figures on the same measure with no stated baselines, so it is unclear which number is the number. Kompato's parent is a consumer credit data science business, and nothing states whether payment behavior gathered in collections informs the parent's scoring work. Floatbot's stress detection runs emotional inference on people in financial distress with no published retention or consent terms. Neither names a model provider.