Threada vs. Front Chat
Front excels at team inboxes and live chat. Threada delivers grounded answers with citations, freshness controls, and transparent retrieval. Here is how to choose and how to use both.
Comparison
| Dimension | Threada | Front Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Grounding | Hybrid RAG with citations and refusal path | Live chat and inbox macros |
| Freshness | Sitemap-first crawl, IndexNow, incremental recrawl | Based on manual content or knowledge syncs |
| Analytics | Per-embed impressions, opens, chats, messages, fallback reasons | Inbox and agent performance metrics |
| Security | SRI, strict widget CSP, origin checks, SSO, formal threat model | Platform security; embed headers depend on setup |
| Multi-tenant | Agency friendly styling and quotas per tenant | Single team focus |
When Threada fits best
- Visitors need immediate cited answers on marketing, docs, or pricing pages.
- Agencies manage multiple brands and require isolated styling and quotas.
- Security teams insist on strict CSP and origin validation for embeds.
- Ops wants retrieval transparency to cut hallucinations quickly.
When to keep Front on point
- Live chat escalations and team collaboration dominate.
- You already run your inbound channels through Front.
- Lead capture and routing to humans are the main goals.
Run both together
- Place Threada on content-heavy pages for factual Q&A with citations.
- Keep Front chat on conversion-heavy pages where human follow-up is key.
- Use triggers to hand off account or billing intents from Threada to Front agents.
- Track containment and response times across both to optimize placement and content.
Grounded answers reduce bounce for self-serve visitors, while Front keeps teams ready for conversations that need a human.