Threada vs. Tars Chatbot Builder
Tars helps teams build conversational landing pages and scripted flows. Threada delivers retrieval-augmented answers with citations, adaptive thresholds, and hardened embeds. Here is how they compare and how to use both.
Comparison
| Dimension | Threada | Tars Chatbot Builder |
|---|---|---|
| Interaction | Open-ended Q&A grounded in your site | Scripted conversational forms |
| Grounding | Hybrid RAG with refusal policy and citations | Predefined flows you author |
| Freshness | Sitemap-first crawl, IndexNow, incremental recrawl | Manual updates to flows and content |
| Analytics | Per-embed impressions, opens, chats, messages, fallback reasons | Flow completion and drop-off metrics |
| Security | SRI, strict widget CSP, origin checks, SSO, formal threat model | Depends on your embed configuration |
| Multi-tenant | Agency friendly styling and quotas per tenant | Single brand focus |
When Threada fits best
- Visitors explore pricing, docs, support policies, or product details.
- You want cited answers and retrieval transparency to cut hallucinations.
- Agencies manage multiple brands and need isolated styling, quotas, and analytics.
- Security teams insist on strict CSP and origin validation for embeds.
When to lean on Tars
- Lead capture campaigns rely on guided questions and branching logic.
- You want to gate demos or forms in a conversational UX.
- Paid landing pages require tightly scripted journeys.
Pairing approach
- Add Threada on evergreen content pages for grounded answers.
- Keep Tars on campaign and paid media landing pages for conversion flows.
- Route account or transactional intents from Threada to Tars when structured input is better.
- Measure containment vs conversion to balance placements and adjust crawl coverage.
Grounded answers keep discovery efficient while conversational forms optimize lead capture. Running both gives visitors the best tool for each moment.