The LiveChat alternative
that does the answering itself.

01

What support looks like once Outlearn runs first response

Buy it and the queue changes owners: Outlearn solves 50.4% of conversations automatically, and the ones that need a human still get one. That's the whole shift.

It plugs into twenty systems your company already runs and re-reads them every 30 minutes; after that you don't have to do anything. Every answer shows what it read.

Your customers and your own people don't ask in one place. The agent answers in web chat, email, Slack, Microsoft Teams and Google Chat: same agent, same knowledge, same actions. A large share of your support load is internal and never reaches a widget, because employees ask in Slack. In the per-seat world that's a second tool with a second index and a second thing to keep true.

When the answer is really a task, Outlearn calls your own API without leaving the chat: an order status, a subscription state, a refund. And when it should be a person, it hands the conversation into one of eight helpdesks, Zendesk, Intercom, LiveChat and Slack included, with the full transcript, and the billing on that conversation ends at the handoff. One bill covers all of it.

This is the same agent inside Slack. Someone asks "what's our refund policy?" in a channel and gets the answer from the same sources that serve your customers, in under a second. Those internal Slack pings are support work that seat-based accounting never sees. The Helpful and Retry buttons under the reply are how the answer gets better.

02

Their meter doesn't bill a miss. Ours does.

This section belongs to their meter, because it treats a failed answer differently than ours does, and you should know that before either bill changes.

ChatBot only counts a resolution when the AI actually resolved something. The exclusions are published, not implied: no charge when no issue is solved, none when the answer is irrelevant or incomplete, none when the chat transfers to a human with zero questions answered.

Most AI meters bill the attempt, helped or not; one bills a resolved conversation on two meters at once, another bills the first reply whether or not it did any good. We bill every reply, including the ones that miss. Ask every LiveChat alternative how its meter treats a miss; you just read our answer.

Two caveats travel with the compliment, both in the same fine print. Read the transfer clause literally: it excludes a transfer with zero questions answered, so one answered question plus a handoff is still billed. And who decides an answer was irrelevant or incomplete isn't published. Neither caveat undoes the design.

The counterweight is volume. Essential includes ten resolutions a month. Ten. Growth includes 200, per their pricing. After that it's $49.50 per fifty, which is $0.99 each, and $0.99 a unit is still $0.99 a unit: a thousand resolutions is $792 in packs on top of two seat bills. A two-person team doing 150 a month is better off with them, and the calculator below will say so. If ManyChat is on your shortlist as well, we compare it in the ManyChat write-up.

03

Two subscriptions is what AI looks like when it arrives late

The inbox came first and was priced per person, because a person read every conversation. That was correct. The AI arrived later as a sibling product, and it was priced per person too.

Their own FAQ spells the structure out: you pay for the chatbot, and separately you pay per agent for live chat. The same FAQ quotes a per-agent figure that doesn't match their own plan table, so get a current quote first. Any LiveChat alternative math has to start from both subscriptions.

Headcount hits you twice. Ten people on LiveChat Team is $490 a month. The same ten on ChatBot Growth is another $790. That's $1,280 before a single extra resolution is bought.

And the resolution pool doesn't grow with the seats. Essential at three seats is $57 a month and still ten resolutions total, because the allowance is per account, not per user.

Both numbers are a function of how many humans you hired, which is the exact assumption an agent is supposed to break. You pay them per person. You pay us per reply.

04

One product, and the knowledge isn't something you feed it

Twenty systems, read where they already sit: Confluence, SharePoint, Google Drive, OneDrive, Box, Dropbox, GitHub, Gmail, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Salesforce and five helpdesk knowledge bases. Not copies of them. The originals, re-read every thirty minutes.

So the agent catches up on its own. Somebody rewrites the returns page or retires an old plan, and the next answers use it. Nobody exports anything, nobody re-uploads anything, nobody files a ticket.

That's the line between a chatbot and an agent. A chatbot is a copy of your help center with a text box in front of it. An agent reads the systems the work actually happens in. That's the question a LiveChat alternative shortlist turns on, and neither pricing page is organized around it.

This is Outlearn's sources dashboard, and it's the whole upkeep job: one screen that says what got read, when, and what didn't. 81 snippets from a website crawl, synced 20 minutes ago, 4 failed shown in red instead of swept under the rug. Nobody staffs this screen, and a source that half-imports says so, which beats quietly answering from whatever happened to make it in.

05

It shows its sources, and it knows who's asking

A prospect on your pricing page, a paying customer and one of your own support leads shouldn't get the same answer. With Outlearn each gets the right one: the public docs, their plan's articles, the internal runbook.

That split is what makes internal sources safe to connect in the first place, and nobody has to police what the bot was told.

The limit, before you find it yourself: this works when the source can tell Outlearn who's allowed to see what, and today that's the knowledge base; a file pulled from Drive or SharePoint reads the same for everyone.

LiveChat and ChatBot don't publish a way to give different askers different answers. So teams keep internal docs out entirely, and the agent tops out at what you'd tell a stranger. And every Outlearn answer names the articles it came from, right under the reply, so you can check its work the way you'd check a new hire's.

This is the agent answering a live pricing question in web chat: what the product does, the real price, $249 a month with a free 14-day trial, then a question back, the way a person keeps a conversation moving. Under the reply sits a 3 Sources chip that opens the exact articles behind it. It's answering, not retrieving.

06

What can their AI read?

ChatBot is explicit about being self-contained. Their own pricing page says: "ChatBot.com is a standalone AI. It doesn't rely on third-party providers like OpenAI, Google Bard, or Bing AI. It operates using its own technology stack." That's their stated engineering position.

It also means the knowledge has to come to the tool. No third-party document repository appears in their published sources. As everywhere on these pages, that's an absence in their documentation, not a confirmed limitation. But that single sentence decides whether you need a LiveChat alternative at all: if your answers sit in Confluence, Drive or SharePoint, somebody has to carry them over, and keep carrying them.

Worth separating out: LiveChat's in-product Copilot is an assistant for your agents, trained on LiveChat's own product documentation. It helps your team use LiveChat. It's not a customer-facing agent answering from your knowledge, and comparison pages conflate the two constantly.