Peerly’s published positioning is video-forward, high-volume political texting: video in motion, an AI canvassing assistant, fast 10DLC turnaround claims, credits that do not expire, pay-as-you-go terms, and white-label readiness among its listed features. If picture and video messaging is the centre of your program, it is a vendor that has clearly invested there.
What each side publishes
| Peerly | FullPAC | |
|---|---|---|
| Published rates | Not served on the pricing page as of August 2026 | 3.5¢ standard, 2.5¢ partner, volume discounts, on the pricing page |
| Video messaging | Central to the pitch, video in motion | MMS with HD photo, GIF and video in the rate card |
| White label | Listed as a feature | Sub-account per client, your brand on dashboards, reports and invoices |
| Channel conflict | Not published | Written commitment in the Partner Protection Guarantee |
| 10DLC | Fast turnaround claims published | Filed and handled on the account |
| Other channels | Texting focused | Texting, voice, mail, digital, data, creative on one platform |
On video
Video messaging genuinely works in political outreach, and a candidate clip lands differently from a paragraph of text. Peerly has made it their headline capability.
FullPAC carries HD photo, GIF and video over MMS as part of the rate card rather than as the organizing idea of the product. If your program is built primarily around video and you want the vendor most invested in that specific capability, that is a real reason to look at them. We would rather say that than claim a strength we have not built our product around.
The thing to check in either direction is cost. MMS is priced per message everywhere, usually at two to three times the SMS rate, and some vendors add a further surcharge for enhanced video on top. That is worth pinning down before you commit to a video-heavy program, and it is the kind of thing our cost breakdown goes through.
On white label, carefully
Peerly lists white-label readiness among its features, so unlike some of the category this is not a straight contrast, and we are not going to imply that it is. If white-label matters to you, both should be on your list.
What we would compare instead is the specifics, because “white label” means very different things across vendors. Ask both of us:
- Does each client get their own sub-account, with roles and spend caps?
- Whose name is on the invoice the client pays?
- Is there a per-seat or per-sub-account charge as you add clients?
- Is there a written commitment not to approach your clients directly? This is the one that matters most and the one least often put in writing. Ours is the Partner Protection Guarantee.
On published pricing
This is the substantive difference we can actually evidence. FullPAC publishes its rates: 3.5 cents standard, 2.5 cents for partners, volume discounts below that, no per-seat fees, no charge per sub-account. You can read the whole card on the pricing page without talking to anyone.
We could not find equivalent published rates from Peerly in August 2026. That is not an accusation of anything; plenty of good vendors quote on a call. But as a buyer it is worth knowing which vendors let you compare before you engage, and it is worth asking any vendor who does not publish why the number depends on the conversation.
How to evaluate a vendor that does not publish rates
This comes up constantly in political tech and it is worth knowing how to handle rather than treating it as a dead end. If a vendor quotes only on a call, get these in writing before you compare anything:
- The rate per segment, not per message. A quote of “two cents a text” means something different if your script runs 300 characters. Ask what a 300-character message costs to send.
- Whether carrier pass-through fees are included or added later. This single answer can move an effective rate by a meaningful margin, and vendors differ on it.
- What MMS and video cost, and whether video carries a surcharge on top of MMS. If video is why you are considering them, this is the number that decides the budget.
- Every fixed cost. Monthly platform fees, minimums, seat charges, per-client or per-sub-account charges, short code rentals, and whether unused credits expire.
- What managed sending costs. Across this category it is usually a per-message surcharge, and it is often larger than the difference between any two vendors’ base rates.
- How long the quote holds, and whether it changes at renewal or once your volume grows.
Then compare that against a vendor whose rates you can read without asking. FullPAC publishes 3.5 cents standard and 2.5 cents partner, volume discounts against your real annual volume from there, and no platform, per-seat or per-sub-account fees. You can budget a program off our pricing page before you ever speak to us, which is the point of publishing it.
On who runs the program
Peerly publishes full-service sending as an option. FullPAC assigns a named person to the account as the default: someone who walks the setup, checks the list before it loads, reads the script against the patterns carriers treat as spam, and is reachable when a send is time-critical. On a high-stakes race that is the difference we would want you to compare, and the right way to compare it is to ask each vendor who exactly you would be calling and how fast they answer.
The bottom line
Look at Peerly if video messaging is the centre of your program and you want the vendor most visibly invested in it, and ask them directly for rates.
Look at FullPAC if you want published pricing you can compare before a sales call, a written no-channel-conflict commitment, a named person accountable for the send, and texting alongside the rest of the program on one platform. The wider field is in the full services comparison, and fifteen minutes with a current invoice is the fastest way to find out what your program would actually cost.