Let us start with the part that does not favor us. Scale to Win publishes lower retail per-segment rates than FullPAC does. 1.5 cents per outbound SMS segment on long code, or 1 cent on short code with a $500 monthly rental, against our 3.5 cents standard and 2.5 cents partner. If your decision is “which of these two has the lower published number next to SMS,” it is Scale to Win, and we are not going to spend a page pretending otherwise.
The word doing the work in that paragraph is retail. Both companies discount at volume and neither publishes what that discount is, so a rate card comparison answers a question most serious programs are not actually asking. The rest of this page is about the comparison that matters: the fully loaded cost of running the program, and what you are buying besides segments.
The published rates, side by side
| Scale to Win | FullPAC | |
|---|---|---|
| SMS per segment | 1.5¢ long code, 1¢ short code | 3.5¢ standard, 2.5¢ partner, volume discounts below |
| MMS | 3.5¢ long code, 2.5¢ short code | In the rate card |
| Fixed fees | $500/month short code rental | None |
| Inbound | Free, plus free landline filtering | Free |
| Terms | Pay as you go, no contract | Partner agreement for partner rates |
| White label and rebilling | Not published | Sub-account per client, your brand and invoice |
| Other channels | Texting and a dialer | Texting, voice, mail, digital, data, creative on one platform |
At high volume, neither published rate is the real rate
The obvious move is to multiply the gap by your volume. At a million messages, 1.5 cents against 2.5 cents looks like $10,000. Before you budget against that number, notice what Scale to Win’s own pricing page says at the bottom: if you are planning to send more than a million messages, they direct you to ask about bulk pricing options (scaletowin.com/pricing).
That is the tell. At the volumes where the gap is worth arguing about, neither vendor is selling off the published card. Their rate becomes a quote, and so does ours: FullPAC’s volume discounts start below the 2.5 cent partner rate and are priced against your actual annual volume. Comparing a published retail rate to a published retail rate at two million messages is comparing two numbers that neither company is going to charge you.
So if you are at that scale, the useful exercise is not reading rate cards. It is putting your real annual volume in front of both of us and comparing the two quotes that come back. We would encourage you to do exactly that, and to bring the other quote with you.
And compare the whole program, not the segment
The per-segment rate is one line in a program budget. The things that move the total, from both vendors’ published terms:
- Platform and rental fees. Scale to Win’s long code has no monthly fee, but the 1 cent short code rate carries a $500 monthly rental. FullPAC has no platform fee, no per-seat fee, and no charge per sub-account, so adding clients does not add fixed cost.
- Inbound. Free on both, and worth confirming with any vendor you talk to, because it is not free everywhere.
- Whether operational help is a line item. This is the large one. Across the category, having the vendor actually run your sending is priced as a surcharge: RumbleUp publishes plus 2 cents for outsourced sending and plus 5 cents for full service (rumbleup.com/pricing). At a million messages a 5 cent surcharge is $50,000, which dwarfs any per-segment difference on this page. With FullPAC a named person on your account is how the product works, not a tier you buy, so that line is zero.
- Rework. A list loaded wrong, a script that trips carrier filtering, or a registration filed incorrectly costs money and, closer to an election, costs time you cannot buy back. Harder to model than a rate card, and usually larger.
Put those together and the comparison is not 1.5 cents against 2.5 cents. It is the fully loaded cost of running the program to the end, with volume pricing applied on both sides. Run that number rather than the headline one.
When Scale to Win is still the right call
All of the above said, there are cases where their model is simply the better fit, and we would rather name them than bury them.
- An experienced in-house team. If you have run these programs before and know how to structure a list, write to segment limits, and handle replies, then the human help is not worth anything to you, and you should buy the cheapest good tooling. That is a rational purchase and Scale to Win is a good version of it.
- Very high short code volume. Their 1 cent short code rate is the lowest published figure we found anywhere. Once volume clears the $500 monthly rental comfortably, the arithmetic is strong.
- Texting only, bought directly. If you are not reselling, not running other channels, and want a self-serve tool with no contract, the simplicity is worth something.
When it is the wrong way to decide
Three situations, and they are the ones that describe most of who we work with.
You are reselling to clients
If you are a consultant or firm running outreach for clients, you are not just buying segments. You are choosing the infrastructure behind work that will carry your name, and you are accountable to the client for whether the program runs properly. That changes what you are shopping for.
Your client should get a strong rate and a program that is set up correctly. Your firm should be paid for the strategy, the judgment, and the accountability you bring to it, which is the part the client is actually hiring you for. Those are not in tension, and any vendor arrangement that only works if the client is kept in the dark is the wrong arrangement. White-label is not concealment: it is you putting your name on the whole program and standing behind it, the same way an agency does with any work it delivers.
What that requires from a vendor is practical. A sub-account per client so the work is separated properly. Reporting your client can actually read. Your firm on the invoice, because you are the one they call. And a vendor that will not go around you to the client you brought.
Scale to Win does not publish a white-label or reseller program. FullPAC is built around one, and the Partner Protection Guarantee puts the no-channel-conflict commitment in writing. On that axis the per-segment rate is close to irrelevant: a cheaper vendor that can call your client directly is not cheaper.
The race is high-stakes
A cent per segment stops being the variable when the send is the last contact before a close election. What matters then is that a named person knows your program, has checked the list, has read the script against the patterns carriers treat as spam, and picks up when you call at 9pm the night before.
FullPAC assigns that person as the default rather than as a paid tier. On a $5,000 messaging spend, an extra cent per segment costs a few hundred dollars. Whether that is expensive depends entirely on what the race is worth to you.
You need more than texting
Scale to Win publishes texting and a dialer. If your program is also running mail, digital, voice, and voter data, the choice is between one platform on one invoice against a stack of vendors that do not share a list, an opt-out state, or a report. The per-segment saving usually evaporates in the reconciliation.
The bottom line
Choose Scale to Win if you are running your own program, the volume is large and predictable, and cost per segment is the number you are optimizing. It is a serious product with genuinely transparent pay-as-you-go terms.
Choose FullPAC if you are reselling under your own brand, if the stakes justify having a person accountable for the send, or if you want texting alongside the rest of the program on one platform. Our rate card is on the pricing page, partner terms included, and the full cost breakdown works through what a real program comes to once fees and surcharges are counted.