Optimove vs Smartico 2026: Now Under One Owner

The short version: these two are no longer independent competitors. On 6 April 2026 Optimove announced a signed agreement to acquire Smartico. Both companies say they will keep operating as separate businesses with separate brands, teams, roadmaps and pricing — and that they will continue to compete. We have no reason to doubt that. But if both names are on your shortlist, you should know the shortlist now contains two products with one owner, because it changes what a competitive tender is actually testing.

What was announced, precisely

Optimove announced on 6 April 2026 that it had signed an agreement to acquire Smartico. Terms were undisclosed. The stated structure:

• Both companies operate as fully independent businesses, each maintaining its own brand, team, product strategy, roadmap and market approach.
• Smartico’s founders continue to lead the company, retaining decision-making authority over strategy, product roadmap and day-to-day operations.
• For Smartico clients: “the same team, the same product, the same pricing, and the same service model.”
• Smartico’s own statement to customers: “Clients won’t notice a difference in how Smartico works, because there isn’t one” — and both companies will “continue to compete in the market.”

Optimove founder and CEO Pini Yakuel said what impressed them was “the combination of product strength, service excellence, and the way the company has been built.” Smartico CEO and co-founder Arman Gal framed it as joining forces “at such an important moment for the iGaming CRM industry.”

One accuracy note we will not paper over: the April announcement described the transaction as expected to close in the following weeks, and we have not located a separate public confirmation that it has completed. Treat the agreement as announced, and confirm current status with either vendor before relying on it.

How the two products actually differ

The corporate news does not change the product distinction, which was always the real basis for choosing between them.

Read as a choice, it comes down to one question: is your retention model lifecycle-first or mechanics-first? If players stay because the right message reaches them at the right moment, the depth of the modelling and orchestration layer is what you are buying, and Optimove is built for that. If players stay because of progression, competition and reward status, then having those mechanics native to the same system as the messaging removes a permanent integration seam, and Smartico is built for that.

Most operators say “both”, which is honest and not decisive. The useful version is which one you would keep if forced to drop the other — and that is usually answerable from your own retention data rather than from a vendor conversation.

What common ownership changes in practice

Nothing about the products today. Several things about how you should run the process.

1. A two-horse tender between them is no longer price discovery. Competitive tension between two vendors with the same ultimate owner is not the same instrument it was. If you want genuine pricing pressure, a third independent name belongs on the list — Xtremepush, Fast Track and Solitics are the obvious candidates depending on your architecture.
2. Roadmap independence is a commitment, not a structural guarantee. Both parties have said clearly that the roadmaps stay separate, and we take that seriously. It is still a statement about intent, and intent is the kind of thing that belongs in a contract if you are going to depend on it. Ask for roadmap and pricing commitments with a term attached.
3. Check your renewal dates against it. If you are on one of these platforms with a renewal inside the next year, that is the moment your leverage is highest and the moment to get the commitments written down.
4. Overlap is where consolidation pressure eventually shows up. Optimove’s Gamify module and Smartico’s core product address the same need. Nobody has announced anything here and we are not predicting they will — but it is the specific area where a buyer should want contractual clarity rather than reassurance.

If you are already on one of them

Do nothing reactive. Both vendors have been explicit that current customers see no change, and switching CRM platforms is among the more expensive things an operator can do to itself — the risk sits in trigger timing, undocumented exclusions and data contracts rather than in the platform swap, which is why migrations fail quietly rather than loudly. Avenmark Media’s guide to migrating an iGaming CRM platform without losing the programme covers what actually breaks.

The proportionate response is to use your next renewal to convert the public assurances into contractual ones, and to make sure you could leave if you needed to — which mostly means knowing that your player data and your programme logic are portable, and confirming that before you need it rather than after.

A note on the other comparisons you will find

A large share of the “best iGaming CRM” and “Optimove alternatives” content ranking for these queries is published by vendors who appear in their own rankings. That material is not worthless, but it is marketing, and it should be read as marketing. We have no commercial relationship with any platform on this page, take no affiliate revenue from them, and have listed what each vendor publishes about itself alongside what we could not verify.

Sources: Optimove press announcement, 6 April 2026, distributed via GlobeNewswire; Smartico company statement, April 2026; Optimove and Smartico product sites. Verify current transaction status and product scope with the vendors before making a decision.