One direct connection or a route across the stack?
A provider-native integration can be the shortest path when two tools need one fixed handoff. OpenContact becomes useful when the same contact crosses several providers or shared status must outlive one integration.
| Need | Native integration | OpenContact |
|---|---|---|
| Simple two-tool handoff | Often the shortest setup | Additional routing layer |
| Several sources and destinations | Multiple separate setups | One rule model |
| Provider-neutral contact record | Usually absent | Canonical contact store |
| Cross-provider suppression | Usually limited to the pair | Shared suppression workflow |
| Direct platform migration | Rare | Supported source-to-destination migration |
| Unified activity history | Split by provider | Project and contact timelines |
Choose a native integration when
Only two tools are involved, the built-in mapping covers the workflow, and there is no need for shared contact or suppression state.
Choose OpenContact when
The route includes several tools, must remain portable during provider changes, or needs centralized status, testing, and auditability.