Below is a practical comparison between Puntt and Haast - two platforms that take fundamentally different approaches to their marketing compliance offerings.

While Puntt emphasizes speed-to-value with pre‑configured templates and broad compliance coverage, Haast prioritizes precision, organizational risk alignment, custom policies, and enterprise governance across multi‑market operations.

Top Features Comparison

Implementation and Set Up Comparison

Puntt promotes speed with a predefined set of compliance frameworks, delivered through a 6–8 week rollout. This setup process leans on pre‑configured templates that help organizations get up and running quickly across common compliance scenarios. 

However, templated speed comes with constraints. Because Puntt’s models are designed to work “out of the box” across broad regulatory categories, they don’t truly grasp an organization’s unique risk structures, product nuances, or multi‑market regulatory variations. 

Haast follows a more bespoke route. Its implementation requires 8–12 weeks to thoroughly map your internal policies, risk frameworks, product categories, and regional regulations into enforceable AI logic. This isn’t about stacking templates; it’s about creating an enterprise compliance engine that reflects how your legal and compliance teams actually interpret risk, not just what generic rules suggest.

The result is precision: a system that mirrors your internal legal interpretations, risk tolerance, and the complexity of your multi‑market operations.

Where Puntt emphasizes rapid deployment, Haast prioritizes accuracy, organizational alignment, and scalable governance - ensuring the platform enforces your true compliance posture, not a simplified version of it.

Support and Onboarding Comparison

Puntt's onboarding includes a Customer Success Manager and compliance automation specialist focused on guiding organizations through templates, best practices, and early approvals.

Haast’s support model is different by design. Rather than onboarding teams to pre‑set rule libraries, Haast’s implementation team works directly with your legal team to translate internal policies into enforceable, custom compliance frameworks. This collaborative process ensures your bespoke rules are embedded into automated workflows from day one. Once the solution is implemented, each business also gets a dedicated Customer Success Manager to help drive adoption and compliance alignment across teams.

Read our 2026 guide to choosing the best marketing compliance software

Training Requirements Comparison

Puntt's minimal training requirement reflects its templated approach: reviewers can begin quickly because the system provides broad guidance across general compliance checks.

Haast requires more upfront training, reflecting the bespoke nature of its enforcement logic. Haast’s AI doesn’t just apply generic templates - it learns from your legal interpretations and evolves as policies, markets, and risk tolerances change. Over the 8-12 week implementation period, the system begins to think more like your internal counsel, continually improving accuracy and reducing manual review effort.

Integrations Comparison

Puntt integrates with many tools, focusing on creative, DAM, and project management platforms - which helps teams keep compliance checks close to where they work.

Haast takes a depth‑over‑breadth approach. It integrates natively with major creative and workflow environments where legal and marketing teams operate most frequently, such as Figma, Word, and Monday.com.

Scalability Comparison

Puntt offers unlimited users and supports multiple markets - assuming its template‑based model is sufficient for each new region’s compliance needs.

Haast also supports unlimited users and regions, but expansion involves market‑specific configuration. This ensures compliance reflects local regulatory nuances, product claims variations, and internal risk tolerance. While this adds initial effort, it ensures each market’s framework is accurate rather than broadly approximated.

Compliance Coverage Comparison

Both platforms support pre‑publish and post‑publish compliance reviews, but the distinction lies in how coverage is enforced:

• Puntt: Applies broad, template‑driven rules and compliance checks, including live scanning of published content across channels. 

• Haast: Uses organization‑specific, bespoke frameworks that reflect your internal legal interpretations and risk tolerances, reducing noise and increasing signal accuracy in both pre‑publication checks and continuous monitoring across all digital channels.

Puntt's monitoring captures live content, which is valuable - but it still applies broad templates rather than frameworks tailored to your compliance needs.

Haast’s coverage reflects your policy logic at every stage of the content lifecycle, before live and once published.

Best For

Puntt:

Ideal for large CPG teams and enterprises seeking a fast, templated rollout with broad compliance checks and integrations that work across many tools.

Haast:

Best for enterprise organisations that need:

• Compliance bespoke to their internal policies - not generic rules. AI that mirrors how your in-house lawyers review content within ~12 weeks

• True enterprise scale - unlimited users, teams, brands, and markets without re-templating

• Full compliance coverage - pre-publish checks and continuous monitoring of live content across channels

If compliance varies by product, market, or risk tolerance,  and if live content matters, Haast is built for that reality.

Bottom Line

Both platforms offer AI‑driven compliance capabilities, but they serve fundamentally different needs.

Choose Puntt if you want:

• Fast templated rollout

• Broad compliance checks

Choose Haast if you want:

• Compliance that mirrors internal policies and risk tolerance

• Granular control across multi‑product, multi‑market ecosystems

• Enterprise‑grade accuracy over off‑the‑shelf templates

• A governance engine that evolves with your organisation and supports audit‑ready compliance throughout the content lifecycle

The right choice depends on whether your organization can accept template‑level compliance, or whether it requires the precision of a bespoke compliance operating system designed for enterprise scale.