Cloud CMA vs MoxiWorks 2027: Which Fits a Small Brokerage

Short answer: pick by who signs the contract

Cloud CMA vs MoxiWorks is mainly a question of who buys the tool. A comparative market analysis (CMA) is a report that estimates a home's value from recently sold and active comparable listings, and both products produce CMA reports and client presentations. Cloud CMA is a standalone tool that an individual agent or a small team can start with. MoxiWorks sells its RISE platform only through brokerages, so an office has to commit before agents can use it.

TL;DR: choose Cloud CMA when agents should pick and run their own CMAs, and choose MoxiWorks when the brokerage will control templates, CRM and marketing under one contract. Neither vendor publishes plan prices on the pages reviewed, so the budget conversation starts with a quote.

Ownership and naming come first, because both companies have changed hands or names in ways that affect how you buy. Cloud CMA is a Lone Wolf product, as Lone Wolf's own comparison post makes clear. Lone Wolf scale claim: over 1.5 million agents, 8,000 brokerages according to HousingWire (2020). Stone Point Capital's funds became Lone Wolf's lead institutional investor on October 23, 2020, according to Stone Point Capital. This guide found no later ownership announcement, so confirm the current owner during diligence.

MoxiWorks has a similar gap. Vector Capital made a growth equity investment in MoxiWorks on September 12, 2019, according to Vector Capital. This guide found no later ownership announcement for MoxiWorks either.

Neither product is discontinued or merged in the pages reviewed. The MoxiWorks CMA page still uses the name MoxiPresent, while the company's current site lists a "CMA Presentation Platform" and includes CMA presentations inside RISE, which it calls its AI real estate marketing platform.

Key Takeaways

• Cloud CMA suits agents and small teams that want a standalone CMA and presentation tool, and its product page offers a "Try for Free" link.

• MoxiWorks' RISE platform is sold only through brokerages, and its page says agents cannot purchase it directly at this time.

• Neither vendor publishes plan prices on the pages reviewed, so both are quote-based in this guide.

• MoxiWorks' performance figures are vendor claims with no published method, and they should not drive the decision.

• Before you design any automation, confirm MLS data rights, CRM API access and whether presentation view events can be exported.

• No third-party user ratings are cited here, because the review-site pages that list them returned errors during research.

How we evaluated these tools

The seven criteria below reflect the decisions a small brokerage owner has to make, weighted toward who can buy the tool and whether its data and integrations will work. The weights are this guide's judgment, not vendor or third-party scores. Each row is scored only from the pages cited in this article, and where a vendor page is silent, the cell says "not stated" rather than filling the gap with an estimate.

Two kinds of source are weaker than the rest: vendor comparison posts and vendor performance claims. Lone Wolf's comparison is written by the maker of Cloud CMA, and the MoxiWorks performance figures come from MoxiWorks itself. Treat both as positioning, and check them against the questions in the decision checklist below.

Feature matrix: what each tool offers

The matrix below uses the same seven criteria. Where a cell relies on a vendor's own comparison rather than its product page, the cell says so.

The matrix shows that Cloud CMA is more explicit about its entry route and support hours, while MoxiWorks is more explicit about brokerage control and CRM-linked marketing. Neither vendor documents its data feeds in enough detail to settle the MLS question on its own. Ask both vendors for the same written answers rather than relying on either side's comparison.

Pricing and how each one is bought

Neither vendor publishes plan prices on the pages this guide could open, so both entries in the table below are Quote-based. Cloud CMA's product page links its "Try for Free" button to a checkout page, and the checkout page opened without plan figures. The same product page says Power Pack is an optional add-on, but it does not state what Power Pack costs.

Pricing checked October 18, 2026.

Some third-party listings and Lone Wolf's comparison post carry rate figures for Cloud CMA, and aggregator sites give MoxiWorks figures that conflict with one another. None of those figures appears on a vendor pricing page this guide could open, so none is printed here. The practical step is to send each vendor the same request: your agent count, the modules you need, your MLS name, and a request for an annual price in writing.

For market-report products that sit beside a presentation tool, see the CMA market reports comparison.

Who this is for

Cloud CMA fits a solo agent or a small team that wants one CMA and presentation tool, can buy it without committing the whole office, and can work within weekday phone support hours.

Red flags: the office needs a documented API or CRM sync before go-live, the office needs brokerage-wide reporting or admin oversight that the pages reviewed do not describe, or the MLS feed behind the comps is not confirmed.

MoxiWorks fits a brokerage that wants central brand control, shared templates and CRM-linked marketing under one contract, and that can accept a sales-led buying process.

Red flags: an individual agent wants to buy alone, the office needs a published price to set a budget before a meeting, or the office needs a documented public API to build against.

Vendor profiles: Cloud CMA and MoxiWorks

Cloud CMA

Cloud CMA's best fit is an agent-led office. Its product page describes comparative market analysis reports, buyer tour materials, property reports and flyers, with several templates or a custom report set built with the company's branding. Cloud CMA Live runs the CMA in a video meeting, and the product page also lists a printed report as a leave-behind and a backup if devices or internet fail.

The main limitation is support coverage. Phone support is available on weekdays: Phone support: M-F 9am to 5pm Pacific according to Cloud CMA. The product page also does not say which MLS or data feed supplies the comparables, so ask the vendor and your MLS before relying on live data. The only third-party data integration it names is Realtor.com, through the Listing Toolkit.

On evidence, Lone Wolf's own comparison says Cloud CMA offers direct MLS pulls, real-time searches, multi-MLS support and always-synced listing data, according to Lone Wolf (dated January 16, 2026). That is the vendor's own claim, so verify it in a trial before you commit.

For implementation, a solo agent can start from the checkout link on the product page. A brokerage should ask three questions in writing: whether the brand admin tools are included in its plan, which MLS feed supplies the comps, and whether an API exists. The developer link on the product page returned an error when opened, and Lone Wolf's public API index does not list a Cloud CMA API, so treat API access as unproven.

MoxiWorks

MoxiWorks' best fit is a brokerage that wants one controlled system. Its CMA page describes presentations with templates preset for the brokerage, client comments and feedback, and creation and sending from any device. Its RISE page adds an AI-prioritized daily contact list, workflows triggered by listing activity or email opens, and branded IDX websites with lead capture.

The performance claims deserve scrutiny. Vendor claim: 3.5x more sold listings, no methodology according to MoxiWorks. The RISE page says its figures are platform data and that results vary: Vendor data: 10M+ hours saved, results vary according to MoxiWorks. Neither claim includes a sample size or a method, so treat them as marketing until a reference check or trial confirms them.

The limitations are about access and data. RISE is sold only through brokerages, and agents cannot purchase it directly at this time. Its integrations are listed as MLS data feeds, ShowingTime, Facebook and Instagram, and Title & Escrow, with transaction management and expanded CRM connectivity on the roadmap. The CMA page names no MLS, no refresh schedule and no multi-MLS support, so ask for those in writing. The partner integrations page reports more than 60 partners, but it links no public API or developer documentation.

For implementation, expect a brokerage-level onboarding conversation. The RISE page says onboarding timelines depend on brokerage size and gives no specifics. Before signing, ask for the template lock-in details, the scope of CRM sync, and the rules for exporting presentation activity.

Build it yourself or configure it

For many small offices, the real alternative is not a second CMA vendor. It is stitching a CMA flow together in Zapier, Make or n8n, or writing an in-house script. Those tools can support run histories, retries, error branches and audit evidence when they are configured that way. The buyer still has to design and own observability, idempotency so the same lead does not get two CMAs, escalation paths, access controls and ongoing maintenance.

US Tech Automations would approach this as a proposed, configurable design rather than a turnkey product. The first workflow would start when a seller lead is tagged in the office CRM. It would pull comparable sales from an MLS export or feed the office is permitted to use, build a draft CMA summary in the agent's template, and place that draft in a review queue. The output is a draft that a licensed agent approves before anything reaches the seller. Prerequisites: CRM API access with scoped credentials, a written MLS data-use permission, and a named reviewer.

The second proposed workflow would follow up after a presentation is sent. It would watch for view events from the presentation tool and create a follow-up task for the listing agent, who decides whether a message goes out. This works only if the chosen tool exposes view events through an export or API. Neither vendor page reviewed here documents that for Cloud CMA, and MoxiWorks describes activity tracking inside its CRM without naming an export. A US Tech Automations design would therefore make the export check the first gate, before any build.

Compared with a stitched build, a configured design could add run-level alerts, a retry limit, a holding queue for failed comp pulls and a single approval step. Those are the parts that are easiest to skip in a first build. They are design choices with owners, not a live deployment, and each one needs a named person in the office.

When not to use US Tech Automations: if your office prepares only a few CMAs a month and an existing MLS or CRM tool already covers presentations, use that tool and skip custom work. If agents will buy one presentation app individually, buy Cloud CMA directly and skip the workflow layer. If your CRM already creates follow-up tasks from presentation views, its built-in automation is simpler to run. For a wider set of CMA automation products, see the CMA automation platform comparison. If narrative drafting is the bottleneck, the AI writing tools guide covers writing tools separately.

The hours math for a six-agent office

The figures below are illustrative assumptions, not a measured result. Assume a six-agent office prepares 8 CMAs per agent each month, or 48 in total, and each agent spends 45 minutes per CMA by hand, which is 2,160 minutes or 36 hours a month. If a configured draft cuts the agent's time to 20 minutes per CMA, including review, the same 48 reports take 960 minutes, or 16 hours, a saving of 20 hours a month. If the office runs HubSpot as its CRM, a proposed poller could read the webhook journal for ASSOCIATION_ADDED events when a CMA-related record is associated with a contact, but HubSpot journal data covers the past 3 days according to HubSpot, so a poller that runs less often than every three days can miss events.

Evidence ledger: the figures this guide relies on

Every figure in this guide appears in the table below with its source type and date, so a reader can check each one against the cited page.

Common mistakes and a decision checklist

Common mistakes to avoid:

• Comparing a standalone CMA tool's rate with a brokerage platform quote, since the two buying routes are not equivalent.

• Treating vendor performance claims as results, when the 3.5x listing figure has no published method.

• Assuming an MLS feed is permitted because a vendor says "live MLS data," without checking with your MLS.

• Assuming an API exists because a product page mentions one.

• Designing an automation before confirming that presentation view events can be exported.

Decision checklist before the sales call:

• Confirm who signs: an agent, a team or the brokerage.
• Get a written quote for your agent count and the modules you need.
• Name the MLS feed, its refresh method and the permission that covers it.
• Ask whether brand admin controls are included in your plan.
• Ask for the API or export list in writing, with the owner and date.
• Check that phone support hours fit your office's working hours.
• Confirm the current owner and the contract term.

Frequently asked questions

Is Cloud CMA free to use?

No plan price is published on the pages reviewed, but the product page offers a "Try for Free" link, and Lone Wolf's comparison says a free trial is available, which is the vendor's own claim. Ask for the trial terms in writing before you rely on them.

Can an individual agent buy MoxiWorks?

Not RISE: the RISE page says agents cannot purchase it directly at this time, so an agent needs the brokerage to buy it. The CMA presentation page does not state a buying route, so ask the vendor to confirm that separately.

Does either tool have a public API I can build on?

Neither has documented public API access that this guide could confirm. Cloud CMA's developer link returned an error, and MoxiWorks' partner page links no API documentation.

Who owns MoxiWorks now?

The most recent ownership announcement this guide could open is Vector Capital's growth equity investment, dated September 12, 2019, according to Vector Capital. Confirm the current owner in writing during diligence.

When is a simpler tool enough?

If your office prepares only a few CMAs a month, and an existing MLS or CRM tool covers presentations, a built-in option may be enough. Lone Wolf's comparison says Cloud CMA is conveniently included with many MLS memberships, so check that first.

Bottom line for the buyer

Cloud CMA vs MoxiWorks is a choice between an agent-led standalone tool and a brokerage-controlled platform. Choose Cloud CMA when agents should pick and run their own CMAs and the office does not need a brokerage-wide contract. Choose MoxiWorks when the brokerage can commit, wants templates, CRM and marketing under one roof, and accepts a sales-led price. In both cases, the decisive facts are not on the public pages. The price, the MLS feed and the API status need written answers before a budget is approved.

If you plan to connect either tool to a CRM or follow-up workflow, check its prerequisites against the vendor's answers first. For a proposed design of a review-gated CMA workflow, see how US Tech Automations configures this, then compare those prerequisites with what each vendor confirms in writing.