Go to market software vendors that publish their pricing, by category

Most demo only pricing is really edition pricing. The number quoted is for the tier that lacks the feature the pilot proved you need.

Per seat figures budget nothing until the floor and the ceiling are stated. Ask for both in the same sentence.

The first year price is the vendor acquiring you. The second year price is the product. Only the second one is worth modeling.

A license price that excludes the work required to use the license is a partial disclosure, and the index grades it as one.

Which go to market software vendors publish their pricing publicly?

84 of the 338 vendors in the GTM Tech Index publish real prices, meaning plans, seat or usage economics and the shape of enterprise pricing, at a standard a buyer can budget from without a sales call. That is 25 percent of the index. Another 129 publish partial pricing, usually real entry tiers with enterprise left opaque, which brings the share with anything checkable to 63 percent. 67 vendors offer a demo request as their entire commercial disclosure. The lists on this page name every vendor graded A, category by category, and each name links to a profile carrying the full pricing research record.

Which categories of go to market software publish pricing most and least?

CRM & Systems of Record is the most open category in the index, with 12 of 30 vendors, 40 percent, publishing real prices. Customer Success & Retention is the least open, at 0 of 5, which is to say no vendor in that category publishes pricing a buyer could budget from. The pattern across the table is that categories bought by individual reps and small teams publish, and categories bought by revenue leadership on an annual contract do not: the further a product sits from a credit card, the more likely its price is a conversation.

Which sales engagement platforms publish their pricing?

28 of the 99 sales engagement platforms in the index publish real prices, 28 percent, which is the largest group of openly priced vendors in any category here: Chili Piper, Email Sequence-r, Emailchaser, FunnelFLARE, GMass, Hippo Video, HotHawk, Humanlinker, Instantly, Mixmax, Outplay, Overloop, Pipl.ai, Prospi AI, QuickMail, ReachRobin, SalesBlink, Salesforge, Saleshandy, SendKit, Sendspark, Sendswift, Smartlead, SmartReach.io, Snov.io, Vendasta Yesware, Vidyard, Woodpecker.co. Another 41 publish partial pricing, usually real entry tiers with enterprise left opaque, bringing the share a buyer can check to 70 percent, and 17 treat a demo request as the entire commercial disclosure. The split inside this category is the useful part. The platforms that publish are overwhelmingly the ones sold to an individual rep or a small team on a card, where the price has to be on the page for the purchase to happen at all. The ones that do not are sold to revenue leadership on an annual contract, where the number is set per deal. Neither approach is disqualifying, but they are different buying processes, and the published price tells you which one you are entering before you book the call.

Which AI SDR agents publish their pricing?

5 of the 28 vendors filed primarily as AI SDR and outbound agents in the index publish real prices, 18 percent: AiSDR, Cognlay, Evergrowth, OptaReach, RingEmAll. Another 8 publish partial pricing, which brings the share a buyer can check to 46 percent, and 6 treat a demo request as the entire commercial disclosure. The published numbers are harder to compare here than in most categories, because agents meter on different units: contacts researched, emails sent, credits, or meetings booked, often layered on a platform fee. A low entry price on one unit can cost more than a higher price on another once the volume is real. Ask every vendor to price the same twelve months at the same contact and sending volume, and ask which unit the bill actually scales on.

How do pricing models for account based marketing platforms compare?

They compare badly, in the sense that there is very little to compare. 1 of 14 publish real prices, 7 publish partial pricing, 4 publish structure without numbers and 2 publish nothing at all. That makes ABM the least commercially transparent category on this page. Where structure is published, the models in use are a platform fee plus a tier based on the number of target accounts, a contact or record based tier inherited from marketing automation, an impression or media based model where advertising delivery is included, and a seat model layered on top of any of the three. Those are not variations on one price, they are different units of consumption, so two quotes are rarely comparable without normalizing them first. Ask every vendor to quote the same account list, the same contact volume and the same twelve months, and ask which of those four units their number actually scales on.

Why do so many sales tools hide their pricing behind a demo?

Because the list price is rarely the bill. In most of these categories the per seat figure is set by edition gates, seat minimums, sending or credit limits, implementation fees and the renewal uplift, and a vendor that publishes only the headline number would be publishing the least informative part of its pricing. Holding the number back also lets the vendor price the deal to the buyer rather than to the market. The index does not take a view on whether that is reasonable. It records the choice: silence on price in a category this competitive is graded D, and 67 of 338 vendors carry that grade today.

How is pricing transparency graded in the GTM Tech Index?

On completeness, never on the price itself. A means real prices published, sufficient to budget without a call. B means partial pricing, entry tiers real and enterprise opaque, or pricing published with load bearing exclusions. C means a pricing page that communicates structure without numbers. D means book a demo is the entire disclosure. Every grade carries a source basis and a verification date: 295 of the 338 grades rest on the vendor's own published pricing and 43 on third party estimates where the vendor publishes nothing. A cheap tool with a demo form grades below an expensive tool with a rate card, which is the intended result.