DealDrive CRM
Agentic CRM for small and medium businesses, positioned as a full classic CRM with an AI layer on top and sold against HubSpot, Pipedrive and Zoho. Core is leads, deals, pipelines, custom modules, territory management, product catalog and CPQ, contracts with e-signature, plus a partner portal and whitelabelling.
The agentic layer adds AI Memory, which indexes emails and attachments, contracts, CRM records, activities and WhatsApp and SMS threads for natural language search, a deal closure engine scoring against MEDDPICC, Challenger and BANT and nudging stalled deals, and a BDR agent that discovers leads, scores intent and drafts outreach across email, WhatsApp, SMS and social. MCP server published. Founded 2021 in Gurgaon, India.
Capability Axes
Capability grades
17 of 17 axes rated · 3 graded A or B
The vendor answers this axis in its own description of the architecture, calling the product a full classic CRM with the agentic layer on top. That is an explicit statement that the layer sits above something complete: leads, deals, pipelines, custom modules, territory management, product catalogue and configure price quote, contracts and e-signature all stand without a model, and the products it names itself against are HubSpot, Pipedrive and Zoho.
The AI features are real and shipped on every tier rather than gated, and they are metered separately as enrichment credits, which is the packaging tell. A layer described as a layer is the cleanest version of the removal test this index has recorded.
The oversight claim is the product's headline and the newest module contradicts it, one month apart and both in the vendor's own words. The site promises the next move drafted by an agent with a human on the last click, and states plainly that agents draft and the operator approves.
The BDR agent announced in August 2026 for the top tier then lists among its capabilities the ability to auto approve and send within configured caps and a send window, on an agent that reaches prospects across email, messaging and social. Caps and windows are throttles rather than oversight.
What is missing on both sides of the contradiction is the same: no description of what approval actually gates, no withholding guardrail, no escalation criteria, and no audit trail of what an agent drafted against what was sent.
One disclosure here is better than most vendors manage and it sits in an unusual place. The lead discovery announcement names its crawling supplier outright, stating that the agent auto discovers leads from social and the web via Firecrawl, so a buyer can see one named component of the AI supply chain rather than a generic claim. The answer surface also promises responses with receipts, which implies grounded citation.
Everything else is absent: model provider, family, version and inference location go unnamed, AI credits are metered with no consumption table published, and no accuracy rate is given for intent scoring, lead scoring or the memory retrieval that the whole product now rests on.
The evidence that exists is independent and thin. Nine verified purchaser reviews on a marketplace with a 60 day refund guarantee average 4.8, and the founder posts under a verified profile with dated product announcements running from July to August 2026, which is a real and checkable release cadence.
Against that: no named customer, no case study, no quantified outcome claim of any kind, and a company profile listing 51 to 200 employees for a seed stage vendor running a lifetime licence promotion, recorded as observed. The evidence is early stage rather than concealed, and a buyer weighing a pipeline of record has almost nothing to reason from.
The regulated surface is as wide as any vendor graded at this size and nothing addresses it. The BDR agent reaches prospects across email, WhatsApp, SMS and a professional network, which engages messaging consent rules, telephone consumer protection law on the SMS leg, the platform's business messaging policy on WhatsApp, and commercial email rules on the first. The only controls named are sending caps and a send window, which govern pace rather than permission. No regime is named on any surface read, and no consent, suppression or opt out mechanism is described.
The privacy question is unusually consequential here and the documents were not located on the surfaces read. AI Memory indexes full email bodies synced from Gmail and Outlook, automatically parses email attachments, ingests uploaded contracts and proposals, and indexes WhatsApp and SMS conversations, so the platform holds correspondence rather than contact records.
A privacy policy, a processing addendum, a retention position and any data subject request route were all absent from what could be read, and the vendor's own site renders client side so its footer and legal surface could not be enumerated this pass. Re verify at dealdrive.tech directly before treating any of this as absent.
Naming the crawler is the creditable part and it stops there. Lead discovery is described as auto discovering prospects from a professional network and the wider web through a named third party crawling service, and contact and company enrichment is metered in AI credits on every tier.
No data provider is named for the enrichment itself, no licence or collection basis is stated for the crawled material, and the people discovered this way have no notification, lookup or removal route described anywhere. Held at the top of the band because naming a supplier at all is more than most enrichment products here disclose.
The BDR agent both harvests from and sends into a professional network, discovering leads there through a third party crawler and then reaching prospects on the same platform alongside email and messaging. That is action on a platform under the operator's own account with no conformance position, rate limit statement or account risk allocation published anywhere.
Held at the middle of the band because the tells that take this axis lower are all absent: no account rotation, no proxies, no multi account stacking, no session custody claim and no marketing built on avoiding detection.
The vendor raises the training question itself in the clearest terms of any vendor graded this session. The BDR agent is described as learning the operator's voice from every edit they make and training on their pitch decks, documents and market research, and AI Memory indexes the full correspondence record including email bodies, attachments, contracts and messaging threads.
A statement on whether any of that material trains or improves models serving other tenants appears nowhere, and no retention period, tenancy boundary or deletion position accompanies the memory feature. The corpus is the customer's entire commercial conversation history and the stewardship position covering it is undescribed.
Manufactured effort runs through the outbound module by design: the agent researches the prospect, scores intent, drafts the message and, on the vendor's own account, learns the operator's writing voice from their edits so the output reads as the operator wrote it. Messages reach people across four channels including two that are ordinarily personal. Article 50 goes unmentioned.
Held at the middle of the band because sending happens under the operator's own identity and mailbox, no invented persona or synthetic voice appears anywhere, and the product's stated design places a human at the approval step even though the newest module allows that step to be automated.
The agent era surface is ahead of the conventional one, which is unusual at this size. An MCP server went live in July 2026 with OAuth, and the vendor names Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor as clients that can connect to the CRM directly, making this one of a small number of vendors in the index building for agent access rather than only for people.
Beneath it sits a tiered API running from read only through read and write to full access with webhooks, two way email sync with Gmail and Outlook, WhatsApp and SMS channels, and e signature. Off the top of the band because the conventional connector catalogue is thin, no marketplace listing or integration directory was located, and API capability is gated by tier so the entry plan can read but not write.
The residency question goes unanswered on every surface read. Hosting provider, processing region, storage location and sub processor list are all absent. The gap carries more weight than usual because of what the platform stores: full email bodies, parsed attachments, executed contracts and messaging history for buyers the vendor itself describes as global, held by a company operating from India. The vendor's own site renders client side and its footer could not be enumerated this pass, so re verify before treating a residency statement as absent.
A security question appears by name in the vendor's published frequently asked questions, so the topic is addressed somewhere, and the answer text did not render on the surfaces read. No certification, audit, penetration test, control set, trust centre or status page was located. The access the product holds is broad: connected Gmail and Outlook mailboxes with full body sync, parsed attachments, contracts under e signature, and messaging threads. Recorded as a retrieval limit as much as a finding, with the vendor's own security answer and site footer as the first things to re verify.
The published limit matrix is one of the most quantified in the index. Three lifetime licence tiers at 69, 149 and 249 US dollars each publish nine separate numbers: user seats at 3, 5 and 15, storage at 5, 25 and 50 gigabytes, monthly API calls at 2,500, 5,000 and 15,000, workflows at 5, 25 and unlimited, AI enrichment credits at 100, 500 and 1,000 a month, custom fields at 10, 30 and 50 per module, pipelines at 1, 5 and unlimited, contracts and signatures at 25, 125 and 250, and API access as read only, read and write, or full with webhooks.
A 60 day refund applies. Two things hold it off the top. This is promotional lifetime pricing on a marketplace and the vendor's ordinary recurring price was not located, so the figures describe one purchase path rather than the buyer's. And a deal term states that access to future AI models may come at a discounted rate or may require an add on, which is a stated future charge with no figure attached to a licence sold as lifetime.
Two partial routes out are published. Deal data can be exported and imported from the pipeline view, and the top tier carries full API access with webhooks, which in practice lets a technical customer pull records continuously into a system they own. Both are features rather than commitments, and the entry tier's API is read only, which weakens the second route exactly where the smallest customers sit. A post termination retention period, a deletion timeline, a deletion artefact and any statement covering the correspondence and contracts held in memory were all absent from the surfaces read.
Sending appears to run through the operator's own connected Gmail or Outlook mailbox, since email sync is a core feature, which puts the reputation at risk with the buyer rather than in a vendor pool. The only discipline described is a pair of throttles on the outbound agent, a sending cap and a send window.
Warmup, authentication named by protocol, bounce or complaint thresholds, blocklist monitoring, placement testing and suppression handling are all absent from the surfaces read, on a product whose newest module drafts and sends at machine speed across four channels.
The market is stated plainly and corroborated by the shape of the product. Small and medium businesses are named as the buyer, the alternatives are named as HubSpot, Pipedrive and Zoho, the best fit is published as freelancers, sales managers and small businesses, and the search metadata names a specific competitor product and a home market.
Seat allowances running 3, 5 and 15 act as a practical ceiling, and the partner portal, deal registration and whitelabelling with a custom domain point at a second identifiable buyer in agencies and resellers. Off the top of the band because no headcount band, customer count or size distribution is published, and no ceiling is stated in the vendor's own words.
Compared With
Editorial comparisons are published only where the index assesses two vendors as direct competitors for the same buyer. Each carries a verdict, the buyer conditions that favor each vendor, and a graded side by side.
Pricing
What this vendor charges, what it commits to in writing, and where the bill can move. Figures the vendor publishes itself are labeled Vendor Published. Figures labeled Estimated come from other sources and the vendor has not confirmed them.
- ›Every price this company publishes exists only in the code that machines read. Open the page in a browser and the prices arrive from a script; the underlying list is written for search engines and assistants.
- ›That list is unusually complete: six plans across two currencies. Free, $5.99 and $8.99 in dollars, and free, ₹99 and ₹149 in rupees, set independently rather than converted.
- ›It is also the only vendor I have found that puts an expiry date on its prices, stating they hold until the end of 2027. That tells you how long the figure is meant to last, which nobody else here does.
- ›The gap is a single missing word. Nothing says whether $5.99 is per month or per year, and at that price either is believable. That changes your annual cost twelvefold, so confirm it first.
- ›Also unstated: what separates the two paid plans, whether there is a seat minimum, and whether the dollar prices apply outside India.
How the price works
What you are charged for, and what makes the bill go up.
Published entirely as structured data with the page body rendering client side and serving no readable content. The served document is six kilobytes carrying metadata and an aggregate offer object.
That object publishes six offers with a stated offer count of six, across two currencies set independently rather than by conversion. In United States dollars: a free plan at $0, a starter plan at $5.99 and a professional plan at $8.99. In Indian rupees: a free plan, a starter plan at ₹99 and a professional plan at ₹149.
The four paid offers each carry a price validity date of 31 December 2027, which is the first published price expiry recorded in this index.
No billing period is stated for any figure. Nothing indicates whether the rates are monthly or annual, per user or per account. No seat minimum, contract length, trial term or annual discount is published, and no statement distinguishes the two paid tiers from one another.
A feature list is published in the same structured data covering lead scoring, pipeline management, revenue forecasting, multi currency support, custom modules, role based access control, workflow automation and reporting, with no features attributed to particular tiers.
The vendor positions itself in its own metadata as an alternative to a named competing product, and its dual currency pricing indicates an Indian market focus alongside international availability.
What the contract says about your data
What the vendor commits to in writing once your data is in the product.
Not established. The served document is a six kilobyte shell carrying metadata and structured data only, with the entire body rendering client side, so no legal or security links were present to follow. No processing agreement, sub processor listing, certification claim, retention period or residency statement was located.
One control is named in the structured data feature list rather than on any policy page: role based access control appears alongside the product capabilities. That is an access control feature rather than a data protection commitment, and it should not be read as evidence of a wider posture.
The custody question is shaped by the product's stated architecture. This is described as an agentic record system built around customer memory, meaning it retains the content of past customer conversations in order to let agents draft subsequent messages against them. That is a materially deeper retention position than a conventional record system, which stores structured fields and activity stamps: here the conversational content itself is the asset and deleting it would remove the product's function.
A buyer should establish what customer memory comprises, how long it persists, whether it can be selectively deleted on request without breaking the account, and whether it informs models beyond the individual customer. For a product whose name for its core feature is memory, retention is not a compliance detail but the thing being purchased.
Getting started
What it costs and what is included before the product is running.
Not established. The served document carries no body content, so no fee, trial, minimum or contract term could be located beyond what the structured data asserts.
A free plan is published in both currencies, and the vendor's own metadata invites buyers to start free, which indicates a self serve entry route rather than a sales assisted one.
No setup fee, onboarding charge, migration rate, professional services rate, seat minimum or contract length was found. No trial term appears, though a free plan makes one less necessary.
The absence that matters most is the billing period. Four published rates carry no indication of whether they are monthly or annual, and at $5.99 and $8.99 either reading is plausible for a product positioned at smaller businesses. That single missing word changes the annual cost by a factor of twelve, and it is the first thing a buyer should confirm.
One structural note for cost. The vendor positions itself explicitly as an alternative to a named competing product recorded elsewhere in this index, and its rupee pricing indicates an Indian market focus alongside its dollar pricing. A buyer should establish which currency their contract is denominated in and whether the dollar rates apply outside India, since the two ladders are set independently rather than converted.
The structured data feature list names lead scoring, pipeline management, forecasting, multi currency support, custom modules, role based access control, workflow automation and reporting, none of them attributed to a particular tier.
What to watch for
Where this pricing can surprise a buyer who has not read it closely.
The entire price list exists only as structured data, and it is more complete than most rendered pricing pages in this index.
The served document is six kilobytes. The body renders client side and contains nothing readable. What it does carry is an aggregate offer object publishing six distinct offers with a stated offer count, two currencies, and expiry dates attached to four of them.
In United States dollars: a free plan at $0, a starter plan at $5.99 and a professional plan at $8.99. In Indian rupees, priced natively rather than converted: a free plan, a starter plan at ₹99 and a professional plan at ₹149. The two paid tiers in each currency carry a price validity date of 31 December 2027.
Three things about that are worth separating.
Publishing a price validity date is rare and useful. Across more than sixty records in this index, this is the first vendor to attach an expiry to its published rates, which tells a buyer how long the figure is asserted to hold and gives an answer engine a basis for knowing when its cached figure has lapsed. Whether the date is honored is untestable, but stating one is a commitment the alternative does not make.
Publishing two currencies natively rather than converting is the correct treatment and matches Freshsales and Clodura elsewhere in this session. A rupee buyer sees ₹99 rather than an exchange rate applied to $5.99, and the two are not equivalent at any plausible rate, which confirms they are set independently.
And the whole thing is invisible to a reader. A human on this pricing page sees whatever the client side application renders; the six offers, the two currencies and the validity dates exist only for machines. That is the same inversion recorded against Aimdoc, Bigin and Ringover, but at greater depth: those vendors put one figure in metadata, this one puts an entire structured price list there.
What is not published anywhere: the billing period for any figure, whether $5.99 is monthly or annual, any seat minimum, any contract length, any trial term, and any statement of what distinguishes the two paid tiers. So the rates are precise and their basis is entirely absent.
The numeric field carries $5.99, the lowest paid rate published, recorded knowing the billing period is unstated.