Disclosure: Ten Seats does not currently earn any commission from any link on this site. If that changes, the affected links will be labeled and this notice will be updated on the same day.

How to choose between two CRMs on price, and when not to

Read the effective per-seat row at your own team size, not the published price. The order flips on minimum seat counts, monthly billing, and fixed onboarding fees, and a gap of $2 per seat per month or less is not a reason to pick either side.

Every pair page on this site, such as Close vs Copper or HubSpot vs Salesforce, puts two providers from the same category next to each other. The pairs are built from the provider list, and the keys are ordered alphabetically, so Copper never comes before Close. This article explains what those pages show, where the answer changes, and when I think you should stop reading them.

What does the side-by-side table show?

It shows the cheapest plan each provider publishes for the market, priced the way the provider advertises it. The table has one column per provider and a fixed set of rows. The rows are the plan name, the published price, the billing basis, the monthly-billing rate if one is published, the minimum seat count, any mandatory onboarding fee, the effective cost per seat at 1, 3, 5, 10, 25, and 50 seats, and the three-year cost at 10 seats. The 10-seat row is highlighted because that is the size this site is named for.

The effective figure is the one to read. It is the three-year total divided by seats and by 36 months, so a minimum seat count or a fixed fee shows up in it even though the published price hides both. The formula is the same on every page and is written out in full on Method. If the two columns show the same published price and different effective figures, the difference is one of the three conditions below.

Showing the cheapest plan on each side is a deliberate choice, and it has a cost. A provider whose cheapest plan is a single-user tier, such as Close Solo at $9 per seat on annual billing (checked 2026-08-25), will not have an effective figure at 3 or 10 seats. That plan does not scale to those sizes. The pair page then works from the next computable plan, and it says so in the plan-name row. Read that row before the numbers.

When does the cheaper answer flip?

It flips under three conditions, and the pair pages test for each one. All three come straight from the vendor's own page and are dated on the provider list.

The team is below a minimum seat count

SugarCRM (Sugar Sell) publishes Standard at $59 per user per month on annual billing with a 15-user minimum (checked 2026-08-25). A three-person team still pays for 15 seats, so the effective cost per seat at 3 seats is $295.00, and at 10 seats it is $88.50. Only at 25 seats does the effective figure match the published $59.00. monday CRM is the same shape at a smaller scale: Basic is $12 per seat on annual billing with a three-seat minimum (checked 2026-08-25), so a one- or two-person team pays for three.

A minimum turns a cheap-looking plan into an expensive one for small teams and leaves it untouched for large ones. That is why the table runs from 1 seat to 50 rather than stopping at 10. Article 01 names every minimum in the dataset: monday CRM 3, Salesflare Enterprise 5, SugarCRM 15. What a CRM costs explains why the figure runs over 36 months.

You will pay monthly rather than annually

Most of the pages use the annual rate as the published price because that is the figure the vendor puts on the card. The monthly rate is often much higher. On HubSpot Sales Hub Starter, the annual rate is $7 per seat and the monthly rate is $20, a ratio of 2.86 (checked 2026-08-25). Close Solo is $9 annual against $19 monthly, a ratio of 2.11. Nutshell Foundation is $7 against $13, a ratio of 1.86. Salesforce Starter Suite is $25 on either basis, a ratio of 1.00.

Two providers that tie on the annual rate can be far apart on the monthly one. The pair page reports the higher of the two ratios in the "Where does the answer change?" list. If only one side publishes a monthly rate, the page says the other side's monthly cost is not knowable from its page, and I leave it there. Why the annual price is the one on the card covers how that choice was made.

One side charges a fixed onboarding fee

HubSpot's pricing page states that the Professional cost shown "does not include the required, one-time Professional Onboarding for a fee of $1,500" (checked 2026-08-25). A fixed fee is spread across every seat and every month of the term, so it weighs most on small teams. On HubSpot Sales Hub Professional, the published price is $90 per seat. The effective cost is $103.89 at 3 seats, $94.17 at 10, and $91.67 at 25. The fee never disappears, but it shrinks toward the published price as the team grows.

Insightly lists a $1,500 guided onboarding fee on its All-in-One bundle only, and the standalone CRM plans list no onboarding fee (checked 2026-08-25). So the fee row on a pair page depends on which plan is being compared, not just which vendor. Where an onboarding fee goes in the arithmetic works the HubSpot fee at 3, 10, and 25 seats, and What the seat price leaves out goes through the fees that are stated but not priced.

A worked example at 3 seats and at 10

HubSpot Sales Hub Professional and Salesforce Sales Cloud Pro Suite are a clean case because they flip. Salesforce Pro Suite is $100 per user per month, billed annually, with no onboarding fee (checked 2026-08-25). HubSpot Professional is $90 on annual billing plus the $1,500 fee (checked 2026-08-25). At 3 seats:

Salesforce Pro Suite: $100 × 3 seats × 36 months = $10,800 $10,800 ÷ (3 × 36) = $100.00 per seat per month HubSpot Professional: $90 × 3 seats × 36 months + $1,500 = $11,220 $11,220 ÷ (3 × 36) = $103.89 per seat per month

At 3 seats Salesforce is cheaper by $3.89 per seat per month, even though its published price is $10 higher. At 10 seats:

Salesforce Pro Suite: $100 × 10 seats × 36 months = $36,000 $36,000 ÷ (10 × 36) = $100.00 per seat per month HubSpot Professional: $90 × 10 seats × 36 months + $1,500 = $33,900 $33,900 ÷ (10 × 36) = **$94.17 per seat per month**

At 10 seats HubSpot is cheaper by $5.83 per seat per month, or $2,100 over three years. The ranking reversed between 3 and 10 seats, and nothing on either vendor's card would have told you that. Both figures are on HubSpot's page and on the Salesforce page, dated the same day. Put your own seat count into the calculator and the flip point will move with it.

When should price not decide it?

Three situations, and the pair pages name them on every page.

The gap is $2 per seat per month or less. Nutshell Growth and Bigin 360 are both $18 per seat on annual billing (checked 2026-08-25), and Pipedrive Lite is $14 against monday CRM Basic at $12. A $2 gap at 10 seats is $720 across three years, which one paid add-on can erase. The pair page for that case, monday CRM vs Pipedrive, reports the difference but will not tell you it matters, because it does not know that.

An add-on you need is not on the published page. The effective figure covers seats, minimums, and mandatory fees. It does not include paid add-ons, contact-record capacity, or a plan tier you would have to move to for one feature, because those prices are not on the pages this site reads. If your requirement lives in one of those, the comparison you are looking at is between two floors, not two totals. What the seat price leaves out explains what falls outside the formula and why, and the monthly-versus-annual article covers the billing-term surcharge.

The choice turns on features, integrations, or support. This site does not assess any of those. I have not used either product in any pair, and the pages do not claim to. A price table cannot tell you whether the cheaper tool does the job, only what the job costs if it does.

Where the answer changes

Who this article is not for

This is not for a reader who already knows which product does the job and wants a price to justify it. The pair pages do not rank features or test anything, and they will not confirm that the tool you like is worth the difference. It is also not for a team whose CRM decision rests on a contact-record limit or a specific integration, since neither is priced on the pages this site reads.

Sources

How this article was made. Written by Kaz, an independent publisher with no commercial relationship with the companies named unless listed on the Disclosure page. All figures come from the companies' own published documentation or regulator publications; each figure carries the date it was last checked. I have not used these products, and nothing here is a personal test result. The arithmetic is shown so you can recalculate with your own numbers. Found an error? Use the contact form; corrections are logged on the Editorial policy page.

Related articles

Written by Kaz (pen name). Figures are copied from providers' published pricing pages on the dates shown. We have not used these products. Corrections: contact form.