# Glamdring Research complete approved corpus

Independent, primary-source market intelligence on energy infrastructure, AI compute and enterprise software.

Publication identity and citation guidance: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/ai-instructions

# 15Five competitors: vendor prices, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/15five-alternatives
Category: Performance management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Leapsome's USD-selected entry estimate is $3 per employee/month with promotional Foundation, excluding Performance Reviews. Lattice Engagement is $4 per seat/month with a $4,000 annual minimum. Match required functions and confirm the offer, taxes and final quote before choosing.

Leapsome lists the lowest confirmed-USD entry estimate among the checked 15Five alternatives: USD 3 per employee per month for Compensation or Time Tracking plus promotional HRIS Foundation, captured from its pricing calculator on 2 October 2026. [1] That price excludes the separate Performance Reviews module; offer applicability requires a current quote. [1] Lattice, Betterworks and Culture Amp also compete on performance-management functions, but their price disclosures need different treatment. [2] [3] [4]

## TL;DR

- Match the module to the job: Leapsome's minimum covers compensation or time tracking, while Lattice's minimum covers engagement surveys. [1] [2] Neither entry is the vendor's performance-review package. [1] [2]
- Lattice's annual minimum agreement is USD 4,000, even though Engagement lists USD 4 per seat per month. [2]
- Betterworks publishes prices with an unidentified dollar currency. [3] Culture Amp requests quotes without a numeric entry price. [4] Keep those two disclosure types separate.

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranks 15Five alternatives by the lowest published entry subscription price from each checked vendor's own page, admitting only confirmed USD amounts in a common employee-or-seat monthly unit. [1] [2] The field is **entry subscription price per employee/seat per month**. Functional scope remains beside each price because the cheapest modules buy different work. [1] [2]

We checked five suppliers: 15Five as the baseline and four alternatives. [5] [1] [2] [3] [4] Removing the baseline leaves four alternatives; excluding Betterworks for unconfirmed currency and Culture Amp for quote-only pricing leaves two ranked rows. [3] [4] Add-ons and free trials do not qualify as entry subscriptions. We merge Leapsome's captures into one supplier row, using the configured 2 October estimate for the price. [1]

The other suppliers retain their 28 September 2026 checked dates. [2] [5] [3] [4] These are vendor-reported prices and estimates, with tax treatment unconfirmed. [1] [2] No currency conversion or product-performance testing informs the order. See our [research methodology](/methodology).

## Which 15Five competitors list the lowest USD entry price?

Leapsome comes first at USD 3 per employee per month during its Foundation offer; Lattice follows at USD 4 per seat per month for Engagement. [1] [2] The ranking compares published subscription units, with non-equivalent scope stated alongside them. [1] [2]

| Rank | Alternative and chosen entry | Reported USD per employee/seat/month | Included scope and comparison limit | Billing or offer condition | Tax status | Checked date |
|---|---|---:|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leapsome: Compensation + Agentic HRIS Foundation | USD 3/employee/month: module USD 3 + Foundation USD 0 | Compensation reviews, budgets, promotion reviews, pay-gap analytics and core HR. Time Tracking ties at USD 3. Neither minimum includes the separate Performance Reviews module. | Calculator estimate; Foundation offer ends December 31; offer applicability requires a current quote. | Unconfirmed | 2 October 2026 [1] |
| 2 | Lattice: Engagement | USD 4/seat/month | Surveys, action planning, eNPS and Manager Tools. Performance reviews are priced separately. | Billed annually; USD 4,000 minimum annual agreement. | Unconfirmed | 28 September 2026 [2] |

For the wider category, browse our [performance-management research](/categories/performance-management).

## What does Leapsome's lowest price include?

Leapsome's USD 3 entry combines Compensation with Agentic HRIS Foundation during the promotion. [1] Compensation lists compensation reviews, budget management, promotion reviews, pay-gap analytics, flexible approvers and salary and bonus bands. [1] Foundation supplies employee records and core HR functions; performance reviews require their own module. [1]

Foundation includes employee profiles, absence management, document management, payroll preparation, meetings, instant feedback, core analytics and workflows. [1] Leapsome describes limits on custom attributes, e-signatures, workflows, analytics, AI and integrations at this level. [1]

Time Tracking is the other minimum-priced choice. [1] It lists a time-tracking widget, work schedules, timesheets, automatic issue detection, customizable policies and hours flowing into payroll. [1] Choose between those minimum modules only if one matches the work you need.

The USD-selected calculator was captured at its default employee setting of 200, selecting one module at a time. [1] It shows these individual module estimates, each with Foundation at USD 0 during the offer: [1]

- Compensation or Time Tracking: USD 3/employee/month. [1]
- Goals & OKRs, Engagement Surveys or Learning: USD 4/employee/month each. [1]
- Recruiting: USD 5/employee/month. [1]
- Performance Reviews: USD 7/employee/month. [1]

Leapsome labels the calculator: “Estimate only. Multi-module and volume discounts are not reflected here.” [1] Its offer says “purchase by Dec 31”; the platform remains part of every module plan and becomes chargeable at its listed price after the offer deadline. [1] Confirm eligibility, contract terms and the Foundation charge in a current quote.

The 28 September capture was different: its pricing display had no features selected and did not establish a configured USD module rate. [1] The 2 October figures support the ranking without implying a like-for-like price change between those dates. [1]

## What does Lattice's entry plan include?

Lattice Engagement lists pulse, onboarding and exit surveys, action planning, eNPS, and AI analysis and trends at USD 4 per seat per month. [2] It also includes 1:1s, Weekly Updates, Feedback and Q&A Boards. [2] Lattice identifies analytics, its AI Agent and integrations as common to base products. [2]

Lattice states USD 4,000 minimum annual spend and annual billing across contracts. [2] Request the total contract amount for your seat count before treating the per-seat figure as your budget.

For reviews, Lattice's Performance card lists USD 10 per seat per month with performance reviews, succession planning, promotions, PIPs, talent reviews and calibration. [2] Its FAQ also says Performance or Goals & OKRs can be bought individually for $8/month, which conflicts with the Performance card. [2] Resolve that discrepancy in a quote; it does not change the lower Engagement entry figure. [2] Our [Lattice pricing guide](/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026) is the related reading for that procurement question.

## Which alternatives sit outside the USD ranking?

Betterworks sits outside the numeric order because its printed prices do not identify currency; Culture Amp is quote-only, while 15Five remains the unranked baseline. [3] [4] [5]

Betterworks' published plans belong in a separate currency-unconfirmed table: [3]

| Unranked Betterworks plan | Printed price and unit | Published inclusions | Currency and tax status | Checked date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | $8 per user/month | Performance, Goals & OKRs, Feedback, Conversations, 1:1 Meetings, AI assistance and SSO access; ongoing support, live and on-demand training, designated success partner. | Currency unconfirmed; tax treatment unconfirmed | 28 September 2026 [3] |
| Performance + Talent Intelligence | $9 per user/month | Everything in Performance plus Anytime Calibration, Succession & Talent Mobility, Skills Intelligence, Unified Talent Profile, Individual Development Plan and AI inference. | Currency unconfirmed; tax treatment unconfirmed | 28 September 2026 [3] |

Betterworks also lists a custom Enterprise plan. [3] Its FAQ says implementation is a one-time cost in addition to per-user monthly pricing. [3] A current quote should identify currency, billing commitment and that separate charge.

Culture Amp's 28 September 2026 pricing page requests quotes for Engage and Perform. [4] Perform lists reviews and calibration, continuous feedback, 1-on-1 conversations, development plans and goal management; Engage lists surveys, action plans and benchmarking. [4] Culture Amp says prices depend on employee count, product and service tier, with annual billing. [4] The absence of a published numeric entry gives it no price position against Leapsome or Lattice. [4]

15Five's original printed prices remain a baseline, with no inferred USD label: [5]

| Unranked 15Five plan | Printed price | Original billing unit | Published inclusions | Currency and tax status | Checked date |
|---|---:|---|---|---|---|
| Engage | $4 | per user per month (billed annually) | Employee engagement surveys, targeted assessments, action planning, heat maps and data breakdowns, benchmarking. | Currency unconfirmed; tax treatment unconfirmed | 28 September 2026 [5] |
| Perform | $11 | per user per month (billed annually) | AMAYA, Insights Dashboard, AI-Assisted Performance Reviews, 15Five Agents, OKRs & Goals, 360° Feedback, Talent Matrix, Career Paths & Plans. | Currency unconfirmed; tax treatment unconfirmed | 28 September 2026 [5] |
| Total Platform | $16 | per user per month (billed annually) | Everything in Engage and Perform plus Manager Training Microlearnings. | Currency unconfirmed; tax treatment unconfirmed | 28 September 2026 [5] |

## Which entry plan fits the work you need to replace?

Use the functions you need from 15Five to define the comparison: engagement surveys and performance reviews have separate prices in both Leapsome and Lattice. [5] [1] [2] A Compensation or Time Tracking subscription cannot stand in for a complete review package in a cost comparison. [1]

For an engagement-only shortlist, compare Lattice Engagement with Leapsome Engagement Surveys and request a Culture Amp Engage quote. [2] [1] [4] For a review-led shortlist, compare Leapsome Performance Reviews with Lattice Performance, Betterworks Performance and a Culture Amp Perform quote. [1] [2] [3] [4] Confirm Betterworks' currency and Lattice's conflicting Performance figures before ordering those review options by cost. [3] [2]

Give each supplier the same required functions and employee count. Ask for recurring subscription costs, billing term, minimum spend, tax and implementation separately. For Leapsome, add promotion eligibility and the Foundation charge after December 31. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The Leapsome and Lattice entry figures do not establish the lowest total cost for an equivalent performance-management package. [1] [2] Leapsome's lead depends on a promotional Foundation estimate; Lattice's seat rate sits alongside an annual minimum. [1] [2] Different functional requirements can therefore change the cost comparison. [1] [2]

The order covers the checked supplier set, not every product in the market. No negotiated quotes, tax-adjusted totals or hands-on quality results underpin it. Betterworks' currency remains unconfirmed and Culture Amp's amount remains unpublished. [3] [4] Recheck the vendor pages when prices or offer terms change.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is 15Five an HRIS system?

The checked 15Five pricing page describes engagement and performance plans and lists integrations with HRIS systems. [5] That evidence supports treating 15Five as a performance-and-engagement purchase; it does not establish a complete HRIS replacement. [5] If core employee records are part of your requirement, Leapsome explicitly describes Agentic HRIS Foundation as its HR system of record. [1]

### Can you try an alternative before committing?

Leapsome's 2 October pricing page lists a 14-day free trial. [1] Its FAQ says free sandbox access can follow a consultation with the team. [1] Confirm the access conditions and whether the trial includes the modules you need; those statements do not establish an unconditional trial across every alternative.

## Source notes
1. Leapsome: https://www.leapsome.com/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)
2. Lattice: https://lattice.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Betterworks: https://www.betterworks.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Culture Amp: https://www.cultureamp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. 15Five: https://www.15five.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# 15Five pricing: official price page, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/15five-pricing
Category: Performance management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Engage covers surveys; Perform covers performance workflows; Total Platform combines both with manager microlearning. Budget add-ons by their own billing units and confirm minimums in the annual quote.

15Five lists Engage at $4, Perform at $11 and Total Platform at $16 per user per month (billed annually) on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

## TL;DR

- Engage covers engagement surveys and analysis; Perform covers reviews, goals and ongoing feedback. [1] Buying Perform alone does not include the Engage survey package. [1]
- Total Platform combines Engage and Perform with manager training microlearnings and in-app practice prompts. [1] Compensation, Kona and live coaching have separate add-on prices. [1]
- The contract is billed annually. [1] The pricing page gives no numerical minimum spend or seat minimum and says some optional add-ons may have minimum requirements. [1]

## How much does each 15Five plan cost?

15Five publishes three base plans, each priced per user per month with annual billing. [1] The plans cover different work, so compare the included functions alongside the seat price. [1]

| Base plan | Published price per user per month (billed annually) | Main inclusions |
|---|---:|---|
| Engage | $4 | Employee engagement surveys, targeted assessments, action planning, heat maps, data breakdowns and benchmarking. [1] |
| Perform | $11 | AI-assisted performance reviews, AMAYA, Insights Dashboard, 15Five Agents, OKRs and goals, 360-degree feedback, talent matrix, career paths and plans. [1] |
| Total Platform | $16 | Everything in Engage and Perform, plus manager training microlearnings. [1] |

Confirm the currency and tax treatment in the quote before comparing these dollar-denominated rates with a local-currency budget.

For the source-checking standard, see the [research methodology](/methodology). For broader supplier research, use the [performance management category](/categories/performance-management).

## What does Engage include?

Engage is 15Five's $4-per-user-per-month plan (billed annually) for employee engagement surveys, targeted assessments, benchmarking and action planning. [1]

The published feature matrix adds engagement surveys and eNPS, AI Predictive Impact Score, AI analysis of open-text feedback, industry benchmarking and lifecycle surveys for onboarding and exits. [1] Heat maps and data breakdowns appear in the plan's headline inclusions. [1]

Engage also includes HRIS integrations, Academy and expert support, and multichannel notifications through Slack/SMS. [1] The matrix places performance reviews, OKRs, career development plans and regular manager check-ins in Perform and Total Platform. [1] Choose Engage when the requirement is survey-based engagement analysis; price the performance workflow separately if that is also required. [1]

## What does Perform include?

Perform is 15Five's $11-per-user-per-month plan (billed annually) for performance reviews, goals, feedback and employee development. [1]

15Five's pricing page lists these capabilities for Perform: [1]

- AI-assisted performance reviews, AMAYA AI Thought Partner, Focus Briefs, Insights Dashboard and 15Five Agents. [1]
- 360-degree reviews, lifecycle reviews, calibration, competencies and skills mapping, and a 9-box talent matrix. [1]
- Career paths and development plans, plus Growth Studio for PIPs, IDPs and succession planning. [1]
- Weighted OKRs and goal management, 1-on-1 agendas with action items and notes, weekly check-ins, continuous feedback requests, High Fives recognition and Best-Self Kickoff for expectation alignment. [1]
- HR Outcomes Dashboard, Manager Effectiveness Index, people analytics with demographic filtering, turnover analysis and action/accountability planning. [1]
- A mobile app and business-tool integrations including Jira and Salesforce, alongside the HRIS integrations and expert support shared across the base plans. [1]

Perform already includes the HR Outcomes Dashboard and Manager Effectiveness Index in the checked feature matrix. [1] If those analytics drive the purchase, assess Perform before assuming Total Platform is required. The Engage survey features sit outside Perform's column. [1]

## What does Total Platform add?

Total Platform costs $16 per user per month (billed annually) and includes everything in Engage and Perform, plus manager training microlearnings. [1] Its feature matrix also includes practice prompts and in-app nudges. [1]

The plan card highlights the HR Dashboard, but the detailed matrix marks HR Outcomes Dashboard as included in both Perform and Total Platform. [1] The clearer buying distinction is the combined survey and performance coverage, with microlearning and practice prompts added. [1]

Keep manager microlearning separate from the paid Content library and live Coaching packages when requesting a quote: 15Five lists those products in its add-on section. [1]

## How much do 15Five's add-ons cost?

15Five's published add-ons use several billing units: users, employees, managers and coaching credits. [1] Keep each unit attached to its price when building the budget.

| Add-on | Published price and billing unit | Published inclusions |
|---|---|---|
| Content | $49 per manager per month (billed annually) | On-demand learning library, expert courses, content assignment for development needs and resources for internal discussions. [1] |
| Coaching | $399 per credit | Live individual or group coaching, tailored focus areas, outcome metrics and assignment/scheduling through 15Five. [1] |
| Kona Meeting Assistant | $2 per employee per month (billed annually) | 1-on-1 notes and documentation, Performance Snapshot for auto-populated reviews, topic summaries, integrated action items and nudges. [1] |
| Kona Coach | $19 per manager per month (billed annually) | AI coaching informed by 15Five data, targeted skill development, adaptation to company practices, productivity-tool integration and learning nudges. [1] |
| Compensation Base Package | $9 per user per month (billed annually) | Compensation review, pay ranges, Total Rewards dashboards, HRIS integration and customisation for salary, equity, bonuses and multiple countries/currencies; baseline comprehensive benchmarking is listed as available. [1] |
| Compensation + Salary Benchmarking | $11 per user per month (billed annually) | Everything in the base compensation package plus Mercer real-time salary benchmarking. [1] |

Coaching uses a different cost model from the monthly seat add-ons: an individual session uses one credit, while a group session uses five credits and can include up to ten people. [1] Ask for the required sessions and credit allocation to be itemised in the quote.

Kona Meeting Assistant and Kona Coach have separate price cards and functions. [1] Confirm which one is included in any proposed package, along with its employee or manager count.

## What are the minimums and billing terms?

15Five states that its contract is billed annually; its pricing FAQ gives no numerical minimum spend or seat minimum and says some optional add-ons may carry minimum requirements. [1]

The monthly amounts are the published price units for an annually billed contract. [1] The checked pricing page does not publish a monthly or quarterly payment option. [1] Treat the published rates as a starting point for the annual quote.

15Five's wording on minimums is: "Some optional add-ons may include minimum requirements, and your account executive can walk you through what applies to your plan." [1] Request the minimum spend and licensed headcount in writing, including separate requirements for each add-on.

15Five also labels its prices subject to change. [1] Before signing, confirm the currency and tax treatment, implementation charges, renewal terms, cancellation rules and how seat changes affect the invoice. Those items need the actual commercial quote and contract.

For a workflow comparison, read [15Five versus Lattice](/post/15five-vs-lattice-compared-2026-guide). To compare the next supplier's published charges, use the [Lattice pricing reference](/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026).

## Frequently asked questions

### Does 15Five include human support?

Yes. 15Five says every customer receives dedicated human support through its Right Expert Right Time model, with office hours, training resources and an account manager aligned to the plan level. [1] Confirm the support scope attached to the selected plan.

### Can I add seats or change modules later?

Yes. 15Five says customers can add seats, expand modules or upgrade their package as needs change. [1] Ask how changes are priced during the annual term before committing to a headcount assumption.

## Source notes
1. 15Five: https://www.15five.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# BambooHR competitors: entry fees, September-October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/bamboohr-alternatives
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, Gusto Simple leads the listed ten-employee fees at $109 per month for single-state payroll. Confirm billing currency, tax and required HR scope; quote-only vendors remain unranked.

On the model's USD comparison basis, Gusto Simple has the lowest calculated entry fee in this BambooHR comparison: $109 per month for 10 US employees, using vendor prices checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] Confirm unlabelled billing currencies and tax treatment in the quotes. Simple covers single-state payroll; the price order does not establish a replacement for every BambooHR function. [1] [3]

## TL;DR

- BambooHR's small-team flat rate starts at US$250 per month; payroll is a separate add-on. [3]
- Justworks has separate Payroll and PEO Basic products with different fees and inclusions. [2] Treat them as different purchases.
- Rippling, ADP RUN, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob have no listed totals in this comparison. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Their missing prices cannot establish whether they cost less or more.

## How this ranking was built

We ranked BambooHR and the priced alternatives on one field: **listed monthly price for 10 US employees**, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] The model treats unlabelled dollar amounts from Gusto, Justworks and Deel as USD, while BambooHR explicitly states USD. No currency conversion or tax amount is added; this calculation convention does not confirm the vendors' billing currency or tax exclusion. Obtain those terms in the quote before relying on the fee order.

The calculation is the monthly base fee plus the employee fee multiplied by headcount. [1] [2] BambooHR's stated small-team flat rate takes precedence over its per-employee headline price. [3] Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets the evidence standard.

The priced set contains five product rows, including BambooHR as the baseline. [1] [2] [3] [4] Justworks Payroll and PEO Basic stay separate because the fees buy different services. [2] Five vendors without a listed total remain unranked. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] No product rows were merged.

Only entry-product fees determine the order. Higher tiers, optional add-ons and temporary promotions are excluded. Contractor-only and international EOR products are outside the US employee scenario. Gusto's Contractor Only plan is for businesses without W-2 employees. [1] Deel lists a separate EOR fee alongside its US PEO fee. [4]

## Which BambooHR competitors have the lowest listed prices?

Gusto Simple has the lowest calculated total among the priced entries, followed by Justworks Payroll; BambooHR's small-team HR software supplies the baseline starting rate. [1] [2] [3] The order compares recurring entry fees across different product types on the model's stated currency convention. [1] [2] [3] [4]

| Rank | Vendor and entry product | Place | Type | Listed monthly price for 10 employees (USD, before tax) | Calculation from listed fees |
|---|---|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | Gusto Simple | United States | Payroll software | $109 [1] | $49 + (10 x $6) [1] |
| 2 | Justworks Payroll | United States | Payroll software | $130 [2] | $50 + (10 x $8) [2] |
| 3 | BambooHR small-team HR baseline | United States | HR software; payroll separate | Starting at $250; confirm chosen-tier quote [3] | Small-team monthly flat rate [3] |
| 4 | Justworks PEO Basic | United States | PEO | $790 [2] | 10 x $79; no base fee [2] |
| 5 | Deel US PEO | United States | PEO | $1,250 [4] | 10 x $125 [4] |

Checked 28 September 2026. These are listed subscription or service fees, with BambooHR's starting-price qualifier retained. [1] [2] [3] [4]

## What does each entry plan include?

Gusto and Justworks Payroll sell payroll-led entry products; BambooHR Core lists HR administration, while Justworks PEO Basic and Deel US PEO add a different service scope. [1] [2] [3] [4] Compare the work you need covered before treating a lower listed fee as a replacement budget.

Gusto Simple lists single-state payroll, unlimited payroll runs, tax filings and payments, basic paid-time-off policies and holiday pay. [1] If your employees need multi-state payroll, the Simple plan's stated scope no longer matches that requirement. [1] Use the [Gusto pricing breakdown](/post/gusto-pricing) for the next plan comparison.

Justworks Payroll lists payroll for all employees, HR tools, expert support and access to Time Tracking. [2] Justworks lists Time Tracking separately as a paid add-on, so “access” should not be read as an included subscription. [2] Confirm the tools you need in the purchase total.

BambooHR Core lists employee records, custom reports, workflows and approvals, hiring and onboarding, and time-off and benefits tracking. [3] Payroll appears under add-on solutions. [3] If your priority is employee records and hiring administration, compare those functions directly with each alternative's entry scope; a payroll fee alone doesn't settle the replacement decision. [1] [2] [3]

Justworks PEO Basic lists payroll, HR consulting and tools, compliance support, round-the-clock support and 401(k). [2] Medical, dental and vision administration appear on the PEO Plus card. [2] Deel describes US PEO as co-employment with benefits included; its employee-hiring card also lists managed payroll, tax filings, reporting and automated onboarding and compliance. [4] Those service descriptions explain why the PEO rows should not be read as equivalent HR-software licences. [2] [4] [3]

## Which BambooHR competitors need a quote?

Rippling, ADP RUN, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob stay outside the price order because the checked pages supply no listed monthly total for them. [5] [6] [7] [8] [10] [9] The original quote observations are dated 28 September; valid ADP RUN package detail was captured on 1 October and TriNet HR Plus/PEO pricing on 2 October. [6] [8] [10] No September price is inferred from those later pages.

| Vendor | Price evidence and capture date | What to confirm |
|---|---|---|
| Rippling | Requests a custom quote for the services needed. [5] | Core Platform fee, selected products and any monthly base fee. [5] |
| ADP RUN | Business-specific quote; no numeric package fee on the valid page, 1 October 2026. [6] | Entry-plan fee, minimum charge and included functions. |
| Paylocity | Requests pricing with a demo and asks for employee count. [7] | Selected modules and the complete recurring fee. |
| TriNet HR Plus / PEO | Both valid product pages request a quote without a numeric rate, 2 October 2026. [8] [10] | Product, service scope and recurring fee. |
| HiBob | No price recorded; the captured pricing URL displays a demo form. [9] | Entry-plan fee and included modules. |

Rippling says its HR, Finance and IT products can be bought separately alongside the required core Rippling Platform. [5] Some products may carry or include a monthly base fee. [5] A fee for one module therefore cannot establish the price of a complete purchase. [5]

Paylocity describes selectable HR, Finance and IT modules. [7] Its product descriptions do not establish a fixed entry-plan total. [7] Ask each quote-only vendor to price the same employee count and required functions, including any mandatory platform or service fee.

## Why can other BambooHR comparisons show different prices?

Glamdring Research treats headcount and included services as the conditions that control a BambooHR price comparison. BambooHR uses a starting monthly flat rate for companies with 25 employees or fewer, while payroll is a separate add-on. [3] A per-employee headline fee or a different service bundle answers a different cost question. [3]

For the ten-employee scenario, apply BambooHR's small-team pricing rule. The Core per-employee rate shown for companies above that threshold cannot replace the stated flat-rate floor. [3] The [BambooHR pricing analysis](/post/bamboohr-pricing) is the next comparison for its plan structure.

Product names also change the reading. Justworks Payroll and PEO Basic have separate fees and service descriptions; Deel distinguishes US PEO from international EOR. [2] [4] Match the product, geography and included services before comparing any published total.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The BambooHR comparison establishes a listed entry-fee order within the checked set. It does not establish equivalent features, negotiated bills or total employment cost. [1] [2] [3] [4] The vendors' descriptions establish what they list, not independently tested service quality.

Keep salaries, employer taxes, insurance premiums, implementation and optional services outside the ranked field. Confirm those costs separately before buying. A lower subscription total supports a price conclusion only when the listed plan meets your requirements.

The next vendor pricing-page revision is the refresh trigger. Recheck the listed fees and inclusions together before relying on the order for a new purchase. Continue with the [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll) for other comparisons.

## Frequently asked questions

### What kind of software is BambooHR?

BambooHR is HR software: its Core plan lists employee records, reporting, hiring and onboarding, and time-off management. [3] BambooHR also offers payroll, but lists it as a separate add-on. [3] Keep that separation when asking whether an alternative replaces the HR system or payroll.

### Does access to Justworks Time Tracking mean it is included?

No. Justworks' entry cards list access to Time Tracking, while the pricing page lists Time Tracking as a paid add-on. [2] Confirm the add-on in your quote if you need it.

### Do you have to sign a long-term contract with Gusto?

No. Gusto's pricing FAQ says it is month-to-month and can be cancelled anytime, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Confirm the current terms before subscribing.

Browse the [published research archive](/research) for further software comparisons.

## Source notes
1. Gusto: https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Justworks: https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. BambooHR: https://www.bamboohr.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Deel: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Rippling: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. ADP: https://www.adp.com/what-we-offer/payroll/payroll-for-1-49-employees/payroll-packages.aspx (checked October 1, 2026)
7. Paylocity: https://www.paylocity.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
8. TriNet: https://www.trinet.com/hr-plus/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)
9. HiBob; observation recorded by parent: https://www.hibob.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
10. TriNet: https://www.trinet.com/peo/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)

# Betterworks pricing: official plans, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/betterworks-pricing
Category: Performance management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Betterworks publishes Performance at $8 per user/month and Performance + Talent Intelligence at $9 per user/month. Enterprise is custom-priced. Implementation costs extra; confirm currency, taxes, billing schedule and Signature Support treatment in the quote.

Betterworks lists Performance at $8 per user/month and Performance + Talent Intelligence at $9 per user/month, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Enterprise has custom pricing, with no numerical price published. [1] Betterworks also states that implementation is a separate one-time cost. [1]

## TL;DR

- Performance + Talent Intelligence adds calibration, succession and talent mobility, skills intelligence, talent profiles, development plans and AI inference to the Performance package. [1]
- Enterprise adds Engage, program design, in-app guides, change management and dedicated support. [1]
- Budget for implementation separately, and confirm how Signature Support is charged in the quote: the Enterprise card includes it, while the general FAQ describes an additional-cost option. [1]

For the wider category, browse our [performance-management research](/categories/performance-management).

## Which Betterworks plans have published prices?

Betterworks publishes user rates for Performance and Performance + Talent Intelligence, while Enterprise is custom-priced. [1]

| Plan | Published rate, checked 28 September 2026 | Package scope | Support listed on the plan card |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | $8 per user/month | Performance management, goals, feedback, reviews and 1:1 meetings; AI assistance and SSO | Ongoing support, live and on-demand training, designated success partner [1] |
| Performance + Talent Intelligence | $9 per user/month | Everything in Performance, plus talent assessment and development functions | Performance support expanded for Talent Intelligence [1] |
| Enterprise | Custom; numerical price not published | Everything in Performance + Talent Intelligence, plus Engage and program services | Dedicated implementation team, change management services and Signature Support [1] |

The price cards use `$` without naming a currency or tax treatment. [1] They give a per-user monthly unit but do not state whether invoices are monthly or annual. [1] Confirm those terms before comparing a quote with another supplier's price.

For the source-checking standard, see our [research methodology](/methodology).

## What does the Performance plan include?

Betterworks' Performance plan includes performance management, Goals & OKRs, Feedback, Conversations, 1:1 Meetings, AI assistance and SSO access. [1]

- Performance uses evidence from employees' work. [1]
- Goals & OKRs align team and individual goals with company priorities and track progress. [1]
- Feedback supports real-time feedback for employees. [1]
- Conversations supports review cycles and performance decisions. [1]
- 1:1 Meetings includes automated summaries, notes and follow-ups. [1]
- AI assistance provides writing help, described as avoiding a blank text box. [1]
- SSO access supports user authentication. [1]

Performance also lists ongoing support, live and on-demand training, and a designated success partner. [1]

Across all plans, Betterworks lists access to HR transformation and organisational development experts, performance signals captured where work happens, insights, AI, a connected system and integrations. [1] Confirm the particular integrations and service scope you need in the quote.

## What does Performance + Talent Intelligence add?

Betterworks' Performance + Talent Intelligence includes everything in Performance and adds calibration, succession and talent mobility, skills intelligence, talent profiles, development plans and AI inference. [1]

- Anytime Calibration, described as supporting consistency and fairness in people decisions. [1]
- Succession & Talent Mobility, for building talent pools for critical roles. [1]
- Skills Intelligence, for visibility into workforce skills, gaps and development areas. [1]
- Unified Talent Profile, bringing an employee's skills, growth and performance together. [1]
- Individual Development Plan, with AI recommendations based on role, selected skill and proficiency. [1]
- AI inference, using signals from work to add context and visibility. [1]

Support extends the Performance package to cover Talent Intelligence. [1] The published package distinction is talent assessment and development on top of the core performance cycle. [1] Ask for a demonstration of the calibration, succession or skills workflow that prompted you to consider the higher plan.

## What does the Enterprise plan include?

Betterworks' Enterprise plan includes everything in Performance + Talent Intelligence, then adds program design, Engage, In-app Guides, change management services and Signature Support. [1]

Betterworks describes Enterprise as designed for global organisations with complex structures and transformational programs. [1]

- Transformational program design with the vendor's HR Transformation and OrgPsy Experts. [1]
- Engage, described as measuring organisational culture to inform action. [1]
- In-app Guides, covering program requirements, usage analytics and in-app feedback. [1]
- Change management services to support the organisation and its workforce. [1]
- Signature Support, including a dedicated team and experts, prioritised support and participation in innovation programs. [1]

The support list also names a dedicated implementation team. [1] Enterprise's published price is “Custom”, tailored to the organisation; no numerical rate accompanies those services. [1]

## What costs sit outside the published user rates?

Betterworks states that implementation is a one-time cost in addition to per-user monthly pricing. [1]

The implementation fee is not quantified in the pricing FAQ. [1] A dedicated implementation team appears on the Enterprise card, but the separate-cost statement still needs resolving in your proposal. [1] Request the subscription and implementation amounts as separate line items.

Support needs the same care. Enterprise lists Signature Support as included, while the general support FAQ describes Signature Support as an additional-cost option. [1] Confirm whether it is included in your selected package or separately charged, and which services the agreement covers.

Betterworks says pricing depends on workforce size, selected packages and products, implementation requirements, integrations and desired support levels. [1] It also names active user population, organisational complexity and deployment requirements as pricing factors. [1]

Prepare your active-user count, current performance and talent programs, technology stack, desired changes, budget and timeline for the quote discussion. [1] Ask Betterworks to define the billable user population and confirm the currency, tax treatment and billing schedule.

For another pricing reference, use our [Lattice cost guide](/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026). For a broader shortlist, consult our [performance-management platform comparison](/post/best-performance-management-platforms-2026-ranked).

## Frequently asked questions

### Can you buy Betterworks Engagement separately?

Yes. Betterworks says organisations can start with Engagement as a standalone product or begin with the Performance package and expand over time. [1] Its pricing FAQ does not give a numerical standalone Engagement price. [1] Ask for that product's quote separately from the Enterprise package, which lists Engage among its inclusions. [1]

### Is AI included in Betterworks pricing?

Yes. Betterworks says AI is embedded throughout its system and modules. [1] Its FAQ also says some AI functionality can be switched off to accommodate organisational policies. [1] Confirm which functions that applies to if your organisation restricts AI use.

### Does Betterworks publish a minimum employee count?

The checked pricing FAQ says Betterworks adds the most value for organisations with over 500 employees; it does not specify a mandatory minimum employee count. [1] Treat that wording as the vendor's target-company guidance and confirm eligibility for your intended deployment.

Browse our [published research](/research) for more enterprise-software analysis.

## Source notes
1. Pricing that meets you where you are: plan cards: https://www.betterworks.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Brex competitors by user price: September-October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/brex-competitors
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, Expensify Collect lists $5 and Emburse Spend Basic $8 per user/member-month versus Brex Premium's $12. Emburse bills at least 15 users. Concur's per-report rates stay separate; confirm currency, tax, scope and complete quotes.

On a USD comparison basis, Expensify Collect leads these Brex alternatives at $5 per member per month, followed by Emburse Spend Basic at $8 per user per month. [1] [2] Brex Premium lists $12; Ramp Plus and Navan Expense list $15. [3] [4] [5] Two checked alternatives therefore have lower listed user rates than Brex. Emburse requires at least 15 billed users, so its Basic minimum is $120. [2]

Six of the eight companies checked also list a free tier, while the enterprise tiers at Ramp, Brex and Navan carry no public price.

## TL;DR

- Expensify Collect at $5 and Emburse Spend Basic at $8 have lower listed user rates than Brex Premium's $12. [1] [2] [3] Compare the required scope and complete bill.
- **Ramp's $15 is not the whole bill.** Ramp adds a platform fee based on team size and publishes no figure for it.
- **Navan is cheaper than Brex Premium below 25 expensing users.** Its first 5 monthly expensing users are free, so the break-even with Brex's $12 falls at 25 users.
- **Free plans are common.** Ramp, Brex, Expensify, Navan, Mercury and QuickBooks all list a $0 tier. They differ in what the free tier covers.
- SAP Concur publishes per-report prices, and Emburse Spend publishes user prices. [6] [2] Concur Premium, Emburse Professional and the named enterprise tiers require a quote. [6] [7]

## How this ranking was built

The ranked field is the **lowest listed paid plan price per user per month** from the checked vendor pages. Original valid prices are dated 28 September 2026; Emburse Spend and Professional were captured on 1 October, and Concur Expense on 2 October. [2] [7] [6] The [Glamdring research standard](/methodology) explains the source method.

- Source: nine valid product pricing pages covering eight companies; each capture date remains attached to its evidence.
- **Field:** the lowest paid price stated per user, per member or per expensing user, per month.
- Unit: USD comparison convention for dollar-only displays, without conversion. Concur explicitly confirms USD. Currency and tax treatment require quote confirmation where the source does not state them. [6]
- **Inclusion:** a price enters the ranking only when the page states it per user per month.
- Exclusions: free tiers, per-account or per-report prices, and custom or unpriced tiers.
- **Brex:** shown as the reference row, not ranked against itself.
- Row count: eight companies, nine product pages, four ranked competitors and one Brex reference. Six companies list a free tier; Mercury and QuickBooks are account-priced, Concur is report-priced and Emburse Professional has no numeric tariff.

A listed price is the company's own statement. It is not a negotiated or market price. Other spend-software coverage sits in the [spend management category](/categories/spend-management).

## Brex competitors ranked by lowest paid price per user

| Rank | Company | Plan | Listed user/month figure on the USD comparison basis | Billing basis | Other charges or limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Expensify | Collect | 5 | Not labelled; discounts for annual commitments and Expensify Card use | Control plan is custom, "as low as $9 per active member/month" |
| 2 | Emburse | Spend Basic | 8 [2] | Expense submitters count; approver-only users do not | Minimum 15 billed users; Basic minimum $120; US-based organisations only |
| =3 | Navan | Navan Business expense charge | 15 | Per monthly expensing user; first 5 free | Business plan limited to companies up to 300 employees |
| =3 | Ramp | Plus | 15 | "Save 20% with annual billing" | Platform fee based on team size; $0.65 per IRS 1099 filing |
| Reference | Brex | Premium | 12 | Not labelled | None listed beside the plan |

Sources: Expensify [1], Emburse Spend [2], Navan [5], Ramp [4], Brex [3].

Navan and Ramp tie at $15 and are listed alphabetically. Navan's figure is a charge inside its free Business plan, not a separately named paid plan, but its pricing page states it per user per month, so it meets the ranking rule.

## Which Brex competitor has the cheapest paid plan?

Expensify Collect, at $5 per member per month. [1] That is $7 below Brex Premium's $12.

Expensify calls Collect the "small business plan that gives you expense, travel, and chat." [1] Its listed features include receipt scanning, reimbursements, corporate card management, travel booking and QuickBooks and Xero integrations. The page doesn't label the $5 as monthly or annual billing. Its FAQ says discounts are available for annual commitments and when using the Expensify Card. [1]

The next Expensify tier, Control, is custom pricing "as low as $9 per active member/month". [1] That floor is also below Brex Premium. It adds multiple approval flows, ERP integration with NetSuite and Sage Intacct, SAML/SSO and budgeting. Because Control is quoted rather than listed, it stays out of the ranked column.

The constraint is scope. Brex Premium lists multi-entity support in the US and internationally, live budgets and VAT documentation. [3] Collect lists neither multi-entity support nor budgeting. A company that needs those features should compare Brex Premium with Expensify Control, not Collect.

Emburse Spend Basic includes card feed integration and issuance, QuickBooks/Xero connections, policies and approvals, SAML SSO/2FA and 50 monthly ACH reimbursements. [2] It costs $8 per user but bills at least 15 users, giving a $120 minimum. The product supports US-based organisations; verify geographic fit before treating its lower user rate as a replacement budget. [2]

## What does Ramp Plus cost compared with Brex?

Ramp Plus lists $15 per user per month, plus a platform fee based on team size. [4] Ramp's page doesn't publish the platform fee, so the total cost of Plus can't be calculated from the pricing page alone.

Two other figures sit on the same page. Ramp offers 20% off with annual billing, and it charges $0.65 per IRS 1099 filing on every plan, with state filing free. [4] Ramp's FAQ says Plus comes with a free 30-day trial. [4]

At list, Ramp Plus costs $3 more per user than Brex Premium before the platform fee. For a 20-user team that is $300 a month on Ramp Plus against $240 on Brex Premium, before Ramp's fee and before any annual discount on either side. Our [comparison of Center and Ramp](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) sets Ramp's workflow against a second card-led system.

## When is Navan cheaper than Brex Premium?

Navan is cheaper below 25 expensing users. Navan's pricing FAQ says its expense product "is free for the first 5 monthly expensing users, and then is $15 per user per month." [5]

The arithmetic:

| Monthly users | Navan expense charge (15 × users above 5) | Brex Premium (12 × users) |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | $75 | $120 |
| 20 | $225 | $240 |
| 25 | $300 | $300 |
| 40 | $525 | $480 |

Two limits change this reading. Navan counts an expensing user as "anyone who submits a transaction into Navan expense", so a staff member who submits nothing in a month isn't counted. [5] Brex's page states its price per user and doesn't define an active user. [3] And Navan Business covers companies up to 300 employees; above that, Navan asks for a demo. [5]

Navan's travel booking is free on the Business plan. The company says the plan is "powered by travel providers’ commission fees". [5] Brex also lists travel booking as free on its Essentials plan. [3]

## Which Brex competitors offer a free plan?

Six of the eight companies checked list a $0 tier, including Brex itself.

| Company | Free tier | What the page says it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Ramp | Free, $0/mo/user | Corporate card, unlimited cards, travel booking, bill pay, QuickBooks Online and Xero integrations |
| Brex | Essentials, $0 user/month | Global card, up to two entities, accounting integrations, travel booking, bill pay, reimbursements |
| Expensify | Submit, free for all members | Receipt scanning, mileage tracking and expense reports for employees |
| Navan | Navan Business, free | Travel for companies up to 300 employees; expense free for the first 5 users |
| Mercury | Mercury, $0/mo | Banking services and essential tools |
| QuickBooks | Free, $0/mo | 1 user, income and expense tracking, 1 connected bank |

Sources: Ramp [4], Brex [3], Expensify [1], Navan [5], Mercury [8], QuickBooks [9].

The free tiers do different jobs. Ramp's and Brex's are company card-and-spend tiers. Expensify's Submit is described as "The free plan for employees, no company approval needed." [1] Mercury's free tier is a bank account with spend tools. QuickBooks Free is single-user accounting that includes no accountant access. [9]

## Which competitors charge per account instead of per user?

Mercury and QuickBooks price their paid plans per account, so they can't sit in a per-user ranking.

Mercury's captured page shows Mercury Plus at $29.90 a month and Mercury Pro at $299 a month, beside an "Annual Pricing (15% off)" toggle. [8] Mercury's FAQ describes its paid plans as "starting at $35/month". [8] The capture doesn't show which billing basis the $29.90 reflects, so confirm it on the live page before comparing.

QuickBooks Simple Start lists $38 a month, shown at $19 a month at 50% off for 3 months, for 1 user with access for 2 accountants. [9] QuickBooks is accounting software. Its inclusion here reflects the per-account pricing model, not a like-for-like feature set with Brex.

A per-account price favours larger teams. Mercury Plus costs the same for 2 people or 50; Brex Premium scales with headcount.

## Which products sit outside the user-price order?

Concur Expense is report-priced rather than user-priced. Its valid page, captured 2 October 2026, lists Base from USD 7/report, Plus from USD 11/report and Premium custom, with unlimited users. Price varies with monthly commitment. [6] These figures cannot be inserted into a per-user ranking.

Emburse Professional's valid product-specific page, captured 1 October 2026, directs buyers to a demo without a numeric subscription rate. [7] Spend's published Basic/Plus rates apply to a different product. [2]
- **Ramp Enterprise:** listed as "Custom", with annual billing. [4]
- **Brex Enterprise and Brex Smart Card:** both listed as "Custom pricing". [3]
- **Navan Enterprise:** listed as "Let’s talk", with a price-quote request. [5]
- **Mercury:** directs buyers to its sales team "for custom pricing and plan options" beyond Pro. [8]

G2's Brex alternatives page also names BILL Spend & Expense, Spendesk, Pleo, Zoho Expense and Payhawk. [10] Their pricing pages weren't captured for this ranking, so they carry no figure here.

## Why do other published Brex competitor lists disagree?

Most published lists are written by companies that sell a competing product, and each leads with its own.

Airwallex's list names Airwallex, Ramp and Mercury as its "top choices". [11] Payhawk's list opens with Payhawk. [12] Brex publishes a list of Ramp alternatives with Brex at number one. [13] G2 orders its page by user reviews and says its alternatives "vary by use case, pricing, and features". [10] None of those four pages ranks competitors on one stated price field.

G2's reviewer summaries also mark most alternatives as "More expensive" than Brex, including Ramp, Navan, SAP Concur and Expensify. [10] That is a reviewer perception on G2, not a listed price. On the pricing pages, Expensify Collect lists a lower per-user price than Brex Premium.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking shows listed user rates across the stated capture dates. A purchase still needs a matched quote.

- Features differ: Expensify Collect, Emburse Spend Basic, Ramp Plus, Navan Expense and Brex Premium buy different controls, integrations and support. [2]
- **Fees sit outside the per-user price.** Ramp's platform fee is unpublished. Card, FX and payment fees aren't in the ranked field.
- **Billing basis is unclear on some pages.** Expensify and Brex don't label their per-user figures as monthly or annual billing.
- **Coverage is eight companies.** BILL, Spendesk, Pleo, Zoho Expense, Payhawk, Airwallex and Rho appear on other lists but weren't checked.
- Recheck rates and eligibility in the current quote, including Emburse's minimum billable users and geographic restriction. [2]

The decision changes when a user rate, mandatory fee, billing unit or required product scope changes. More research sits in the [research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### What is better, Brex or Ramp?

On listed price, Brex Premium is cheaper per user: $12 against Ramp Plus at $15 plus a platform fee. [3] [4] Both list a free tier with corporate cards, travel booking and bill pay. The better choice depends on which paid features a team needs and on the platform fee in Ramp's quote.

### Is Mercury or Brex better?

They price differently. Mercury charges per account, with a free tier and paid plans shown at $29.90 and $299 a month. [8] Brex charges per user, with a free Essentials tier and Premium at $12 per user per month. [3] At list, 2 Brex Premium users cost $24 a month, under Mercury Plus; 3 users cost $36, above it. The two paid plans buy different features, so compare those first.

### Is Brex still an independent company?

No. Brex's pricing page states that "Brex LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One, N.A." [3] Payhawk and Airwallex both cite the acquisition as a reason buyers are reviewing alternatives. [12] [11]

New Glamdring rankings go out in the email briefing. [Subscribe to the research briefing](/subscribe) to receive the next one.

## Source notes
1. Expensify: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Emburse Spend pricing: https://www.emburse.com/products/spend/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
3. Brex: https://www.brex.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Ramp: https://ramp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Navan: https://navan.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. SAP Concur Expense: https://www.concur.com/products/concur-expense (checked October 2, 2026)
7. Emburse Professional pricing: https://www.emburse.com/products/professional/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
8. Mercury: https://mercury.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Intuit QuickBooks: https://quickbooks.intuit.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
10. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/brex/competitors/alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Airwallex: https://www.airwallex.com/en-us/blog/brex-alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)
12. Payhawk: https://payhawk.com/en-us/blog/brex-alternatives-for-finance-teams-that-need-more-than-cards (checked September 28, 2026)
13. Brex: https://www.brex.com/spend-trends/expense-management/ramp-competitors-and-alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)

# Culture Amp alternatives: vendor prices, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/culture-amp-alternatives
Category: Performance management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Leapsome's USD-selected entry estimate is $3 per employee/month with promotional Foundation; Lattice Engagement is $4 per seat/month. Compensation and surveys buy different work. Confirm the offer and full quote; Betterworks and 15Five currencies remain unconfirmed.

Leapsome lists the lowest USD-confirmed entry estimate among the alternatives checked: USD 3/employee/month for Compensation plus promotional HRIS Foundation, on its USD-selected estimator captured 2 October 2026. [1] Lattice follows at USD 4/seat/month for Engagement, checked 28 September 2026. [2] Those entry prices buy different functions, not equivalent performance-review packages. [1] [2] Betterworks and 15Five also publish prices, but their captured pages do not confirm the dollar currency; Culture Amp requires a quote. [3] [4] [5]

## TL;DR

- Buy for the workflow you need. Leapsome's lowest-price module covers compensation; Lattice's covers engagement surveys. [1] [2] Performance reviews have separate prices. [1] [2]
- Keep Betterworks and 15Five on the shortlist. Their printed dollar amounts belong in a separate currency-unconfirmed comparison, outside the USD order. [3] [4]
- Check the invoice constraints: Lattice has a minimum annual agreement, and Betterworks charges separately for implementation. [2] [4]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranks Culture Amp alternatives on one field: the **lowest published USD entry subscription price per employee/seat per month** on each vendor's own pricing page. [1] [2] The unit is comparable; the functions purchased are not. Leapsome's minimum configuration and Lattice's entry module therefore remain named beside their prices. [1] [2]

The [performance-management category](/categories/performance-management) provides the wider research context. The comparison checks four alternatives: Leapsome, Lattice, Betterworks and 15Five, with Culture Amp as the baseline. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Two alternatives qualify for the USD ranking; two retain their published prices outside it because currency is unconfirmed. [1] [2] [3] [4] Culture Amp has no published entry rate in its captured pricing page. [5]

The original vendor checks date from 28 September 2026. [2] [3] [4] [5] [1] Only Leapsome's selected USD estimates were refreshed on 2 October 2026. [1] Each eligible vendor occupies one ranked row, using its lowest published subscription configuration. Standalone subscription plans qualify; add-ons and custom quotes stay outside the order.

| Rank | Alternative | Selected entry configuration | USD/employee or seat/month | Included scope and limit | Tax status | Checked date |
|---|---|---|---:|---|---|---|
| 1 | Leapsome | Compensation + HRIS Foundation | 3 | Compensation reviews, budgets, promotion reviews and pay-gap analytics, plus the HR foundation. [1] Time Tracking ties at 3. [1] Non-equivalent scope: neither minimum module buys Performance Reviews. [1] Foundation is 0 during the offer; purchase by December 31. For Leapsome, offer applicability requires a current quote. [1] | Not established | 2 October 2026 |
| 2 | Lattice | Engagement base product | 4 | Surveys, pulse, onboarding/exit, action planning, eNPS and AI analysis; also 1:1s, updates, feedback and Q&A boards. [2] Performance is a separate base product. [2] USD 4,000 minimum annual agreement; annual billing. [2] | Not established | 28 September 2026 |

The order uses reported subscription rates, with no currency conversion or quality weighting. Tax treatment is not established by these captures; confirm applicable taxes in the quote. [1] [2] The publication's [research methodology](/methodology) explains its evidence standard.

## Which published prices remain outside the USD ranking?

Betterworks and 15Five publish dollar prices, but neither captured pricing page confirms USD. [3] [4] Their plans remain in an unranked currency-unconfirmed table so a missing currency label does not erase a published rate. [3] [4]

| Vendor | Plan | Printed price/user/month; currency unconfirmed | What the plan includes | Billing or cost qualification | Tax status | Checked date |
|---|---|---:|---|---|---|---|
| Betterworks | Performance | $8 | Performance, goals and OKRs, feedback, review conversations, 1:1 meetings, AI assistance and SSO. [4] | Implementation is a separate one-time charge; billing cadence needs confirmation. [4] | Not established | 28 September 2026 |
| Betterworks | Performance + Talent Intelligence | $9 | Performance package plus calibration, succession and talent mobility, skills intelligence, unified talent profiles and individual development plans. [4] | Implementation is a separate one-time charge. [4] | Not established | 28 September 2026 |
| 15Five | Engage | $4 | Engagement surveys, targeted assessments, action planning, heat maps, data breakdowns and benchmarking. [3] | Billed annually. [3] | Not established | 28 September 2026 |
| 15Five | Perform | $11 | AI-assisted performance reviews, OKRs and goals, 360-degree feedback, talent matrix, career paths and plans, AMAYA and Insights Dashboard. [3] | Billed annually. [3] | Not established | 28 September 2026 |
| 15Five | Total Platform | $16 | Engage and Perform together, with manager-training microlearnings. [3] | Billed annually. [3] | Not established | 28 September 2026 |

For both vendors, ask for the currency and tax basis before comparing a quote with the confirmed USD rates.

## What does Leapsome's lowest-price configuration include?

Leapsome's chosen minimum is Compensation at USD 3/employee/month plus mandatory HRIS Foundation at USD 0 under the offer ending December 31. [1] Time Tracking has the same selected USD rate, but covers working hours rather than compensation decisions. [1] For Leapsome, offer applicability requires a current quote. [1]

Compensation includes compensation reviews, budget management, promotion reviews, pay-gap analytics, flexible approvers and salary/bonus bands. [1] Time Tracking lists a widget, work schedules, timesheets, issue detection, policies and hours into payroll. [1] Choose between them on those tasks; the price tie gives no reason to treat them as interchangeable.

HRIS Foundation includes employee profiles, absence and document management, payroll preparation, meetings, instant feedback, and core analytics and workflows. [1] Custom attributes, e-signatures, workflows and reporting have limits in Foundation. [1] Leapsome says the HR platform is required even when purchasing one module. [1]

The USD-selected capture used the estimator's default employee setting of 200 and selected one module at a time. [1] The other selected module estimates were Performance Reviews at USD 7, Goals & OKRs, Engagement Surveys and Learning at USD 4 each, and Recruiting at USD 5 per employee/month, alongside promotional Foundation at USD 0. [1] These are module estimates, not the price of buying them all together. [1]

The estimator states: “Estimate only. Multi-module and volume discounts are not reflected here.” [1] Its FAQ says HRIS is included free when purchased by December 31 and is charged at the listed price after that date. [1] Confirm eligibility, the Foundation charge after the promotion and the renewal basis before signing.

## Which alternatives include performance reviews?

Leapsome, Lattice, Betterworks and 15Five all list performance-review functions, but the lowest entry rate does not always include them. [1] [2] [4] [3] Leapsome separates Performance Reviews from Compensation, while Lattice separates Performance from Engagement. [1] [2]

Leapsome's USD 7 Performance Reviews module lists review automations, cross-cycle analytics, flexible templates and visibility, calibration and external reviewers. [1] If reviews are the required workflow, use that module in the quote comparison rather than its USD 3 Compensation minimum. [1]

Lattice's Performance card lists USD 10/seat/month for reviews, succession planning, promotions, PIPs, talent reviews and calibration, plus manager tools. [2] However, the same page's FAQ says Performance and Goals & OKRs can be purchased individually for $8/month. [2] Resolve that price discrepancy in the quote. The [Lattice pricing analysis](/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026) is the next reading for a Lattice-specific budget.

Betterworks' printed $8 Performance package already lists review conversations alongside goals, feedback and 1:1s. [4] Its printed $9 package adds calibration and talent-development functions. [4] Currency remains unconfirmed for both. [4]

15Five's printed $4 Engage plan covers engagement; its printed $11 Perform plan contains performance reviews and goals. [3] Total Platform combines them at a printed $16, billed annually, without confirmed currency in the capture. [3] Request Perform or Total Platform when reviews are essential, rather than treating Engage as a complete replacement.

## Which vendors and plans require a quote?

Culture Amp remains quote-only in the 28 September 2026 pricing capture. [5] Lattice Enterprise and Betterworks Enterprise also use custom pricing, although both vendors publish rates for other products. [2] [4]

Culture Amp separates Engage and Perform. [5] Engage lists survey tools, benchmarking, pulse surveys and retention insights; Perform lists reviews and calibration, continuous feedback, 1-on-1s, development plans and goals. [5] Every plan lists AI Coach, HRIS integrations, SSO and encryption, plus Slack and Microsoft Teams integrations. [5] Culture Amp says price depends on employee count, product and service tier, with annual billing. [5]

For enterprise requirements, Lattice says its custom pricing varies by seats, complexity and scale. [2] Betterworks Enterprise adds programme design, Engage, change-management services and Signature Support to Performance + Talent Intelligence. [4] A quote is needed to price those scopes.

Leapsome publishes selected module estimates alongside a final quote process. [1] Its exact discounts depend on module selection and employee count. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The USD entry-price order cannot establish the cheapest equivalent replacement for Culture Amp: Leapsome's ranked configuration covers compensation, Lattice's covers engagement, and Culture Amp's required scope is quote-priced. [1] [2] [5]

Treat the table as a starting point for matching requirements. Ask each vendor to quote the same review, goal and survey workflows, then confirm which employees incur charges, the commitment period, applicable taxes, implementation and renewal terms. For a narrower shortlist, continue with the [Lattice and Culture Amp comparison](/post/lattice-vs-culture-amp-2026-which-is-better).

There is no FX conversion, score or tested-quality claim. The order covers the named alternatives with eligible published rates; it does not establish a market-wide winner. Subscribe to Glamdring Research for new research.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can a small team budget for Lattice by multiplying seats by the entry price?

Only if the resulting agreement meets Lattice's minimum annual spend. [2] The 28 September 2026 pricing page specifies a USD 4,000 minimum annual agreement that can include different products. [2] Ask for the total annual commitment before treating the USD 4/seat/month Engagement rate as the invoice. [2]

### Does a monthly rate mean monthly billing?

No. Culture Amp and Lattice say their contracts are billed annually; 15Five labels its published plans as billed annually. [5] [2] [3] Leapsome's estimator states a per-employee monthly unit, which does not by itself confirm monthly payment terms. [1] Confirm the payment schedule in the current quote.

### Is Betterworks implementation included in its subscription?

No. Betterworks says implementation is a one-time cost in addition to its per-user monthly subscription price. [4] The capture does not provide an implementation amount, so request it as a separate quote item. [4]

## Source notes
1. Leapsome; parent-recorded browser selection: https://www.leapsome.com/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)
2. Lattice: https://lattice.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. 15Five: https://www.15five.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Betterworks: https://www.betterworks.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Culture Amp: https://www.cultureamp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Culture Amp pricing: published plans, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/culture-amp-pricing
Category: Performance management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Culture Amp publishes product inclusions, service options and annual billing, but no monetary prices on its checked pricing page. Obtain a quote with the employee count, products and service scope specified.

Culture Amp does not publish monetary prices on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Its Engage and Perform products require a quote; Culture Amp says pricing depends on employee count, product and service tier, with all products billed annually. [1]

## TL;DR

- Engage covers employee surveys and engagement analysis; Perform covers reviews, feedback, goals and development. [1]
- Culture Amp lists AI Coach, HRIS integrations and SSO among the inclusions in every plan. [1]
- Service options differ by company size, including additional Customer Success and implementation support for the middle headcount band. [1]
- People Science Consulting requires a quote as an add-on. [1]

## What does Culture Amp publish about pricing?

Culture Amp's pricing page publishes Engage and Perform product packages, a People Science Consulting add-on and service options by company size. [1] It gives buyers a product and service structure, but no monetary rate for those options. [1]

| Product or add-on | Published scope | Published monetary price |
|---|---|---|
| Engage | Surveys, retention insights, benchmarking and action plans. [1] | Not published; request a quote. [1] |
| Perform | Performance reviews, feedback, goals, coaching and employee development plans. [1] | Not published; request a quote. [1] |
| People Science Consulting | HR expertise, I/O psychology and analytics; add-on to Engage and Perform. [1] | Not published; request a quote. [1] |

For the wider category, browse our [performance management research](/categories/performance-management).

Culture Amp's pricing page was checked on 28 September 2026. [1] It publishes inclusions and a billing basis, without a starting price or per-employee rate. [1] Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the distinction between company statements and independent evidence.

## What does each Culture Amp plan include?

Culture Amp lists survey and engagement tools under Engage, and performance management and development tools under Perform. [1] Both product lists include AI Coach. [1] Choose the product scope before comparing quotes.

Engage's published inclusions are:

- Performance Culture Quadrant diagnostic survey and Retention Insights. [1]
- DEI surveys, ready-to-use surveys and pulse surveys. [1]
- Onboarding and offboarding surveys. [1]
- AI comment summaries, action plans and benchmarking. [1]

Perform's published inclusions are:

- Continuous feedback, performance reviews and calibration. [1]
- 1-on-1 conversations, employee development plans and Skills Coach. [1]
- Shoutouts and goal management. [1]
- Employee effectiveness and performance insights. [1]

Culture Amp also publishes an “Every plan includes” list: AI Coach, a multilingual platform, SSO and encryption, Shoutouts, HRIS integrations, enterprise-grade security, 1-on-1 templates, and Slack and MS Teams integrations. [1] The same list states “Full GDPR & SOC2 compliance”; that is Culture Amp's own description. [1]

For a quote comparison, separate these shared software inclusions from the service scope below. Culture Amp lists HRIS integrations and SSO as every-plan inclusions, while its service options describe support, training and coaching. [1]

## How does service differ by company size?

Culture Amp publishes different service options by company size and says onboarding depends on the service tier selected. [1] Its pricing page groups organisations into fewer than 200 employees, 200-999 employees and 1000+ employees. [1] Those bands describe service scope; they do not give a price for each band. [1]

| Published employee band | Service listed by Culture Amp |
|---|---|
| Fewer than 200 | Group Customer Success support, on-demand training resources, and 24/5 chat and email support. [1] |
| 200-999 | The smaller-organisation services, plus a one-on-one Customer Success partnership and expert project management with Implementation. [1] |
| 1000+ | Manager and executive training, a results call with a People Scientist, one-on-one coaching, group coaching, pre-launch review, on-demand training resources, and 24/5 chat and email support. [1] |

Culture Amp's onboarding FAQ says every customer can access 24/5 chat and email support, on-demand training resources and support guides. [1] The page also says enterprise pricing is available, without publishing an enterprise amount. [1]

Ask the quote to name the selected service tier and its deliverables. Culture Amp says onboarding depends on the tier selected, so confirm that choice alongside the employee count. [1]

## Is People Science Consulting included?

Culture Amp lists People Science Consulting as an add-on to Engage and Perform that requires a quote. [1] The vendor describes the service as HR expertise, I/O psychology and analytics, supported by its data and AI. [1]

Keep consulting separate from the software and service-tier lines when reviewing a proposal. Culture Amp's pricing page publishes no consulting fee or standard consulting hours. [1] Ask for the engagement scope and fee in the quote.

## What should a Culture Amp quote specify?

Glamdring Research's recommendation is to compare Culture Amp quotes only after matching employee count, products and service scope. The vendor names those factors as the basis of its pricing and says all products are billed annually. [1] A quote is needed to attach an amount to that scope. [1]

Ask for:

- The employee count used to calculate the quote and how headcount changes affect it.
- Engage, Perform or both, with the included features stated.
- The selected service tier and onboarding deliverables.
- Any People Science Consulting engagement, priced separately.
- The annual total, currency, tax treatment and payment schedule.
- Any minimum spend, implementation charges and renewal terms.

The checked pricing page gives no monetary rates, minimum spend or payment schedule. [1] Use the written proposal to settle those terms.

For another pricing reference, see [how much Lattice costs](/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026). Match product and service scope before using either quote to make a cost decision.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can Culture Amp be billed monthly?

Culture Amp says all its products are billed annually. [1] The checked pricing page does not specify a monthly payment option or the timing of payment within that annual billing arrangement. [1] Ask for the payment schedule in the quote.

### Does Culture Amp publish a free plan?

Culture Amp's checked pricing page does not advertise a free plan; its Engage and Perform product cards ask buyers to request a quote. [1] That page does not establish whether a trial or another offer is available. [1]

### Are 1-on-1 conversations, Shoutouts and Skills Coach always included?

Yes, according to Culture Amp's pricing FAQ, which says every customer has access to 1-on-1 conversations, Shoutouts and Skills Coach. [1] Its separate every-plan list explicitly names 1-on-1 templates and Shoutouts. [1]

## Source notes
1. Culture Amp: https://www.cultureamp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Deel vs Gusto: vendor pricing, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/deel-vs-gusto
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Shortlist Gusto for direct US payroll and Deel for international EOR employment. For international contractors, compare management and payment fees on the same workflow. Deel's published US PEO fee is not a like-for-like payroll software price.

Start with Gusto for US payroll software; shortlist Deel for international employee hiring through an employer of record (EOR). [1] [2] Gusto publishes single-state and multi-state payroll plans, while Deel lists EOR employment in 130+ countries. [1] [2] For international contractors alone, compare payment fees with management fees before choosing: both companies list services for that work. [2] [1] These vendor prices and coverage statements were checked 28 September 2026. [2] [1]

## TL;DR

- Gusto Simple covers single-state payroll. [1] Multi-state payroll is a listed feature of Plus, so a team spanning states should compare the relevant tier. [1]
- Deel's published US PEO price buys co-employment. [2] Comparing it with Gusto's payroll subscription cannot establish a saving for equivalent services. [2] [1]
- Gusto's contractor-only promotion waives the base fee for the first six months, subject to terms; the per-person charge remains. [1]
- International contractor fees use different units: Deel lists a monthly management charge; Gusto lists payment and foreign exchange fees with no monthly per-contractor charge. [2] [1]
- Treat EOR country coverage, contractor payment coverage and supported currencies as separate procurement checks. The published figures describe different services. [2] [1]

## How did we compare Deel and Gusto?

Glamdring Research compares Deel and Gusto by service type using their official pricing pages, checked 28 September 2026. [2] [1] The published US employee products compared below are Gusto payroll software and Deel US PEO co-employment. [2] [1] International contractor payments and EOR employment also have separate fees and coverage statements. [2] [1]

The illustrations treat the displayed dollar amounts as USD and exclude taxes from the model; the captured Deel and Gusto price displays do not explicitly confirm those currency and tax terms. [1] [2] Verify billing currency and applicable tax in the quotes. Keep the product boundary alongside the price when comparing [HR and payroll systems](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

| Service or coverage | Deel's published terms | Gusto's published terms |
|---|---|---|
| US payroll software | No separate standalone US payroll price appears on the checked pricing page; the listed US employee price is for PEO. [2] | Simple: $49/month + $6/person/month for single-state payroll. [1] |
| US co-employment | US PEO: $125/employee/month; Deel states coverage across all 50 US states with benefits included. [2] | The Simple payroll fee above buys a different service; it should not be treated as a PEO price. [1] |
| Contractor management or domestic payments | $49/contractor/month for global contractor management and payments. [2] | Contractor Only: normally $35/month + $6/person/month for domestic contractor payments; $0 base for the first six months, terms apply. [1] |
| Contractor of Record | $325/contractor of record/month; Deel describes an option to shift classification liability to Deel. [2] | The checked pricing page lists contractor payments, not an equivalent Contractor of Record price. [1] |
| International contractor payments | Contractor service includes payments in 120+ currencies. [2] | More than 120 countries; no monthly per-contractor fee. [1] Service and foreign exchange fees apply to payments; $5 per payment to US-based bank accounts is the stated fixed charge. [1] |
| International employee hiring through EOR | $599/EOR employee/month; Deel states full legal employment in 130+ countries without opening a local entity. [2] | No EOR price or international employee-country count appears on the checked pricing page. [1] Its published international coverage figure concerns contractor payments. [1] |

These are vendor statements about listed fees and scope. [2] [1] Use the [research methodology](/methodology) to distinguish published terms from a binding quote.

## What do Deel and Gusto cost for US payroll?

Gusto Simple lists $49/month plus $6/person/month for single-state payroll; Deel US PEO lists $125/employee/month for co-employment. [1] [2] The choice depends on whether you need payroll software or the broader PEO service Deel describes. [2] [1]

Gusto publishes three employee payroll tiers: [1]

| Gusto plan | Listed monthly fee, USD before tax | Listed distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Simple | $49 base + $6/person | Single-state payroll, unlimited payroll runs, tax filings and payments. [1] |
| Plus | $80 base + $12/person | Multi-state payroll, next-day pay and time tracking. [1] |
| Premium | $180 base + $22/person | Dedicated Service Advisor, access to certified HR experts, performance and compensation management. [1] |

For 10 US employees, the listed Simple calculation is $49 + (10 × $6) = $109/month before tax. [1] The same headcount at Deel's listed US PEO fee is 10 × $125 = $1,250/month before tax. [2] The totals are a payroll-software budget and a PEO-service budget, respectively; they are not a like-for-like saving. [1] [2]

Deel describes its PEO package as co-employment with benefits, managed payroll, tax filings and reporting. [2] Gusto's comparison table includes unlimited payrolls, tax filings, multiple pay rates and schedules, and domestic contractor payments across its employee plans. [1] Choose the service model first, then compare a quote for the same headcount and requirements.

For a Gusto budget, list the state coverage and add-ons you require before selecting a tier. Use the separate [Gusto pricing analysis](/post/gusto-pricing) for that next review.

## What do Deel and Gusto charge for contractors?

Deel lists $49/contractor/month for global contractor management and payments; Gusto's domestic Contractor Only plan normally lists $35/month plus $6/person/month. [2] [1] Gusto's temporary $0 base fee applies for the first six months, subject to terms. [1]

The domestic Gusto plan is for businesses that haven't hired W-2 employees. [1] It lists domestic payments and Form 1099 creation and filings. [1] If you have employees as well, Gusto says US contractors are billed at the per-person rate of your chosen plan, and only in months you pay them. [1] Preserve that billing rule when estimating an irregular contractor roster.

Deel's contractor package lists centralised management, automated invoicing, tax-form guidance and document collection. [2] Its $325/month Contractor of Record option carries a different scope: Deel says you can shift classification liability to it. [2] Compare the responsibility described in the contract before treating the two Deel fees as interchangeable. The separate [Deel pricing analysis](/post/deel-pricing) is the next reference for its service categories.

International contractor payments require a different calculation. Gusto says there is no monthly per-contractor fee, but service and foreign exchange fees apply to each payment. [1] Its pricing page also lists $5 per payment to US-based bank accounts and says foreign exchange rates may vary. [1] The $5 figure is specific to that payment destination; it is not a published flat fee for every international transfer. [1]

For an international-contractor comparison, request the cost of your planned payment frequency and destination currencies. Compare Gusto's subscription and payment charges with Deel's management fee and quoted payment terms. A zero monthly per-contractor fee does not establish a zero total cost. [2] [1]

## How far does international coverage extend?

Deel states EOR employment in 130+ countries; Gusto states contractor payments in more than 120 countries. [2] [1] Those counts cover different activities, so they cannot establish equivalent international employee coverage. [2] [1]

Deel describes EOR as a way to hire employees without opening a local entity, with contracts, payroll, benefits and compliance handled through the service. [2] It also publishes a broader “150+ countries” statement and lists contractor payments in 120+ currencies. [2] Use the service-specific EOR count for an EOR decision. A currency count supplies no country-by-country eligibility list. [2]

Gusto's published international figure belongs to its global contractor payment add-on. [1] Its checked pricing page does not provide an EOR fee or an international employee-country list. [1] That leaves a quote requirement for overseas employee hiring; it does not establish that Gusto offers no international employment service.

Ask each provider to confirm the worker's country, worker type and required service. For an EOR quote, request separate figures for the service fee and employment costs. For contractor payments, request supported destinations, payout currency and payment charges. Keep each check attached to the product-specific quote.

## Which service fits your team?

Shortlist Gusto for direct US payroll and Deel for international employees who require an EOR, based on their published plan scopes. [2] [1] For a contractor-only international team, compare both: Gusto publishes cross-border payment coverage, while Deel publishes contractor management and payment services. [2] [1]

The decision changes with the work you need handled:

- A single-state US employee team has a published Gusto Simple option; multi-state payroll is listed under Plus. Start with the tier matching your states. [1]
- A US team seeking co-employment has Deel's published PEO option, which the company describes as including benefits and managed payroll. Compare it with other PEO quotes on the same scope. [2]
- International employees without a local entity fit Deel's stated EOR use case. Confirm the specific country and full employment budget before hiring. [2]
- Contractors abroad may fit either payment service. Compare the administration you need as well as fees: Deel lists invoicing and document collection; Gusto's international add-on lists payment coverage and transaction charges. [2] [1]

The next hiring location or a change from contractors to employees should trigger a fresh service-specific comparison.

## Frequently asked questions

### What are the downsides of Gusto payroll?

Gusto's documented constraints include Simple's single-state scope and extra fees for some add-ons. [1] Multi-state payroll is listed under Plus, while global contractor payments are an add-on with service and foreign exchange fees. [1] Evaluate those limits against your team; the published terms alone do not establish poor support or unreliable payroll.

### Does Gusto charge for US contractors in months I don't pay them?

No. Gusto says it bills US contractors only in months when you pay them, at the per-person cost of the selected plan. [1] The Contractor Only plan also has a monthly base fee, temporarily discounted to $0 for the first six months under the published offer. [1] The paid-month billing rule should not be read as a waiver of every plan charge.

### Are health insurance premiums included in Gusto's subscription?

No. Gusto lists health insurance premiums separately and says it charges no administration fee when it acts as the broker. [1] Its existing-broker integration lists $6/month per eligible employee; the pricing FAQ says Premium customers can integrate their broker free. [1] Include premiums in the benefits budget even where an administration or integration fee is waived.

## Source notes
1. Gusto: https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Deel: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Deel vs Oyster: published pricing, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/deel-vs-oyster
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, Deel's listed EOR fee is 599 versus Oyster's 699; Oyster's standard contractor fee is 29 versus Deel's 49. Confirm Deel's billing currency, product-specific country availability and full quote before relying on the fee advantage.

Using USD as the comparison assumption for Deel's dollar-only price display, Deel's listed employer of record (EOR) fee is lower: 599 per employee per month versus Oyster's explicit USD 699, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Confirm Deel's billing currency in the quote before relying on that price advantage. Deel reports full legal EOR employment in 130+ countries; Oyster reports compliant employment in 120+ countries. [1] [2] Confirm the employee's country and full quote before choosing.

## TL;DR

- Oyster has the lower standard contractor fee: USD 29 per contractor per month after 30 days free, against Deel's USD 49. [1] [2] Keep Deel's separately priced Contractor of Record service outside that comparison.
- Deel states month-to-month terms without a required long-term commitment; Oyster offers annual EOR discounts and requires a refundable EOR deposit. [1] [2] Compare commitment and cash requirements alongside the recurring fee.
- Use the EOR-specific country counts for employee hiring. Oyster's 180+ country claim in its contractor pricing block concerns instant contracts. [2] Confirm availability for the service you need.

Explore related [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

## How do Deel and Oyster's published prices compare?

On that currency assumption, Deel lists the lower monthly EOR employee fee, while Oyster lists the lower standard contractor management fee. [1] [2] [1] [2] The comparison uses each provider's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, and keeps the worker unit consistent. Deel's displayed dollar amounts are treated as USD for this model; Oyster explicitly identifies USD. Verify the same billing currency in both quotes before comparing the fees.

| Published dimension | Deel | Oyster |
| --- | --- | --- |
| EOR fee, USD per employee per month | 599 [1] | 699 [2] |
| Standard contractor fee, USD per contractor per month | 49 [1] | 29 after 30 days free [2] |
| EOR country coverage, as reported by the provider | Full legal employment in 130+ countries [1] | Compliant employment in 120+ countries [2] |
| EOR billing terms | Month-to-month; no long-term commitment required [1] | Annual discounts available; annual seat option [2] |

We compared the EOR employee and standard contractor fees separately, keeping the providers' product-specific country labels. [1] [2] [1] [2] See our [research methodology](/methodology).

The captured pricing text does not establish whether GST or VAT is included in either fee. [1] [2] Request the tax treatment in the quote; avoid comparing one tax-inclusive amount with another tax-exclusive amount.

## What does each EOR employee fee cover?

Deel and Oyster both describe EOR services for hiring employees without setting up a local entity. [1] [2] Deel lists contracts, payroll, benefits and compliance; Oyster lists employment, multi-country payroll and support from local experts. [1] [2] Compare the employment service against your hiring requirements, then check which costs the quote includes.

Deel's pricing FAQ says its EOR fee covers onboarding and local compliance, payroll processing, tax filings, benefits administration, and ongoing HR and legal support. [1] Ask for benefits administration and the employee's benefits costs as separate quote lines so you can see what the fee covers.

Oyster's EOR block includes automated expenses, time-off and reports, plus onboarding and offboarding specialists. [2] Its pricing page separately presents benefits packages, visa sponsorship and People Partner Services as add-ons. [2] Ask Oyster to identify the add-ons required for the proposed hire.

Budget salary and employer costs separately when requesting both quotes. Compare the same role, country and benefits package. For a provider-specific follow-up, read the [Deel pricing comparison](/post/deel-pricing).

## Which costs less for contractors?

Oyster's Global Contractors service has the lower published standard contractor fee: USD 29 per contractor per month after 30 days free, compared with Deel's USD 49. [1] [2] Deel separately lists Contractor of Record at USD 325 per contractor of record per month. [1] Keep the service scope attached to each price.

Deel's contractor block lists centralized management, automated invoicing, tax-form guidance, document collection and payments in 120+ currencies. [1] It distinguishes classifying contractors yourself from shifting liability to Deel through Contractor of Record. [1] Ask which arrangement the quote covers before using the standard fee in a budget.

Oyster lists instant contracts in 180+ countries, contractor payments in 120+ currencies, identity verification, invoice and expense management, and an employee misclassification analyzer. [2] It lists Oyster Shell separately as an add-on subscription for assessing misclassification risk and providing protection. [2] The standard contractor fee alone does not establish equivalence with Deel's Contractor of Record arrangement. [1] [2] Compare the written liability terms if that service is part of the decision.

## Where do Deel and Oyster offer EOR hiring?

Deel's EOR pricing block reports full legal employment in 130+ countries, while Oyster's EOR block reports compliant employment in 120+ countries, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Both are provider-reported coverage claims. [1] [2] Use them to compare the stated EOR footprint, then confirm the specific country for your employee.

Deel also displays a broader 150+ country headline elsewhere on its pricing page. [1] Oyster's contractor block lists instant contracts in 180+ countries. [2] Neither broader figure should replace the EOR-specific count when comparing employee hiring.

The open-ended coverage claims establish neither an exact difference in available countries nor a country-by-country overlap. [1] [2] Ask each provider to confirm your hiring locations in writing, with the EOR service named.

For a contractor engagement, request contractor availability separately. Oyster's contract-generation coverage is stated in its contractor block; Deel's contractor pricing block gives payment-currency coverage without a contractor-country total. [1] [2] Request confirmation of both the hiring country and payment currency.

## Which billing terms can change the comparison?

Deel states flexible month-to-month pricing without required long-term commitments; Oyster offers discounted annual EOR seats and requires a refundable deposit for EOR team members. [1] [2] Compare the recurring charge, commitment and upfront cash separately. A refundable deposit should remain visible in the cash budget even when it is expected to return.

Oyster says an empty annual seat can be reused for a new role or backfill at no additional cost. [2] Ask for the annual seat price, payment schedule and cancellation terms before comparing it with Deel's month-to-month arrangement. The captured Oyster page advertises annual discounts without specifying the reduced fee. [2] An assumed annual rate would change the comparison without evidence.

Oyster says setup, onboarding, access to HR experts and processing terminations are included in the subscription fee. [2] It also states that currency conversion attracts a fee when you pay in a currency different from the contract currency. [2] Request that fee for your intended currency pairing.

Deel says the quoted price includes local compliance, payroll and benefits administration. [1] Its cancellation FAQ preserves local notice-period and severance obligations for EOR employees. [1] Ask both providers to show service charges and employment obligations separately in the exit terms.

## When should you choose Deel or Oyster?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to start with Deel when the published EOR fee is the deciding criterion, and Oyster when the standard contractor management fee is the deciding criterion. [1] [2] [1] [2] Confirm country availability and obtain comparable written quotes before choosing. Use the published-price advantage to build a shortlist, then test the required service.

For EOR employees, test Deel's lower listed fee against the countries and employment services you require. [1] [2] For contractors, test Oyster's lower standard fee against the required payment workflow and liability arrangement. [1] [2] Give neither provider a cost advantage for a service the other quote excludes.

The decision changes when a country is unavailable, a discounted quote changes the fee, or the required scope changes. Use the same hiring specification for both providers and compare the recurring fee, upfront cash and exit terms. For a wider shortlist, explore [Deel competitors](/post/deel-competitors).

Subscribe to Glamdring Research for new comparisons.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I create an Oyster account for free?

Yes. Oyster says creating an account, exploring the service and accessing its global HR tools is free. [2] Its pricing FAQ says fees begin once you engage a contractor, an EOR team member or a payroll team member. [2] Free account creation is separate from the contractor trial and the recurring EOR fee. [2]

### Does Oyster require a minimum team size?

No. Oyster says you can engage as many global candidates as you need, with the subscription fee charged per active team member. [2] Request a quote for the number of active employees or contractors you plan to engage.

### Can I cancel Deel without a long-term commitment?

Deel says it offers month-to-month pricing without a required long-term commitment and allows cancellation at any time. [1] For EOR employees, its cancellation answer says local labor laws apply, including any required notice periods or severance obligations. [1] Check those obligations alongside the service cancellation terms.

## Source notes
1. Deel: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Oyster: https://www.oysterhr.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Deel vs Remote: official prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/deel-vs-remote
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, Deel's listed EOR fee is 599 versus Remote's 699; Remote's contractor fee is 29 versus Deel's 49. Confirm Deel's billing currency, country eligibility and full employment costs in matched quotes.

Using USD as the comparison assumption for Deel's dollar-only display, Deel's listed employer of record (EOR) fee is lower: 599 per employee per month versus Remote's explicit US$699, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Confirm Deel's billing currency in the quote before relying on that advantage. Deel reports EOR hiring in 130+ countries; Remote reports 90+. [1] [2] These are service fees and company-reported coverage; confirm the country and full quote before choosing.

## TL;DR

- Start with Deel for a lower listed EOR fee and a larger reported EOR footprint. Use your actual hiring countries to narrow the choice. [1] [2]
- Start with Remote for lower-priced standard contractor management. Its Contractor Management Plus and Contractor of Record services have different prices and responsibilities. [1] [2]
- Compare the same service in both quotes. Remote's payroll-only product is for companies that already have legal entities; its lower fee buys a different service from EOR. [2]

## How do Deel and Remote compare on published prices?

Deel lists the lower EOR fee, while Remote lists the lower standard contractor-management fee. [1] [2] Both list Contractor of Record services, but Remote qualifies its price with “From”. [1] [2] Compare each product separately before combining costs for an employee-and-contractor workforce.

| Published item | Deel | Remote |
|---|---|---|
| EOR fee, US$/employee/month | 599 [1] | 699 [2] |
| Standard contractor management, US$/contractor/month | 49 [1] | 29; pay only for contractors you actively work with [2] |
| Contractor of Record, US$/contractor/month | 325 [1] | From 325 [2] |
| Reported EOR coverage | 130+ countries [1] | 90+ countries [2] |

For the surrounding category, browse [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

The model treats Deel's dollar-only display as USD; Remote's captured pricing selector explicitly identifies USD. [1] [2] Both price captures are dated 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Tax treatment is not specified beside these prices. Confirm billing currency and applicable taxes in both quotes before relying on the numerical fee ordering.

The comparison basis is the published fee for the named product and billing unit. It excludes negotiated offers and currency conversions. See the [research methodology](/methodology) for the publication's evidence approach.

## Which costs less per EOR employee?

Deel lists EOR at US$599 per employee per month; Remote lists US$699 for the same billing unit, making Deel the lower-priced option on this published-fee comparison. [1] [2] Both describe EOR hiring for companies that want to employ people without opening a local entity. [1] [2]

Deel says its EOR fee covers onboarding, local compliance, payroll processing, tax filings, benefits administration and ongoing HR and legal support. [1] Remote's EOR entry lists specialist onboarding, local payroll, localized benefits, compliance protections, local experts and HR Essentials. [2] These descriptions establish what the providers say they include, not a tested difference in service quality.

Keep the employee's employment budget separate from the service-fee comparison. Remote describes salary and other invoice items that may be converted into the customer's billing currency. [2] Ask both providers for a country-specific breakdown of salary, employment costs, benefits and the EOR fee. Use the same hire and billing currency in each request.

Deel also says its pricing is month-to-month with no long-term commitment required. [1] Its cancellation guidance still refers to local notice periods and severance obligations for EOR employees. [1] Ask how those obligations would affect your exit costs before treating contract flexibility as a cost saving.

For more product-price context, read the [Deel pricing analysis](/post/deel-pricing).

## What do Deel and Remote charge for contractors?

Remote lists standard contractor management at US$29 per contractor per month, below Deel's US$49. [1] [2] Remote says customers pay only for contractors they actively work with. [2] That lower fee comparison applies to standard contractor management, not the higher-priced services that change compliance responsibilities. [1] [2]

Deel's contractor entry includes centralized management, automated invoicing, tax-document support and payments in 120+ currencies. [1] Remote's standard plan lists localized contracts, invoice approval or auto-pay, payment visibility and HR Core. [2] Check the contract and payment workflow you need in each product before comparing price alone.

Remote lists Contractor Management Plus at US$99 per contractor per month, with stated coverage up to US$100,000 per contractor for penalties. [2] Keep that plan separate from standard management when requesting a quote. Ask for the protection terms and exclusions that apply to your engagement.

For Contractor of Record, Deel lists US$325 per contractor per month; Remote lists From US$325 per contractor per month. [1] [2] Deel describes this as an alternative to classifying contractors yourself that shifts liability to Deel. [1] Remote lists direct contractor engagement and payment by Remote, uncapped indemnity and IP-transfer support. [2] The matching entry figure doesn't establish matching final quotes or identical contract protection.

Choose the responsibility model first. Then compare its price and terms across both providers.

## How many countries do Deel and Remote cover?

Deel's pricing page reports full legal EOR employment in 130+ countries, while Remote's reports entity-free employee hiring in 90+ countries. [1] [2] Deel therefore advertises the larger EOR footprint, but these totals don't establish whether either provider can employ your particular hire. [1] [2]

Deel also displays “150+ countries” in a general closing block on its pricing page. [1] Use its EOR-specific 130+ figure for this comparison, because that is the count explicitly attached to legal employment. [1] Keep EOR coverage separate from contractor payments and payroll coverage.

Remote says it directly owns the legal entities used for its EOR service. [2] Treat that as Remote's operating-model statement. Ask which entity would employ your worker and which services it provides in the target country.

Before selecting either provider, request confirmation for each intended country, worker type and start date. Include the employment arrangement and required benefits in that request. A larger advertised footprint should help build a shortlist; the country-specific answer should decide eligibility.

## Which should you choose for your hiring plan?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to start with Deel when the priority is a lower published EOR fee, and with Remote when it is lower-priced standard contractor management. [1] [2] This judgment assumes the chosen service is available for your intended hire and its contract terms meet your needs.

For a mixed workforce, separate EOR employees, standard contractors and Contractor of Record engagements in the quote request. Deel and Remote price these as distinct services. [1] [2] Ask each provider to return the same breakdown so a cheaper contractor fee doesn't obscure a higher employee fee.

Include these questions in the request:

- Can you provide the exact service in every intended hiring country?
- What costs sit beside the listed service fee, and what taxes apply?
- What billing term does this quote require?
- What reserve payments or exit obligations could apply?
- What protection does the contractor plan provide, and what does it exclude?

Remote says additional charges may apply to requested services or configurations, and reserve payments can apply in rare, high-risk circumstances. [2] Deel's cancellation guidance flags local employment obligations. [1] A current quote that changes those costs or the available service can change the choice.

For a wider shortlist, read the [Deel alternatives comparison](/post/deel-competitors).

## Frequently asked questions

### Does Remote require a minimum number of employees or contractors?

Remote says it has no minimum requirements or fees for adding direct employees, EOR employees or contractors. [2] It specifies that payroll for direct employees uses its Global Payroll product. [2] Ask Deel to confirm any minimum headcount or spend in its quote.

### Does Remote charge platform, onboarding or setup fees for EOR?

Remote says it charges no platform, onboarding or setup fees for HR management, EOR and Contractor Management. [2] Its separate Payroll product has an implementation fee and a recurring payroll delivery fee. [2] Keep that distinction when comparing a payroll quote with an EOR quote.

### Can annual billing change which EOR costs less?

An annual quote could change the comparison, but a lower annual Remote EOR rate is not specified in its pricing entry checked 28 September 2026; that entry lists US$699 per employee per month. [2] Request the annual price, commitment and cancellation terms from both providers before budgeting a discount. Compare those quotes on the same billing term.

## Source notes
1. Transparent and fair pricing that grows with your business: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Transparent pricing to help you grow: https://remote.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Drata competitors: reported framework counts, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/drata-competitors
Category: Compliance automation
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Sprinto prints 200+ digitized frameworks; Vanta reports 35+ frameworks. These lower-bound claims rank published figures, not actual catalogue sizes or equivalent automation. Optro's mixed frameworks-and-standards count, Secureframe's plan allowance and Delve's named list stay unranked.

Sprinto prints the highest lower-bound framework claim in this comparison of Drata competitors: 200+ digitized frameworks. Vanta reports 35+ frameworks. [1] [2] These qualified, self-reported figures do not establish actual catalogue sizes or equivalent automation. The sources were captured on 28 September and 2 October 2026. Sprinto's entry compliance plans each include one selected framework. [1]

## TL;DR

- Sprinto distinguishes 200+ digitized frameworks from 25+ frameworks automated out of the box. [1] Treat those as different published claims.
- Drata Foundation, Vanta Essentials and Secureframe Fundamentals each publish a one-framework allowance. [3] [4] [5] Catalogue breadth alone won't establish what your subscription includes.
- Optro reports 30+ frameworks and standards, a mixed denominator kept outside the framework-only ordering. Secureframe publishes a plan allowance; Delve names frameworks without a total. [6] [5] [7]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research orders Drata competitors by their **printed lower-bound framework claim**. Vendor-owned framework, pricing and home pages were captured on 28 September and 2 October 2026. We preserve each claim's scope and qualifier. The ordering compares published numerical claims, not exact catalogue sizes, tested automation or product quality. See our [research methodology](/methodology).

| Rank | Competitor | Reported framework count | Published label or verification limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sprinto | 200+ | “frameworks digitized”; separately prints 25+ automated out of the box. [1] |
| 2 | Vanta | 35+ | “frameworks”; actual catalogue size and automation equivalence are not established. [2] |
| Unranked | Delve | No total established | Homepage lists named frameworks and “+ more”, without a catalogue total. [7] |
| Unranked | Optro (formerly AuditBoard) | 30+ frameworks and standards | Mixed frameworks, standards and regulations; excluded from the framework-only ordering. [6] |
| Unranked | Secureframe | No total established | Pricing page's framework figure is a plan allowance, not a catalogue total. [5] |

The sample contains five unique competitors with dated vendor-owned pages. AuditBoard and Optro are one supplier because the checked page identifies Optro as formerly AuditBoard. [8] Two competitors have eligible printed claims; three remain unranked. Drata is a baseline, not its own competitor. Unranked rows use alphabetical order.

Named framework links, entry-plan allowances and mixed frameworks-and-standards counts are excluded from the ranked field. The 200+ and 35+ claims are lower bounds, not exact totals: they cannot prove which actual catalogue is larger or a ratio of coverage. Both remain vendor statements, not independent measurements.

## Which Drata competitor prints the highest lower-bound claim?

Sprinto prints 200+ digitized frameworks; Vanta's catalogue page prints 35+ frameworks. [1] [2] Sprinto separately reports 25+ frameworks automated out of the box. [1] The highest printed lower bound is therefore Sprinto's digitized claim, not proof that it has the largest actual catalogue or more automated frameworks than Vanta.

Sprinto's page exposes a further distinction between available frameworks and purchased frameworks. [1] Under “What counts as a Select Framework?”, it says: “Get any one framework of your choice with either plan.” [1] Additional frameworks appear as add-ons. [1] A shortlist based on catalogue breadth therefore needs a second check against the quote's included frameworks.

For Sprinto, ask for the target framework by name, its automation scope and its inclusion in the proposed subscription. Keep those answers separate. A claim about the size of the digitized catalogue cannot answer all three.

## How does Drata's own framework scope compare?

Drata reports 30+ pre-built frameworks, but its Foundation compliance plan includes one pre-mapped framework. [9] [3] The framework catalogue and the entry subscription describe different scopes. [9] [3]

Foundation is limited to up to 50 FTEs, and its included framework must come from SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA or GDPR. [3] Additional frameworks are add-ons. [3] Drata's Advanced description says “Any Available Framework” while still listing additional frameworks as add-ons. [3] The wording does not establish unlimited included frameworks. [3]

Drata's 30+ pre-built figure and Sprinto's 200+ digitized figure retain their original labels. [9] [1] They support a comparison of printed claims, without proving equivalent automation or a particular ratio of coverage. [9] [1] For another baseline comparison, read [Vanta versus Drata](/post/vanta-vs-drata).

## What do entry plans include?

Sprinto, Vanta and Secureframe each publish a one-framework allowance for their entry compliance plans. [1] [4] [5] Drata Foundation also includes one framework but restricts the available choices and company size. [3] The plan allowance is the more direct starting point for a first-framework purchase.

| Supplier | Entry compliance plan | Published framework allowance | Boundary to confirm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sprinto | Foundation | One selected framework; either Foundation or Growth follows the “any one framework” wording. [1] | Additional frameworks are add-ons; digitized and automated catalogue labels differ. [1] |
| Vanta | Essentials | One compliance framework with an agentic policy generator. [4] | Confirm the chosen framework and the scope of any additional framework in the quote. |
| Secureframe | Fundamentals | “Compliance Framework” row: 1. [5] | Custom frameworks, controls and tests are listed separately; confirm the named framework allowance. [5] |
| Drata | Foundation | One pre-mapped framework. [3] | Up to 50 FTEs; limited to SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA and GDPR. [3] |
| Delve | Entry allowance unconfirmed | No included-framework allowance established by the checked homepage. [7] | Request the included frameworks in its customized proposal. [7] |
| Optro | Entry allowance unconfirmed | No included-framework allowance established by the checked homepage. [8] | Obtain a named product package and its framework scope. |

For a program that needs SOC 2 and ISO 27001, ask each supplier to put both frameworks in the same quote. Require a clear split between included work and add-ons. This is a procurement test, not an assumption that the entry plans cover both.

## Which alternatives remain unranked?

Secureframe, Delve and Optro remain unranked. Secureframe's number is a subscription allowance, Delve's named list has no total, and Optro combines frameworks with standards and regulations. [5] [7] [6] These limits do not settle whether a supplier covers your required framework.

Vanta's 35+ framework claim earns a separate rank, not an entitlement to all frameworks. [2] Its Essentials description includes one compliance framework, automated evidence collection, continuous controls monitoring, basic reporting and audit workflows, and a Trust Center. [4]

Secureframe Fundamentals lists infrastructure monitoring, evidence collection, personnel management, risk management, policy management and a Trust Center. [5] Its comparison also lists custom frameworks, controls and tests for Fundamentals and Complete. [5] The one-framework allowance remains a separate row. [5]

Delve's homepage names SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, GDPR, PCI-DSS and ISO 42001. [7] It describes evidence collection and security workflows using AI agents, and asks buyers to obtain a customized proposal. [7] The framework names establish advertised coverage, without specifying an entry-plan entitlement. [7]

Optro identifies itself as formerly AuditBoard and describes audit, risk, infosec and compliance products. [8] Its framework page reports 30+ supported frameworks and standards, and describes a library of frameworks, standards and regulations. [6] That mixed scope warrants a package-level comparison with Drata, not a framework-only rank or an assumed equivalent entry plan.

Browse the [compliance automation research](/categories/compliance-automation) for related comparisons. Start your own shortlist with the required framework, then verify the included package.

## Which competitors publish a price?

Secureframe prints “Starting at $7,000/year” for Fundamentals. [5] The checked Drata and Vanta pages request personalized pricing instead of publishing numerical subscription rates. [3] [4] These are the pages checked 28 September 2026; they establish published terms, not negotiated market prices. [5] [3] [4]

Secureframe's starting figure carries an annual unit and the dollar symbol as printed. [5] The captured page does not specify a currency code or tax treatment, so neither is assumed. [5] Complete and Defense direct buyers to obtain a quote without a numerical subscription rate in the checked page. [5]

Sprinto's checked pricing page describes Foundation and Growth and directs buyers to “Find my plan”, without a numerical subscription price. [1] Delve requests a customized proposal. [7] Optro's checked homepage offers a demo without a numerical subscription price. [8]

A starting figure and an undisclosed quote do not support a cheapest-vendor verdict. Compare quotes for the same named frameworks and service scope, with currency and tax treatment stated. For the baseline vendor's commercial details, use the [Drata pricing analysis](/post/drata-pricing).

## What the ranking cannot tell you

Printed framework claims cannot establish which compliance system fits your audit program. Sprinto's digitized and automated labels describe different scopes; Drata uses a pre-built-framework label, and Vanta reports frameworks. [1] [9] [2] None establishes all-framework inclusion in an entry subscription. [1] [3] [4]

The comparison leaves actual catalogue totals, automation depth, implementation effort and audit outcomes untested. A higher printed lower bound earns the field-based rank, not a universal recommendation. An unranked supplier may still advertise the framework you need. [5] [7] [6]

Before committing, require the supplier to demonstrate the named framework using your evidence sources. Ask it to show what runs automatically, what needs manual work and what changes when a further framework is added. A revised official total or plan allowance is the trigger to recheck the comparison.

Explore more [published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Which is better: Drata or Sprinto?

The published framework claims establish different scopes, not an overall winner. [1] [9] Sprinto prints 200+ digitized frameworks and 25+ automated out of the box; Drata prints 30+ pre-built frameworks. [1] [9] For a first-framework purchase, Sprinto's “any one framework” wording permits a broader stated choice than Drata Foundation's restricted list. [1] [3] Confirm the target framework and its automation scope before treating that difference as decisive.

### Does an unranked platform support no frameworks?

No. Unranked means the checked claim does not fit this framework-only field. Secureframe publishes an included-framework allowance; Delve names supported frameworks; Optro reports a mixed frameworks-and-standards total. [5] [7] [6] None is treated as zero coverage. Vanta's 35+ framework claim is ranked separately. [2]

### Does Secureframe Complete include more frameworks than Fundamentals?

Secureframe's checked pricing comparison prints 1 in the “Compliance Framework” row for both Fundamentals and Complete. [5] Complete adds other capabilities, including advanced risk and third-party risk management, user access reviews and questionnaire automation. [5] The higher tier therefore does not establish a larger included-framework allowance from this published row. [5]

## Source notes
1. Sprinto: https://sprinto.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Vanta: https://www.vanta.com/products/additional-frameworks (checked October 2, 2026)
3. Drata: https://drata.com/plans (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Vanta: https://www.vanta.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Secureframe: https://secureframe.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Optro: https://optro.ai/platform/frameworks (checked October 2, 2026)
7. Delve: https://www.delve.co/ (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Optro (formerly AuditBoard): https://auditboard.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Drata: https://drata.com/frameworks (checked September 28, 2026)

# Emburse pricing: official plans, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/emburse-pricing
Category: Spend management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Emburse Spend publishes Basic at $8 and Plus at $12 per user per month, with a 15-user monthly billing minimum. Professional's official pricing page checked 1 October 2026 publishes no monetary plan amount. Compare product-specific terms rather than treating the brand as quote-only.

Emburse Spend publishes Basic at $8 per user per month and Plus at $12 per user per month on its official pricing page checked 1 October 2026. [1] Professional's captured pricing page supplies no monetary plan amount. [2]

## TL;DR

- Budget from billable expense submitters: Spend has a 15-user minimum, and approvers count only if they also submit expenses. [1]
- Plus adds accounting integrations, unlimited ACH reimbursements, Bill Pay and more controls to Basic. [1]
- Spend supports self-implementation without a setup fee; Guided Implementation is an optional $1,500 service. [1]
- Spend's published eligibility is limited to US-based organizations, with reimbursements processed within the United States. [1]

## Which Emburse plans have published prices?

Emburse Spend publishes prices for Basic and Plus, while Emburse Professional's official pricing page checked 1 October 2026 contains no monetary plan amount. [1] [2] Keep the product name attached to the price: Spend's rates do not establish a Professional subscription cost. [1] [2]

| Product and plan | Published monthly price | Published scope | Billing minimum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emburse Spend Basic | $8 per user per month [1] | Expense management for teams of up to 100 employees [1] | 15 users [1] |
| Emburse Spend Plus | $12 per user per month [1] | Added control and customization for teams of up to 100 employees [1] | 15 users [1] |
| Emburse Professional | Price not published in the official pricing page checked 1 October 2026 [2] | Integrated expense management and implementation support for small and medium-sized organizations [2] | No minimum stated in the checked pricing page [2] |

The Spend product page shows dollar prices without a currency code or tax treatment. [1] Confirm billing currency and applicable taxes before using the rate as a total budget.

For broader comparisons, use the [spend-management research](/categories/spend-management).

## What does each Emburse Spend plan include?

Emburse Spend Basic includes card feeds and issuance, accounting exports, reimbursement payments and policy controls; Plus includes everything in Basic and adds named accounting integrations, payment features and controls. [1] Choose the tier against your accounting system and reimbursement requirements.

The published plan descriptions give these inclusions. [1]

| Area | Basic | Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Cards | Feed integration and issuance [1] | Everything in Basic [1] |
| Accounting | QuickBooks, Xero and a custom export template [1] | Basic features plus NetSuite, Sage Intacct and other accounting options that the plan description does not name [1] |
| Payments | 50 monthly ACH reimbursements [1] | Unlimited ACH reimbursements and Bill Pay [1] |
| Integrations | The plan description names the accounting options above; it does not name Salesforce API or Amazon Business [1] | Salesforce API and Amazon Business [1] |
| Controls and security | Policies and approvals, SAML SSO and 2FA [1] | Basic features plus enhanced roles and Multi-Entity controls [1] |

The comparison table describes Bill Pay as “virtual card payments only.” [1] Confirm that payment method against the bills you need to pay.

QuickBooks or Xero users can start by assessing Basic's stated accounting coverage; buyers needing NetSuite or Sage Intacct should assess Plus's named integrations. [1] Test the required export, approval and reimbursement workflow before selecting a plan.

Some feature cells in the checked comparison table contain no inclusion mark. [1] The plan descriptions support the inclusions above, but an empty cell does not establish whether another feature is included or excluded. [1] See the [research methodology](/methodology) for the publication's approach.

## How does Emburse Spend count and bill users?

Emburse Spend counts anyone who submits an expense as a user; approvers count only when they also submit expenses. [1] The monthly subscription has a 15-user billing minimum even if fewer people use it. [1] Count submitters separately from employees and approval-only users when budgeting.

Emburse says the monthly bill combines the next month's minimum user count with overages from the previous month. [1] Its Basic example uses 20 people submitting expenses in January, producing this February bill: [1]

| Billing component | Emburse's published calculation |
|---|---|
| February minimum | 15 users × $8 = $120 [1] |
| January overage | 5 extra users × $8 = $40 [1] |
| Total February bill | $160 [1] |

A quiet month can still carry charges for the previous month's extra submitters under this billing model. [1] Check both the minimum commitment and the timing of overages when reviewing an invoice.

## What does Emburse Professional publish about pricing?

Emburse Professional's official pricing page checked 1 October 2026 publishes no monetary plan amount. [2] It describes flexible pricing for small and medium-sized organizations and directs readers to a product enquiry. [2] Request a Professional-specific price and scope before comparing its cost with Spend.

The product description identifies integrated expense management and the level of implementation support the buyer needs. [2] It also points to available services for travel booking, accounts payable automation and ACH with Certify Payments. [2] Those descriptions do not state that every service comes within a single subscription price. [2]

Professional's comparison table names receipt scanning, automatic expense report creation, reporting and analytics, policy enforcement, approval routing, user roles and accounting integrations. [2] The checked text supplies no inclusion marks for those rows, so the table cannot confirm the exact contents of a priced package. [2] Ask Emburse to specify the contracted features, integrations and implementation support alongside the amount.

## What extra costs and limits should you check?

Emburse Spend lists Guided Implementation at $1,500 as an optional service; its FAQ says self-implementation has no additional setup or onboarding fee. [1] Decide whether you need assisted setup before adding implementation to the budget.

Guided Implementation pairs an implementation specialist with the administrator for configuration, account-management training and deployment preparation. [1] Self-implementation includes an onboarding wizard and free weekly implementation calls. [1]

The Spend page labels Emburse Cards “No Fees” and describes physical or virtual prepaid cards with spending rules. [1] It offers a 1% cash rebate when qualifying spend volumes are met. [1] Separately, the official Cards pricing page labels both “Emburse Spend + Emburse Cards” and “Expense + Emburse Cards” packages “Custom/month.” [3] Confirm the card arrangement being offered; the Spend heading cannot establish a price for every Cards package. [1] [3]

Spend's FAQ says the product is available only in English for US-based organizations, and reimbursements can only be processed within the United States. [1] Confirm product eligibility before comparing rates for a team based elsewhere.

Emburse also documents an annual Spend subscription with discounted rates, a separate user minimum and its own renewal rules. [4] The monthly prices above are the rates on the checked Spend product page. [1] Request the annual billing terms separately if you want an annual commitment.

For the next pricing comparison, consult [Expensify pricing](/post/expensify-pricing). Match the required features, billable-user definition and contract term before comparing headline rates.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does Emburse offer a free trial?

Yes. Emburse Spend advertises a 30-day free trial. [1] Emburse Professional advertises a 14-day free trial with no credit card needed. [2] Both offers appear in the official product pricing pages checked 1 October 2026. [1] [2]

### Can you cancel Emburse Spend at any time?

Emburse Spend's monthly pricing FAQ says you can cancel at any time, retain access until the current billing cycle ends and receive a final bill containing any previous-month overages. [1] Annual subscriptions have separate cancellation and downgrade rules; a downgrade to monthly takes effect after the annual term ends. [4] Check the terms for your chosen billing arrangement.

### What support comes with Emburse Spend?

Emburse Spend's pricing FAQ includes 24/7 access to its online support team and full access to its knowledge center. [1] It states access availability, without publishing a guaranteed response time in that FAQ. [1]

## Source notes
1. Emburse Spend Pricing: https://www.emburse.com/products/spend/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
2. Emburse Professional PRICING: https://www.emburse.com/products/professional/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
3. Pricing: Emburse Cards: https://www.emburse.com/products/emburse-cards/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
4. Manage your annual Emburse Spend subscription: https://help.spend.emburse.com/hc/en-us/articles/40781663710221-Manage-your-annual-Emburse-Spend-subscription (checked October 1, 2026)

# Expensify alternatives: vendor prices, Sep-Oct 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/expensify-alternatives
Category: Spend management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, Emburse Spend Basic leads the listed paid user rates at $8 per month with at least 15 users billed. Match scope and confirm currency, tax and complete fees; Concur's report prices and QuickBooks account subscriptions stay separate.

On the model's USD comparison basis, Emburse Spend Basic has the lowest listed paid user rate among these Expensify alternatives: $8 per user per month, checked 1 October 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] It bills at least15 users. [1] Confirm unlabelled billing currencies and tax treatment in the quote. Ramp Free and Brex Essentials also offer free tiers, checked 28 September. [3] [2]

## TL;DR

- Switching to a paid alternative does not automatically cut the listed user rate: Expensify Collect lists US$5 per member per month, checked 28 September 2026. [5]
- Ramp Plus adds a platform fee based on team size; Navan Expense charges after its first five free monthly expensing users. [3] [4] Both findings were checked 28 September 2026. [3] [4]
- Emburse Spend publishes prices, while Emburse Professional's pricing page gives no numerical subscription rate. [1] [6] Both product pages were checked 1 October 2026. [1] [6]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranks alternatives by **lowest listed paid plan price per user (or member) per month**, using vendor pricing pages. Free tiers sit separately. The model treats unlabelled dollar amounts as USD without conversion; that is not verified vendor currency or tax treatment. Confirm both in the quote. The [research methodology](/methodology) sets the source standard.

Original valid captures are dated 28 September 2026; Emburse Spend/Professional product captures are dated 1 October and Concur Expense is dated 2 October. [2] [3] [4] [5] [7] [1] [6] [8]

The sample contains eight candidate products including Expensify. Removing the baseline leaves seven alternatives; excluding account-priced QuickBooks, report-priced Concur Expense and unpriced Emburse Professional leaves four ranked user-rate entries. [5] [7] [8] [6] [1] [2] [3] [4] Each product contributes one paid entry and ties share a rank. Spend and Professional remain distinct; discounts and feature weights do not alter the order.

## Which paid Expensify alternatives have the lowest listed prices?

Emburse Spend Basic leads at US$8 per user per month, followed by Brex Premium at US$12; Ramp Plus and Navan Expense tie at US$15. [1] [2] [3] [4] Spend was checked 1 October 2026; the other rates were checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] The ranking compares published user rates, with billing conditions alongside them.

| Rank | Alternative and paid plan | Listed entry price (US$/user/month) | Billing condition | Checked date |
|---|---|---:|---|---|
| 1 | Emburse Spend Basic | 8 | Teams of up to 100 employees; minimum billing for 15 users; expense submitters count; approver-only users do not. [1] | 1 October 2026 |
| 2 | Brex Premium | 12 | Published user rate; billing basis requires confirmation. [2] | 28 September 2026 |
| 3= | Ramp Plus | 15 | Plus a platform fee based on team size; the page advertises annual-billing savings. [3] | 28 September 2026 |
| 3= | Navan Expense within Navan Business | 15 | After the first five free monthly expensing users; Business covers companies with up to 300 employees. [4] | 28 September 2026 |

No currency conversion or tax amount is applied. Unlabelled billing currencies and tax inclusion require quote confirmation.

For category context beyond these rates, see our [spend-management research](/categories/spend-management).

The plans also buy different capabilities. Emburse Spend Basic lists card feeds and issuance, QuickBooks and Xero connections, policies and approvals, and 50 monthly ACH reimbursements. [1] Brex Premium adds custom expense policies, dynamic review chains, multi-entity support and customisable ERP integrations to Essentials. [2] Ramp Plus lists automated expense reviews, NetSuite and Sage Intacct integrations, and multi-entity support. [3] Navan Business lists expense management, reimbursements, existing-card connections and receipt scanning alongside travel features. [4] Treat these as vendor-listed inclusions to test against your own workflow.

Expensify Collect's US$5 per member per month is below every paid rate in the table, checked 28 September 2026. [5] [1] [2] [3] [4] Before switching on price alone, compare the [Expensify pricing terms](/post/expensify-pricing) with the features you need. Expensify lists reimbursements, expense and travel approvals, and QuickBooks/Xero integrations under Collect. [5]

## Which alternatives have free plans?

Ramp Free and Brex Essentials publish zero-cost per-user tiers; Navan Expense is free for the first five monthly expensing users. [3] [2] [4] All three findings were checked 28 September 2026. [3] [2] [4] QuickBooks also lists a free accounting plan, but its account-based unit keeps it outside the per-user ranking. [7]

| Product | Published free offer | Scope or constraint | Checked date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramp Free | US$0/user/month | Lists cards, receipt matching, travel and QuickBooks Online/Xero integrations. [3] | 28 September 2026 |
| Brex Essentials | US$0/user/month | Lists reimbursements, accounting integrations, bill pay and travel booking. [2] | 28 September 2026 |
| Navan Business | Free travel; Expense free for first five monthly expensing users | Company limit of 300 employees; additional expense users have a published paid rate. [4] | 28 September 2026 |
| QuickBooks Free | US$0/account/month | One user; income and expense tracking; no accountant access. [7] | 28 September 2026 |

Expensify itself lists Submit as free for all members, with receipt scanning, mileage tracking and expense reports, checked 28 September 2026. [5] Define what you need to replace before comparing a free account with a paid expense-approval system.

## Which products require a quote?

Ramp Enterprise, Brex Enterprise and Navan Enterprise direct buyers to custom pricing or a quote, checked 28 September 2026. [3] [2] [4] Emburse Professional's official pricing page is unpriced and directs buyers to a product demo, checked 1 October 2026. [6] These products have no numerical rate to sort into the paid ranking.

| Product | Pricing evidence | Checked date |
|---|---|---|
| Ramp Enterprise | Custom pricing with annual billing. [3] | 28 September 2026 |
| Brex Enterprise | Custom pricing. [2] | 28 September 2026 |
| Navan Enterprise | “Let’s talk” and “Get a price quote”. [4] | 28 September 2026 |
| Emburse Professional | Product-specific pricing page without a numerical subscription rate; demo-led enquiry. [6] | 1 October 2026 |

Concur Expense uses another billing unit. Its valid product page, captured 2 October 2026, publishes Base from USD7/report and Plus from USD11/report with unlimited users, while Premium is custom-priced. The amount can vary with monthly commitment. [8] Concur stays outside the per-user order; obtain report-volume and commitment terms for a matched quote.

Emburse Spend's product page publishes Basic and Plus user rates; Professional's page is unpriced. Both were captured 1 October 2026. [1] [6] Keep the product name and optional services attached to the quote.

## How do billing rules change the decision?

Emburse Spend's minimum user count, Ramp's platform fee and Navan's expensing-user definition change what the listed rate means for a company bill. [1] [3] [4] Use the paid-rate order to shortlist products, then obtain the charge for your own team and required plan.

### Emburse Spend's minimum billing

Emburse Spend bills for at least 15 users even when fewer people submit expenses, checked 1 October 2026. [1] Its Basic example gives a minimum charge of US$120 using 15 users at US$8 each. [1] An approver counts only if they also submit expenses. [1] A low per-user rate therefore needs to be considered alongside the billed minimum.

Basic includes 50 monthly ACH reimbursements; Plus lists unlimited ACH and adds NetSuite, Sage Intacct and enhanced multi-entity controls, checked 1 October 2026. [1] Spend supports US-based organisations and reimbursements within the United States only. [1] Confirm those requirements before treating Spend as a replacement for a global expense workflow.

### Ramp's additional fee and Brex's billing basis

Ramp Plus lists “+ Platform fee based on team size”, checked 28 September 2026. [3] Its pricing page also says “Save 20% with annual billing”. [3] Obtain the platform fee and commitment terms before comparing total costs; the ranked user rate alone leaves that fee out.

Brex Premium's captured pricing page lists US$12 per user per month, checked 28 September 2026. [2] The billing basis attached to that displayed rate is unresolved. Confirm it before comparing an annual commitment with a monthly subscription.

### Navan's monthly expensing users

Navan defines an active expense user as someone who submits a transaction manually or through Navan Connect, checked 28 September 2026. [4] Its pricing FAQ says: “Navan Expense is free for the first 5 monthly expensing users, and then is $15 per user per month.” [4] Confirm the charge using your expected monthly submitters.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The listed paid rate cannot establish the lowest total cost or identify the best fit among Expensify alternatives. Spend has minimum billing, Ramp adds a platform fee and Navan includes a free-user allowance. [1] [3] [4] Those conditions prevent a universal total-cost winner from following directly from the rate order.

The sample covers only the alternatives with captured official pricing evidence. It makes no lowest-price claim across the whole market. Tax treatment and some billing terms remain unconfirmed. Vendor feature lists also provide no hands-on evidence of receipt accuracy, implementation effort or support quality.

Test a real expense from submission through approval, reimbursement and accounting export. Ask each supplier to price the required configuration and confirm billable users, minimums, fees and renewal terms. Revisit the order when a cited pricing page changes a plan or its conditions. Follow our [published research](/research) for related comparisons.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Expensify better than QuickBooks?

Choose according to the job: Expensify Collect lists expense and travel approvals, reimbursements and QuickBooks/Xero integrations, while QuickBooks Free lists income and expense tracking and financial reporting. [5] [7] Both were checked 28 September 2026. [5] [7] QuickBooks Free includes one user; its paid plans use account subscriptions, so dividing a plan by its user allowance would introduce a different price measure. [7] QuickBooks also states that its free plan lacks mobile-app access and third-party integrations. [7] A free accounting account therefore needs a separate workflow check before replacing employee expense software.

### Are Emburse's free trials the same as free plans?

No. Emburse Spend advertises a 30-day free trial, while Emburse Professional advertises a 14-day free trial. [1] [6] Both findings were checked 1 October 2026. [1] [6] Spend lists paid subscription rates and Professional directs buyers to a demo without listing a numerical rate. [1] [6] Treat the trial as an evaluation period; confirm the ongoing subscription before moving expense submissions into either product.

## Source notes
1. Emburse: https://www.emburse.com/products/spend/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
2. Brex: https://www.brex.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Ramp: https://ramp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Navan: https://navan.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Expensify: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Emburse: https://www.emburse.com/products/professional/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
7. Intuit QuickBooks: https://quickbooks.intuit.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
8. SAP Concur: https://www.concur.com/products/concur-expense (checked October 2, 2026)

# Expensify vs Concur: official pricing, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/expensify-vs-concur
Category: Spend management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Compare required inclusions and billing units before choosing. Expensify publishes member pricing; SAP Concur publishes USD per-report starting prices for Base and Plus, with custom Premium pricing. Neither establishes a universal cheapest vendor.

Expensify lists Collect at $5 per member/month, checked 28 September 2026; SAP Concur lists Base starting at $7 per report (USD), checked 2 October 2026. [1] [2] Neither rate proves a universal cheapest choice: the billing units differ, and Concur's price can vary based on monthly commitment. [1] [2] Compare the required plan's inclusions before comparing costs.

## TL;DR

- Expensify Collect lists reimbursements, expense and travel approvals, travel booking and QuickBooks/Xero integrations together. [1] Shortlist it when that matches the workflow you need.
- Expensify Control is custom pricing, as low as $9 per active member/month. [1] Multiple approval flows, ERP integrations and SAML/SSO are among its stated additions. [1]
- SAP Concur publishes Base and Plus starting prices. [2] Premium is custom pricing and explicitly lists Concur Travel and Intelligence alongside expense tools. [2] All three list unlimited users. [2]
- Confirm Expensify's selected currency and both vendors' tax treatment before comparing totals. The Expensify text has a currency selector without a confirmed selection; Concur explicitly states USD. [1] [2]

For other comparisons in the category, browse [spend-management research](/categories/spend-management).

## What is the main difference between Expensify and Concur pricing?

Expensify's published paid-plan units are members per month; SAP Concur's Base and Plus units are reports, with unlimited users. [1] [2] A headcount-based budget and a report-volume budget therefore need different inputs. [1] [2] The comparison below uses Expensify's official pricing checked 28 September 2026 and Concur Expense's official product pricing checked 2 October 2026. [1] [2]

| Comparison | Expensify | SAP Concur |
|---|---|---|
| Entry plan | Submit: free for all members. [1] | Base: starting at $7 per report, USD; unlimited users. [2] |
| Published paid rate | Collect: $5 per member/month. [1] | Plus: starting at $11 per report, USD; unlimited users. [2] |
| Custom-price plan | Control: custom pricing, as low as $9 per active member/month. [1] | Premium: custom pricing; unlimited users. [2] |
| Travel in explicit plan lists | Collect lists travel booking, rules and approvals; Control includes everything in Collect. [1] | Premium explicitly lists Concur Travel. [2] |
| Accounting and integration scope | Collect lists QuickBooks/Xero; Control adds NetSuite, Sage Intacct and Workday/Certinia integrations. [1] | Concur describes ERP, HR and accounting integrations at product level; confirm the connector's plan and price. [2] |
| Price conditions | Annual-commitment and Expensify Card discounts are stated; selected currency and tax treatment are unconfirmed. [1] | “Price can vary based on monthly commitment. All prices listed are in USD.” [2] Tax treatment is unconfirmed. [2] |

These are published vendor terms, not equivalent bundles or measured operating costs. [1] [2] Concur's unlimited-users wording leaves the per-report charge in place. [2] Likewise, Expensify's Control wording distinguishes an active member from Collect's member unit without establishing the billing definition. [1]

Use the [research methodology](/methodology) to frame the evidence. For procurement, carry each checked date, billing unit and price condition into the quote request.

## What does each Expensify plan include?

Expensify Submit lists individual expense-submission tools; Collect adds business reimbursement and approval workflows; Control adds more detailed controls and integrations. [1] The official pricing checked 28 September 2026 lists Collect at $5 per member/month and Control at custom pricing, as low as $9 per active member/month. [1] Treat the Control figure as a qualified advertised rate, not an automatic price for every account. [1]

| Plan | Explicitly listed inclusions |
|---|---|
| Submit | Receipt scanning, mileage tracking, expense reports, custom distance and tax rates, personal card import, chat on every expense, AI and human support. [1] |
| Collect | Receipt scanning, reimbursements, corporate card management, expense and travel approvals, travel booking and rules, QuickBooks/Xero integrations, chat on expenses, reports and rooms, AI and human support. [1] |
| Control | Everything in Collect, plus multiple approval flows, custom expense rules, NetSuite and Sage Intacct ERP integration, Workday/Certinia HR integrations, SAML/SSO, custom insights and reporting, budgeting. [1] |

Start the tier decision with your accounting system and approval requirements. QuickBooks/Xero appears in Collect's list; NetSuite, Sage Intacct and multiple approval flows appear among Control's additions. [1] If those additions are requirements, request a Control quote before treating Collect's member rate as your budget.

Expensify also states that discounts are available for annual commitments and when using the Expensify Card. [1] Ask for the applicable rate with your intended card arrangements and contract term. Keep a discount separate from the published plan price until its conditions are confirmed.

For the dedicated pricing comparison, see [Expensify pricing](/post/expensify-pricing).

## What does each SAP Concur plan include?

SAP Concur Base lists Concur Expense; Plus adds ExpenseIt, User Support Desk and Reporting; Premium also lists Concur Travel and Intelligence. [2] Checked 2 October 2026, Base is starting at $7 per report and Plus is starting at $11 per report, both in USD; Premium is custom pricing. [2] “Price can vary based on monthly commitment. All prices listed are in USD.” [2]

| Plan | Explicitly listed inclusions | User allowance |
|---|---|---|
| Base | Concur Expense. [2] | Unlimited users. [2] |
| Plus | Concur Expense, ExpenseIt, User Support Desk, Reporting. [2] | Unlimited users. [2] |
| Premium | Concur Expense, Concur Travel, ExpenseIt, User Support Desk, Reporting, Intelligence, “and more”. [2] | Unlimited users. [2] |

SAP Concur describes Concur Expense as cloud-based expense management software and ExpenseIt as AI-powered receipt capture that pulls details from receipts. [2] If named receipt-capture, support and reporting tools are central to the purchase, Plus supplies a more explicit inclusion list than Base. [2] Confirm the functions your team needs in the proposed configuration.

Travel needs a separate scope decision. Premium explicitly lists Concur Travel, while the broader product description says Concur Expense can be combined with Concur Travel and Concur Invoice. [2] That combination statement does not establish Concur Invoice as an inclusion in any of these pricing tiers. [2] Ask for Invoice to be named and priced if it is part of the requirement.

Use each list as evidence of stated inclusions. An omitted item alone cannot establish that a feature is unavailable through another arrangement. [2]

## How can you compare monthly cost without mixing units?

Compare Expensify and SAP Concur by counting billable members and billable reports separately, then applying the relevant quoted rate. [1] [2] Use the same month's workload and the same required features in both requests. The published rates support component illustrations; they do not establish a complete invoice or a cheapest-vendor ranking. [1] [2]

Define `M` as your billable Collect members for the month and `R` as your billable Concur reports for that month. Confirm both billing definitions with the vendor before inserting your counts.

| Component illustration | Expression using the published rate | Conditions to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Expensify Collect member component | `M × $5` per month. [1] | Selected currency and tax treatment unconfirmed; confirm the applicable member count and rate. [1] |
| SAP Concur Base report component | `R × USD $7`, using the starting-at rate. [2] | Base is starting at $7 per report; price can vary based on monthly commitment. Tax treatment unconfirmed. [2] |
| SAP Concur Plus report component | `R × USD $11`, using the starting-at rate. [2] | Plus is starting at $11 per report; price can vary based on monthly commitment. Tax treatment unconfirmed. [2] |

The expressions assume the displayed rate applies to the counted units. They exclude any unconfirmed commitment minimum, tax, service or other charge. No currency conversion or final bill is implied.

In this component model, changing report volume changes Concur's calculated amount even when the user count stays the same; changing billable member count changes Collect's calculated amount. [1] [2] A team that files few reports and a team that files many reports therefore need separate comparisons. [1] [2]

For Control, replace the advertised “as low as $9 per active member/month” with the confirmed rate and active-member definition before calculating a budget. [1] For Concur Premium, obtain the custom price and billing basis first. [2]

## Which costs still need a quote?

Expensify Control and SAP Concur Premium need custom pricing; the published Collect, Base and Plus rates still leave commercial terms to confirm. [1] [2] Control's “as low as” qualifier and Concur's monthly-commitment qualifier prevent those figures from serving as unconditional total-cost estimates. [1] [2]

Request a written proposal that separates:

- Recurring software charges, including the exact member or report definition.
- Minimum commitments, unused allowance, excess usage and renewal terms.
- Implementation, configuration, data migration and training, with any charge or included service stated.
- Required accounting connectors, travel arrangements, invoice tools and support scope.
- Currency, tax treatment, cancellation terms and data-export arrangements.

Expensify's capture does not confirm the selected currency or whether its displayed prices include tax. [1] Concur states USD, but its captured pricing section does not specify tax treatment or the commitment required to receive each starting rate. [2] Ask for those terms beside the recurring rate.

SAP Concur's broader integration and suite descriptions also leave the price of your required configuration to confirm. [2] Specify the accounting connector and any Invoice requirement in the request. A product name in the wider suite should not substitute for a priced line item.

## Which should you shortlist for your expense workflow?

Glamdring Research recommends shortlisting the lowest tier that explicitly lists your required workflow: Expensify Collect for its stated reimbursement, travel and QuickBooks/Xero bundle; SAP Concur Base for basic expense reporting or Plus for its named receipt-capture, support and reporting additions. [1] [2] Move to custom quotes when Expensify Control's additions or Concur Premium's stated Travel and Intelligence scope are requirements. [1] [2]

Company size alone is an incomplete filter. [1] [2] Expensify positions Collect for small businesses and Control for larger businesses, while Concur explicitly positions Base for smaller businesses with basic expense reporting needs. [1] [2] Test both products against the required workflows before excluding one by size.

Run the same expense through both proposed configurations: capture a receipt, apply the company policy, route an exception, approve reimbursement and export the accounting detail. Add a travel booking if travel is in scope. Record manual corrections and confirm that the quoted tier supports each step.

Choose after the workflow test and like-for-like written quotes. For more vendor comparisons, follow [published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Expensify free?

Yes. Expensify lists Submit as free for all members and says individuals can use New Expensify with unlimited SmartScans for free, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Submit lists receipt scanning, mileage tracking, expense reports and personal card import. [1] Business reimbursements and expense/travel approvals appear in Collect's paid-plan list, so confirm the company workflow you need before choosing the free option. [1]

### What is an expense report in Concur's pricing?

SAP Concur defines an expense report as a document employees use to record and request reimbursement for business expenses, including receipts, dates and expense descriptions. [2] That report is a different unit from a user or an individual receipt. [2] The product definition does not specify the event that makes a report billable under a contract. [2] Ask whether submission, processing or another event determines the billed count, including how corrections are treated.

### Can small businesses use SAP Concur?

Yes. SAP Concur says Concur Expense serves small and midsize businesses, and its Base plan explicitly targets smaller businesses with basic expense reporting needs. [2] Base is starting at $7 per report, USD, with unlimited users, checked 2 October 2026; price can vary based on monthly commitment. [2] Compare the required commitment with your expected report volume before selecting it.

## Source notes
1. Expensify: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. SAP Concur: https://www.concur.com/products/concur-expense (checked September 28, 2026)

# QuickBooks vs Expensify: vendor prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/expensify-vs-quickbooks
Category: Spend management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Under a USD comparison assumption, Expensify Collect has the lower paid entry price for one member. Keep QuickBooks alone if it covers the expense workflow; add Expensify for required employee controls. Team costs depend on billing units and plan terms.

Under a USD comparison assumption for both vendors' dollar prices, Expensify has the lower paid starting price for one member: US$5 per month for Collect against US$38 per month for QuickBooks Online Simple Start before its introductory discount. [1] [2] Both offer free entry points. [1] [2] If your existing QuickBooks plan handles your expenses, keeping it avoids an extra Expensify subscription. [1] [2] Published prices were checked 28 September 2026.

## TL;DR

- Budget QuickBooks at its full plan price. Its advertised discount lasts for the first three months. [2]
- Expensify Collect lists employee-expense approvals and reimbursements. Control adds multiple approval flows and custom expense rules at a custom price. [1]
- QuickBooks combines expense organisation with bookkeeping and financial reports. Choose the plan for the accounting work and user access you need. [2]
- Using both requires a paid QuickBooks plan for the integration. Keep both subscription costs in the budget. [1] [2]

For other comparisons, browse our [spend-management research](/categories/spend-management).

## How do the published prices compare?

Expensify prices its paid expense plans per member, while QuickBooks Online publishes a monthly plan price with an included user limit. [1] [2] The smaller advertised number alone cannot establish which costs less for your team.

The vendor prices were checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Expensify lists a USD option without a captured selection state; QuickBooks' US-facing page prints "$" without an explicit currency code. We interpret both as USD for this comparison, not vendor-confirmed denominations. No currency conversion or tax adjustment is applied; tax inclusion is unconfirmed. Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the source checks.

| Product and plan | Published monthly price, USD; tax inclusion unconfirmed | Billing unit and included users | Expense or access distinction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expensify Submit | Free | All members | Receipt scanning, mileage tracking and expense reports. [1] |
| Expensify Collect | $5 | Per member | Reimbursements, corporate card management, expense and travel approvals, QuickBooks/Xero integrations. [1] |
| Expensify Control | Custom pricing, as low as $9 per active member/month | Per active member; custom terms | Multiple approval flows, custom expense rules, ERP integrations and SAML/SSO. [1] |
| QuickBooks Online Free | $0 | Plan; 1 user, no accountant access | Income and expense tracking; 1 bank connection. [2] |
| QuickBooks Online Simple Start | $38; $19 for the first 3 months | Plan; 1 user, access for 2 accountants | Expense categorisation and automated bookkeeping. [2] |
| QuickBooks Online Essentials | $85; $42.50 for the first 3 months | Plan; 3 users, access for 2 accountants | Includes Simple Start functions with more user access and enhanced reports. [2] |
| QuickBooks Online Plus | $140; $70 for the first 3 months | Plan; 5 users, access for 2 accountants | Adds budgets and project profitability tracking. [2] |
| QuickBooks Online Advanced | $340; $170 for the first 3 months | Plan; 25 users, access for 3 accountants | Custom user permissions, workflow automation and batch invoices and expenses. [2] |

Expensify says discounts are available for annual commitments and use of the Expensify Card. [1] Its Control headline is a price floor within custom pricing, not a guaranteed rate for every company. [1] Confirm the applicable commitment and card conditions in the quote before treating that floor as your budget.

Keep the [Expensify pricing comparison](/post/expensify-pricing) alongside the quote when reviewing its plan options.

## Which expense features does each include?

Expensify's published plans centre on submitting, approving and reimbursing expenses; QuickBooks Online places expense tracking inside a broader accounting system. [1] [2] Expensify has explicit employee-expense controls, while QuickBooks adds bookkeeping, reports and plan-specific accounting functions. [1] [2]

| Task | Expensify's published offering | QuickBooks Online's published offering |
|---|---|---|
| Capture receipts and mileage | Submit lists receipt scanning and mileage tracking; the individual FAQ advertises unlimited SmartScans. [1] | The Free feature table specifies 2 receipt captures and 5 mileage-tracking entries per month. [2] |
| Organise expenses | Submit's card lists categories and tags, although the individual FAQ says categorisation needs a paid plan. Confirm the entitlement. [1] | Simple Start lists expense categorisation and learns how you categorise income and expenses for automated transaction matching and recording. [2] |
| Approve and reimburse employee expenses | Collect lists reimbursements and expense approvals; Control adds multiple approval flows and custom rules. [1] | Advanced lists approval workflows with Bill Pay Elite. [2] Confirm the employee-expense approval path separately from supplier-bill approval. |
| Keep accounts and report financial performance | The expense plans list reports and accounting integrations. [1] | Free lists profit and loss, balance sheet and account quick reports; paid tiers expand reporting, with Plus adding budgets and project profitability. [2] |
| Control access | Control lists SAML/SSO. [1] | Included users vary by plan; Advanced offers custom user permissions. [2] |

Use the approval requirement to narrow the choice. Expensify lists expense approvals, while QuickBooks Advanced advertises approval workflows with Bill Pay Elite. [1] [2] Test the job your company needs rather than treating the word “approvals” as proof that both subscriptions do the same work.

## Which handles expenses for less?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to use QuickBooks alone when its existing functions cover your expense workflow, and consider Expensify when employee approvals or reimbursements justify another subscription. [1] [2] Expensify Collect's lower paid entry price is strongest as an expense-specific purchase; QuickBooks bundles a wider accounting job into its plan price. [1] [2]

For an individual gathering receipts, start by testing the free options. Expensify advertises unlimited individual SmartScans, while QuickBooks Free combines basic accounting with the receipt and mileage limits shown above. [1] [2] The choice depends on whether you need receipt collection or accounts as well.

For a company buying employee-expense management, compare Collect's billed membership with the QuickBooks plan that provides the required accounting access. Collect's published unit is a member; Control's headline uses an active member. [1] QuickBooks' included users are a separate constraint: the plan cards run from one user on Simple Start to 25 on Advanced. [2] Employees incurring expenses and people needing access to the accounts need not be the same group. Count each group separately.

For an existing QuickBooks customer, test the current plan before buying another tool. If it covers the workflow, another subscription adds cost without filling a requirement. If staff approvals and reimbursements are the missing work, Collect explicitly lists those functions. [1] Treat the additional expense service as an addition to your accounting budget.

## How do Expensify and QuickBooks work together?

Expensify Collect lists a QuickBooks integration, and QuickBooks Online's paid plans include third-party integrations; QuickBooks Free excludes them. [1] [2] Budget for a paid QuickBooks plan when connecting Collect.

Expensify's pricing-page interface describes exporting card transactions to a selected QuickBooks Online credit-card or debit-card account. [1] Together with Collect's receipt, approval and reimbursement functions, this supports a division of work: handle employee expenses in Expensify and account for the exported transactions in QuickBooks. [1]

Before relying on the connection, take a real expense through submission, approval and export. Check the receipt, category, destination account and payment record. Compare the exported transaction with the bank-feed entry so the expense is recorded once. These are acceptance checks, not a promise about automatic matching.

The pricing pages establish the integration's availability, but not its sync schedule or every export option. [1] [2] [1] Confirm those details during setup. Integration should be judged on a complete recorded expense, including any exception that needs manual work.

## What should you confirm before choosing?

Confirm the billing basis, required users and complete expense workflow before choosing Expensify or QuickBooks Online. Their published offers use different units and separate some functions by plan. [1] [2] Use these checks to turn the price comparison into a purchase decision:

- Ask which Expensify members will be billed and what makes a Control member active. Confirm commitment, card conditions and tax treatment in writing.
- Count the people who need QuickBooks accounting access. Keep accountant access separate from the included user count.
- Evaluate QuickBooks at the regular subscription price after the promotion. Confirm any separate payment-service charges your workflow needs.
- Test the required approval path and reimbursement record. Ask for the exact feature entitlement, not a broad assurance that the product “handles expenses”.
- If using both, confirm the export destination and check how the connection handles bank-feed duplicates and corrections.

Change the decision when a plan no longer covers the required access or workflow. A lower subscription price is only a saving when the purchased functions finish the job.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I use Expensify for free?

Yes. Expensify lists Submit as free for all members with expense reports, and advertises unlimited SmartScans for individuals using New Expensify. [1] Start by testing Submit if you need to prepare expense reports. For company-managed approvals and reimbursements, compare Collect's paid offering. [1] Confirm which workspace your employer expects you to use before submitting.

### Can QuickBooks Free connect to Expensify?

No, according to Intuit's published pricing page: third-party integrations are not currently available with QuickBooks Free. [2] Free also excludes mobile-app access, so choose it for its supported basic accounting functions rather than assuming it has the connectivity of a paid plan. [2]

### Do approval workflows require the same kind of plan?

No. Expensify Collect lists expense and travel approvals, with Control adding multiple approval flows and custom expense rules. [1] QuickBooks Advanced advertises approval workflows with Bill Pay Elite. [2] Confirm whether you need employee-expense approval or supplier-bill approval before comparing those plan entitlements.

Explore more [Glamdring Research](/research).

## Source notes
1. Expensify: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Intuit QuickBooks: https://quickbooks.intuit.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Gusto vs BambooHR: vendor prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/gusto-vs-bamboohr
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, Gusto Simple is $109 per month for ten US employees versus BambooHR HR software from $250. Gusto includes single-state payroll; BambooHR Payroll is separate. Confirm currency, tax and required services in matched quotes.

Gusto costs less at the entry level for 10 US employees: Simple is US$109 per month, while BambooHR's HR software starts at US$250 per month, according to their own pricing pages, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Gusto Simple includes single-state payroll; BambooHR sells Payroll separately. [1] [2] The lower price answers the budget question, but the subscriptions buy different work.

## TL;DR

- Choose Gusto Simple for single-state payroll; consider Plus when you need multi-state payroll and included time tracking. [1]
- BambooHR Core covers employee records, custom reports, hiring administration and time-off management. [2] Consider it when those HR workflows drive the purchase.
- BambooHR's headline per-employee rates apply above 25 employees; smaller companies pay a flat rate. [2]
- Compare the required plan and add-ons together: BambooHR lists Payroll, Benefits Administration and Time & Attendance as separate add-ons. [2]

## How were the prices compared?

The comparison uses Gusto and BambooHR's published subscription prices for 10 US employees, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] It applies Gusto's base-plus-person fee and BambooHR's small-team flat-rate floor. [1] [2] The model treats Gusto's dollar-only figures as USD; BambooHR explicitly states USD. Taxes and optional services are excluded from the calculation. Confirm Gusto's billing currency and both vendors' tax treatment in the quote; those are not universally established by the captured price labels.

For Gusto Simple, the calculation is US$49 + (10 × US$6) = US$109 per month. [1] For BambooHR, the pricing page states that companies with 25 employees or fewer pay a monthly flat rate starting at US$250. [2] The estimate assumes ten employees and no contractors.

Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the approach to sources and price boundaries.

## What do Gusto and BambooHR cost for 10 employees?

Gusto Simple costs US$109 per month for ten employees; BambooHR's HR software starts at US$250 per month for that team size. [1] [2] Gusto's figure includes single-state payroll, while BambooHR's figure covers HR software with Payroll sold as an add-on. [1] [2] The price comparison needs that scope distinction beside it.

| Dimension, checked 28 September 2026 | Gusto Simple | BambooHR Core / entry HR software |
|---|---|---|
| Published monthly pricing basis, USD before tax | US$49 base + US$6 per person [1] | Flat rate starting at US$250 for 25 employees or fewer [2] |
| Monthly subscription for 10 US employees | US$109 [1] | From US$250, before Payroll or other add-ons [2] |
| Payroll in the entry subscription | Single-state payroll, unlimited runs, tax filings and payments [1] | Payroll sold separately; available for US employees only [2] |
| Time off | Basic PTO policies and holiday pay [1] | Time-off management, calendar and unlimited custom policies [2] |
| Time tracking | Time & Attendance Plus available as a paid add-on [1] | Time & Attendance sold as an add-on [2] |

BambooHR publishes per-employee monthly rates of US$10 for Core, US$17 for Pro and US$25 for Elite for companies with more than 25 employees. [2] Multiplying those headline rates by ten would apply the wrong pricing band. [2] Keep “from” attached to the small-team price until a quote confirms the plan and services.

For the separate plan breakdowns, see [Gusto pricing](/post/gusto-pricing) and [BambooHR pricing](/post/bamboohr-pricing).

## What is included in the entry plans?

Gusto Simple centres on paying employees, while BambooHR Core centres on employee records and HR administration. [1] [2] Simple includes payroll and basic paid time off; Core lists reporting, hiring administration and time-off management, with Payroll priced separately. [1] [2] BambooHR Core is the HR information system (HRIS) side of the comparison: employee records, reports and HR workflows. [2]

Gusto's plan matrix lists unlimited payroll runs, direct deposits or printable checks, tax filings and payments, payroll approvals, and multiple pay rates and schedules across Simple, Plus and Premium. [1] Simple's stated payroll scope is single-state. [1] A company needing multi-state payroll should compare the Plus plan described below. [1]

BambooHR Core lists employee records, a custom report builder, workflows and approvals, and dashboards. [2] Its hiring tools include candidate records, job posting, and email and offer-letter templates. [2] Core also includes time-off management and benefits tracking. [2] Benefits Administration is a separate add-on with enrolment, election review and carrier connections. [2] Keep those two benefits functions separate when requesting a quote.

## When do the higher plans change the comparison?

Gusto Plus changes the comparison when you need multi-state payroll or included time tracking; BambooHR Pro changes it when you need performance management. [1] [2] Those needs move the purchase beyond Gusto Simple or BambooHR Core, so the entry prices alone no longer settle the choice. [1] [2]

Gusto lists Plus at US$80 per month plus US$12 per person, with multi-state payroll, next-day pay and time tracking. [1] Premium is US$180 per month plus US$22 per person and lists a dedicated service advisor, access to certified HR experts, performance and compensation management, custom reports, and priority support. [1]

BambooHR Pro adds performance management to Core, including 360-degree review cycles, one-to-one meetings and performance reporting. [2] Elite adds compensation planning, salary benchmarking, job levels and salary bands, custom dashboards and HR benchmarks. [2] Its published per-employee rates belong to the above-25 pricing band; the small-company FAQ gives only a flat-rate starting price. [2] Request a ten-employee quote for the higher tier you need.

## Which should a small team choose?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to choose Gusto for a cost-led payroll purchase and consider BambooHR when Core's employee records, reports and hiring workflows are the requirement. [1] [2] Gusto Simple's lower subscription includes single-state payroll; BambooHR requires a separate Payroll purchase if you want that function within its system. [1] [2]

For a team whose immediate job is paying employees in one state, Gusto Simple is the lower published starting point. [1] [2] If multi-state payroll and time tracking are requirements, use Gusto Plus as the comparison candidate. [1]

Consider BambooHR Core if employee records, hiring administration and custom reporting are the missing workflows. [2] If you already have payroll you intend to keep, compare Core against your HR requirements. If you intend to replace payroll too, require a combined HR and Payroll quote before deciding.

Use the same checklist in both demonstrations: employee records, a new hire, a time-off request and a payroll run. Ask which subscription or add-on covers each step. Our [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll) covers related buying decisions.

## What can the published prices leave out?

Gusto and BambooHR both list services beyond the entry subscription, so the quoted subscription price can leave out parts of the final bill. [2] [1] Compare the recurring software charge with the optional services and benefits costs your team requires.

Gusto lists Time & Attendance Plus for Simple at US$6 per person per month after a free trial. [1] Its health insurance offering charges premiums, while integrating an existing broker is listed at US$6 per eligible employee per month; Gusto's FAQ says Premium customers can integrate their broker for free. [1] State tax registration is another add-on whose pricing varies by state. [1]

BambooHR lists Payroll, Benefits Administration and Time & Attendance as add-ons without standalone charges in its published pricing detail. [2] A combined total therefore needs a quote. Ask for the ongoing price and any implementation charges separately from temporary discounts.

Subscribe to our research for new comparisons.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I use either product month to month?

Yes. Gusto says it is month-to-month and can be cancelled at any time. [1] BambooHR offers flexible month-to-month terms or an extended term. [2] Confirm the terms of any discounted offer separately from the standard subscription.

### Does Gusto's subscription include health insurance premiums?

No. Gusto says health insurance administration has no extra charge when Gusto is the broker, but the employer still pays the insurance premium. [1] The published payroll subscription and the cost of insurance are separate budget items. [1]

## Source notes
1. Simple plan: published price and inclusions: https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Headcount-dependent HR software prices: https://www.bamboohr.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# HiBob pricing: Core HR, modules and custom quotes

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/hibob-pricing
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: HiBob publishes a Core HR baseline and tailored modular plans, but no fixed or starting rate on its pricing page checked 1 October 2026. Confirm the configuration and commercial terms in a quote.

HiBob does not publish a fixed price or starting rate on its official pricing page, checked 1 October 2026. [1] It offers tailored plans with Core HR in every plan and optional modules; the final cost requires a quote. [1]

## TL;DR

- Core includes employee records, documents, time off, workflows, integrations, reporting, mobile access and Bob AI Companion. [1]
- HiBob says pricing is “generally calculated on a per-employee basis”. Its pricing page does not specify a billing interval. [1]
- Treat the published module catalogue as a starting point for defining requirements. Confirm the purchased configuration in the quote: HiBob says the quote will outline everything included. [1]

## What pricing plans does HiBob publish?

HiBob publishes a tailored, modular plan structure with Core HR included in every plan. [1] Its pricing page describes flexible plans for different company sizes and use cases, without a named tier-by-tier price list. [1]

| Plan component | What HiBob publishes | Published price |
|---|---|---|
| Core HR | Access to Bob’s Core HR platform in every plan. [1] | Not published. [1] |
| Additional modules and integrations | Options based on your needs; the quote defines what is included. [1] | Not published. [1] |

For other systems under consideration, browse our [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

Ask for Core HR and each selected module to be identified separately, so you can compare the same configuration across proposals.

## What does Core HR include?

HiBob lists Bob AI Companion, employee database, document management, time off, lifecycle workflows, integrations, analytics and reporting, and Mobile App as Core inclusions. [1]

HiBob lists “Time off” in Core and “Time & Attendance” separately in its demo catalogue, where the description covers clocking, timesheets and work cycles. [1] Specify whether you need leave management, time recording or both when defining the quote.

The Core list names integrations, while the pricing FAQ also allows additional modules and integrations based on your needs. [1] Confirm each required connection and its quoted scope; the general inclusion label does not identify every integration entitlement. [1]

## Which modules does HiBob show?

HiBob’s pricing page describes modules beyond Core HR through a demo catalogue, without publishing individual module prices. [1] The catalogue describes what you can ask to see; the pricing FAQ says your quote will specify what your plan includes. [1]

| Demo choice | HiBob’s published description |
|---|---|
| Workforce Planning | “Position Planning, Change Management”. [1] |
| Hiring | “Job Openings, Hiring Approvals”. [1] |
| Payroll Hub | “Payroll Sync, Integration Management”. [1] |
| Talent | “Surveys, Performance, Goals, 1-On-1s”. [1] |
| Compensation | “Events, Bands”. [1] |
| Compensation Benchmarking | “Compensation Benchmark Data”. [1] |
| Sandbox | “Build, Test, Refine, And Repeat”. [1] |
| Learning | “Learning, Courses”. [1] |
| Time & Attendance | “Clocking, Timesheets, Work Cycles”. [1] |
| Your Voice | “Safe, Anonymous Reporting”. [1] |
| UK Payroll | “Manage UK Payroll”. [1] |
| US Payroll | “Manage US Payroll”. [1] |

The demo selector also uses the name “Talent Package”. [1] Confirm the package name and included capabilities in your proposal, especially if you need only part of the Talent scope.

Payroll Hub, UK Payroll and US Payroll have separate entries and descriptions. [1] Ask which payroll product the quote covers and which countries it supports. A Payroll Hub description about synchronising data does not establish the same scope as the country-specific payroll entries. [1]

Bob AI Companion appears in the Core inclusions, while “Bob AI” also appears as an interest option in the pricing request form. [1] Ask HiBob to distinguish the included Companion from any other AI capabilities in the proposal.

## How is HiBob pricing calculated?

HiBob says pricing is “generally calculated on a per-employee basis” and depends on company size, needs and selected modules. [1] Request the rate and billing interval with the quote.

Its FAQ states: “Pricing is typically based on the number of employees and the modules you need.” [1] The official pricing page does not publish a per-employee-per-month rate, an annual minimum or a payment schedule. [1]

The request form asks for an employee-number band and the areas where the buyer wants help, including performance, learning, engagement, payroll, hiring, planning, Bob AI and compensation. [1] Those selections help define the requested proposal; the form does not attach rates to them. [1]

For a budget you can compare, request the chargeable employee count, the rate, its time unit and the total for the proposed configuration. Keep the payment schedule separate from the unit used to calculate the price.

## What should a HiBob quote confirm?

Glamdring Research recommends comparing HiBob quotes for the same Core HR and module configuration. HiBob says the quote will outline everything included, making it the document to check before treating a feature as purchased scope. [1]

Ask the proposal to specify:

- Core HR and each selected module, with the capabilities you require.
- Which employees count for billing and how changes in headcount affect the total.
- The currency, tax treatment, rate and billing interval.
- The contract term and renewal conditions.
- Whether implementation, migration, training, support and required integrations are included or charged separately.
- The terms for adding, adjusting or removing modules.

HiBob’s published pricing page does not set out implementation charges, support-tier prices or discount terms. [1]

If BambooHR or Rippling is also on your shortlist, use our [BambooHR pricing](/post/bamboohr-pricing) and [Rippling pricing](/post/rippling-pricing) references alongside the proposals. Compare the required scope and the complete quoted cost before making a price judgment.

Read our [research methodology](/methodology) when checking the source and date behind a pricing claim.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I add or remove modules later?

HiBob says you can “add or adjust modules as your needs evolve”. [1] Although its FAQ asks about adding or removing modules, the answer does not specify removal timing, cancellation rights or repricing conditions. [1] Confirm those terms in the proposal.

### Is HiBob pricing different in the UK or Europe?

HiBob says: “Pricing may vary slightly by region due to local requirements and support needs, but the overall pricing structure stays consistent.” [1] Its pricing page does not publish a UK or European rate card. [1] Request a quote for the relevant region and currency.

### What should I expect after submitting a pricing request?

HiBob says a team member will contact you to learn about your goals, walk you through Bob and share a tailored quote. [1] Prepare the employee count and required modules before that discussion.

### Is HiBob suitable for small and mid-sized companies?

HiBob describes its intended users as growing companies, from smaller teams preparing to scale to mid-sized organisations with more complex people operations. [1] That is the vendor’s positioning; request a proposal for your headcount and requirements before judging affordability.

## Source notes
1. HiBob: https://www.hibob.com/pricing-plans/ (checked October 1, 2026)

# HiBob reviews: pricing, modules and evidence

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/hibob-review
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Keep HiBob on the shortlist when its published Core HR scope matches your needs, subject to a scoped quote and demonstrated workflows. Dated favourable ratings do not establish contract value or module-level fit.

HiBob's published offer is Core HR with optional modules and custom pricing, generally calculated per employee, according to its pricing FAQ checked on 1 October 2026. [1] A buying decision still needs a written quote and proof that the selected modules handle your workflows.

Scope: published product pages and dated rating aggregates; no first-hand use.

## TL;DR

- HiBob lists employee records, time off, workflows, reporting and Bob AI Companion within Core. [1] Confirm the additional capabilities you need against the quote.
- HiBob's module menu distinguishes Payroll Hub from UK Payroll and US Payroll. [1] Treat payroll synchronisation and country-specific payroll as separate buying questions.
- G2's 2,636 reviews and Trustpilot's 154 reviews, checked on 28 September 2026, belong to separate published aggregates. [2] [3] Trustpilot also warns that its reviews may not be representative. [3] Use ratings to inform the shortlist, then test the work you need done.

For related procurement research, use the [HR and payroll category](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

## What do the dated HiBob reviews show?

HiBob's G2 and Trustpilot aggregates were favourable on 28 September 2026, but their displayed ratings and review counts should remain separate. [2] [3] Neither aggregate establishes how a particular payroll configuration or module will perform for your company. [2] [3]

| Review source | Displayed rating | Displayed review count | Checked date |
|---|---|---:|---|
| G2, HiBob HRIS | 4.5/5 | 2,636 | 28 September 2026 [2] |
| Trustpilot, HiBob | 4.1 TrustScore | 154 | 28 September 2026 [3] |

G2 provides the larger displayed review count, but neither aggregate gives a module-by-module review count. [2] [3] Ask for references using the modules and payroll arrangement you're considering.

Trustpilot's qualification belongs beside its rating: the company hadn't invited customers recently, so reviews may not be representative. [3] Trustpilot also says it doesn't fact-check reviewers' specific claims; a “Verified” label may confirm a business interaction. [3] The label therefore isn't a technical validation of everything a reviewer says. [3]

Keep the source, date and review count attached to each rating. Averaging these figures would obscure which record supports the conclusion. Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the evidence standard behind that approach.

## What plans and pricing does HiBob publish?

HiBob describes tailored plans that include Core HR, with pricing generally calculated per employee and shaped by company size, needs and selected modules. [1] Its cost FAQ checked on 1 October 2026 directs buyers to a tailored quote rather than giving a numeric rate. [1]

The published plans answer describes flexible plans for different company sizes and use cases; it doesn't provide a named tier table with fixed prices. [1] The pricing unit is clearer than the amount: employee count and module scope are the stated inputs, while the quote defines what's included. [1]

Ask for a quote that separates the Core subscription from each selected module. Require the billing period, currency, tax treatment and any implementation or migration charges. Record the employee definition used for billing and how headcount changes affect the invoice.

For a parallel quote exercise, use our [BambooHR pricing research](/post/bamboohr-pricing) and [Rippling pricing research](/post/rippling-pricing). Compare the same required scope and contract period before judging cost.

## What is included in Bob Core HR?

Bob's Core HR inclusion list, checked on 1 October 2026, names the employee database, document management, time off, lifecycle workflows, integrations, analytics and reporting, Mobile App and Bob AI Companion. [1] HiBob's FAQ says every plan includes access to Core HR, with optional modules and integrations defined in the quote. [1]

Time off is explicitly on the Core list. [1] Clocking, timesheets and work cycles appear under the separately listed Time & Attendance module. [1] If you need both leave administration and worked-hours records, ask the quote to identify both capabilities.

The integration wording also needs care. HiBob lists integrations within Core but says modules and integrations can be added according to need. [1] Confirm the specific connection, supported data and entitlement in writing; the broad inclusion label doesn't establish every connector's commercial terms. [1]

Bob AI Companion appears within Core. [1] Require a demonstration of the AI tasks you intend to use and ask about any usage allowances. The inclusion list alone doesn't establish unlimited access to every AI capability. [1]

## Which HiBob modules are listed separately?

HiBob's public module menu checked on 1 October 2026 extends beyond Core into talent, hiring, planning, compensation, learning and payroll. [1] Each entry establishes what HiBob markets; the quote still needs to identify which modules you're buying. [1]

| Listed module | HiBob's published description | Question to settle before purchase |
|---|---|---|
| Talent | Surveys, performance, goals and 1-on-1s. [1] | Which review and survey workflows are included? |
| Hiring | Job openings and hiring approvals. [1] | Can the demonstration complete your recruitment workflow? |
| Workforce Planning | Position planning and change management. [1] | How will approved position changes reach the employee record? |
| Compensation | Events and bands. [1] | Can it handle your salary-review rules and approvals? |
| Compensation Benchmarking | Compensation benchmark data. [1] | Which market, job and geographic datasets are included? |
| Learning | Learning and courses. [1] | What content, completion records and administration are included? |
| Time & Attendance | Clocking, timesheets and work cycles. [1] | Can it handle your working-time rules and exceptions? |
| Payroll Hub | Payroll sync and integration management. [1] | Which payroll provider and data flows will it support? |
| UK Payroll | Manage UK payroll. [1] | Which UK entities and payroll requirements are covered? |
| US Payroll | Manage US payroll. [1] | Which US entities and payroll requirements are covered? |
| Sandbox | Build, test, refine and repeat. [1] | What can you test before changing live configuration? |
| Your Voice | Safe, anonymous reporting. [1] | How do access, escalation and record handling work? |

Keep Compensation and Compensation Benchmarking distinct: the menu describes one through events and bands, the other through benchmark data. [1] Ask for both by name if both are required. A demonstration menu is a starting point for scope, not confirmation that every entry is bundled into Core. [1]

## Does HiBob's Payroll Hub mean payroll is covered everywhere?

HiBob describes Payroll Hub as payroll sync and integration management, while UK Payroll and US Payroll are separate menu entries for managing payroll in those countries. [1] Those descriptions establish different scopes, not worldwide payroll coverage. [1]

For each employing entity, ask who calculates payroll, who submits the required filings and which system holds the final records. Have HiBob demonstrate how a change in an employee's pay or hours reaches that payroll process. Record every manual export and reconciliation step.

The menu supports asking about UK and US payroll modules. [1] It doesn't establish that those modules are included in a Core quote or that equivalent payroll processing exists for every other jurisdiction. [1] Confirm country coverage and the selected payroll arrangement explicitly.

## Which HiBob limits remain unconfirmed?

HiBob's public pricing FAQ leaves the commercial scope to a tailored quote and provides no numeric usage caps or detailed contract guarantees. [1] The Core and module lists establish advertised functions, not the depth of each configuration. [1]

Request written answers on document-storage allowances, API limits, AI usage, support response commitments and data export at termination. Ask when modules can be removed and what happens to billing and stored records. A capability list cannot settle those terms.

Technical limits need a different test. Bring your hardest leave policy, approval rule or reporting condition into the demonstration. Ask the operator to complete it using the quoted configuration, then inspect the result. Avoid accepting a broad feature label as proof that a specific exception works.

Ratings don't repair a missing contract term or failed workflow. Trustpilot's own notice says reviewers' specific claims aren't fact-checked. [3] Use the public record to choose what to investigate, then obtain evidence for the requirement that controls your decision.

## When should HiBob stay on the shortlist?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to keep HiBob on the shortlist when its published Core HR scope matches your needs, subject to a scoped quote and demonstrated workflows. [1] The favourable dated ratings inform that decision, but don't establish contract value or module-level fit. [2] [3]

Use one employee-change-to-payroll demonstration as an acceptance test:

1. Start with a representative employee record and a change in pay, hours or leave.
2. Run the required approval through the proposed configuration.
3. Follow the change into your chosen payroll arrangement.
4. Inspect the resulting report, exceptions and audit evidence. Record manual exports and work outside Bob.

Run the test with the modules in the quote. If the workflow needs an additional module or external system, revise the scope before comparing offers. Keep HiBob on the shortlist only when the demonstrated result and written terms meet your requirements.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can HiBob modules be changed after purchase?

HiBob's pricing FAQ checked on 1 October 2026 says you can add or adjust modules as your needs evolve. [1] That answer doesn't specify removal notice periods, refunds or cancellation rights. [1] Require those details in the contract before relying on the flexibility.

### Does HiBob pricing vary by region?

HiBob says pricing “may vary slightly by region” because of local requirements and support needs, according to its FAQ checked on 1 October 2026. [1] Request the quote for your actual employing entities and support requirements; the FAQ supplies no numeric regional adjustment. [1]

### Does HiBob have a minimum employee count?

HiBob's pricing FAQ checked on 1 October 2026 doesn't state a contractual minimum employee count. [1] It describes the product as built for growing companies, including smaller teams preparing to scale and mid-sized organisations with more complex people operations. [1] Ask sales to confirm eligibility and any minimum subscription charge for your headcount.

## Source notes
1. HiBob: https://www.hibob.com/pricing-plans/ (checked October 1, 2026)
2. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/hibob/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/hibob.com (checked September 28, 2026)

# HiBob vs Rippling: vendor pricing, September-October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/hibob-vs-rippling
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Neither vendor publishes a numeric price in the checked official pricing material. Compare HiBob's stated Core HR inclusions with Rippling's required platform and separately purchased products, then obtain quotes for the same scope.

HiBob and Rippling do not publish a numeric price in the official pricing material checked for this comparison. [1] [2] [3] HiBob publishes Core HR inclusions and tailored plans; Rippling requires its core platform alongside separately purchased products. [3] [2] Rippling's pricing and product overview were checked on 28 September 2026; HiBob's Core HR inclusions and pricing FAQs were checked separately on 1 October 2026. [2] [4] [3] The published terms cannot establish which is cheaper. [2] [3]

## TL;DR

- HiBob names employee records, documents, time off, workflows, reporting and other functions in Core. [3] That provides a defined starting scope for a quote. [3]
- Rippling lets buyers select products such as Payroll, Benefits, Expenses and Device Management, but its required platform remains part of the purchase. [2]
- Preserve the billing distinction: HiBob says pricing is generally per employee; Rippling says most products are per employee, per month, with possible monthly base fees. [3] [2]
- Compare the quoted functions and charges together. Neither published pricing page supplies the amounts needed for a like-for-like cost verdict. [2] [3]

For other comparisons in the category, browse the [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

## What do HiBob and Rippling publish about pricing?

HiBob and Rippling publish how buyers obtain a price, but neither checked official pricing page supplies a numeric rate. [2] [3] HiBob says the quote depends on company size, needs and chosen modules. [3] Rippling asks buyers to specify their services for a custom quote. [2] A per-employee billing model alone cannot establish the total cost. [2] [3]

| Published term | HiBob | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Numeric starting price | Not published in the checked official pricing material. [1] [3] | Not published in the checked official pricing material. [2] |
| Pricing basis | Typically employee count and required modules; generally per employee. [3] The FAQ does not specify a monthly billing interval. [3] | Most products billed per employee, per month; some may carry or include a monthly base fee. [2] |
| Required foundation | Every plan includes access to Bob's Core HR platform. [3] | Core Rippling Platform required alongside separately purchased products. [2] |
| Published inclusion detail | Core list covers Bob AI Companion, employee database, document management, time off, lifecycle workflows, integrations, analytics and reporting, and Mobile App. [3] | FAQ names Payroll, Expenses, Benefits and Device Management as separately purchasable examples. [2] It does not provide a complete core-platform entitlement schedule. [2] |
| Plan selection | Flexible plans tailored to workforce, goals and capabilities; modules and integrations can be added according to need. [3] | Select HR, Finance and IT products alongside the required platform. [2] |
| Quote-only amounts | Core price, selected-module prices and resulting total are not published. [3] | Platform price, selected-product prices, applicable base fees and resulting total are not published. [2] |
| Checked date | Original `/pricing/` capture: 28 September 2026. [1] Core inclusions and FAQs at `/pricing-plans/`: 1 October 2026. [3] | Pricing page and product overview: 28 September 2026. [2] [4] |

The earlier HiBob pricing capture contains a demo-request form and module choices, without a monetary rate or a complete Core inclusion list. [1] The later official pricing-plans page supplies the Core list and pricing FAQs. [3] Keep the dates attached to those separate observations; the later detail does not establish what HiBob published on the earlier date. [1] [3] Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the source-bound approach.

## What is included in HiBob Core HR?

HiBob says every plan includes access to Bob's Core HR platform, and its pricing-plans page names the Core functions. [3] The inclusion list checked on 1 October 2026 gives buyers a starting scope, while the FAQ says the tailored quote will outline everything included. [3]

HiBob's published Core list is: [3]

- Bob AI Companion. [3]
- Employee database. [3]
- Document management. [3]
- Time off. [3]
- Lifecycle workflows. [3]
- Integrations. [3]
- Analytics and reporting. [3]
- Mobile App. [3]

The same pricing page offers demo choices for Talent, Hiring, Learning, Workforce Planning, Compensation, Payroll Hub, Time & Attendance, UK Payroll and US Payroll, among others. [3] Those menu entries describe available functions; the explicit Core inclusion list does not establish that every one comes with Core. [3]

Two boundaries deserve attention. HiBob lists time off in Core, while its separate Time & Attendance description names clocking, timesheets and work cycles. [3] Its Payroll Hub description names payroll sync and integration management, while UK Payroll and US Payroll describe managing payroll in those markets. [3] For a payroll requirement, ask the quote to identify the exact product and country coverage.

Integrations also appear in the Core list, yet the FAQ allows modules and integrations to be added according to need. [3] Ask which integrations the quote covers. Treat Bob AI Companion as the named Core inclusion; the list does not establish entitlement to every AI capability. [3]

## What does Rippling include, and what is purchased separately?

Rippling requires the core Rippling Platform and says each HR, Finance and IT product can be purchased separately alongside it. [2] Its pricing FAQ gives Payroll, Expenses, Benefits and Device Management as examples. [2] Buyers can select products, but the published rule does not permit those products to replace the required platform. [2]

Rippling's homepage describes HR, Payroll, IT and Finance on one system. [4] Its HR overview names benefits, recruiting, performance and learning management; IT covers identity, access and devices; Finance names corporate cards, expenses, procurement, bill pay and travel. [4] These descriptions establish advertised product scope, not that every function is included in every purchased package. [4] [2]

The checked pricing page also promotes AI, dashboards, cross-system workflows and custom applications. [2] It does not map those capabilities into a complete plan-by-plan entitlement table. [2] Request the entitlement schedule for the proposed purchase, including any limits relevant to the workflows you need.

Rippling says most products use per-employee, per-month billing, while some may be charged at or include a monthly base fee. [2] The published FAQ does not identify the amount of that fee or which products incur it. [2] Separate those questions when requesting a quote. The [Rippling pricing analysis](/post/rippling-pricing) is the next reading for its commercial model.

## How should you compare the quote-only elements?

Glamdring Research recommends matching the written scope of HiBob and Rippling quotes before comparing totals. HiBob includes Core HR access and tailors modules; Rippling requires its platform and permits separate product purchases. [3] [2] Neither publishes the amounts needed to price an identical configuration from these pages. [3] [2]

Send both vendors the same requirements. Request a written response covering:

- Employee and contractor counts, countries and legal entities.
- Required functions, with each marked as included, separately charged or unavailable.
- Core or platform charges, selected-product charges and any monthly base fees.
- Billing units and intervals, minimum commitments, and how headcount changes affect charges.
- Currency, tax treatment, contract term and renewal conditions.
- Whether implementation, migration, integrations and support carry extra charges.
- The process and commercial terms for adding, changing or removing modules.

The checklist asks for confirmation; it does not imply either vendor imposes every charge listed.

Use the same onboarding and offboarding scenario in both demonstrations. Record employee steps, finance steps, exceptions and manual exports. Require the workflow to preserve policy, accounting detail and audit evidence. Then ask each vendor to identify every product needed to run it under the quoted plan.

If employee records, documents, time off and lifecycle workflows define your starting requirement, HiBob's published Core list makes that scope explicit. [3] If your evaluation also covers devices, access and spending, Rippling's published HR, IT and Finance scope makes those functions relevant to the quote request. [4] [2] These are reasons to evaluate particular configurations, not evidence of a performance winner. [3] [4] [2]

The cost verdict changes when both vendors provide prices for the same required scope. [3] [2] Follow new comparisons through the [research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I buy Rippling payroll without the Rippling Platform?

No. Rippling says products such as Payroll can be purchased separately, but only alongside the core, required Rippling Platform. [2] “Separately” describes choosing products; it does not mean a standalone purchase without the platform. [2]

### Can HiBob modules be changed later?

Yes. HiBob's pricing FAQ says customers can add or adjust modules as their needs evolve. [3] The published answer does not specify removal charges, notice periods or a right to cancel part of a contract. [3] Confirm those terms in the quote and agreement.

### Does HiBob charge the same price in every region?

HiBob says pricing may vary slightly by region because of local requirements and support needs, while the overall pricing structure stays consistent. [3] Its checked FAQ does not publish regional rates. [3] Request the price for your workforce and regions.

## Source notes
1. HiBob: https://www.hibob.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Rippling: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. HiBob: https://www.hibob.com/pricing-plans/ (checked October 1, 2026)
4. Rippling: https://www.rippling.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Lambda Labs alternatives: price pages, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/lambda-labs-alternatives
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, RunPod's H100 PCIe rate leads seven Lambda alternatives at $2.89 per GPU-hour. B200 changes the order. Confirm currency, tax, allocation and execution terms; marketplace medians and quote-only configurations remain separate.

RunPod lists H100 PCIe at US$2.89 per GPU-hour on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] It leads the seven Lambda alternatives ranked by lowest listed on-demand H100 price per GPU-hour: RunPod, Nebius, Crusoe, Modal, Together AI, DigitalOcean and CoreWeave. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Lambda's reference price is US$3.29 for a one-GPU H100 PCIe instance, before tax. [8] The boundary is published GPU rental prices, with different configurations identified beside each rate.

## TL;DR

- Match the H100 variant before choosing: RunPod lists PCIe, SXM and NVL at different rates. [1] A ranking across variants answers the lowest-entry-price question, not an identical-hardware comparison.
- The B200 comparison changes the conclusion: Lambda's lowest listed instance rate is below RunPod's, while Modal lists a lower base GPU-resource rate than Lambda. [1] [8] [4] Configuration and execution terms still matter.
- A company can have public Pod or instance prices and quote-only cluster prices: RunPod illustrates this distinction; Crusoe's B200 compute requires a quote. [1] [3] Keep these product types separate.
- Read Nebius's September rates as a dated snapshot: the checked page also lists higher H100 and B200 rates effective 1 October 2026. [2] Refresh its quote before ordering.

## How this ranking was built

We rank reported H100 prices from company pricing pages checked 28 September 2026, using each company's lowest listed on-demand price per GPU-hour in US dollars before tax. The source column is **on-demand $/GPU-hour**. H100 PCIe, SXM and NVL configurations are eligible; the table identifies the configuration that supplies each company's minimum. [1] [8] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] The [research methodology](/methodology) explains the publication's evidence standard.

The checked price comparison contains eight fixed-price H100 providers. Separating Lambda as the reference leaves seven ranked alternatives; merging configurations retains one lowest eligible rate per company. [1] [8] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] We exclude spot, reserved and negotiated prices from the ordering and keep Vast.ai as one unranked marketplace reference. B200 rates accompany the H100 rows without determining their rank.

Modal's GPU prices are converted from seconds to GPU-hours; CoreWeave's node prices are divided by the GPU count. [4] [7] These conversions align the price unit, while the service type and billable configuration remain distinct.

For dollar-only displays, USD is the comparison convention, not a verified billing term. The model leaves quoted amounts unchanged, without converting currency or adding tax. Nebius explicitly states USD and excludes applicable taxes; Lambda says applicable sales tax, VAT or GST is additional. [2] [8] Confirm the other providers' currency and tax treatment in a current quote. Lambda's one- and eight-GPU associations follow the captured 8x/4x/2x/1x tab order and proportional resource allocations; request the named configuration before purchasing. [8]

## Which Lambda alternatives list the lowest H100 prices?

RunPod lists the lowest eligible H100 rate among the checked alternatives at US$2.89 per GPU-hour for H100 PCIe. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] The alternatives below are ordered only by that H100 price field. All prices are in US dollars before tax, checked 28 September 2026.

| H100 rank | Provider | H100 configuration | H100 on-demand (US$/GPU-hour) | B200 on-demand (US$/GPU-hour) | Price basis or exception |
|---|---|---|---:|---|---|
| 1 | RunPod | H100 PCIe 80 GB | 2.89 | 6.79 | Pods prices; cluster quotes are separate. [1] |
| 2 | Nebius | HGX H100 | 3.85 | 7.15 | September snapshot; listed rates effective 1 October 2026 are H100 4.50 and B200 8.50. [2] |
| 3 | Crusoe | HGX H100 80 GB | 3.90 | Contact sales | B200 GPU compute is quote-only. [3] |
| 4 | Modal | H100 SXM5 | 3.95 | 6.25 | Rounded hourly equivalents of base GPU-resource prices; additional charges and execution terms apply. [4] |
| 5 | Together AI | HGX H100 GPU Clusters | 3.99 | 8.19 | GPU Clusters on-demand rates. [5] |
| 6 | DigitalOcean | HGX H100 | 4.41 | Not listed | No B200 row on the checked GPU Droplet price list. [6] |
| 7 | CoreWeave | HGX H100, eight-GPU node | 6.16 | 8.60 | Node prices normalized per GPU; not a general single-GPU rental quote. [7] |
| Reference, unranked | Lambda | H100 PCIe 80 GB, one-GPU instance | 3.29 | 6.69 | Lowest B200 rate is per GPU on an eight-GPU SXM6 instance. [8] |

For a comparison centered on the accelerator rather than a replacement for Lambda, see the [H100 rental-price comparison](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider).

## Is RunPod cheaper than Lambda for the same GPU?

RunPod's listed H100 PCIe 80 GB rate is below Lambda's: US$2.89 versus US$3.29 per GPU-hour in the September snapshot. [1] [8] The comparison supports a lower published GPU-hour charge; it doesn't establish a lower cost to finish a workload.

RunPod also lists H100 SXM at US$3.49 per GPU-hour, below Lambda's US$3.99 rate per GPU for its eight-GPU SXM instance. [1] [8] Lambda's one-GPU H100 SXM instance lists US$4.29 per GPU-hour. [8] Compare the configuration you intend to rent, including the billable GPU count.

B200 reverses the lowest-rate comparison between these two companies: Lambda lists US$6.69 per GPU-hour on its eight-GPU B200 SXM6 instance, while RunPod lists B200 Pods at US$6.79 per GPU-hour. [1] [8] Lambda's one-GPU B200 instance lists US$6.99 per GPU-hour, so its lowest B200 entry isn't the single-GPU price. [8] Use the [Lambda GPU cloud pricing breakdown](/post/lambda-gpu-cloud-pricing) when comparing instance configurations.

## How do the other GPU clouds differ from Lambda?

Glamdring Research treats deployment and billing terms as limits on any price comparison with Lambda. Modal quotes GPU execution by the second, while CoreWeave's ranked rates come from eight-GPU nodes. [4] [7] A GPU-hour unit makes the numbers sortable, but neither price alone defines the service you will buy.

Nebius publishes HGX H100 and B200 GPU-hour rates with separate columns for prices effective 1 October 2026. [2] Its US$3.85 H100 and US$7.15 B200 values belong to the September 28 snapshot; the already-listed October values are US$4.50 and US$8.50 respectively. [2] The September ordering needs a fresh price check before it can describe an October purchase.

Crusoe lists HGX H100 GPU instances at US$3.90 per GPU-hour and routes B200 compute pricing through sales. [3] Its dedicated inference endpoints have a separate price section. [3] Ask for the compute-instance product if you need a comparable B200 quote.

Modal's base B200 GPU-resource rate converts to US$6.25 per GPU-hour, below Lambda's lowest listed US$6.69 B200 instance rate. [4] [8] Modal lists CPU, memory and volumes separately; region selection carries a 1.15-1.75 times base-price multiplier, and non-preemptible execution is listed at three times base prices. [4] Treat the base rate as the GPU component of a serverless execution bill, not an all-in non-preemptible instance quote. [4]

Together AI lists on-demand GPU Clusters at US$3.99 per HGX H100 GPU-hour and US$8.19 per HGX B200 GPU-hour. [5] Its serverless inference prices use tokens, a different purchase unit from GPU rental. [5] Compare GPU Clusters when evaluating a replacement for Lambda instances.

DigitalOcean lists HGX H100 Droplets with one or eight GPUs at US$4.41 per GPU-hour; its checked GPU Droplet price list has no B200 row. [6] CoreWeave lists H100 nodes at US$49.24 per hour for eight GPUs, giving the rounded US$6.16 GPU-hour figure; its eight-GPU B200 node is US$68.80 per hour, or US$8.60 per GPU-hour. [7] CoreWeave restricts its separate GPU-based inference pricing to inference-platform customers. [7] Preserve the product boundary when requesting a price.

For a B200-first decision, use the [B200 rental-price comparison](/post/b200-rental-price-by-provider).

## Which alternatives require a quote?

Crusoe requires a quote for B200 GPU compute, while RunPod requires sales contact for its H100 SXM and B200 Clusters. [3] [1] Quote-only applies to those configurations, even though both companies publish prices for other GPU products. [1] [3]

Keep quote-only configurations outside the numeric ordering until a comparable offer exists. Request the GPU model, billable GPU count, commitment term, currency and tax basis together. Ask whether the offer covers compute instances, a cluster or a managed inference endpoint.

A missing B200 row on DigitalOcean's checked GPU Droplet price list establishes only that no B200 rate appears there. [6] Confirm any other product or negotiated offer separately.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The H100 price order cannot establish workload performance, regional availability or the final bill. It orders reported GPU-hour charges across different hardware and purchase configurations. Choose a configuration before treating the hourly number as a budget, and confirm stock for the intended start date.

Vast.ai is an additional Lambda alternative outside the fixed-list-price ranking: its checked H100 SXM listing median is US$2.16 per hour and its B200 listing median is US$10.63 per hour. [9] These summarize host-set marketplace offers; Vast.ai says its available-offer prices update hourly. [9] A marketplace median and a company's fixed on-demand rate answer different price questions.

For procurement, compare the billable configuration and the costs outside the GPU charge. RunPod says storage and deployment choices affect total cost; Modal lists separate resource charges; DigitalOcean continues billing powered-off GPU Droplets. [1] [4] [6] Confirm these terms against the workload and service you intend to use.

Use the [compute and AI infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure) for related comparisons. Recheck a company's price page whenever its rates or effective dates change.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does powering off a DigitalOcean GPU Droplet stop billing?

No. DigitalOcean says GPU Droplets remain billable when powered off because disk space, CPU, RAM and the IP address remain reserved; charges continue until the instance is destroyed. [6] Include this rule when planning pauses between jobs.

### Can reserved H100 prices be used in this ranking?

No. Reserved prices carry a commitment that the on-demand comparison excludes. DigitalOcean's US$3.26 per H100 GPU-hour is a 12-month reserved rate, compared with its US$4.41 on-demand rate. [6] Together AI also lists a US$3.19 reserved H100 GPU-hour rate separately from its US$3.99 on-demand GPU Clusters rate. [5] Compare reserved offers under their own terms.

### Does Modal charge by the hour?

Modal quotes the captured GPU-resource prices per second: US$0.001097 for H100 SXM5 and US$0.001736 for B200. [4] Multiplying each by 3,600 produces the rounded hourly equivalents used here. [4] The conversion aligns comparison units; it doesn't change the per-second price basis or include other resources.

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
7. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Leapsome pricing: official USD estimates, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/leapsome-pricing
Category: Performance management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Leapsome publishes configured USD module estimates of US$3 to US$7 per employee per month at the default 200-employee setting, with Foundation free under a qualifying December 31 purchase offer. Pro displays US$10 reduced to US$5. Final billing, taxes, discounts, renewal and offer eligibility require a quote.

Leapsome's USD estimator, checked 2 October 2026, shows Performance Reviews at US$7 per employee per month with Agentic HRIS Foundation reduced to US$0 under its December 31 purchase offer. [1] These are estimates; your final price and offer eligibility need a quote. [1]

## TL;DR

- The HR platform is required even for a single module; free Foundation depends on the published purchase offer. [1]
- Foundation has limits on custom attributes, e-signatures, workflows, analytics, AI and integrations; Pro expands those capabilities. [1] Choose the foundation level by the processes you need to run.
- Compensation benchmarks and the Learning content library are separate add-ons. [1] Specify them separately from the software modules.
- Leapsome's shared list says “14-day free trial”, while its current FAQ says free sandbox access follows consultation. [1] Confirm access and duration before planning a trial.

## How much does Leapsome cost?

Leapsome's configured USD estimator shows separate module rates of US$3 to US$7 per employee per month, with Foundation reduced to US$0 under the December 31 offer. [1] The estimate uses the default employee setting 200 and selects Foundation with one module at a time. [1]

Use the same purchase scope when comparing [performance-management systems](/categories/performance-management).

| Component | Published USD rate per employee per month, checked 2 October 2026 | Condition |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Agentic HRIS Foundation | US$7 ordinary price; US$0 under the offer | Free with a qualifying Talent Suite module when purchased by December 31. [1] |
| Agentic HRIS Pro | US$10 displayed, reduced to US$5 | The page labels this a US launch offer ending December 31; Pro was displayed as an option, not selected for these module estimates. [1] |
| Performance Reviews | US$7 | Separately selected with Foundation. [1] |
| Recruiting (ATS) | US$5 | Separately selected with Foundation. [1] |
| Goals & OKRs | US$4 | Separately selected with Foundation. [1] |
| Engagement Surveys | US$4 | Separately selected with Foundation. [1] |
| Learning | US$4 | Separately selected with Foundation. [1] |
| Compensation | US$3 | Separately selected with Foundation. [1] |
| Time Tracking | US$3 | Separately selected with Foundation. [1] |

There is no tax confirmation and no multi-module/volume discount in the estimates. [1] Leapsome's estimator states: “Estimate only. Multi-module and volume discounts are not reflected here.” [1] Its FAQ says discounts depend on employee count and the number of modules, with exact figures supplied in the quote. [1]

Treat these rates as a dated reference for that configuration. Request your employee count, foundation level, module combination and any add-ons in writing. Our [research methodology](/methodology) separates published company statements from independently established findings.

## What is the difference between Foundation and Pro?

Leapsome's Agentic HRIS Foundation provides the core HR system with limited advanced capabilities; Agentic HRIS Pro adds full custom attributes, unlimited workflows, analytics and e-signatures, plus advanced AI agents and integrations. [1] The choice turns on the limits your processes need to exceed.

| Capability | Foundation | Pro |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Employee profiles and organization chart | Included | Included. [1] |
| Custom attributes | Limited | Full custom attributes and profile sections. [1] |
| Absence management | Included, with policies | Included. [1] |
| Document management | Included | Included. [1] |
| E-signatures | Limited | Unlimited. [1] |
| Workflows and approvals | Limited | Unlimited workflows and multi-step approvals. [1] |
| Analytics and reporting | Limited | Unlimited analytics with custom reports. [1] |
| AI features | Limited | Advanced AI agents across the platform. [1] |
| Integrations | Limited | Advanced integrations. [1] |
| DATEV and payroll connectors | Not included | Included. [1] |
| Payroll preparation | Included, with exports | Included. [1] |

Foundation also lists meetings and instant feedback. [1] The current pricing page does not quantify every Foundation limit. [1] Ask Leapsome to demonstrate your approval chain, custom fields and reporting requirements at the proposed foundation level.

Payroll preparation and payroll connectors are separate entries in the comparison. [1] Confirm which payroll tasks and integrations your quote covers.

## What does each Leapsome module include?

Leapsome's Talent Suite separates Performance Reviews, Recruiting, Goals & OKRs, Engagement Surveys, Learning, Compensation and Time Tracking into selectable modules. [1] The platform remains part of the plan even when you buy only one module. [1] Match each purchased module to a process you intend to run.

| Module | Inclusions published on the current pricing page |
| --- | --- |
| Performance Reviews | Best-practice questions; review automations; cross-cycle analytics; flexible templates and visibility; drag-and-drop calibration; external reviewers. [1] |
| Recruiting (ATS) | Competency scorecards; candidate pipeline; AI screening, transcripts and job descriptions; candidate-to-employee conversion in one step; careers page; candidate data described by Leapsome as GDPR-compliant. [1] |
| Goals & OKRs | Individual, team and company OKRs; automatic progress tracking; goal analytics; goal tree; update reminders; Jira integration. [1] |
| Engagement Surveys | A question library described as science-backed; post-survey action plans; benchmarking and turnover analysis; DEI analytics; onboarding and offboarding surveys; industry benchmarks. [1] |
| Learning | Personalized learning; automated onboarding; videos and quizzes; learning linked to development goals; LinkedIn Learning and GoodHabitz integrations; SCORM, AICC, xAPI and CMI5 formats. [1] |
| Compensation | Compensation reviews; budget management; promotion reviews; pay-gap analytics; flexible approvers; salary and bonus bands. [1] |
| Time Tracking | Time-tracking widget; work schedules; timesheets; automatic issue detection; customizable policies; hours into payroll. [1] |

A review process that also tracks OKRs and makes pay decisions spans separate module cards: Performance Reviews, Goals & OKRs and Compensation. [1] Define the complete process before asking for a bundle price. A review-module estimate alone cannot answer the cost of that combination.

## Which Leapsome add-ons cost extra?

Leapsome lists Compensation benchmarks and the Learning content library separately as add-ons. [1] Their prices are not confirmed in the configured estimates checked for this reference. [1] Request a separate line for each add-on you need.

Compensation benchmarks lists market data by role and location, band recommendations and data refreshed twice a year. [1] The Compensation module separately lists pay reviews, budgets and salary bands. [1] Specify whether your pay process requires both the management tools and external market data.

The Learning content library lists a ready-made course catalogue, compliance and soft-skill tracks, and availability in multiple languages. [1] The Learning module separately lists personalized learning, onboarding and course formats. [1] Ask the quote to distinguish course delivery from the content supplied with it.

## What billing and contract terms does Leapsome publish?

Leapsome publishes per-employee monthly price units and a no-setup-fee statement, but the current pricing page does not establish the full billing or contract terms. [1] Current billing cadence, minimum spend, renewal and offer eligibility require a quote. [1]

| Term | Published position or confirmation needed, checked 2 October 2026 |
| --- | --- |
| Pricing unit | Per employee per month. [1] |
| Invoice cadence and contract commitment | Monthly and Annual labels appear in the estimator; the captured page does not establish invoice timing, a minimum contract term or cancellation rights. [1] |
| Setup fee | Leapsome says “No setup fee, no hidden costs.” [1] |
| Discounts | Module count and employee count determine discounts; exact figures belong in the quote and are excluded from the estimator. [1] |
| Foundation promotion | Free with a qualifying Talent Suite module under the purchase-by-December-31 offer; the FAQ says purchases after the deadline use the displayed list price. [1] |
| Pro promotion | A US launch offer displays US$10 reduced to US$5 and ends December 31; confirm eligibility and how long the quoted reduction applies. [1] |
| Minimum spend and seats | Neither is established by the current captured pricing page. [1] |
| Taxes and renewal | Tax treatment, renewal prices and renewal conditions are not established by the current captured pricing page. [1] |

A purchase deadline does not establish how long an existing customer's promotional rate lasts. The current FAQ specifies when to purchase but leaves that duration unconfirmed. [1] Ask for the promotional period, subsequent rate, renewal terms and eligibility in the same written quote.

Confirm employee-count changes, proration, cancellation notice and the support package too. The current pricing reference does not settle those terms. [1]

## How should you compare a Leapsome quote?

Compare a Leapsome quote on the complete workflow and the price after any promotion ends. Specify the foundation level, required modules and add-ons before comparing another system.

For a review cycle, test calibration in Performance Reviews; add Goals & OKRs if goal tracking is required and Compensation if the process includes pay or promotion reviews. Those functions sit in separate module cards. [1] Test your required custom fields, approvals and reports against the Foundation/Pro distinction. [1]

Request a written schedule covering currency, tax treatment, billable employees, module scope, discounts, support, contract term, invoice dates and renewal. Require the launch and subsequent prices to be stated separately. For a second pricing reference, use our [Lattice cost analysis](/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026).

## Frequently asked questions

### Can you try Leapsome before paying?

Yes, with an access qualification: Leapsome's current FAQ says free sandbox access is available after consultation with its team. [1] The shared inclusions list also says “14-day free trial”. [1] Confirm the duration, available modules and access conditions when arranging the consultation.

### Is Leapsome an HRIS?

Yes. Leapsome describes Agentic HRIS Foundation as its HR system of record, covering employee profiles, absence management, documents, payroll preparation, meetings and instant feedback. [1] Talent Suite modules add functions such as reviews, recruiting and learning. [1] Distinguish the underlying employee record from the modules in your purchase.

### How long does Leapsome implementation take?

Leapsome says implementation usually takes 1 to 4 weeks, depending on the starting modules and how existing data is structured. [1] Use that as a planning range and request a timeline for your own migration.

Browse our [published research](/research) for further system and supplier comparisons.

## Source notes
1. Leapsome: https://www.leapsome.com/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)

# Leapsome vs Lattice: vendor prices, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/leapsome-vs-lattice
Category: Performance management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Leapsome's separately selected Reviews and Goals rates total US$11 per employee/month with promotional Foundation; Lattice Foundations lists US$13 per seat/month. The Leapsome sum is an illustration, not a multi-module quote. Final cost depends on contract terms, including Lattice's US$4,000 annual minimum.

For reviews and goals, Leapsome's displayed components total US$11 per employee/month; Lattice lists Foundations at US$13 per seat/month. [1] [2] Leapsome's total illustrates separately selected module rates, not a multi-module quote. [1] A cheaper final contract remains unconfirmed. [2] [1] Both vendor sources were checked 2 October 2026.

## TL;DR

- Leapsome requires an HR platform even for one module. [1] Foundation is shown at US$0 with a Talent Suite module under the December 31 module offer; Pro has a separate US launch discount. [1] Check which platform level your workflow needs.
- Lattice bills annually in USD and states a US$4,000 minimum annual agreement. [2] A low seat rate does not remove that spending floor. [2]
- Lattice's standalone Performance card and FAQ give conflicting prices. [2] Get the governing rate in writing.
- Leapsome Learning lists course functions; Lattice Grow lists career-development functions. [1] [2] Match those requirements separately.

## What do the published prices include?

Leapsome prices an HR platform plus selected modules, while Lattice publishes Foundations, standalone base products and add-ons. [1] [2] Their lowest module prices therefore describe different purchases. [1] [2]

For a wider shortlist, use the [performance-management research category](/categories/performance-management).

The Leapsome USD estimator was set to its default 200 employees, with Foundation and one module selected at a time. [1] Foundation displays US$0 under the December 31 module offer. [1] The estimator says: “Estimate only. Multi-module and volume discounts are not reflected here.” [1]

Lattice explicitly confirms USD prices. [2] Tax and final package terms remain unconfirmed; request both in writing. [2] [1]

| Buying requirement | Leapsome: USD per employee/month | Lattice: USD per seat/month |
|---|---|---|
| Performance reviews | US$7 for Performance Reviews, with automation, cross-cycle analytics, calibration and external reviewers. [1] | Performance card: US$10, including reviews, talent reviews, calibration, succession planning and PIPs. [2] FAQ: US$8/month for individual purchase; conflict unresolved. [2] |
| Goals and OKRs | US$4 for individual, team and company OKRs, progress tracking and a goal tree. [1] | US$8 for Goals & OKRs, including cascading goals, progress updates and reminders. [2] |
| Reviews and goals | US$7 + US$4 = US$11, illustrating separately selected module rates, not a multi-module quote. [1] | Foundations: US$13, including Performance and Goals & OKRs. [2] |
| Employee surveys | US$4 for Engagement Surveys, including a question library, action plans and onboarding/offboarding surveys. [1] | Engagement: US$4, including pulse, onboarding/exit surveys, action planning and eNPS. [2] |
| Course-based learning | Learning: US$4, listing videos, quizzes, development-goal links and SCORM, AICC, xAPI and CMI5. [1] | Grow's published list covers career development; equivalent course delivery is not established by that list. [2] |
| Recruiting | Recruiting (ATS): US$5, with candidate management, scorecards, AI screening and a careers page. [1] | No equivalent Recruiting product is listed in the checked price schedule. [2] |
| Compensation | US$3, with compensation reviews, budgets, promotion reviews and salary/bonus bands; benchmarks are a separate add-on. [1] | Compensation add-on: +US$6, with global benchmarks, compensation bands, cycle management and approvals. [2] |
| Time tracking | US$3, with schedules, timesheets, issue detection and hours transferred into payroll. [1] | No equivalent Time Tracking product is listed in the checked price schedule. [2] |
| Platform layer | Agentic HRIS Foundation: US$7 list price shown at US$0 with a module; Pro: US$10 shown reduced to US$5. [1] | Foundations includes Analytics, AI Agent, Integrations, 1:1s, Weekly Updates, Feedback and Q&A Boards. [2] |

These are vendor-stated prices and functions checked 2 October 2026. [1] [2] The comparison follows the publication's [research methodology](/methodology). Listed functions establish purchase scope, not tested product performance.

## Which costs less for the same workflow?

Leapsome's displayed components are lower for reviews and goals, while its survey module rate matches Lattice Engagement. [1] [2] [1] [2] Neither comparison confirms the final contract cost. [2] [1]

For a reviews-and-goals requirement, the Leapsome illustration adds US$7 for Performance Reviews to US$4 for Goals & OKRs. [1] Foundation is shown at US$0 under the module offer. [1] Lattice Foundations provides a published US$13 bundle for that broad requirement. [2] Compare the actual review cycle and goal process in both systems before treating their scope as equivalent.

For goals alone, Leapsome displays US$4 per employee/month with promotional Foundation, against Lattice Goals & OKRs at US$8 per seat/month. [1] [2] [1] For surveys alone, both display US$4 for their respective modules. [1] [2] The employee setting, platform offer and contract minimum still travel with those rate comparisons. [1] [2]

Leapsome's US$3 Compensation and Time Tracking modules cover pay decisions and working hours. [1] Neither prices Performance Reviews. [1] Compare Leapsome Performance Reviews with Lattice Performance. Compare Leapsome Reviews plus Goals with Lattice Foundations.

## Which Lattice price should you budget for?

Budget against Lattice Foundations at US$13 per seat/month for reviews and goals; confirm standalone Performance because its US$10 card conflicts with its US$8/month FAQ. [2]

The FAQ says Performance and Goals & OKRs can be unbundled and bought individually for US$8/month. [2] That sentence does not repeat the per-seat denominator shown on the product cards. [2] Require the Performance quote to state both the applicable rate and its unit.

Foundations lists the review and goal products alongside Analytics, AI Agent, Integrations and manager tools. [2] Engagement is separately listed at US$4 per seat/month; Compensation and Grow are add-ons at +US$6 and +US$4 respectively. [2] Each base product comes with Analytics, AI Agent and Integrations. [2]

Lattice lists Compensation and Grow as add-ons to its base products. [2] Ask for the complete package total, including the base product, before comparing it with a Leapsome quote. The [Lattice pricing analysis](/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026) covers that side of the purchase in more detail.

## What does Leapsome include before extra modules?

Leapsome requires Agentic HRIS Foundation or Pro alongside its modules; Foundation includes core HR functions with limits, while Pro expands automation, analytics, AI and integrations. [1]

Foundation lists employee profiles, absence management, document management, payroll preparation, meetings and instant feedback. [1] Custom attributes, e-signatures, workflows, analytics, AI and integrations are limited. [1] Pro includes Foundation plus full custom attributes, unlimited workflows and approvals, unlimited analytics and e-signatures, advanced AI agents and advanced integrations. [1] Ask for the exact limits that affect your review cycle or reporting requirements.

The platform prices sit separately from the modules: Foundation is US$7 per employee/month before the module offer; Pro is shown at US$10 reduced to US$5 under a US launch offer ending December 31. [1] The captured module estimates use Foundation, not Pro. [1] A workflow that needs Pro therefore needs a different quote.

Development scope also changes the purchase. Leapsome Learning lists personalised learning, automated onboarding, videos, quizzes and links to development goals. [1] Lattice Grow lists competencies, individual development plans, career tracks, 1:1 integration and AI-powered growth areas. [2] Equal-looking Learning and Grow rates would still price different function lists. [1] [2] [1]

Leapsome lists Learning content library and Compensation benchmarks as separate add-ons. [1] Specify whether you need course content or pay-market data alongside the corresponding module.

## What minimums change the cost comparison?

Lattice states a US$4,000 minimum annual agreement and annual billing. [2] Leapsome's current minimum/cadence is unconfirmed. [1] Ask Leapsome for its minimum spend, contract term and payment schedule before comparing annual commitments.

Lattice says its minimum can include different products based on requirements and seat count. [2] If the seat-rate calculation falls below US$4,000 annually, the published agreement floor still controls the budget. [2] Confirm the minimum against the complete package.

Leapsome's estimator shows monthly and annual labels, but the current capture does not establish contractual billing or a minimum term. [1] Treat the per-employee/month unit as a rate, then obtain the payment terms separately.

Implementation scope belongs in the quote too. Lattice says all contracts include dedicated human Customer Success support and that its performance-management software has no additional implementation or change-management costs. [2] Leapsome states no setup fee. [1] Specify the migration, training and ongoing support required from each vendor.

## How should you compare the final quotes?

Compare Leapsome and Lattice with six checks, using the same employee count and required workflows. Request the platform level, module scope and contract terms before judging the total.

- State the employee count and which employees each charge covers.
- Specify reviews, goals, surveys, course delivery, career development, compensation, recruiting or time tracking only where required.
- Separate the platform layer from modules and add-ons; ask for each included function and limit.
- Require the minimum spend, contract term, payment schedule, currency and tax treatment.
- Define implementation, migration, training and ongoing support.
- Ask for the complete package price, discounts, promotional duration and renewal terms.

Leapsome says exact discounts depend on module and employee counts and belong in the quote. [1] Lattice's governing standalone Performance rate remains unresolved in its published schedule. [2] Those are specific items to settle before approval.

Browse the [research archive](/research) for other supplier comparisons.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I try Leapsome before paying?

Yes. Leapsome's current FAQ offers free sandbox access after a consultation with its team. [1] Request the modules and platform level needed for your proposed purchase, then test the review cycle or learning task you intend to run.

### Does a monthly seat price mean a monthly contract?

No. Lattice publishes per-seat/month rates but bills all contracts annually. [2] Leapsome's current estimator uses a per-employee/month unit without confirming contractual payment cadence. [1] Ask for billing and contract duration as separate terms.

### Is Leapsome Foundation permanently free?

A permanent free entitlement is not established by the current offer. [1] Leapsome says Agentic HRIS is included free when purchased by December 31 and charged at the listed price after that date. [1] Foundation is shown at US$7 reduced to US$0 with a Talent Suite module. [1] Confirm the promotion's duration and renewal treatment in your contract.

## Source notes
1. Leapsome: https://www.leapsome.com/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)
2. Lattice: https://lattice.com/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)

# Navan competitors: vendor pricing, Sep-Oct 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/navan-competitors
Category: Spend management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, Expensify Collect leads the listed paid user rates at $5, followed by Emburse Spend Basic at $8 with a 15-user minimum. Confirm billing currency, tax, required scope and extra fees; Concur's report prices stay separate.

On the model's USD comparison basis, Expensify Collect has the lowest listed paid entry rate among these Navan competitors: $5 per member per month, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Emburse Spend Basic follows at $8 per user per month, checked 1 October 2026. [2] Confirm unlabelled billing currencies in the quote. Free plans stay outside the paid-price order.

## TL;DR

- A free plan may cover the required workflow: Brex Essentials includes travel booking and reimbursements; Ramp Free includes booking, travel policy and receipt matching. [3] [4]
- Emburse Spend Basic has a 15-user billing minimum and supports US-based organisations only. [2] Its rate needs both qualifications beside it.
- Ramp Plus adds a platform fee based on team size, so its per-user rate doesn't describe the full subscription bill. [4]
- Emburse Professional's product-specific pricing page lists no numeric rate; Brex Enterprise and Ramp Enterprise list custom pricing. Keep these products unranked. [5] [3] [4]

## How this ranking was built

The ranking uses each vendor's pricing page and one field: **lowest listed paid plan price per user (or member) per month**. [1] [2] [3] [4] Original valid prices are dated 28 September; Emburse Spend/Professional captures are dated 1 October and Concur Expense is dated 2 October. [2] [5] [6] The model treats dollar-only prices as USD without conversion; that is not confirmation of each vendor's billing currency. Tax inclusion is unconfirmed. Obtain those terms in the quote. The [research methodology](/methodology) sets the evidence standard.

We assessed six competitor products, kept four paid user-rate entries and left Emburse Professional and Concur Expense unranked. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Professional has no numeric tariff; Concur has per-report prices rather than per-user prices. [5] [6] Navan is the reference. Free tiers, account/report prices and negotiated quotes receive no user-price rank; Spend and Professional remain distinct products.

## Which Navan competitors have the lowest listed paid rates?

Expensify Collect leads, followed by Emburse Spend Basic, Brex Premium and Ramp Plus, when ordered by the listed paid per-user or per-member rate. [1] [2] [3] [4] The ordering compares subscription rates only.

| Rank | Product and paid entry plan | Listed US$/user or member/month; tax status unstated | Billing or scope qualification | Checked date |
|---|---|---:|---|---|
| 1 | Expensify Collect | 5 | Vendor unit: “per member/month”; annual-commitment and card-use discounts described separately. [1] | 28 September 2026 |
| 2 | Emburse Spend Basic | 8 | “teams of up to 100 employees”; 15-user billing minimum; US-based organisations only. [2] | 1 October 2026 |
| 3 | Brex Premium | 12 | Vendor unit: “user/month”; billing commitment not established by the captured plan text. [3] | 28 September 2026 |
| 4 | Ramp Plus | 15 | “Platform fee based on team size”; “Save 20% with annual billing”. [4] | 28 September 2026 |

The table preserves the displayed rates. We haven't converted them to a common annual commitment or divided extra fees across an assumed team size.

## What does each paid entry plan include?

Expensify Collect, Brex Premium and Ramp Plus list travel booking alongside expense features; Emburse Spend Basic's entry-plan summary lists expense controls, card services, accounting connections and reimbursements. [1] [2] [3] [4] Choose the required workflow before treating the rate order as a shortlist.

| Paid entry plan | Travel scope stated in the pricing capture | Expense and control scope | Accounting and integration scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expensify Collect | Travel booking and rules; expense and travel approvals | Receipt scanning, reimbursements, corporate card management and expense/report chat | QuickBooks and Xero. [1] |
| Emburse Spend Basic | Native travel booking not specified in the Basic inclusion summary | Card feed integration and issuance; 50 monthly ACH reimbursements; policies and approvals; SAML SSO and 2FA | QuickBooks, Xero and a custom export template. [2] |
| Brex Premium | Essentials travel booking, plus group travel and advanced travel rules | Reimbursements and bill pay from Essentials; multiple expense policies, dynamic review chains and advanced approvals | Customisable ERP and HRIS integrations; multi-entity support. [3] |
| Ramp Plus | Free-plan flight, hotel and car booking, plus 24/7 phone support for bookings | AI-driven expense reviews, policy insights and card locking when compliance requirements are unmet | NetSuite, Sage Intacct and other integrations; multi-entity support. [4] |

Expensify's more advanced Control plan adds multiple approval flows, custom expense rules, NetSuite and Sage Intacct integration, and SAML/SSO. [1] It lists custom pricing “as low as $9 per active member/month”, so that floor is excluded from the fixed-rate ordering. [1] Use the [Expensify pricing comparison](/post/expensify-pricing) when that approval or integration scope is required.

Brex Premium adds policy and review complexity to Essentials. [3] Ramp Plus adds automation and accounting scope to Free. [4] Test the paid functions that prompted the upgrade: route an exception through approvals, export it to accounting and check the resulting audit record. For adjacent comparisons, use the [spend management research](/categories/spend-management).

## Which competitors have free plans?

Expensify Submit, Brex Essentials and Ramp Free have permanent free plans in the 28 September 2026 pricing captures. [1] [3] [4] Their inclusion lists differ, so free access needs a workflow check.

Expensify Submit lists receipt scanning, mileage tracking, expense reports, categories and tags, and personal card import. [1] The vendor describes it as a plan for employees with no company approval needed; Collect adds business approval and travel functions. [1]

Brex Essentials includes travel booking, reimbursements, bill pay, accounting integrations and real-time reporting. [3] Its scope includes up to two entities, with one global entity. [3] Ramp Free lists unlimited cards, a custom travel policy, flight/hotel/car booking, receipt collection and matching, and QuickBooks Online/Xero integrations. [4]

Emburse Spend offers a 30-day trial. [2] Include the trial expiry in the purchasing decision.

## How does Navan's own pricing compare?

Navan Business lists free travel for companies with up to 300 employees and makes Navan Expense free for the first five monthly expensing users. [7] Its 28 September 2026 pricing FAQ then states US$15 per user per month. [7] Compare travel access and expense-user billing separately.

Navan's free travel scope includes global inventory, policy and approval workflows, self-service changes, travel support and reports. [7] The expense scope includes reimbursements, connections to existing corporate or business cards, receipt scanning and ERP integrations. [7]

Navan defines an active expense user as someone who submits a transaction through manual entry or Navan Connect. [7] Navan Enterprise uses a quote and adds implementation and account-support services. [7] Use the [Navan pricing breakdown](/post/navan-pricing) to examine the baseline before switching.

## Which products need a quote?

Brex Enterprise and Ramp Enterprise explicitly list custom pricing, while Emburse Professional's pricing page, checked 1 October 2026, gives no numeric tariff and directs buyers to a demo. [3] [4] [5] These entries have no numeric price rank.

| Product | Published pricing position | Scope described | Checked date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brex Enterprise | Custom pricing | Premium scope plus unlimited US or global entities, a named account manager and customisable implementation. [3] | 28 September 2026 |
| Ramp Enterprise | Custom pricing; annual billing | Plus scope plus locally funded reimbursements, local-currency card services, dedicated support and implementation. [4] | 28 September 2026 |
| Emburse Professional | No numeric price on its product-specific page; demo enquiry | Expense management and implementation support; travel booking, AP automation and ACH services are described as available services. [5] | 1 October 2026 |

Concur Expense's product page, captured 2 October 2026, lists Base from USD 7 per report and Plus from USD 11 per report, with unlimited users. Premium is custom-priced; prices can vary with monthly commitment. [6] Report rates stay outside the per-user ordering. Compare expected report volume and written commitment terms separately.

Emburse requires a product name in the comparison: Spend publishes Basic and Plus user prices, while Professional's product-specific page supplies no numeric subscription rate. Both captures are dated 1 October 2026. [2] [5] Confirm which product and optional services the quote covers.

## Why can the lowest rate produce a higher bill?

Glamdring Research treats a listed user rate as one part of the subscription bill: Emburse Spend imposes a minimum billable user count, and Ramp Plus adds a platform fee. [2] [4] Request the full bill for the same user population and required functions before choosing on price.

Emburse Spend counts anyone who submits an expense as a user. [2] Approvers count only if they also submit expenses. [2] Organisations with fewer than 15 users still pay for 15; the vendor's Basic example gives a US$120 minimum from 15 users at US$8. [2] Its subscription also accounts for the previous month's user overages. [2]

The unit matters at Expensify too: Collect says “per member/month”, while Control's custom-price floor says “per active member/month”. [1] Navan uses monthly expensing users for its free expense allowance. [7] Ask each vendor which people count, when usage is counted and whether a minimum applies.

Ramp's team-size platform fee remains additional to the ranked user rate. [4] The published annual discount is a separate commercial term. [4] Keep the subscription commitment, minimum user count and any mandatory fee in the same written quote.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The Navan competitors ranking identifies the lowest listed paid rate within the captured product set. It cannot establish the cheapest complete deployment or the strongest travel service.

The inclusion lists differ, and the ranked rate omits Ramp's additional platform fee and Emburse Spend's minimum-user effect. [1] [2] [3] [4] Travel inventory quality, actual support performance and implementation effort need separate evaluation.

Prices published in a software directory also need a unit and an official check: a monthly starting price alone cannot establish a per-user ranking. The supplied Capterra comparison uses monthly starting-price labels across its product cards. [8]

The capture dates establish what the pages stated when checked. They do not establish that a tariff changed between September and October. Refresh the comparison when an included vendor changes its published rate or billing terms.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can Emburse Spend serve a company outside the United States?

No, according to its pricing FAQ checked 1 October 2026. [2] Emburse Spend supports US-based organisations, operates in English and processes reimbursements within the United States. [2] The statement applies to Spend; it does not describe every Emburse product.

### Does Emburse Spend require a setup fee?

No mandatory setup or onboarding fee is listed for self-implementation in the 1 October 2026 FAQ. [2] Emburse Spend includes an onboarding wizard and free weekly implementation calls. [2] Guided implementation is an optional paid add-on. [2]

### Does Navan charge more when employees book more trips?

Navan's 28 September 2026 pricing FAQ says there is no trip-count limit for Navan Travel when the company has 300 or fewer employees. [7] Expense billing follows the monthly expensing-user allowance, so additional trips and additional expense users need separate treatment. [7]

## Source notes
1. Expensify: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Emburse: https://www.emburse.com/products/spend/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
3. Brex: https://www.brex.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Ramp: https://ramp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Emburse: https://www.emburse.com/products/professional/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
6. SAP Concur: https://www.concur.com/products/concur-expense (checked October 2, 2026)
7. Navan: https://navan.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Capterra Singapore: https://www.capterra.com.sg/alternatives/169591/tripactions (checked October 1, 2026)

# OneTrust vs Vanta: published plans, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/onetrust-vs-vanta
Category: Compliance automation
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: OneTrust publishes solution-specific governance packages; Vanta publishes Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise. Neither checked pricing page supplies a subscription amount. Match the required scope before comparing quotes.

OneTrust publishes solution-specific packages for consent, privacy, AI governance, technology risk and third-party management. [1] Vanta publishes Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise plans. [2] Neither vendor's pricing page supplies a subscription amount, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Compare the required work and published inclusions before comparing quotes.

## TL;DR

- OneTrust's Base and Suite labels apply to particular product areas. Privacy Automation Suite adds data subject request fulfilment and privacy incident management to the Base capabilities. [1]
- Vanta's Plus plan includes 25 automated questionnaires per year; Professional includes 144 and adds risk management, advanced reporting and an Advanced Trust Center. [2] Match the allowance to the workload.
- Start a consent or privacy evaluation with OneTrust's named packages. For automated compliance evidence, start with Vanta's named plans. Both also publish risk and third-party products, so compare those requirements separately. [1] [2]

## How do OneTrust and Vanta organise their products?

OneTrust's pricing page groups products by governance use case, while Vanta's pricing page groups a trust program into progressively broader plans. [1] [2] A OneTrust solution package and a Vanta plan therefore need a scope check before a price comparison.

For the broader category, see our [compliance automation research](/categories/compliance-automation).

| Dimension | OneTrust publishes | Vanta publishes |
|---|---|---|
| Package structure | AI Governance; consent packages; Privacy Automation Base and Suite; Tech Risk & Compliance; third-party Base and Suite packages. [1] | Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise. [2] |
| Consent and privacy operations | Consent banners, preference management, data mapping, privacy assessments and data subject request workflows across named packages. [1] | GDPR appears in the pricing page's framework navigation; the named plan cards focus on compliance evidence, controls and trust workflows. [2] |
| Compliance and risk | Tech Risk & Compliance lists risk identification, assessments, control management and policy lifecycle workflows. [1] | Essentials lists evidence collection and continuous controls monitoring; Professional adds risk management and advanced control management. [2] |
| Third-party work | Third-Party Risk Management Base covers the vendor lifecycle; Third-Party Management Suite adds ethics and compliance evaluation. [1] | Third Party Risk Management is a named product for vendor onboarding and security reviews. [2] |
| AI-related scope | AI Governance lists AI inventory, assessments, monitoring and runtime controls. [1] | AI Governance is a named product; the plan cards also describe Vanta AI Agent functions for compliance work. [2] |
| Published subscription amount | Not published on the checked pricing page; personalised quote requested. [1] | Not published on the checked pricing page; personalised pricing requested. [2] |

The comparison uses the vendors' pricing pages checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Our [research methodology](/methodology) separates published product descriptions from demonstrated operating results. These descriptions establish what each vendor offers publicly, not which system will perform better in your environment.

## What packages does OneTrust publish?

OneTrust publishes separate packages for AI governance, consent, privacy operations, technology risk and third-party management, with Base and Suite options in several areas. [1] Its **usage meters** are the quantities OneTrust says determine package pricing. [1]

| Published package | Published scope | Published pricing basis |
|---|---|---|
| AI Governance | Inventory of AI initiatives, models, agents, datasets and vendors; risk assessments; approvals; documentation; monitoring and runtime controls. [1] | Admin users and AI inventory. [1] |
| Consent Management Platform (CMP) Base | Consent banners and consent experiences across websites, mobile apps and CTV devices. [1] | Average daily visitors aggregated across all channels and properties. [1] |
| Consent Management Platform (CMP) Suite | Consent experiences plus centralised privacy notices and data subject request (DSR) automation, including intake, identity verification, discovery and redaction. [1] | Average daily visitors aggregated across all channels and properties. [1] |
| Universal Consent & Preference Management (UCPM) | Consent collection, user profiles, preference centres and synchronisation across marketing systems. [1] | Total data subject profiles captured. [1] |
| Privacy Automation Base | Data and activity mapping, privacy impact assessments, vendor privacy risk, DPAs, data transfers and DataGuidance regulatory intelligence. [1] | Users and privacy asset inventory. [1] |
| Privacy Automation Suite | Base capabilities plus DSR fulfilment, including retrieval and deletion, and privacy incident and notification management. [1] | Users and privacy asset inventory. [1] |
| Tech Risk & Compliance | Compliance tasks and guidance; IT risk identification; risk assessments; control management and policy review, approval and attestation workflows. [1] | Admin users and asset inventory. [1] |
| Third-Party Risk Management Base | Third-party onboarding, assessment, risk mitigation, reporting, monitoring and offboarding, with inventory and risk intelligence. [1] | Admin users and third-party inventory. [1] |
| Third-Party Management Suite | Third-party lifecycle capabilities plus Dow Jones PEP, sanctions and watchlist databases; ethics and compliance evaluation; adverse-media monitoring. [1] | Admin users and third-party inventory. [1] |

The Base/Suite distinction changes the work included, even where the published pricing basis stays the same. [1] For example, OneTrust lists DSR fulfilment under Privacy Automation Suite, while Base lists internal privacy operations. [1] Ask for the package that covers the complete requirement, then confirm the quantity counted under its meter.

## What does each Vanta plan include?

Vanta publishes Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise, with explicit additions between the first three plans and a customisable Enterprise package. [2] Its plan cards describe the following inclusions. [2]

| Plan | Published inclusions or additions |
|---|---|
| Essentials | One compliance framework with an agentic policy generator; Vanta AI Agent functions; automated evidence collection; basic reporting and audit workflows; code change and continuous controls monitoring; Auditor API; Trust Center; access to expert partners for additional compliance services. [2] |
| Plus | Everything in Essentials, plus automated policy onboarding, AI-powered Questionnaire Automation for 25 questionnaires per year and Access Management. [2] |
| Professional | Everything in Plus, with 144 questionnaires per year, risk management with customisation and reporting, Advanced Trust Center, custom monitoring tests and automation, automated access management, six customisable reports, advanced control management and additional AI Agent functions such as issue management. [2] |
| Enterprise | A fully customisable package for advanced governance, risk and compliance (GRC) needs. [2] |

Essentials' AI Agent description includes search across policies, controls, frameworks, tests and documents, together with evidence checks, policy templates, policy-control mapping, evidence collection and SLA tracking with remediation. [2] Those are AI-assisted compliance tasks; Vanta separately names AI Governance in its product list. [2]

Keep the annual questionnaire allowance beside the plan name when requesting a quote. Plus and Professional publish different allowances, while Professional also adds several risk, monitoring and reporting capabilities. [2] An upgrade decision needs both the required allowance and the required capabilities.

Our [Vanta pricing comparison](/post/vanta-pricing) is the next stop for a Vanta-only evaluation.

## What pricing and add-ons remain quote-only?

OneTrust and Vanta do not publish subscription amounts on the pricing pages checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] OneTrust asks for a personalised quote based on team size and business goals; Vanta asks buyers to discuss their business needs for personalised pricing. [1] [2] These pages cannot establish which vendor is cheaper.

OneTrust publishes the metering basis for each named package, but the checked page supplies no monetary rate for those meters. [1] Vanta publishes plan inclusions without corresponding subscription amounts and describes Enterprise as fully customisable. [2]

Vanta's feature comparison also labels AI-powered security reviews and Customer Commitments capabilities as add-ons across the displayed plans. [2] Their prices are not published on the checked pricing page. [2] Include those requirements in the quote request rather than assuming a plan name covers them.

Use the same procurement questions for both vendors:

- Which named packages and capabilities does the quote include?
- What quantity, allowance or usage tier does the contract cover?
- What happens when the requirement grows?
- Which implementation, support and audit services are included, and which need separate pricing?
- What currency, tax treatment, billing period and renewal terms apply?

These are questions to settle in the quote, not assumptions about either vendor's contract.

## Which published scope should you shortlist?

Shortlist OneTrust's consent and privacy packages when those workflows drive the purchase; shortlist Vanta's named compliance plans when evidence collection and buyer-facing trust work drive it. [1] [2] For risk-led requirements, compare OneTrust's Tech Risk & Compliance package with Vanta's published risk capabilities before choosing a plan. [1] [2]

Keep overlap in view. OneTrust publishes third-party lifecycle management and AI Governance; Vanta also names Third Party Risk Management and AI Governance products. [1] [2] Product names alone do not establish equivalent depth or implementation effort.

Use one requirement to test the shortlist. For a privacy request workflow, ask each vendor to show intake, identity verification, retrieval or deletion, and the completion record. For compliance evidence, ask each to show collection, a failed control, assignment of remediation and the auditor's view. Record the manual steps and confirm that every demonstrated capability appears in the proposed contract.

If the shortlist expands, continue with our [Vanta versus Drata comparison](/post/vanta-vs-drata). A written scope and a comparable quote would change the decision from published-product fit to a purchase evaluation.

## Frequently asked questions

### What happens if OneTrust usage exceeds the contracted tier?

OneTrust says an Account Executive will help a customer move to the next tier if usage consistently exceeds the current tier's limits. [1] Its FAQ describes room for growth during the contract term but supplies no monetary rate for that transition. [1] Confirm the threshold and commercial effect in the quote.

### Can existing OneTrust customers move from module-based pricing to solution packages?

OneTrust directs customers with legacy module-based pricing to their Account Executive for a walkthrough of the solution packages and a customised proposal. [1] The published answer supplies a process for requesting the change, not a fixed migration price. [1]

### Does Vanta's Essentials plan include the audit fee?

The published Essentials card does not establish that an audit fee is included. [2] Vanta lists audit workflows, an Auditor API and access to expert partners for additional compliance services. [2] Ask for the audit service and its fee to be identified in writing before treating the quoted amount as an all-in cost.

Continue with our [published research archive](/research).

## Source notes
1. OneTrust Pricing and Packaging: AI Governance: https://www.onetrust.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Find your plan: pricing request and plan cards: https://www.vanta.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Ramp vs Navan: published pricing and plan inclusions

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/ramp-vs-navan
Category: Spend management
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Shortlist Ramp for broader finance workflows and Navan for travel. Ramp Plus adds a team-size platform fee to its $15 monthly user rate. Navan Business limits eligibility to 300 employees and meters monthly expense users. Neither checked Enterprise page publishes a numerical price.

Ramp publishes a free plan and Plus at $15 per user per month plus a platform fee based on team size. [1] Navan Business offers free travel for companies up to 300 employees; Expense is free for the first five monthly expensing users, then $15 per user per month. [2] Both vendors leave Enterprise pricing to a quote. [1] [2] These published terms were checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2]

## TL;DR

- Treat the accounting integration as a plan decision: Ramp lists QuickBooks Online and Xero under Free, NetSuite and Sage Intacct under Plus, and Workday and Oracle Fusion Cloud under Enterprise. [1]
- Travel support changes the comparison: Ramp lists 24/7 chat support under Free and phone support under Plus, while Navan Business includes 24/7 travel support agents. [1] [2]
- A published seat price won't settle the full bill. [1] [2] Ramp's Plus platform-fee amount is unpublished in the checked pricing page, and Navan directs companies above 300 employees to a sales discussion. [1] [2]

For other comparisons, browse our [spend-management research](/categories/spend-management).

## What pricing do Ramp and Navan publish?

Ramp publishes Free, Plus and custom Enterprise pricing; Navan publishes free Business travel, a monthly expense-user rate and quote-based Enterprise pricing. [1] [2] The limits attached to those prices differ: Ramp Plus adds a team-size platform fee, while Navan Business eligibility depends on company headcount. [1] [2]

| Published term or inclusion | Ramp | Navan |
|---|---|---|
| Entry software price | Free: $0 per user per month. [1] | Business travel: free for companies up to 300 employees. [2] |
| Published paid user rate | Plus: $15 per user per month plus a platform fee based on team size; fee amount not published in the checked page. [1] | Expense: first five monthly expensing users free, then $15 per user per month. [2] |
| Billing commitment | Plus advertises 20% savings with annual billing; Enterprise specifies annual billing. [1] | Business Expense is described per user per month; the Enterprise billing period is not published in the checked page. [2] |
| Enterprise price | Custom; no numerical price published. [1] | Quote required; no numerical price published. [2] |
| Travel in the entry plan | Flights, hotels and car rentals; company-wide policies and 24/7 chat support. [1] | Flights, hotels, car rentals and trains; unlimited policy and approval workflows and 24/7 travel support agents. [2] |
| Expense tools in the entry plan | Receipt collection and matching; expense completion through SMS or Slack. [1] | Expenses, reimbursements, receipt scanning and connection to existing corporate or business credit cards. [2] |
| Accounting detail published | Free names QuickBooks Online and Xero; paid tiers add named ERP integrations. [1] | Business says it integrates with most ERPs, without naming them in the plan card. [2] |
| Wider finance scope stated | Free also lists accounts payable, accounts receivable, treasury and vendor management; procurement is an add-on to Plus or Enterprise. [1] | The Business plan card lists travel and expense features. [2] |

Prices retain the vendors' "$" notation; the captured pricing text does not explicitly state a currency code or tax treatment. [1] [2] Confirm both in a quote before comparing costs across countries.

## What do Ramp's Free, Plus and Enterprise plans include?

Ramp's plans combine cards, expenses and travel with wider finance workflows; Plus and Enterprise add automation, integrations and service layers. [1] The plan choice therefore depends on the accounting system and controls you need, alongside the user price. [1]

### Free

Ramp Free lists unlimited cards and card-issuing controls. [1] Travel booking and receipt matching sit alongside accounts-payable tools: invoice extraction, configurable approvals, fraud checks and bill payments by ACH, card, check or wire. [1] Its accounts-receivable features include invoice creation, customer follow-up, cash application and payment acceptance. [1]

Free also names basic accounting rules, QuickBooks Online and Xero integrations, a custom report builder, vendor tracking, contract extraction and price intelligence. [1] This makes Free a candidate for a finance team that needs those published workflows without the paid-tier ERP integrations. [1]

### Plus

Ramp Plus includes Free's features and adds AI-driven expense reviews, policy insights and automatic card locking when compliance requirements are unmet. [1] It also adds line-item coding, batch payments and payment-release approvals for accounts payable. [1]

For accounting, Plus names NetSuite and Sage Intacct integrations, AI coding, approval and synchronization of routine spend, and multi-entity support. [1] Its management features include live report sharing, scheduled exports, budgets against actuals, custom user roles, entity visibility restrictions and an audit log. [1]

Procurement remains an add-on to Plus or Enterprise, including advanced intake, purchase-order creation and tracking, vendor compliance reviews and three-way matching with Ramp purchase orders. [1] Recurring billing and automated revenue-recognition schedules require a separate Accounts Receivable Add-on. [1] The checked pricing page does not publish numerical prices for either add-on. [1]

### Enterprise

Ramp Enterprise includes Plus and adds Workday and Oracle Fusion Cloud integrations, locally funded reimbursements, local-currency card payments and local card issuing. [1] It also lists dedicated account and customer-success management, priority global support and implementation services covering rollout, integration setup, validation and employee training. [1]

A required Enterprise integration changes the purchase to a custom annual-billing discussion; the published Plus seat rate cannot price that requirement. [1]

## What do Navan Business and Enterprise include?

Navan Business combines travel management with expense tools for companies up to 300 employees; Enterprise adds program coverage and implementation support. [2] Within Business, free travel access and the expense-user allowance are separate terms. [2]

### Business

Navan Business lists global travel inventory and exclusive rates, unlimited policy and approval workflows, self-service booking changes and 24/7 travel support agents. [2] It also includes Navan Rewards, customizable reports and HRIS integrations. [2]

The expense features cover expense management, reimbursements, receipt scanning and connection to existing corporate or business credit cards. [2] Navan says Business integrates with most ERPs; its plan card does not name the systems or spell out the depth of each integration. [2] Ask for a demonstration using your accounting fields before treating that wording as equivalent to a named integration.

### Enterprise

Navan Enterprise lists everything in Business plus the full Travel and Expense suites, unlimited travelers and expensing users, and global program coverage. [2] The additional services include a designated account executive, a dedicated customer-success manager, custom implementation, corporate negotiated rates, back-office capabilities and enterprise-grade travel support. [2]

Companies with more than 300 employees are directed to request a demo; a numerical Enterprise price is not published in the checked pricing page. [2] For the standalone cost question, see [Navan pricing](/post/navan-pricing).

## How does travel differ from broader spend management?

Navan's published Business package emphasizes travel operations, while Ramp's Free package also names accounts payable, accounts receivable and vendor management. [1] [2] Both include travel and expense tools, so the distinction is the surrounding work each published package covers. [1] [2]

Navan Business brings booking changes, travel support agents, rewards and policy workflows into the travel package. [2] Ramp Free brings supplier invoices, bill payments and customer-payment workflows into the same plan description as cards and expenses. [1] Ramp Plus extends the accounting and approval features, with procurement sold as an add-on. [1]

For a travel-led evaluation, test booking, changes, traveler support and expense submission. For a finance-led evaluation, add a supplier invoice, approval, payment and accounting export. Keep the required work identical across demonstrations.

## Can published prices establish which costs less?

The published rates cannot establish a complete like-for-like cost comparison because Ramp Plus has an undisclosed platform fee and Navan meters monthly expensing users. [1] [2] The two $15 rates also buy different published feature sets. [1] [2]

Ramp describes the Plus platform fee as based on team size but supplies neither an amount nor a formula in the checked pricing page. [1] Its annual-billing message advertises savings without publishing a complete team-specific total. [1] Keep the platform fee and required add-ons in the quote request.

Navan uses company headcount to define Business eligibility, then monthly expensing users to describe the expense charge. [2] A traveler count alone won't identify who submits expense transactions in a month. [2] Record both populations, and confirm how the allowance applies on the invoice.

The comparison follows our [research methodology](/methodology): separate the published price, its charging unit and the conditions attached to it. Treat neither a free software plan nor a seat rate as a complete transaction-fee schedule.

## Which should you shortlist for travel or finance workflows?

Glamdring Research's view is to shortlist Ramp for the wider finance workflow and Navan for a travel-led requirement, then test the required plan. [1] [2] This is a judgment about published scope, not a measured verdict on savings or service quality.

Start with Ramp Free if the requirement centers on cards, expenses, payables and the named entry-tier accounting integrations. [1] Evaluate Plus when the requirement includes NetSuite, Sage Intacct or the published multi-entity and automation features. [1] Obtain Enterprise terms when the required integration or global service sits in that tier. [1]

Start with Navan Business when the requirement centers on travel booking, changes and support, provided the company meets its headcount limit. [2] Price expenses using the monthly expensing-user terms, and obtain an Enterprise quote when the company exceeds the Business limit. [2]

Before deciding, run the same receipt exception, approval and accounting export in both systems. Record employee steps, finance steps and manual work. Change the shortlist if the required workflow needs a different plan or the written quote changes the economics.

## Frequently asked questions

### Who counts as a Navan expensing user?

Navan defines an active expense user as anyone who submits a transaction into Navan Expense manually or through Navan Connect. [2] Its pricing FAQ attaches the free allowance to the first five monthly expensing users. [2] Use that definition when asking which users will be billed.

### Does Navan Business have a trip-count limit?

Navan says there is no limit to the number of trips booked with Navan Travel while the company has 300 or fewer employees. [2] That allowance concerns booking access; the published free-travel offer does not state that flights or accommodation themselves are free. [2]

### Can you try Ramp Plus before paying?

Ramp's pricing FAQ offers a free 30-day Plus trial and says users can switch plans as their needs change. [1] Confirm the ongoing platform fee and required add-ons before using the trial to approve a recurring budget.

## Source notes
1. Ramp: https://ramp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Navan: https://navan.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Rippling competitors by price for 10 employees, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/rippling-competitors
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Under a USD comparison assumption, Gusto Simple has the lowest listed entry rate for 10 US employees at $109 a month. Other rows buy different product types. Rippling and four unranked vendors require quotes on the valid pages checked.

Under a USD comparison assumption for dollar-symbol prices, Gusto Simple has the lowest listed Rippling-alternative entry rate for 10 US employees: $109 a month, from $49 plus $6 per person. Gusto's page was checked 28 September 2026. [1] Justworks Payroll is $130; BambooHR's HR software starts at $250; Justworks PEO Basic is $790 and Deel US PEO $1,250. [2] [3] [4] These prices buy different product types. Rippling's pricing page offers custom quotes without numerical rates. [5]

## TL;DR

- Gusto Simple leads at $109 a month for 10 US employees. It runs single-state payroll only. A team that pays staff in several states starts on Gusto Plus at $200 a month. [1]
- Payroll software lists at $109 to $130 a month for 10 people. A PEO lists at $790 to $1,250. The gap pays for co-employment, HR support and access to benefits. [2] [3]
- BambooHR's $250 buys HR software. Its payroll is a separate add-on with no listed price. [4]
- Rippling, ADP RUN, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob have no numerical subscription rate on the valid pages checked. Numerical-source dates are 28 September; ADP and TriNet were rechecked on 1 and 2 October respectively.
- Several competitor lists quote prices that differ from the vendors' own pages. The vendor page and its checked date settle the figure. [6] [7]

## How this ranking was built

The ranked field is the **listed entry-plan monthly price for 10 US employees**, calculated from vendor rates captured 28 September 2026: base fee plus 10 times the per-person fee. USD is a comparison assumption where only "$" is printed; BambooHR explicitly states USD. We apply no currency conversion or tax adjustment; tax treatment remains unconfirmed. Valid replacement quote pages for ADP and TriNet were checked on 1 and 2 October, without backdating them. See our [research methodology](/methodology).

The vendor set comes from the competitor lists that rank for the search "rippling competitors". Rippling's own list names seven of the eight competitors checked here: TriNet, ADP, Gusto, BambooHR, Paylocity, Deel and Justworks. [8] Paylocity's list adds HiBob. [9]

- **Companies checked:** 9, using valid pricing or package pages with each capture date preserved.
- **Competitors with a listed price for a 10-person US team:** 4. Gusto, Justworks, BambooHR and Deel.
- **Ranked rows:** 5. Justworks appears twice because it sells payroll software and a PEO.
- **Vendors with no captured price:** 5. Rippling, ADP, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob.

The inclusion rule takes each product's lowest listed plan for US W-2 employees. Three plan types fall outside it. Gusto's contractor-only plan serves businesses that have not hired W-2 employees. [1] Employer-of-record plans serve staff outside the US; Justworks and Deel each list theirs at $599 per employee a month. [2] [3] Contractor plans pay contractors, not employees. No rows were merged.

## Rippling competitors ranked by monthly cost for 10 US employees

| Rank | Vendor | Plan | Product type | Listed price | Monthly cost for 10 US employees (US$) |
|---:|---|---|---|---|---:|
| 1 | Gusto | Simple | Payroll software | $49/mo + $6/mo per person [1] | 109 |
| 2 | Justworks | Payroll | Payroll software | $8/month/employee + $50/month base fee [2] | 130 |
| 3 | BambooHR | Flat rate, 25 employees or fewer | HR software (payroll sold separately) | from $250 USD/mo [4] | 250 |
| 4 | Justworks | PEO Basic | PEO | $79/month/employee, no base fee [2] | 790 |
| 5 | Deel | US PEO | PEO | $125 per US PEO employee per month [3] | 1,250 |

The cheapest payroll software is Gusto Simple at $109. The cheapest PEO is Justworks PEO Basic at $790. BambooHR is the only HR software row, at $250.

Read the rows by type before reading them by rank. Rows 1 and 2 pay staff and file payroll tax. Row 3 keeps employee records and runs HR processes, with payroll priced separately. Rows 4 and 5 co-employ the staff. A $109 payroll plan and a $1,250 PEO plan buy different jobs, so the rank orders cost and leaves the choice of product type to the buyer.

## What does Rippling cost for 10 employees?

Rippling's pricing page offers custom quotes without numerical rates. [5] Most products bill per employee per month; some may carry or include a monthly fee. [5] Each HR, Finance and IT product requires the Rippling Platform. [5]

A 10-person Rippling bill is therefore the Rippling Platform plus each module, and no part of it has a public price. Figures do circulate. Paylocity's competitor list cites a third-party page for a Rippling base price of $8 per employee per month. [9] Multiplier states that Rippling's model often includes $8 per employee for HRIS and $15 for benefits administration. [7] Both figures come from companies that compete with Rippling. Rippling's own page confirms neither, so neither enters the ranking.

The practical test is a quote on the same scope as the ranked rows. Ask for single-state payroll and tax filing for 10 US W-2 employees, then add each module the team needs as a separate line.

## Which Rippling alternatives require a quote on the checked pages?

ADP RUN, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob supply no numerical subscription rate on the valid pages checked. Capture dates differ and are retained below.

| Vendor | Checked product or page | Published pricing limit |
|---|---|---|
| Paylocity | HR and payroll, 28 September | Requests pricing with a demo, without a numerical rate. [10] |
| ADP | RUN package page, 1 October | Price depends on payroll frequency, payees and add-on services; requests business-specific pricing. [11] |
| TriNet | PEO pricing, 2 October | Pricing depends on company size and required services; requests a quote without a numerical rate. [12] |
| HiBob | Demo page, 28 September | Demo request without a numerical plan price. [13] |

An undisclosed rate cannot rank above or below a published row. These statements are limited to the valid product pages checked, not every vendor page. Failed URLs do not establish absent pricing.

## What is the difference between payroll software, a PEO and HR software?

Glamdring Research separates the ranking into three product types because each price buys a different job. Payroll software pays staff and files payroll tax for the business. [1] A PEO enters a co-employment relationship with the business and takes on payroll, benefits, HR and compliance work. [8] HR software holds employee records and runs HR processes. At BambooHR, payroll is a separate add-on. [4]

Justworks shows the gap on one vendor's page. Its Payroll plan costs $130 a month for 10 employees. Its PEO Basic plan costs $790 for the same 10 people and lists HR consulting and 24/7 support among its features. [2] PEO Plus adds medical, dental and vision administration. [2] Justworks also marks workers' compensation access as required for its PEO. [2] Deel describes its US PEO as co-employment across all 50 US states with benefits included. [3]

The decision changes with what the business already has. A 10-person team with a benefits broker and someone handling HR compares payroll software. A team with neither compares PEO totals against payroll plus the separate cost of benefits and HR help. BambooHR fits a third case: a team that wants HR records and processes and will price payroll separately.

## What does the next plan up cost for 10 US employees?

The next plan up costs $200 a month at Gusto and $1,240 at Justworks PEO for 10 US employees. Gusto Plus lists $80 plus $12 per person and adds multi-state payroll. [1] Gusto Premium lists $180 plus $22 per person, or $400 for 10. [1] Justworks PEO Plus lists $124 per employee. [2]

| Vendor and plan | Listed price | Monthly cost for 10 US employees (US$) |
|---|---|---:|
| Gusto Plus | $80/mo + $12/mo per person [1] | 200 |
| Gusto Premium | $180/mo + $22/mo per person [1] | 400 |
| Justworks PEO Plus | $124/month/employee [2] | 1,240 |

Multi-state payroll alone moves a team from Gusto Simple to Plus, and the bill rises from $109 to $200. BambooHR's flat rate holds to 25 employees. Above that it charges $10, $17 or $25 per employee per month for Core, Pro and Elite. [4] Add-ons move the totals too. Justworks lists time tracking at $8 per employee a month, which adds $80 for 10 people. [2]

## Why do other published prices for these vendors disagree?

The competitor lists that rank for this search quote prices that differ from the vendor pages checked 28 September 2026. We cannot see when each list copied its figures, so the vendor page settles every row.

- Brex's list puts Gusto Simple at $40 a month plus $6 per person. [6] Gusto's page lists $49. [1]
- Brex's list says BambooHR doesn't publish detailed pricing. [6] BambooHR's page lists a $250 flat rate and per-employee prices above 25 staff. [4]
- Multiplier's list puts Justworks PEO Plus at $109 per employee. [7] Justworks lists $124. [2]
- Paylocity's list shows Gusto Premium at custom pricing and BambooHR as custom. [9] Both vendors list those prices on their own pages. [1] [4]

Promotions add a second source of disagreement. Gusto discounts its contractor-only base fee to $0 for the first 6 months. [1] BambooHR offers payroll subscription fees at $0 through 31 December 2026 to eligible buyers who commit to a 12-month agreement. [4] Deel credits three months of platform fees on qualifying PEO order forms with a minimum two-year term. [3] Each offer changes a first-year bill. None changes the listed price, so the ranking leaves them out.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking compares listed prices, and a listed price is the vendor's own statement. A signed quote can differ. The figures leave out five things that change a real bill.

- Insurance premiums and workers' compensation costs around a PEO fee. Confirm whether they sit inside the per-employee fee or on top of it.
- State tax registration, which Gusto prices by state. [1]
- BambooHR payroll, which carries no listed price. [4]
- Volume discounts, which BambooHR applies automatically by headcount. [4]
- Workday, Paychex, Paycom and Paycor. They appear on competitor lists, [9] but their pricing pages sit outside this check.

Feature fit sits outside the ranking too. The cheapest row may lack a function the team needs, and the rank cannot show that. For other software comparisons built on the same sourcing rules, see [Glamdring's published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### What companies are similar to Rippling?

Gusto, Justworks, BambooHR, Deel, ADP, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob compete with Rippling for US payroll, HR or PEO buyers. Gusto and Justworks Payroll are payroll software. Justworks, Deel and TriNet sell PEO services. [2] [3] [12] BambooHR and HiBob sell HR software. Rippling's own competitor list also names Workday, Paychex, Paycom, Paycor and Oyster. [8]

### Is Gusto cheaper than Rippling for 10 employees?

Public prices cannot settle it. Gusto lists $109 a month for 10 US employees on its Simple plan. [1] Rippling lists no price and quotes each buyer. [5] Ask Rippling to quote single-state payroll and tax filing for 10 W-2 employees, then compare the two numbers on the same scope.

### Does a PEO cost more than payroll software for 10 employees?

On listed prices, yes. The two PEO rows list $790 and $1,250 a month for 10 US employees. The two payroll software rows list $109 and $130. [1] [2] [3] The PEO fee buys more than payroll. Justworks lists HR consulting and 24/7 support in its PEO plans, [2] so compare the PEO total against payroll plus the separate cost of benefits and HR help.

### Are these prices before sales tax?

Tax treatment is unconfirmed. USD is the comparison convention where vendors print only "$", not a confirmed currency code from every vendor. Numerical rates were captured 28 September 2026; no currency conversion or tax adjustment is applied. Confirm both in the quote.

## Source notes
1. Gusto pricing: https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Justworks pricing: https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Deel pricing: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. BambooHR plans and pricing: https://www.bamboohr.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Rippling pricing: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Top 8 Rippling competitors and alternatives of August 2026: https://www.brex.com/spend-trends/expense-management/rippling-competitors-and-alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)
7. 25 Best Rippling Alternatives and Competitors: https://www.usemultiplier.com/compare/rippling-alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)
8. The 12 Rippling competitors & alternatives for HR management: https://www.rippling.com/blog/rippling-competitors (checked September 28, 2026)
9. 12 Top Rippling Competitors for HR and Payroll Teams: https://www.paylocity.com/why-paylocity/compare/lists/rippling-competitors/ (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Paylocity pricing: https://www.paylocity.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
11. ADP RUN payroll packages: https://www.adp.com/what-we-offer/payroll/payroll-for-1-49-employees/payroll-packages.aspx (checked October 1, 2026)
12. TriNet PEO pricing: https://www.trinet.com/peo/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)
13. HiBob pricing address (demo request form): https://www.hibob.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Rippling price: pricing page checked, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/rippling-pricing
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Rippling's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, offers custom quotes without numerical prices. Most products bill per employee per month; some may carry or include a monthly fee. Each product requires the Rippling Platform.

Rippling's pricing page publishes no numerical price. Checked 28 September 2026, it says: "Tell us what services you need, and we'll send you a custom quote." [1] Most products are billed per employee per month; some may carry or include a monthly fee. [1] Under the USD comparison convention below, Gusto Simple has the lowest listed entry rate for 10 US employees: $109 a month, from $49 plus $6 per person. [2]

## TL;DR

- Rippling's pricing page is a quote form with no plan, rate or fee on it. [1]
- Rippling bills most products per employee per month. Some may carry or include a monthly fee; every product requires the Rippling Platform. [1]
- For 10 US employees, the published entry plans rank Gusto Simple ($109), Justworks Payroll ($130), BambooHR ($250), Justworks PEO Basic ($790) and Deel US PEO ($1,250) a month. They buy different things. [2] [3] [4] [5]
- The $8 figure still quoted for Rippling is a rate its pricing page dropped in 2024. [6]
- Get a written quote that splits the platform, each product and any monthly fee. Then set it against the row for the product type you'd otherwise buy.

## How this ranking was built

Our [research methodology](/methodology) treats a pricing page as the vendor's statement, not a negotiated quote. Glamdring Research checked Rippling and eight US HR, payroll and PEO companies. Numerical rates retain their 28 September 2026 captures; ADP's valid RUN package page was checked 1 October and TriNet's PEO pricing page 2 October.

- **Source:** each company's own public pricing or package page, with its actual capture date preserved.
- **Field:** the listed **entry-plan monthly price** for 10 US employees, calculated as the base fee plus 10 times the per-person fee.
- **Unit:** USD per month as a comparison assumption where vendors print only "$"; BambooHR explicitly states USD. No FX conversion or tax adjustment is applied. Currency and tax treatment need quote confirmation.
- **Row count:** nine companies. Four publish numerical rates: Gusto, Justworks, BambooHR and Deel. Justworks supplies payroll and PEO rows, giving five ranked rows. Rippling, ADP RUN, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob publish no numerical rate on the valid pages checked.
- **Not applied:** discounts, promotions and add-ons. BambooHR's figure is its flat rate for 25 employees or fewer, which covers 10.

A listed price is what a company says it charges. It isn't what a buyer pays after negotiation, tax or add-ons.

## What do 10 US employees cost on each published price list?

Gusto's Simple plan is the lowest at $109 a month, checked 28 September 2026. [2] Deel's US PEO is the highest at $1,250. [5]

| Rank | Company | Product type | Entry plan | Base (US$/month) | Per person (US$/month) | Monthly cost for 10 US employees (US$) |
|---:|---|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | Gusto | Payroll software | Simple | 49 | 6 | 109 |
| 2 | Justworks | Payroll software | Payroll | 50 | 8 | 130 |
| 3 | BambooHR | HR software | Flat rate, 25 employees or fewer | from 250 | 0 | 250 |
| 4 | Justworks | PEO | PEO Basic | 0 | 79 | 790 |
| 5 | Deel | PEO | US PEO | 0 | 125 | 1,250 |
| – | Rippling | Quote only | None listed | – | – | Not published |

Each row comes from that company's own pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [2] [3] [4] [5] [1]

The product type column matters more than the rank. Gusto's Simple plan covers single-state payroll, unlimited payrolls and tax filings and payments. [2] Justworks's Payroll plan covers payroll, HR tools, expert support and access to time tracking. [3] BambooHR's $250 is for its HR software. BambooHR Payroll is a separate purchase under the offer terms on the same page. [4] Justworks PEO Basic adds compliance, HR consulting, 24/7 support and a 401(k). [3] Deel's US PEO covers co-employment across all 50 US states with benefits included. [5]

Rippling sells more than one of these types. Its pricing page lists Payroll, HRIS and PEO among its products. [1] So a Rippling quote belongs beside the row for the same product type, not beside the cheapest row.

## What does Rippling's pricing page publish?

A quote form, five FAQs and no numbers. Checked 28 September 2026, the page headline reads "The platform for companies that want to grow faster", followed by "Tell us what services you need, and we'll send you a custom quote." [1]

The form asks for a work email address, full name, company name, the number of employees plus contractors, headquarters country and phone number. [1] Headcount is picked from bands, and the smallest runs from 1 to 10. [1] A 10-person company sits in the bottom band.

Two FAQs deal with price. One sets out the billing unit, covered in the next section. The other asks how Rippling's pricing compares with similar services and answers "Trick question" and says "there's no service like Rippling!" It goes on to say "each Rippling bundle is competitive with more narrowly-focused competitors' pricing." [1] The page names no bundle and prints no price, so a reader can't test that claim from the page itself.

A third FAQ says Rippling offers partner pricing to brokers and accountants who use it for their clients. [1] No partner rate is shown either.

## How does Rippling bill: per employee or base fee?

Rippling permits either structure, depending on the product. Its FAQ says: "While most Rippling products are billed on a simple per-employee, per-month basis, some may be charged at (or include) a monthly basis fee." [1] The page does not name the affected products or fee amounts.

The platform is the second layer. Each HR, Finance and IT product, such as Payroll, Expenses, Benefits or Device Management, can be bought separately "alongside the core, required Rippling Platform". [1] A Rippling bill therefore has at least two parts: the required platform and each product added to it. UsagePricing, which tracks software pricing pages, describes that platform as a mandatory base in either a Core or a Pro tier. [6] Rippling's pricing page doesn't name the tiers.

The shape isn't unusual. Gusto's and Justworks's payroll plans also combine a monthly base with a per-person fee. [2] [3] What differs is disclosure: Gusto and Justworks print both numbers, and Rippling prints neither.

Contractors are the open question. Rippling's form counts employees and contractors together. [1] Gusto, by contrast, bills US contractors at the plan's per-person cost only in months when they're paid. [2] Rippling's page doesn't say how it bills contractors. Ask for that line in the quote.

## What do the alternatives charge above the entry plan?

Upper plans change the order. Gusto's Premium plan costs $400 a month for 10 employees, about 3.7 times its Simple plan, and Justworks PEO Plus costs $1,240, close to Deel's US PEO. [2] [3] [5]

| Company | Plan | Listed price | Monthly cost for 10 US employees (US$) |
|---|---|---|---:|
| Gusto | Simple | $49/month + $6/month per person | 109 |
| Justworks | Payroll | $50/month base fee + $8/month per employee | 130 |
| Gusto | Plus | $80/month + $12/month per person | 200 |
| BambooHR | Flat rate, 25 employees or fewer | from $250/month | 250 |
| Gusto | Premium | $180/month + $22/month per person | 400 |
| Justworks | PEO Basic | $79/month per employee, no base fee | 790 |
| Justworks | PEO Plus | $124/month per employee, no base fee | 1,240 |
| Deel | US PEO | $125 per US PEO employee per month | 1,250 |

Sources: each company's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [2] [3] [4] [5]

Above 25 employees, BambooHR switches to per-employee pricing: $10 for Core, $17 for Pro and $25 for Elite per employee per month. [4]

Three of the pages also carry time-limited offers, excluded from both tables. Deel advertises 3 months free of PEO for new PEO order forms executed between 15 July and 31 December 2026. [5] BambooHR offers eligible customers Payroll subscription fees at $0 through 31 December 2026 if they commit to a minimum 12-month agreement. [4] Gusto's contractor-only plan has a $0 base for the first 6 months, then $35 a month plus $6 per contractor. [2]

Term length is published too. Gusto says it is month-to-month. [2] BambooHR offers month-to-month terms or an extended term. [4]

## Why do other published Rippling prices disagree?

Because they're dated, estimated or unsourced, and none of them appears on Rippling's pricing page as checked on 28 September 2026. [1]

- **$8 per employee.** UsagePricing records Rippling's pricing page carrying "Rippling starts at $8 a month, per user" until 2024. [6] It also says the rate is still quoted on Rippling's competitor-comparison pages. [6] We didn't check those pages. PTO Planner's review, updated June 2026, still gives "~$8/employee/month for the core platform", marked "quote required". [7]
- **$15 to $25 per employee.** PTO Planner estimates this range for HR, payroll and benefits. [7] For 10 employees, that's $150 to $250 a month. PTO Planner says its figures are estimates to be confirmed with Rippling, and discloses affiliate links to Rippling. [7]
- **$35 a month.** ITQlick's Reviewsnap comparison, updated 20 June 2026, says "Rippling starts at $35 per month". [8] The page doesn't give a source for the figure.
- **No figure.** Research.com says Rippling's pricing is "provided exclusively on a custom quote basis with no publicly available prices or predefined pricing plans". [9] That matches the page as checked.

The current evidence supports one reading. $8 is a retired list rate, the $15 to $25 range is a third-party estimate, and $35 has no stated origin. None is a Rippling quote.

## What changed on Rippling's pricing page?

The rate left the page in 2024, and the page became a lead form in 2026. UsagePricing says Rippling printed a per-user entry rate from 2019: $7 through a December 2019 snapshot and $8 from a July 2020 snapshot. [6] Between the 14 August and 18 September 2024 archived states, that rate was replaced in the headline by "Flexible & competitive pricing that fits your business needs". The $8 stayed in the page title and meta description. [6]

UsagePricing logs two later changes. On 16 April 2026, "Rippling collapsed its pricing page into the lead form". [6] In July 2026, Rippling's Customer Terms of Service were updated with the minimum-User commitment restated. [6] We didn't read those terms, so no minimum is stated here.

This is Glamdring's first check of Rippling's pricing page, so there's no earlier release of ours to compare against.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

It can't price Rippling. Until Rippling lists a figure, it has no row to rank, and a quote given to one company isn't a list price.

It compares listed prices, not total cost. Add-ons sit outside the entry plans. Gusto lists workers' compensation starting at $14 a month and priority support at $30 a month plus $3 per person. [2] Justworks lists time tracking at $8 a month per employee. [3] Benefits premiums and tax are also excluded.

It covers nine companies we selected, not the whole market.

Valid ADP RUN and TriNet PEO pages request business-specific pricing without publishing a numerical subscription rate. They were checked 1 and 2 October respectively. [10] [11] Paylocity requests pricing through a demo; HiBob's checked page is a demo request. [12] [13] None supplies a comparable numerical row; failed URLs are not evidence of absent vendor prices.

The test is a written Rippling quote for your exact products and headcount, contractors included. It should break out the platform fee, each per-employee rate, any monthly fee and the minimum term. Then compare it with the row above for the product type you'd buy instead.

More of our enterprise software pricing work sits in the [published research archive](/research). New price checks go out in our [free email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does Rippling cost a month?

Rippling's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, offers a custom quote rather than a monthly price. Most products bill per employee per month; some may carry or include a monthly fee. [1] Confirm the platform, products, headcount and fee conditions in the quote. Under this article's USD convention, listed alternative entry rates for 10 employees range from Gusto Simple's $109 to Deel US PEO's $1,250. [2] [5]

### Who competes with Rippling?

Rippling's pricing FAQ says "there's no service like Rippling". [1] The alternatives here cover payroll software from Gusto and Justworks, HR software from BambooHR, and PEO services from Justworks and Deel. [2] [3] [4] [5] ADP RUN, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob have no numerical rate on the valid pages checked, with each source's own date retained.

### Can you buy Rippling products separately?

Yes, but only with the platform. Rippling says each HR, Finance and IT product can be bought separately "alongside the core, required Rippling Platform". [1] The pricing page doesn't state the platform's price or which products add a monthly fee.

### Does Rippling have pricing for accountants and brokers?

Yes. Rippling says it offers partner pricing to brokers and accountants who use Rippling for their clients, and asks them to schedule a call. [1] It publishes no partner rate.

## Source notes
1. Rippling: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Gusto: https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Justworks: https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. BambooHR: https://www.bamboohr.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Deel: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. UsagePricing: https://www.usagepricing.com/blueprint/activity/rippling-2024-09-18-entry-rate-leaves-pricing-hero (checked September 28, 2026)
7. PTO Planner: https://pto-planner.com/blog/rippling-review (checked September 28, 2026)
8. ITQlick: https://www.itqlick.com/compare/reviewsnap/rippling (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Research.com: https://research.com/software/reviews/rippling (checked September 28, 2026)
10. ADP RUN payroll packages: https://www.adp.com/what-we-offer/payroll/payroll-for-1-49-employees/payroll-packages.aspx (checked October 1, 2026)
11. TriNet PEO pricing: https://www.trinet.com/peo/pricing (checked October 2, 2026)
12. Paylocity: https://www.paylocity.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
13. HiBob: https://www.hibob.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Rippling vs BambooHR: vendor pricing, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/rippling-vs-bamboohr
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: BambooHR publishes a clearer starting point for HR budgeting. Rippling requires a custom quote, and BambooHR's separately priced add-ons also need a quote. The published information cannot establish which complete package is cheaper.

BambooHR publishes starting prices for its HR plans; Rippling's pricing page publishes no numeric starting price and directs buyers to a custom quote. [1] [2] The vendor pricing and plan inclusions, checked 28 September 2026, show different purchase structures: BambooHR lists HR tiers and add-ons, while Rippling requires its core platform alongside separately purchased products. [1] [2] Compare complete quotes before deciding which costs less.

## TL;DR

- Headcount changes the BambooHR billing unit: companies with more than 25 employees pay per employee per month; companies with 25 employees or fewer face a flat monthly rate starting at USD $250. [2] Use the applicable model when requesting a quote.
- Budget for the selected services. Rippling requires its platform, and some products may carry a monthly base fee; BambooHR lists Payroll, Benefits Administration, Time & Attendance and Global Employment separately as add-ons. [1] [2] Neither captured pricing page provides a complete matched-package total. [1] [2] A cheaper-product verdict would require those quotes.
- Keep benefits tracking separate from benefits administration. BambooHR's Core includes Benefits Tracking, while Benefits Administration is an add-on restricted to US employees. [2] Ask for the service your team needs.

## How do Rippling and BambooHR publish pricing?

BambooHR publishes HR plan starting prices, while Rippling publishes the charging model and requests a custom quote. [1] [2] BambooHR therefore gives buyers a numeric starting point for HR software; Rippling requires a quote before that comparison can begin. [1] [2]

For related comparisons, see the [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

| Purchasing dimension | Rippling | BambooHR |
|---|---|---|
| Published HR starting price | No numeric starting price on the captured pricing page; custom quote. [1] | Core starts at USD $10, Pro at USD $17 and Elite at USD $25 per employee per month for companies with more than 25 employees. [2] |
| Smaller-company pricing | No separate numeric small-company rate published in the capture. [1] | For companies with 25 employees or fewer: monthly flat rate starting at USD $250. [2] The page does not give a separate flat rate for each tier. [2] |
| Purchase structure | Core Rippling Platform required alongside separately purchased HR, Finance and IT products. [1] | Core, Pro and Elite HR plans, with separately listed add-on solutions. [2] |
| Billing unit | Most products: per employee per month; some may carry or include a monthly base fee. [1] | Per employee per month above the headcount threshold; a flat monthly rate at or below it. [2] |
| Payroll and benefits administration | Payroll and Benefits are examples of separately purchasable products alongside the required platform. [1] | Payroll and Benefits Administration are add-ons, both marked US employees only. [2] |

BambooHR states its published starting rates in USD. [2] Tax treatment is not stated in either captured pricing page. [1] [2] Confirm taxes in the quote before comparing totals.

The headcount boundary changes how to read the BambooHR price: a company with 25 employees uses the published flat-rate model, while a company with more than 25 uses the per-employee model. [2] The listed per-employee rate alone does not establish a smaller company's bill or its add-on costs. [2]

## What do BambooHR's Core, Pro and Elite plans include?

BambooHR's Core covers HR administration, Pro adds performance and employee-community tools, and Elite adds compensation and advanced analysis. [2] Pro includes everything in Core, and Elite includes everything in Pro. [2] Choose the tier by the work it needs to cover, then price the add-ons separately.

| HR plan | Published starting rate for more than 25 employees | Published inclusions and additions |
|---|---|---|
| Core | USD $10 per employee per month. [2] | Employee records, custom report builder, workflows and approvals, dashboards, hiring and onboarding, time-off management and Benefits Tracking. [2] Employee satisfaction and wellbeing tools, Total Rewards, HR Insights, Compliance Intelligence, one compliance training course, On-Demand Pay and an AI assistant for HR data questions. [2] |
| Pro | USD $17 per employee per month. [2] | Everything in Core, plus performance management with 360-degree review cycles and one-to-one meetings, Employee Community, Recognition & Rewards, 15 compliance training courses and an upgraded AI assistant for company policies and documents. [2] |
| Elite | USD $25 per employee per month. [2] | Everything in Pro, plus compensation planning, integrated Mercer salary benchmarks, job levels and salary bands, custom dashboards and analytics, HR Benchmarks, Premium Services, 300+ compliance training courses and an advanced AI assistant. [2] |

Core's Benefits Tracking keeps benefit plans organised and accessible. [2] The separately listed Benefits Administration add-on covers benefits configuration, enrolment, election review, reporting and carrier connections. [2] A requirement for enrolment and carrier connections therefore belongs in the add-on quote, even when Core already covers benefits tracking. [2]

Elite's Premium Services have published limits: two hours of data integrity services per year and two new-administrator training sessions per year, alongside dedicated customer support and insider webinars. [2] Treat those service allowances as part of the tier comparison.

For the single-vendor breakdown, see [BambooHR pricing](/post/bamboohr-pricing).

## What does Rippling publish about its required platform?

Rippling requires the core Rippling Platform alongside separately purchased HR, Finance and IT products. [1] Its pricing FAQ names Payroll, Expenses, Benefits and Device Management as examples of products buyers can purchase separately. [1]

The pricing page describes cross-system dashboards and reports, workflow automation, custom app creation and Rippling AI across company data. [1] Those descriptions explain the advertised scope, but the captured page does not assign a numeric rate or a detailed priced tier to each capability. [1] Request the entitlement list for the platform configuration in your quote.

Rippling says most products use per-employee, per-month billing, while some may be charged at or include a monthly base fee. [1] The page gives no numeric amount for those possible base fees. [1] Confirm both the billing unit and the base fee for every selected product.

The modular purchase model permits product selection alongside a required platform purchase. [1] Include that platform cost when comparing the selected products with another vendor's HR plan.

See [Rippling pricing](/post/rippling-pricing) for the single-vendor breakdown.

## Which services still need a quote?

Rippling's platform and product rates need a quote, as do the BambooHR add-ons whose prices are absent from the captured pricing page. [1] [2] BambooHR's published HR starting rates do not price the full HR-plus-payroll package. [2]

BambooHR describes these add-ons without publishing their standalone rates in the capture: [2]

- Payroll: direct deposit, flexible pay schedules, federal and state tax filing, a single source of data and specialised support. [2] US employees only. [2]
- Benefits Administration: self-guided configuration, open enrolment and life events, election approval, reporting and carrier connections. [2] US employees only. [2]
- Time & Attendance: shift scheduling, meal and rest breaks, project tracking and billable hours, approval workflows, overtime calculations and time kiosks or clocks. [2]
- Global Employment, powered by Remote: global cost calculator, compliance expertise and support, contractor management and Employer of Record. [2]

Keep the geographic restriction attached to the service: BambooHR marks its Payroll and Benefits Administration add-ons US employees only, while it lists Global Employment separately. [2] Specify the countries and employment arrangements you need in each quote request.

For Rippling, ask for the required platform and each selected product as separate line items. For BambooHR, ask for the chosen HR tier and each add-on. Both requests should identify recurring charges, implementation charges and service fees.

## What discounts and temporary offers does BambooHR publish?

BambooHR publishes automatic volume discounts, a registered-nonprofit discount and a US-restricted payroll-and-benefits bundle discount. [2] The discounts qualify the published starting prices, but the page does not give a complete headcount discount schedule. [2]

The pricing FAQ says volume discounts apply automatically by headcount and increase as headcount grows. [2] Registered nonprofit organisations receive an additional 15% off. [2] BambooHR also advertises a 15% discount when Payroll and Benefits Administration are combined with any HR plan; that bundle discount is currently available only for US-based employees. [2] Confirm the applicable discounted amounts and whether discounts combine.

The checked page also advertises a temporary payroll offer. [2] Its terms are narrower than a general free-payroll claim: [2]

- The offer runs from 1 August to 31 December 2026. [2] Eligible qualifying purchases require a minimum 12-month agreement and may receive Payroll subscription fees at $0 through 31 December 2026. [2]
- The Elite HRIS route covers a qualifying new purchase or eligible upgrade at the time of Payroll purchase, for customers with no previous Payroll or Elite billing through BambooHR. [2]
- The Managed Payroll Services route covers new customers and existing customers adding both Payroll and Managed Payroll Services; existing Payroll customers are excluded. [2]
- Implementation, multi-state filing and additional payroll or service fees remain chargeable at standard rates. [2] The offer cannot combine with other applicable Payroll product discounts. [2]

BambooHR reserves the right to modify or terminate the offer, and additional restrictions may apply. [2] Request the ongoing payroll rate alongside any temporary waiver.

## How should you compare the two quotes?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to compare the same services and billing terms before choosing on cost. Rippling's custom-quote model leaves its numeric rates unpublished, while BambooHR's HR starting prices leave separately listed add-ons unpriced. [1] [2] BambooHR offers a clearer published starting point for HR budgeting; the captured prices cannot establish the cheaper complete package. [1] [2]

Give both vendors the same headcount, countries and service requirements. Ask each to separate:

- The required platform or HR tier and its included capabilities.
- Payroll, benefits administration, time and attendance, and any other selected products.
- Per-employee charges, monthly base fees and minimum commitments.
- Implementation, migration, filing and ongoing service charges.
- Currency, taxes, billing term and the rate after any promotion.

Then compare the recurring total for the same work. Keep one-off costs separate, and require written confirmation of any capability you plan to use.

The comparison uses the vendors' pricing pages checked 28 September 2026, with published terms kept beside their limits. [1] [2] See the [research methodology](/methodology) for the evidence approach.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can BambooHR be paid month to month?

Yes, BambooHR's pricing FAQ offers flexible month-to-month terms or an extended term. [2] The temporary payroll offer has a separate minimum 12-month agreement requirement, so confirm which terms govern a promotional quote. [2]

### Does BambooHR offer nonprofit pricing?

Yes, BambooHR publishes an additional 15% discount for registered nonprofit organisations. [2] Ask for the rate applicable to your chosen HR plan and services, including confirmation of how that discount interacts with other offers.

### Is Rippling a PEO or HRIS?

Rippling lists both HRIS and PEO products on its pricing page. [1] Ask for the specific product and service scope you need; the captured pricing page directs buyers to a custom quote. [1]

## Source notes
1. Rippling pricing: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. BambooHR pricing FAQ: starting prices, billing and discounts: https://www.bamboohr.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Rippling vs Gusto: published pricing, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/rippling-vs-gusto
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Only Gusto can be priced from its public page: 10 US employees cost $109 a month on Simple, $200 on Plus and $400 on Premium, checked 28 September 2026.

Gusto publishes its prices and Rippling does not. Gusto's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, prices 10 US employees at $109 a month on its Simple plan, $200 on Plus and $400 on Premium. [1] Rippling's pricing page offers a custom quote instead, with most products billed per employee per month. [2] A price comparison between the two therefore starts with a Rippling quote, set against the Gusto plan that matches the same features.

## TL;DR

- Gusto is the only one of the two that can be costed without a sales call. Its fees run from $49 a month plus $6 per person on Simple to $180 plus $22 on Premium. [1]
- At 10 people, per-person fees make up 55% to 60% of every Gusto bill. Headcount moves the price more than the base fee does. [1]
- Multi-state payroll starts on Plus. A 10-person team with staff in two states pays at least $200 a month. [1]
- On Simple, buying next-day pay, performance reviews and time tracking as add-ons costs $244 a month for 10 people. Plus costs $200. [1]
- Rippling sells each product separately on top of a required Rippling Platform and publishes no figure for any of them. [2]
- Third-party prices are stale on both sides. Two 2026 reviews still put Gusto's entry base fee at about $40, and the "$8 per user" Rippling figure is absent from Rippling's own page. [3] [4] [2]

## Rippling and Gusto prices side by side

Gusto lists a base fee and a per-person fee for each plan; Rippling describes billing without numerical rates. [1] [2] Both pricing pages were checked 28 September 2026. We calculated a 10-person US team from Gusto's listed fees, following our [research standard](/methodology). USD is a comparison assumption for its dollar-symbol prices, not an explicit denomination in the captured text. No FX or tax adjustment is applied; tax treatment remains unconfirmed.

| | Gusto | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Prices on the pricing page | Yes, four plans | No, custom quote |
| How the price is built | Monthly base fee plus a monthly fee per person | Mostly per employee per month; some products may carry or include a monthly fee |
| Entry price | Simple: $49 a month plus $6 per person | Not published |
| 10 US employees, entry plan | $109 a month | Not published |
| How products are bought | A plan, plus priced add-ons | Each product bought separately, alongside the required Rippling Platform |
| Contract | Month to month, cancel any time | Not stated on the pricing page |
| Payroll runs | Unlimited on every plan | Not stated on the pricing page |
| Health insurance administration | No fee when Gusto is the broker; employer pays premiums | Not stated on the pricing page |

The table draws on Gusto's pricing page and Rippling's pricing page, both checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2]

Rippling's quote form asks for a company name, a headquarters country and a count of employees plus contractors, chosen from bands that start at 1-10. [2] A 10-person company sits in the smallest band. Nothing on the page links that band to a price.

## What does Gusto charge on each plan?

Gusto lists four plans on its pricing page: Contractor Only, Simple, Plus and Premium. Each charges a monthly base fee plus a monthly fee per person, in US dollars, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Simple is the entry plan for teams with W-2 employees. Plus and Premium add multi-state payroll, time tracking and dedicated support.

| Plan | Base fee a month | Fee per person a month | Gusto's description | Headline inclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contractor Only | $0 for the first 6 months, usually $35 | $6 | Contractor-only businesses without W-2 employees | Domestic contractor payments, 4-day pay, Form 1099 filings |
| Simple | $49 | $6 | Single-state payroll, reports and basic support | Single-state payroll, unlimited payrolls, tax filings and payments, basic PTO and holiday pay |
| Plus | $80 | $12 | Advanced payroll, benefits, HR and time tracking | Multi-state payroll, next-day pay, time tracking |
| Premium | $180 | $22 | Full-service payroll, benefits and HR with dedicated support | Dedicated Service Advisor, certified HR experts, performance and compensation management, custom reports, priority support, payroll migration and account setup |

Plan descriptions and prices come from Gusto's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

The billing rules shape the bill as much as the list prices. Gusto charges only for active employees, so the monthly price rises as people join. [1] US contractors are billed at the plan's per-person rate, but only in months when they are paid. [1] Every plan includes unlimited payroll runs, and Gusto says it never charges extra for off-cycle payrolls. [1] Plans run month to month with no long-term contract. Upgrades apply at once, and downgrades apply from the first of the next month. [1]

Support is tiered by plan. Simple and Plus include basic support: a 24/7 online help centre, plus phone and chat during business hours. Priority support costs $30 a month plus $3 per person on those two plans. Premium includes priority support and a Dedicated Service Advisor. [1]

Gusto's plan comparison shows where other features start. Workforce cost reports and unlimited custom earning types start on Plus. Expenses and reimbursements are included from Plus and sold as an add-on on Simple. Custom admin roles are Premium only. [1] Same-day pay and instant pay are included only in Premium; Simple and Plus buy them per payroll. [1] The Contractor Only discount lasts six months, and that plan excludes add-ons other than global contractor payments. [1]

## What does Rippling publish about its pricing?

Rippling's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, offers a custom quote without numerical rates. [2] Most products bill per employee per month; some may carry or include a monthly fee. [2]

The page does publish the structure of the bill. Each HR, finance and IT product can be bought separately, "alongside the core, required Rippling Platform". [2] The page gives no price for that platform on its own. Its product list shows how wide a quote can run:

- HR: HRIS, recruiting, performance, benefits administration, PEO, time and attendance
- IT: identity and access, device management, inventory management
- Payroll: payroll, global payroll, employer of record, contractor of record
- Finance: expense management, corporate cards, bill pay, travel

None of these products carries a price on the page. [2] Rippling's homepage presents the same catalogue as HR, payroll, IT and finance on one system, and invites buyers to start with the apps they need or run them all together. [5]

Rippling also offers partner pricing for brokers and accountants. [2] On price level, the page's only statement is that "each Rippling bundle is competitive with more narrowly-focused competitors' pricing". [2] That is a company claim with no figure attached. A buyer cannot test it from the page.

## What would 10 employees cost?

On Gusto's listed fees, checked 28 September 2026, 10 US employees cost $109 a month on Simple, $200 on Plus and $400 on Premium. [1] Rippling publishes no cost for 10 employees or for any other headcount. [2]

| Gusto plan | Base fee | 10 x fee per person | Monthly total | First 12 months |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simple | $49 | $60 | $109 | $1,308 |
| Plus | $80 | $120 | $200 | $2,400 |
| Premium | $180 | $220 | $400 | $4,800 |
| Contractor Only, 10 contractors | $0 for 6 months, then $35 | $60 | $60, then $95 | $930 |
| Rippling, any product mix | Not published | Not published | Not published | Not published |

Each Gusto total is the plan's base fee plus 10 times its per-person fee, from Gusto's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The contractor row assumes all 10 contractors are paid every month, because Gusto bills contractors only in months they are paid. [1]

Per-person fees drive the bill. At 10 people they make up $60 of the $109 Simple bill, $120 of the $200 Plus bill and $220 of the $400 Premium bill. Each new employee adds $6, $12 or $22 a month. [1] Plus costs more than Simple at every headcount, because both its base fee and its per-person fee are higher. The step from Simple to Plus is $91 a month at 10 people. The step from Plus to Premium is $200.

Gusto's entry total also sits below another listed payroll price checked the same day. Justworks' Payroll plan listed $50 a month plus $8 per person, or $130 for 10 employees. [6]

## Which Gusto inclusions change the price?

Two inclusions decide most Gusto plan choices: multi-state payroll and pay speed. Multi-state payroll and next-day pay start on Plus, while same-day and instant pay are included only in Premium. [1] Simple covers single-state payroll only, so a 10-person team with staff in two states starts at Plus, at $200 a month. [1]

The add-on arithmetic favours Plus once a Simple customer needs next-day pay, performance reviews and time tracking together.

| Simple with add-ons, 10 people | Monthly cost |
|---|---|
| Simple plan ($49 plus $6 per person) | $109 |
| Next-day pay ($15 plus $3 per person) | $45 |
| Performance ($3 per person) | $30 |
| Time & Attendance Plus ($6 per person, after a free trial) | $60 |
| Total | $244 |

Add-on prices come from Gusto's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Plus costs $200 for the same 10 people and lists next-day pay and time tracking as plan features. [1] Gusto's comparison page lists performance management on Plus and Premium, with an add-on for Simple. [7] The two routes differ in scope: the Time & Attendance Plus add-on also lists project tracking and scheduling. [1] Even so, a Simple customer buying all three add-ons pays $44 a month more than Plus. Next-day pay alone takes Simple to $154, which is still $46 below Plus.

Same-day pay costs $90 per payroll and instant pay $100 per payroll on Simple and Plus. Premium includes both. [1] For a 10-person team on Plus, two same-day payrolls a month bring the bill to $380. Three bring it to $470, which is $70 above Premium's $400. A team that runs same-day payroll three or more times a month pays less on Premium.

Benefits pricing sits outside the plan fees. With Gusto as the broker, health insurance administration carries no extra fee and the employer pays only premiums. Keeping an outside broker costs $6 a month per eligible employee, and Premium customers get that integration free. [1] For 10 eligible employees, that fee adds $60 a month on Simple or Plus. State tax registration is an add-on on every plan, priced by state. [1]

## Why do third-party Rippling and Gusto prices disagree?

Glamdring Research's check on 28 September 2026 found that third-party Rippling and Gusto prices lag the companies' own pages. Two 2026 reviews still put Gusto's entry base fee at about $40 a month, while Gusto's page lists $49. [3] [4] [1] A Rippling figure of $8 per user circulates on third-party and competitor pages, but Rippling's own pricing page shows no figure. [4] [7] [2]

Workology's comparison, dated 7 January 2026, gives Gusto's core payroll pricing as "Starts around $40/month base + $6–$12 per employee per month". [3] Workology discloses that it is paid by many of the companies listed in its marketplace. [3] Alpine Mar's review, updated 5 March 2026, lists Simple at $40 a month plus $6 per employee and describes Premium as custom pricing. [4] Gusto's page now prices Premium at $180 a month plus $22 per person. [1]

The Rippling figure has a similar trail. Alpine Mar describes Rippling pricing as starting at $35 a month plus $8 per user. [4] Gusto's own comparison page lists Rippling at "Starting at $8/mo. per user" beside "No transparent monthly pricing". [7] Gusto dates that competitor data to July 2025 and makes no representation about its accuracy. [7] None of these figures appeared on Rippling's pricing page when checked. Treat $8 as an unverified historic figure, and ask Rippling for a written quote.

Gusto's comparison page also marks many Rippling features as "Extra fees". [7] Rippling's comparison page, in turn, lists products it says Gusto lacks, such as a native IT suite. [8] Both are company statements about a competitor. They show what each company wants a buyer to ask. They do not establish either company's price.

## What the published prices cannot tell you

The published pages settle Gusto's plan fees and nothing more. Four gaps remain:

- Rippling's price for your team. Only a quote shows it. [2]
- The full Gusto bill. State tax registration is priced by state, 401(k) pricing varies by integration, and health premiums sit outside the plan fee. [1]
- Service quality. Trustpilot showed Gusto at 1.9 out of 5 from 2,523 reviews and Rippling at 4.5 from 2,469 reviews on 28 September 2026. [9] [10] Both profiles are claimed, both companies pay for a Trustpilot subscription and both invite customers to review. Trustpilot says it does not fact-check reviews. [9] [10] These are reported ratings, and they do not measure service.
- Future prices. Gusto's contractor discount is time-limited, and every figure here reflects 28 September 2026. [1]

To test Rippling against Gusto, list the products you need and ask Rippling for a written quote for that scope. Set it beside the Gusto plan with the same features, plus the add-ons that plan would need. The decision changes if Rippling publishes list prices or Gusto changes its plan fees. Our other checked software comparisons sit in [published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Rippling a Gusto competitor?

Yes. Each company publishes a page comparing itself with the other. [8] [7] Rippling's page says Gusto is "generally best suited for small businesses" while Rippling scales to companies of any size. [8] Gusto's page describes its plans as simple and transparent, with no surprise fees. [7] On price, only Gusto gives a buyer a published figure to compare.

### What are the downsides of Gusto payroll?

On price, the limits sit in the lower plans. Simple covers single-state payroll only, same-day and instant pay cost extra below Premium, and priority support is an add-on on Simple and Plus. [1] On service, Gusto's Trustpilot rating was 1.9 out of 5 from 2,523 reviews on 28 September 2026. Trustpilot's AI summary of 238 recent reviews says most reviewers were unhappy, citing slow support and errors in payroll, tax and benefits. [9] Those are reported reviews, not a measured error rate.

### Does Gusto or Rippling require a long-term contract?

Gusto does not. Its plans run month to month and can be cancelled at any time. [1] Rippling's pricing page states no contract length or billing term, so confirm both in the quote. [2]

### Can Gusto or Rippling pay people outside the US?

Both can pay international contractors, and they differ on employees. Gusto's pricing page offers global contractor payments in more than 120 countries with no monthly per-contractor fee. [1] Rippling lists global payroll, employer of record and contractor of record as products, with no price. [2] Rippling's comparison page says it covers 185+ countries and that Gusto relies on its partner Remote for global solutions. [8] Gusto's own comparison lists employer of record for international employees as an add-on. [7]

## Source notes
1. Gusto pricing: https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Rippling pricing: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Gusto vs. Rippling: Pricing, Features & Key Differences (2026 Comparison Guide): https://workology.com/gusto-vs-rippling-pricing-features-key-differences/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Rippling vs Gusto for Payroll Compared: https://alpinemar.com/blog/rippling-vs-gusto-review/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Rippling homepage: https://www.rippling.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Justworks pricing (via parent computed table, research/computed-ranking.md): https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Gusto vs Rippling: https://gusto.com/product/compare/gusto-vs-rippling (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Rippling vs. Gusto: https://www.rippling.com/compare/rippling-vs-gusto (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Gusto Reviews | Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/gusto.com (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Rippling Reviews | Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/rippling.com (checked September 28, 2026)

# RunPod review: pricing, G2 and Trustpilot, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/runpod-review
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: RunPod merits a GPU-compute shortlist. Separate the compute tariff from retained storage costs, confirm capacity, and use the dated ratings as evaluation context rather than proof of production reliability.

RunPod merits a GPU-compute shortlist, with separate storage costs and capacity checks kept in the buying decision. [1] G2 and Trustpilot report different rating aggregates; neither supplies a workload-specific reliability measurement. [2] [3] The published prices and rating aggregates were checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] No first-hand use.

## TL;DR

- Choose the compute model before comparing prices: RunPod publishes separate rates for Pods, Serverless and Clusters. [1] A Pod price is insufficient for a Serverless budget.
- Keep retained storage in the budget. RunPod lists a higher Volume Disk rate for idle storage than for running storage. [1]
- The published ordinary Cluster limit is up to 64 GPUs. [1] RunPod markets Reserved Clusters separately for enterprises scaling to 10,000+ GPUs, with pricing through sales. [1]
- Treat the ratings as a reason to investigate fit. Both review sites' AI-generated summaries mention GPU availability concerns, without measuring a deployment failure rate. [2] [3]

## What does RunPod sell?

RunPod sells Pods for dedicated GPU instances, Serverless for API inference and Clusters for multi-node jobs. [1] The product choice changes both the published tariff and the workload it addresses. [1]

| Compute model | RunPod's published purpose | Example from the hourly price view |
|---|---|---|
| Pods | Dedicated instances for development and long-running jobs | H100 PCIe: $2.89/hour [1] |
| Serverless | Inference workers billed on usage | H100: $4.79/hour [1] |
| Clusters | Multi-node workloads | H200 SXM: $4.31/hour displayed in the GPU row [1] |

The distinction belongs at the start of a [compute infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) evaluation. Compare the service needed for the job before treating two hourly figures as alternatives.

RunPod describes workload duration, traffic pattern and control needs as inputs to that choice. [1] For a development environment, start with the Pod configuration. For an inference endpoint, assess the Serverless tariff and worker configuration. A distributed job needs the Cluster terms and a quote for the complete deployment.

## What GPU prices does RunPod publish?

RunPod's checked Pod price view lists the RTX A5000 at $0.27/hour, H100 PCIe at $2.89/hour and B200 at $6.79/hour. [1] Its pricing page reports an update on 27 September 2026. [1] These are published rates, not a quote for confirmed capacity.

The selected configurations below retain RunPod's displayed prices and resource quantities, checked 28 September 2026. [1] The Pod section shows both Community Cloud and Secure Cloud labels, but the captured view does not resolve which mode supplies each price. [1] Confirm the cloud mode, currency and tax treatment before using an amount in a purchase budget.

| Pod GPU | Published GPU memory | Host RAM | vCPUs | Published $/hour |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTX A5000 | 24 GB VRAM | 25 GB | 9 | $0.27 [1] |
| RTX 4090 | 24 GB VRAM | 41 GB | 6 | $0.74 [1] |
| RTX 5090 | 32 GB VRAM | 35 GB | 9 | $0.99 [1] |
| RTX A6000 | 48 GB VRAM | 50 GB | 9 | $0.53 [1] |
| RTX 6000 Ada | 48 GB VRAM | 167 GB | 10 | $0.84 [1] |
| RTX Pro 6000 | 96 GB VRAM | 188 GB | 16 | $2.09 [1] |
| A100 PCIe | 80 GB VRAM | 117 GB | 8 | $1.59 [1] |
| A100 SXM | 80 GB VRAM | 125 GB | 16 | $1.59 [1] |
| H100 PCIe | 80 GB VRAM | 188 GB | 16 | $2.89 [1] |
| H100 SXM | 80 GB VRAM | 125 GB | 20 | $3.49 [1] |
| H100 NVL | 94 GB VRAM | 94 GB | 16 | $3.19 [1] |
| H200 | 141 GB VRAM | 276 GB | 24 | $4.59 [1] |
| B200 | 180 GB VRAM | 283 GB | 28 | $6.79 [1] |
| B300 | 288 GB HBM3e | 251 GB | 32 | $7.89 [1] |

“H100” alone is too broad a label for a price comparison. RunPod lists PCIe, SXM and NVL variants with different prices and configurations. [1] The A100 PCIe and SXM rows share a displayed price and GPU memory, while their host RAM and vCPU allocations differ. [1] Keep the full configuration attached to the rate.

Serverless has a separate hourly view: A100 at $2.72, H100 at $4.79, H200 at $5.93 and B200 at $8.64. [1] Its 4090 entry is $1.10/hour. [1] The capture does not resolve an active-versus-flex worker tariff, so these figures should stay labelled as the displayed hourly view. [1] Use the [RunPod pricing analysis](/post/runpod-pricing) for the pricing-specific follow-up, then confirm the selected tariff in the deployment quote.

## What costs sit outside the GPU rate?

RunPod publishes storage charges separately, including Volume Disk at $0.10/GB/month while running and $0.20/GB/month while idle. [1] An idle storage tariff means the GPU rate alone cannot describe the cost of keeping an environment between jobs. [1]

| Storage type or state | Published $/GB/month |
|---|---|
| Container Disk | $0.10 [1] |
| Volume Disk, running | $0.10 [1] |
| Volume Disk, idle | $0.20 [1] |
| Network Storage, Standard, under 1 TB | $0.07 [1] |
| Network Storage, Standard, over 1 TB | $0.05 [1] |
| Network Storage, High-Performance | $0.14 [1] |

The standard network-storage labels distinguish “under 1TB” from “over 1TB”. [1] Confirm the rule at exactly that boundary and how the tier applies before estimating a large volume's bill.

Build a budget around the chosen compute tariff and the storage that remains allocated. Record running storage and idle storage separately. RunPod itself identifies storage and deployment choices as total-cost factors. [1] A comparison based only on the GPU-hour figure leaves those published charges out. [1]

## What limits does RunPod publish?

RunPod's ordinary Clusters section advertises scaling up to 64 GPUs; its separate Reserved Clusters section targets enterprises scaling to 10,000+ GPUs. [1] The reserved statement should not be read as the ordinary Cluster limit or as capacity already available to every account.

For ordinary Clusters, RunPod describes no commitments and shared storage. [1] The price view displays H200 SXM at $4.31/hour and A100 SXM at $1.79/hour, while L40S, H100 SXM and B200 say “Contact sales”. [1] Those GPU-row prices should not be treated as a complete multi-node job quote.

RunPod markets Reserved Clusters with guaranteed availability, custom configurations and SLA-backed uptime. [1] Each displayed reserved GPU entry requires sales contact. [1] Require the actual capacity commitment and SLA terms if either controls the decision; the marketing phrase supplies no uptime percentage. [1]

The Pod catalogue also states configuration limits through its GPU memory, host RAM and vCPU quantities. [1] Treat those as published configurations to match against a workload, without assuming they establish throughput or suitability for a particular model.

## What do G2 and Trustpilot report?

RunPod's G2 listing displayed 4.6/5 from 49 reviews, while Trustpilot displayed a TrustScore of 3.8 from 315 reviews, checked 28 September 2026. [2] [3] Keep the aggregates separate: they have different review populations and are published by different services. [2] [3]

| Published field, checked 28 September 2026 | G2 | Trustpilot |
|---|---|---|
| Rating aggregate | 4.6/5 [2] | TrustScore 3.8 [3] |
| Review count | 49 [2] | 315 [3] |
| Five-star share | 83% [2] | 64% [3] |
| One-star share | 2% [2] | 19% [3] |

Trustpilot's larger displayed review population also has a higher one-star share. [2] [3] That establishes a difference between the published review distributions. It cannot explain the cause of the difference or supply an uptime estimate.

Review collection needs context. Visible G2 reviews include “Incentivized” and “Source: Seller invite” labels. [2] Trustpilot's profile says RunPod invites customers to review. [3] These records do not establish what share of all G2 reviews was incentivized, or why the two aggregates differ.

Both sites publish AI-generated review summaries that mention positive pricing themes and GPU availability concerns. [2] [3] Trustpilot's summary says it considers 151 reviews, a different population from its 315-review aggregate. [3] Use those themes to choose evaluation questions; they are not independently measured incidents.

Under the [research methodology](/methodology), retain the checked date and the collecting service with each aggregate. Keep the review population separate from the workload whose performance needs testing.

## What should change the buying decision?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to evaluate RunPod against the exact GPU configuration, compute model and retained-storage budget needed for the job. The published catalogue supports that shortlist, while the review aggregates leave workload-specific capacity and reliability unresolved. [1] [2] [3]

For an evaluation, compare the [cloud GPU providers](/post/cloud-gpu-providers) on a matching workload. Record capacity in the required region, time until the environment is ready, successful job completion and the resulting bill.

The decision changes when that evaluation demonstrates acceptable completion cost and repeatable access. If a guaranteed capacity commitment or uptime term is essential, obtain the reserved contract RunPod advertises before treating either as secured. [1]

## Frequently asked questions

### Does RunPod list the same B300 memory for Pods and Serverless?

No. RunPod's checked pricing page lists 288 GB HBM3e for a B300 Pod and 280 GB in the Serverless B300 entry. [1] Confirm the deployable configuration for the chosen product; the two published quantities should not be substituted for each other.

### What reservation durations does RunPod display?

RunPod's Reserved Clusters price section displays 1mo, 3mo, 6mo, 12mo and 12mo+ options. [1] The displayed GPU entries still say “Contact sales”. [1] A duration option therefore needs a quote before it supplies a budget.

### Does a verified Trustpilot review verify RunPod's performance?

No. Trustpilot says it may label a review “Verified” when it can confirm a business interaction, while it does not verify specific reviewer claims. [3] Read the label as an interaction check, not a benchmark result.

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/runpod/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/runpod.io (checked September 28, 2026)

# RunPod vs Modal: listed GPU prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/runpod-vs-modal
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: For equal billed GPU time on a USD comparison basis, RunPod's H100 Pod rate is lower than Modal's base GPU rate, which is lower than RunPod Serverless's. Confirm currency, taxes, worker metering and separate resource charges before comparing invoices.

RunPod Pods cost less per listed H100 GPU-hour than Modal, but Modal's H100 GPU rate is lower than RunPod Serverless's. [1] [2] [1] RunPod lists H100 SXM Pods at $3.49 per hour; Modal lists H100 SXM5 at $0.001097 per second, about $3.95 per hour, on pricing pages checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] That's a rate comparison: the lower invoice also depends on billed time and additional resources. [2] [1]

## TL;DR

- GPU choice changes the winner. [1] [2] Modal's base GPU charge is lower even against RunPod Pods for B300, B200 and H200 at equal billed duration. [1] [2]
- RunPod's displayed Serverless rates are lower than Modal's GPU rates for L40S and L4; the other shared models below favour Modal on GPU charge alone. [2] [1]
- An hourly price display doesn't establish a full-hour minimum. [1] [2] RunPod offers hourly and per-second price views; Modal lists GPU-task rates per second. [1] [2]
- Modal Team costs $250 per month plus compute. [2] Its Starter plan has no fixed monthly fee, while CPU and memory remain separately priced resources. [2]

## How were the GPU prices compared?

The comparison uses RunPod's listed Pod and Serverless rates against Modal's listed GPU-task rates, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [1] The model treats unlabelled dollar prices as USD, retains original price units and assumes equal billed duration. Currency and tax treatment are not confirmed by those dollar-only displays; obtain both in the quote. The calculation excludes taxes without establishing that every quoted rate is tax-exclusive. Shared models are GPU families listed by both companies. [1] [2]

RunPod separates dedicated Pods from usage-billed Serverless inference workers. [1] Comparing Modal only with the Pod price would leave out RunPod's other relevant billing model. [2] [1]

To compare an hourly rate with a per-second rate, multiply the latter by 3,600; Modal's listed H100 rate gives roughly $3.95 per GPU-hour. [2] The rate tables exclude storage, plan fees and Modal's separate CPU and memory charges. [2] [1] Reserved and negotiated prices are outside the comparison. [1] [2]

For the wider category, see our [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure). Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the source standard.

## Which shared GPU models cost less?

RunPod Pods have the lower listed charge for H100 SXM, RTX PRO 6000, A100 80 GB, L40S and L4; Modal has the lower GPU charge for B300, B200 and H200 at equal billed duration. [1] [2] Against RunPod's displayed Serverless rates, Modal has the lower GPU charge except for L40S and L4. [2] [1]

| GPU family | RunPod Pods, US$/GPU-hour | RunPod Serverless, US$/GPU-hour | Modal GPU tasks, US$/GPU-second |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| B300 | $7.89 [1] | $9.98 [1] | $0.001972 [2] |
| B200 | $6.79 [1] | $8.64 [1] | $0.001736 [2] |
| H200 | $4.59 [1] | $5.93 [1] | $0.001261 [2] |
| H100 | $3.49, SXM [1] | $4.79, H100 class [1] | $0.001097, SXM5 [2] |
| RTX PRO 6000 | $2.09 [1] | $3.49 [1] | $0.000842 [2] |
| A100 80 GB | $1.59, PCIe or SXM [1] | $2.72 [1] | $0.000694 [2] |
| L40S | $1.09 [1] | $1.75, grouped worker class [1] | $0.000542 [2] |
| L4 | $0.49 [1] | $0.69, grouped worker class [1] | $0.000222 [2] |

These are base listed rates before tax, not all-inclusive job prices. [2] RunPod's Serverless L40S price applies to a group also containing L40, RTX 6000 Ada and MIG 48GB; its L4 group also contains A5000, 3090 and MIG 24GB. [1] The displayed Serverless quotes don't identify an active-versus-flex selection, so confirm the worker configuration with the quote. [1]

Variant labels also limit the comparison: Modal specifies H200 SXM, while RunPod's Pod row says H200; its Serverless H100 row leaves the variant unspecified. [1] [2] [1] RunPod's price page has Community Cloud and Secure Cloud headings, but the checked text doesn't assign the displayed Pod prices to either tier. [1]

The RunPod SXM Pod quote sits below Modal's roughly $3.95 hourly equivalent, which sits below RunPod Serverless's $4.79 hourly quote. [1] [2] RunPod also lists H100 PCIe at $2.89 per hour, but that is a different variant from Modal's SXM5. [1] [2] Use the [H100 rental-price comparison](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider) to examine the wider provider set.

## Does per-second billing make Modal cheaper?

Per-second billing alone doesn't make Modal cheaper than RunPod; the GPU rate and charged duration determine the compute cost together. [1] [2] RunPod's pricing page offers hourly and per-second views, so an hourly display does not establish a full-hour billing minimum. [1] Confirm the selected product's metering terms in the quote.

RunPod describes Pods as dedicated instances for development and long-running jobs; Serverless bills inference workers based on usage. [1] Modal says it charges actual compute time without charging for idle resources and scales with request volume. [2]

Confirm which startup, execution and idle periods the selected worker tariff bills. The checked RunPod pricing page does not define those boundaries. [1] Modal's statement about idle resources also does not establish that the services meter identical portions of a job. [2]

For a cost test, record charged seconds alongside execution time. Include the worker settings and the GPU variant. The [RunPod pricing guide](/post/runpod-pricing) provides the separate product context.

## What monthly plan fees and extra charges apply?

Modal Team adds a $250 monthly fee before compute, while RunPod lists no fixed monthly subscription on its checked public pricing page. [2] [1] Modal also offers a $0 Starter plan plus compute and an Enterprise plan with custom pricing. [2] Treat RunPod's public listing as a price-page comparison, not a guarantee about every enterprise agreement. [1]

| Plan or public price model | Fixed monthly fee | Listed compute allowance or commercial basis |
|---|---|---|
| RunPod public pricing | No fixed subscription listed [1] | Workload-based charges; reserved capacity and contracts go through sales [1] |
| Modal Starter | $0 plus compute [2] | $30/month free compute [2] |
| Modal Team | $250 plus compute [2] | $100/month free compute [2] |
| Modal Enterprise | Custom [2] | Volume-based discounts [2] |

Starter includes three workspace seats and GPU concurrency of 10; Team lists unlimited seats and GPU concurrency of 50. [2] The Team fee belongs in a budget when those limits or its additional features are needed. A compute allowance and a fixed plan fee are separate terms; included usage doesn't turn Team into a free plan. [2]

Modal separately lists CPU at $0.0000131 per physical core-second and memory at $0.00000222 per GiB-second for GPU tasks. [2] RunPod shows RAM and vCPU allocations beside its Pod prices, while storage has its own price schedule. [1] Comparing a Pod quote with only Modal's GPU line leaves out Modal's other compute charges. [1] [2]

## When should cost favour RunPod or Modal?

RunPod's H100 Pod rate favours sustained billed GPU time, while Modal's lower H100 GPU rate against RunPod Serverless favours Modal when comparing equal worker durations before other charges. [1] [2] [1] [2] Changing the GPU can reverse the conclusion: Modal's B300, B200 and H200 GPU rates undercut even the listed Pod rates. [1] [2]

Choose the GPU and execution model first. Then compare the same workload using each service's charged duration, resource charges and applicable monthly fee. The listed price advantage should survive that calculation before it becomes a purchasing decision. [2] [1]

Record the quoted GPU rate, the time charged and the total cost of completing the job. Test the price advantage against a workload trial and an invoice.

## Frequently asked questions

### How expensive is Runpod?

RunPod lists H100 PCIe Pods at $2.89 per hour and H100 Serverless at $4.79 per hour on the checked pricing page. [1] Storage can remain a separate cost: its volume disk schedule lists $0.10/GB/month while running and $0.20/GB/month while idle. [1] Include the storage state when budgeting a paused workload. [1]

### Do I need Modal's $250 plan to use a GPU?

No: Modal's Starter plan is $0 plus compute and includes GPU concurrency of 10. [2] The $250 monthly fee applies to Team, which lists GPU concurrency of 50. [2] Check whether Starter's workspace and concurrency limits fit before adding the Team fee to the comparison.

### Can region or execution options increase Modal's rates?

Yes: Modal lists region selection at 1.15-1.75 times base prices and non-preemptible execution at three times base prices. [2] Apply the relevant multiplier before comparing a configured deployment with a base-price quote. [2]

Find further comparisons in our [published research](/research).

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# RunPod vs Vast.ai: GPU prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/runpod-vs-vast-ai
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Vast.ai's displayed H100 prices were lower in the 28 September 2026 capture. RunPod listed lower A40, B200 and B300 rates; B200 memory labels differ. Compare the chosen rental's storage, transfer and capacity terms before deciding on total cost.

Vast.ai had lower displayed H100 GPU-hour prices in the providers' pricing pages captured 28 September 2026. [1] [2] RunPod listed lower B200 and B300 rates. [1] [2] It also beat Vast.ai's A40 price. [1] [2] The cheaper rental depends on the GPU and the storage, transfer and capacity terms attached to it. [3]

## TL;DR

- Check the actual Vast.ai offer before budgeting: hosts set prices, and the displayed offers update hourly. [3] [2]
- Both services publish per-second compute billing; compare their storage and transfer charges separately. [4] [5]
- Stopping compute can leave storage charges running on either service. [1] [5]
- RunPod describes formal SLAs for enterprise workloads and SLA-backed Reserved Clusters; confirm the agreement for the capacity you rent. [4] [1]

For the wider category, browse our [compute infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## How were these prices compared?

We compared RunPod's displayed Pods rates with Vast.ai's displayed starting offers and medians, using prices captured 28 September 2026. [1] [2] The table selects ten overlapping GPU models. It compares published prices, with no performance weighting or provider ranking.

RunPod's Pods are dedicated GPU instances, while Vast.ai describes a marketplace where hosts set prices. [1] [3] A marketplace median is a reference point for comparing offers, not a fixed quote for the machine you will rent. [3]

The RunPod column reproduces the displayed Pods rates. It does not reconstruct separate Secure Cloud and Community Cloud quotes. We also keep Vast.ai's starting offers and medians separate rather than assigning either figure to a particular host tier or rental type.

Prices retain the providers' dollar ($) notation. [1] [2] Confirm currency and tax at checkout before using these displayed prices as a final quote. The comparison follows our [research methodology](/methodology).

Official Vast instance-pricing and payment-billing documentation was captured separately on 1 October 2026. [3] [5] RunPod's own comparison statements about billing and capacity were also checked on 1 October 2026. [4] These later terms are separate from the September GPU-price snapshot.

## Which GPUs cost less on each service?

Vast.ai's displayed medians were lower for H100 PCIe and H100 SXM, while RunPod was lower for B200 and B300. [1] [2] [1] Vast.ai also displayed a lower RTX 4090 median. [1] [2] RunPod was lower for A40. [1] [2] The comparison changes with the GPU model.

All figures below are displayed dollars per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2]

| GPU | RunPod listed Pods rate ($/GPU-hour) | Vast.ai from ($/GPU-hour) | Vast.ai median ($/GPU-hour) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| H100 PCIe, 80 GB | 2.89 [1] | 1.87 [2] | 2.53 [2] |
| H100 SXM, 80 GB | 3.49 [1] | 1.73 [2] | 2.16 [2] |
| A100 PCIe, 80 GB | 1.59 [1] | 0.47 [2] | 0.74 [2] |
| RTX 5090 | 0.99 [1] | 0.33 [2] | 0.63 [2] |
| RTX 4090 | 0.74 [1] | 0.20 [2] | 0.51 [2] |
| RTX 3090 | 0.50 [1] | 0.11 [2] | 0.19 [2] |
| L40S | 1.09 [1] | 0.47 [2] | 0.79 [2] |
| A40 | 0.49 [1] | 0.79 [2] | 0.79 [2] |
| B200 | 6.79 [1] | 9.38 [2] | 10.63 [2] |
| B300 | 7.89 [1] | 8.75 [2] | 8.75 [2] |

The B200 memory labels differ: RunPod lists 180 GB and Vast.ai lists 192 GB. [1] [2] Treat that row as a comparison of B200-labelled rates and confirm the available memory in the actual configurations.

The H100 comparison keeps PCIe and SXM separate: RunPod lists them at $2.89 and $3.49 respectively, against Vast.ai medians of $2.53 and $2.16. [1] [2] Use the matching variant when comparing other suppliers in our [H100 rental-price comparison](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider).

A40 provides the clearest counterexample to a universal Vast.ai price advantage. [1] [2] RunPod's $0.49 listed rate was below both Vast.ai's $0.79 starting offer and its $0.79 median. [1] [2]

## How do billing and data transfer differ?

RunPod and Vast.ai both publish per-second compute billing, but their stated transfer policies differ. [4] [5] RunPod's own comparison says it charges no ingress or egress fees. [4] Vast.ai's billing documentation charges for each byte transferred at rates that vary by machine. [5]

Vast.ai's instance-pricing documentation includes both upload and download traffic in bandwidth charges. [3] Before renting, record the chosen host's compute rate, allocated storage price and transfer rates together. A GPU-price card alone leaves those storage and bandwidth charges outside the comparison. [3]

Vast.ai also requires prepaid credits. [5] Its payment documentation says instances stop when the balance reaches zero or below. [5] Keeping an account funded is therefore part of keeping the workload running, even when the chosen capacity is on-demand. [5]

## What storage costs remain when compute stops?

RunPod lists an idle volume-disk charge, and Vast.ai bills allocated storage while an instance is stopped but remains online. [1] [5] On either service, a stopped GPU can leave a storage bill. [1] [5]

RunPod's storage rates were listed as follows on 28 September 2026. [1]

| RunPod storage type or state | Listed price ($/GB/month) |
|---|---:|
| Container disk | 0.10 [1] |
| Volume disk, running | 0.10 [1] |
| Volume disk, idle | 0.20 [1] |
| Standard network storage, under 1 TB | 0.07 [1] |
| Standard network storage, over 1 TB | 0.05 [1] |
| High-performance network storage | 0.14 [1] |

Keep the running and idle volume-disk prices separate when budgeting gaps between jobs. Our [RunPod pricing breakdown](/post/runpod-pricing) covers the service's pricing structure in more detail.

Vast.ai lists storage in $/GB/hour and bandwidth in $/TB, with rates that vary by machine. [5] Match the billing periods before comparing a Vast.ai storage quote with RunPod's monthly rates.

Vast.ai's 1 October instance-pricing documentation says storage costs vary by host and are typically higher for stopped instances than running ones. [3] It instructs users to delete instances completely to cease instance-storage billing. [3] Copy off anything you need before deleting a rental.

Vast.ai's detailed payment documentation makes an additional distinction: offline instances accrue neither active-rental nor storage charges. [5] “Stopped” and “offline” therefore have different billing treatment. [5] Use the instance's actual state and the host's storage rate when calculating retained-storage cost.

## What changes between secure and community capacity?

Secure Cloud and Community Cloud labels require different capacity checks on RunPod; Vast.ai requires an offer-specific check of host terms and rental priority. [4] [3] Compare the capacity and agreement attached to the GPU before treating two displayed prices as equivalent rentals.

RunPod places consumer GPUs on Community Cloud and says inventory is visible in the console at deployment. [4] Its own comparison describes supply through verified data centre partners and formal SLAs available for enterprise workloads. [4] It also says Secure Cloud has no active workload monitoring. [4] These are RunPod's published descriptions, not an independently measured uptime comparison.

RunPod's pricing page specifically describes Reserved Clusters as having guaranteed availability and SLA-backed uptime. [1] That product-level description is insufficient to establish the same agreement for every Community Cloud or on-demand Pod. Confirm the SLA's coverage for the actual rental.

Vast.ai's official instance-pricing documentation lists on-demand and reserved rentals as high-priority access; interruptible instances are low-priority and may be paused. [3] Its price page markets on-demand as “Guaranteed uptime” and “No interruptions”. [2] Those statements do not supply a measured uptime comparison or the compensation terms for a particular host.

Vast.ai also identifies host reliability as a pricing factor and says higher reliability typically correlates with higher prices. [3] Keep host reliability and the right to interrupt an instance as separate selection criteria. A lower marketplace price does not establish that either matches the RunPod capacity you are considering.

## Which service should you choose for your workload?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to compare Vast.ai offers first for the H100 variants, while keeping RunPod in the shortlist for B200 and B300. [1] [2] [1] For A40, the captured RunPod rate was lower even than Vast.ai's starting offer. [1] [2] This recommendation concerns displayed compute prices, not completed-job cost.

For a restartable batch job, consider interruptible access only after confirming that the job can resume and that its outputs survive the interruption. Vast.ai publishes interruptible access as low-priority capacity that may be paused. [3] The discount is a different rental condition from high-priority on-demand access. [3]

For a workload that must keep serving users, request the capacity commitment, outage remedy and support terms alongside the price. RunPod's published enterprise-SLA and Reserved Clusters descriptions provide a reason to examine those products; they do not prove that any RunPod rental will finish a job more cheaply. [4] [1]

For a transfer-heavy workload, compare the chosen Vast.ai machine's bandwidth charges with RunPod's stated no-ingress/no-egress policy. [5] [4] For intermittent work, compare the cost of retaining storage during idle periods. [1] [5] Use those terms to test whether the lower compute rate remains the lower bill.

## What can these prices not tell you?

RunPod's listed rates and Vast.ai's marketplace prices do not establish the cost of a completed workload: storage and deployment choices affect the bill. [1] [3] The table compares displayed GPU-hour prices without a workload benchmark.

The comparison does not match CPU allocation, system RAM, storage performance, networking or region across actual instances. It also does not assign Vast.ai's price cards to a verified-host tier or a specific rental priority. Confirm those details in a current matched offer.

B200's differing memory labels remain a configuration limit. [1] [2] Other GPUs with unresolved variant matching are outside the selected table. No percentage premium for restarts or universal reliability winner follows from these prices.

The decision changes when a matched offer, its storage and transfer charges, or its capacity agreement changes. Recheck those terms before committing to a rental.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can you rent without a long-term commitment?

Yes. RunPod describes on-demand access with no commitment, and Vast.ai's price page says no long-term contract is required. [4] [2] Vast.ai's reserved option instead uses discounted rates with prepayment. [3] Compare that commitment separately from a flexible rental.

### What happens if a Vast.ai account runs out of credits?

Vast.ai stops instances when the credit balance reaches zero or below and schedules instances, storage volumes and data for deletion unless the balance becomes positive. [5] Stopped instances detach from their GPUs but continue to incur disk-storage charges. [5]

A saved credit card is periodically charged to cover a negative balance and protect instances from deletion. [5] Without that backup payment method, instances and stored data can be destroyed. [5] The documented grace buffer depends on historical daily spend; it has no universal duration. [5]

### Can you compare RunPod Serverless with these Vast.ai rates?

Only after changing the pricing basis. RunPod's Serverless charges inference workers by usage, while the table uses its dedicated Pods rates. [1] Vast Serverless charges the underlying instance costs for compute, storage and bandwidth without a separate pricing tier. [3] Compare the actual worker or instance usage for the same serving workload before choosing on price.

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Vast.ai: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/instances/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/articles/comparison/runpod-vs-vastai-training (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Vast.ai: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/reference/billing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Together AI competitors: official prices, October 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/together-ai-competitors
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, SambaNova lists GPT OSS 120B output at 0.59 per million tokens; Groq and Fireworks tie at 0.60 and Cerebras lists 0.75. Confirm unlabelled billing currencies; Together AI's standard baseline remains unresolved.

On a USD comparison basis, SambaNova has the lowest listed standard output price among these four Together AI competitors for GPT OSS 120B: USD 0.59 per million output tokens, captured 28 September 2026. [1] Groq and Fireworks list 0.60; Cerebras lists 0.75, with each source's date retained below. [2] [3] [4] Confirm unlabelled billing currencies before relying on the order. The finding covers one model's output tariff, not the complete inference bill.

## TL;DR

- Together AI's standard GPT OSS 120B baseline remains unresolved, so the competitor order does not establish savings against Together. [5] [6]
- Groq and SambaNova list free access to GPT OSS 120B with model-specific limits; Cerebras and Fireworks advertise starter credits. [7] [8] [4] [9]
- GPU cluster prices buy time on hardware. Keep those rates separate from API token prices and compare the billing product as well as the number. [5] [9]

## How this ranking was built

We ordered four inference APIs by **listed standard output price per million tokens** for GPT OSS 120B, using each provider's official model or pricing page. [1] [2] [3] [4] SambaNova and Fireworks explicitly identify USD; Groq and Cerebras print dollar amounts without a currency code. [1] [2] [3] [4] The model treats those dollar-only amounts as USD without conversion. Confirm billing currency in the quote; tax treatment is unspecified in the captured price tables. The comparison follows our [research methodology](/methodology).

Original price captures are dated 28 September 2026; supplementary official Fireworks serverless pricing, Together model confirmation, Groq Free Plan limits and SambaNova rate limits were captured on 1 October 2026. [1] [2] [4] [5] [3] [6] [7] [8] These are capture dates, not a claim that the providers released new prices on those days. [1] [2] [3] [4]

The inclusion rule is a public tariff for the same GPT OSS 120B model and an identifiable non-Batch output price. [1] [2] [3] [4] Five providers were checked: four competitors enter the ranking and Together AI stays outside as the baseline whose billing mode needs clarification. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Model-name variations are normalised to GPT OSS 120B; provider products remain separate. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Equal prices share a rank. Input charges, cached-input charges, free access, credits, Batch discounts, enterprise quotes and GPU-hour prices do not determine that rank. [1] [2] [3] [4]

## Which Together AI competitors have the lowest output price?

SambaNova leads the GPT OSS 120B comparison at USD 0.59 per million output tokens; Groq and Fireworks tie at USD 0.60, followed by Cerebras at USD 0.75. [1] [2] [3] [4] The table orders reported list prices, with no performance weighting. [1] [2] [3] [4]

| Rank | Inference API | GPT OSS 120B output (USD per million tokens) | Listed billing product | Checked date |
|---|---|---:|---|---|
| 1 | SambaNova | 0.59 | Published API tariff | 28 September 2026 [1] |
| 2= | Groq | 0.60 | Production-model API tariff | 28 September 2026 [2] |
| 2= | Fireworks | 0.60 | Standard serverless | 1 October 2026 [3] |
| 4 | Cerebras | 0.75 | Developer pay-as-you-go | 28 September 2026 [4] |

SambaNova is the first option to test if the decision is the lowest listed output tariff for this model. [1] [2] [3] [4] Groq and Fireworks have the same output rate in this comparison, so that field alone cannot choose between them. [2] [3] Cerebras distinguishes exploration workloads from its quote-based Enterprise tier; its listed Developer price should not be read as an enterprise-capacity quote. [4]

Fireworks' GPT OSS 120B Standard cell is input/cached input/output, with USD 0.60 output, not a Batch rate. [3] Its documentation explicitly separates Standard from Priority and states that Batch inference is billed at 50% of serverless input and output pricing. [3] Reading the first number in the cell as the output price, or applying the Batch discount to a standard request, would change the comparison's meaning. [3]

## Where does Together AI fit in the comparison?

Together AI lists GPT OSS 120B, but its standard output-price baseline remains outside the competitor ranking because the captured pricing material does not resolve the billing mode. [5] [6] The Together model page confirms availability, not a missing rate or mode. [6]

The 28 September pricing capture places a GPT OSS 120B row beneath both “Price per 1M tokens” and “Batch API price”. [5] The 1 October model page identifies the endpoint `openai/gpt-oss-120b` and lists serverless and dedicated deployment options. [6] Those details confirm that Together offers the shared model; they do not settle which billing mode the earlier price row represents. [5] [6]

Confirm the standard tariff for the endpoint before calculating a saving against Together AI. A model-availability confirmation and a clearly labelled billing rate answer different procurement questions. [5] [6]

## Which competitors offer free access?

Groq and SambaNova publish free-plan access to GPT OSS 120B with model-specific limits, while Cerebras and Fireworks advertise starter credits. [7] [8] [4] [9] Compare the free allowance separately from the paid output tariff. [1] [2] [7] [8]

| Provider | Free access or starting credit | Conditions in the captured source | Checked date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Groq | Free Plan includes `openai/gpt-oss-120b` | 30 requests/minute; 1,000 requests/day; 8,000 tokens/minute; 200,000 tokens/day | 1 October 2026 [7] |
| SambaNova | Free Tier includes `gpt-oss-120b` | No payment method linked with the account; 20 requests/minute; 20 requests/day; 200,000 tokens/day | 1 October 2026 [8] |
| Cerebras | USD 5 starting credit | Developer tier is self-serve pay-as-you-go | 28 September 2026 [4] |
| Fireworks | USD 1 starting credit | Serverless uses per-token pricing and postpaid billing | 28 September 2026 [9] |

SambaNova's no-payment-method condition defines its Free Tier: linking a payment method puts the account in the Developer Tier. [8] Its GPT OSS 120B free row allows 20 requests per day, so the daily request ceiling can bind before the token allowance does. [8]

Groq applies rate limits at organisation level and says an account can hit whichever limit comes first. [7] Its documentation describes the published rows as a high-level summary with possible exceptions and directs users to their account's exact limits. [7] Neither provider's token-per-day allowance is stated as an output-only allowance. [7] [8]

The Cerebras and Fireworks pages describe finite starting credits, which should be budgeted separately from continuing free access. [4] [9] Their captured pricing pages do not specify expiry or payment-method requirements for those credits. [4] [9] Confirm those terms during signup.

## How do GPU cluster prices compare?

Together AI publishes on-demand GPU Cluster rates, while Fireworks publishes on-demand deployment rates; both charge for GPU time. [5] [9] Those hourly rates belong outside the API token-price ranking. [5] [9] The following prices were captured on 28 September 2026, with tax treatment unspecified. [5] [9]

| GPU | Together AI GPU Clusters, on-demand (USD per GPU per hour) | Fireworks on-demand deployments (USD per GPU per hour) |
|---|---:|---:|
| H100 | 3.99 [5] | 8.00 [9] |
| H200 | 5.99 [5] | 8.00 [9] |
| B200 | 8.19 [5] | 13.00 [9] |
| B300 | 9.99 [5] | 15.00 [9] |

Together labels all cluster prices per GPU per hour and publishes separate preemptible, on-demand and reserved categories. [5] Fireworks states that its on-demand deployments bill per GPU second and gives hourly equivalents; region-restricted deployments carry a 1.5x premium. [9] The matching hourly denominator does not make a cluster and a managed deployment identical products. [5] [9]

Keep Together's GPU Clusters rate card separate from its Dedicated Inference table, which carried an H100 promotion valid until 30 September 2026. [5] The cluster table above uses the listed on-demand cluster rate, without extending that separate promotion. [5]

For a wider hardware comparison, use the [H100 rental-price comparison](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider) and [B200 rental-price comparison](/post/b200-rental-price-by-provider). To compare hardware time with an API bill, first establish how many billable tokens your workload delivers during the paid GPU time. The price pages alone do not supply that workload result. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [9]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

Glamdring Research's price ordering establishes the lowest listed standard output tariff for GPT OSS 120B within this captured competitor set. [1] [2] [3] [4] It does not establish the lowest total bill, a performance winner or a saving against Together AI's unresolved standard baseline. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Each API price page separates input from output charges. [1] [2] [3] [4] A complete cost comparison needs your input volume as well as your generated output, and any applicable cached-input treatment. [1] [2] [3] [4] Equal output prices therefore leave part of the cost decision open. [2] [3]

Use the same prompts and output limits to test candidate APIs. Record billed usage, completed responses and response times under your intended load. Check the rate limits your account receives before treating free access as production capacity. [7] [8]

The next official price or rate-limit change should trigger a refresh of this comparison. A clearly identified Together standard tariff would also allow a direct baseline comparison. [5] [6] Continue with our [model-infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure) or the [published research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Are there cheaper Batch rates?

Fireworks states that Batch inference costs 50% of its serverless input and output pricing in the documentation captured on 1 October 2026. [3] That discount belongs to Batch billing and is excluded from the standard-output ranking. [3] Compare Batch offers separately if your workload can use that mode.

### Does an open-weight model mean the API is free?

An open-weight model and free hosted API access are separate things: Together lists GPT OSS 120B as an open model with deployment options, while Groq publishes both a paid model tariff and Free Plan limits. [6] [2] [7] SambaNova also separates Free and Developer access according to whether a payment method is linked. [8] Check the hosting provider's plan for the model you intend to call.

### Will adding a payment method change SambaNova access?

Yes. SambaNova's documentation captured on 1 October 2026 applies the Developer Tier when a payment method is linked with the account. [8] For GPT OSS 120B, the Developer row lists 60 requests per minute and 12,000 requests per day; Developer accounts also have a 20 million-token daily limit across all models. [8] The larger request allowance remains subject to that account-wide token ceiling. [8]

## Source notes
1. Pricing: https://cloud.sambanova.ai/plans/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Supported Models: https://console.groq.com/docs/models (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Serverless Pricing: https://docs.fireworks.ai/serverless/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
4. Cerebras Inference Pricing: https://www.cerebras.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Pricing: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. gpt-oss-120B: https://www.together.ai/models/gpt-oss-120b (checked October 1, 2026)
7. Rate Limits: https://console.groq.com/docs/rate-limits (checked October 1, 2026)
8. SambaNova model rate limits: https://docs.sambanova.ai/docs/en/models/rate-limits (checked October 1, 2026)
9. Pricing: https://fireworks.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Vanta vs AuditBoard (Optro): plans and pricing

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vanta-vs-auditboard
Category: Compliance automation
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Vanta publishes named compliance plans; AuditBoard, now Optro, publishes a named-product catalogue without comparable tiers on its checked homepage. Neither checked page gives a numeric subscription price. Compare equivalent quoted scope before cost.

Vanta publishes Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise plans. [1] AuditBoard, now Optro, publishes products across audit, risk, infosec and compliance without a comparable plan-tier table on its homepage. [2] Neither publishes a numeric subscription price on those pages, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] A lower-cost winner requires quotes for the same work.

## TL;DR

- Vanta Plus includes 25 questionnaires per year; Professional includes 144 and adds risk management, an Advanced Trust Center and further reporting and control functions. [1] Evaluate the whole package when considering that upgrade.
- Optro's catalogue names OpsAudit, Controls Management and BCM alongside compliance, cyber risk and third-party risk products. [2] Ask which named products a quote includes.
- A published product name does not establish inclusion in every package: Vanta gives explicit tier descriptions, while Optro's checked homepage lists products without a bundle breakdown. [1] [2] Compare the included scope before the headline cost.

## What do Vanta and AuditBoard publish side by side?

Vanta publishes plan inclusions; AuditBoard, now Optro, publishes solution areas and named products. [1] [2] The public descriptions overlap on compliance and risk, but they give buyers different levels of detail about packaging. [1] [2] Start with the following distinctions when comparing [compliance automation systems](/categories/compliance-automation).

| Published dimension | Vanta | AuditBoard, now Optro |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial packaging | Essentials, Plus, Professional and a customizable Enterprise package. [1] | A named-product catalogue; no comparable subscription-tier table on the checked homepage. [2] |
| Numeric subscription price | Not published on the checked pricing page; the vendor invites buyers to get personalized pricing. [1] | Not published on the checked homepage; the vendor offers a demo. [2] |
| Compliance and audit scope | Essentials names automated evidence collection, basic audit workflows and continuous controls monitoring; the catalogue also lists Continuous GRC and Streamlined audits. [1] | Solution areas include Audit and Compliance; product names include Controls Management, OpsAudit, CrossComply and RegComply. [2] |
| Risk scope | The catalogue lists Risk Management and Third Party Risk Management; Professional explicitly includes risk management with customization, a dashboard and reporting. [1] | The catalogue lists RiskOversight, Cyber Risk Management and TPRM. [2] |
| Customer-facing trust | Essentials names Trust Center; Plus adds Questionnaire Automation; Professional names Advanced Trust Center. [1] | The checked product catalogue does not list an equivalent customer-facing trust or questionnaire product. [2] |
| AI scope | The catalogue lists AI Governance and Vanta AI; Essentials names Vanta AI Agent functions. [1] | The homepage describes integrated AI governance; the catalogue lists AI Governance and Autonomous Testing. [2] |

The Optro catalogue establishes the products it names, not a complete account of every feature it offers. [2] Treat an unlisted feature as a question for the vendor, not proof that the feature is unavailable.

## Has AuditBoard changed its name to Optro?

Yes. The company homepage checked on 28 September 2026 uses Optro and explicitly describes it as “formerly AuditBoard”. [2] Use Optro when checking current product names, while retaining AuditBoard when searching older material.

## What is included in Vanta's published plans?

Vanta's plan cards describe an Essentials foundation, additions in Plus and Professional, and a customizable Enterprise package. [1] The cards identify several inclusions and annual questionnaire allowances, but they give no numeric subscription price. [1] Use the named inclusions to define the package you want quoted.

| Plan | What Vanta's plan card publishes |
|---|---|
| Essentials | One compliance framework with an agentic policy generator; Vanta AI Agent functions including search, evidence checks, policy mapping, evidence collection and SLA tracking with remediation. [1] It also names automated evidence collection for audit readiness, basic reporting and audit workflows, code change and continuous controls monitoring, Auditor API, Trust Center and access to expert partners for additional compliance services. [1] |
| Plus | Everything in Essentials, plus automated policy onboarding, AI-powered Questionnaire Automation for 25 questionnaires per year and Access Management. [1] |
| Professional | Everything in Plus, with an allowance of 144 questionnaires per year. [1] The card adds risk management with customization, a dashboard and reporting; Advanced Trust Center; custom monitoring tests and automation; automated access management; six customizable reports; advanced control management; and further AI Agent functions such as agentic issue management. [1] |
| Enterprise | A fully customizable package for advanced GRC needs. [1] The card does not specify a fixed bundle or price. [1] |

The phrase “Everything in Plus” sits alongside Professional's stated allowance of 144 questionnaires per year. [1] Read 144 as the Professional allowance, not an instruction to add the Plus allowance to it.

Vanta also lists Third Party Risk Management, Customer Commitments and AI Governance in its wider product navigation. [1] Their presence in the catalogue alone does not establish inclusion in each plan. [1] Ask for those products by name if they are part of the intended purchase.

For the standalone commercial question, see [Vanta pricing](/post/vanta-pricing).

## What products does Optro publish?

Optro publishes Audit, Risk, Infosec and Compliance solution areas, with a separate catalogue of named products. [2] The homepage describes a GRC system with real-time insights, autonomous testing and a connected enterprise view. [2] These are Optro's published descriptions, not an independently measured comparison with Vanta.

The product catalogue names the following products and links them to these subjects. [2]

| Subject identified by the product label or linked destination | Published Optro products |
|---|---|
| Controls and testing | Controls Management; Autonomous Testing. [2] |
| Operational audit and business continuity | OpsAudit; BCM. [2] |
| Compliance controls and regulatory compliance | CrossComply; RegComply. [2] |
| Risk, cyber risk and third-party risk | RiskOversight; Cyber Risk Management; TPRM. [2] |
| AI governance | AI Governance. [2] |

Optro also lists Analytics, Reporting & Dashboards, Integrations & APIs, Frameworks & Controls, and Services & Support under its platform navigation. [2] The homepage does not state which combination of these functions and products forms a subscription package. [2] Request a written inclusion list for the intended scope.

For an internal audit or business continuity requirement, Optro's OpsAudit and BCM listings provide named products to investigate. [2] Vanta's checked page supplies more explicit packaging detail for evidence collection, customer questionnaires and trust documentation. [1] [2] That distinction supports a shortlist by workflow; it does not establish which system performs better.

## Can the published information establish which costs less?

No. Glamdring Research's verdict is to compare quoted scope before cost: Vanta supplies public tier descriptions, while Optro's checked homepage supplies a product catalogue without comparable tiers or rates. [1] [2] Neither checked page provides the numeric subscription prices needed for a like-for-like cost comparison. [1] [2]

Vanta asks buyers to request a demo and personalized pricing. [1] Optro offers a demo without publishing a subscription rate on the checked homepage. [2] A demo invitation does not establish a licensing unit, contract term, tax treatment or total purchase cost.

Ask both vendors to return a quote against the same requirements:

- Name the compliance frameworks and workflows you need covered.
- Specify the required questionnaire volume and customer-facing trust functions.
- List audit, risk, continuity and AI governance requirements separately.
- Require named inclusions, exclusions, usage limits and additional charges.
- Record the licensing basis, contract period, currency and tax treatment.

For Vanta, map the requirements to a named plan and any additional products. For Optro, ask for the exact product combination. Compare the price only after both vendors have confirmed equivalent scope.

The checked sources establish published descriptions and packaging boundaries, not tested outcomes or negotiated prices. [1] [2] Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the distinction between company statements and independent conclusions.

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does AuditBoard cost per year?

An annual subscription price is not published on the AuditBoard homepage checked on 28 September 2026, which presents Optro products and a demo invitation. [2] Request an annual quote for the named products you need. The checked homepage does not provide a numeric rate to annualize. [2]

### Do both vendors publish AI governance products?

Yes. Vanta's product navigation lists AI Governance, and Optro's homepage and product catalogue also name AI Governance. [1] [2] A shared product label does not establish identical functionality or inclusion in the quoted package. Confirm the required functions and commercial scope with each vendor.

### Are Vanta's plans equivalent to Optro's products?

The published descriptions do not establish equivalent bundles. Vanta identifies tier inclusions and allowances; Optro's checked homepage lists products such as CrossComply and RiskOversight without mapping them to comparable subscription tiers. [1] [2] Ask each vendor to name the included products and limits before treating the quotes as comparable.

Explore the [research archive](/research) for related enterprise-software comparisons.

## Source notes
1. Vanta: https://www.vanta.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Optro (formerly AuditBoard): https://auditboard.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Vast AI alternatives: official A100 prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vast-ai-alternatives
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: On a USD comparison basis, RunPod's listed A100 80 GB rate leads five alternatives at $1.59 per GPU-hour. Vast.ai's $0.99 marketplace median is separate. Confirm billing currency, tax and allocation before treating the rate order as a purchase budget.

RunPod lists the lowest A100 80 GB on-demand price among the five ranked Vast.ai alternatives: US$1.59 per GPU-hour, according to official pricing pages checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Crusoe, Modal, CoreWeave and Lambda complete the ranking. [2] [3] [4] [5] Vast.ai's A100 SXM4 marketplace median is lower at US$0.99/hour, but it represents host-set offers and stays outside the on-demand list-price ranking. [6]

## TL;DR

- Compare the allocation as well as the unit rate: CoreWeave's A100 entry is an eight-GPU node, and Lambda's lowest A100 80 GB rate belongs to an eight-GPU instance. [4] [5]
- Vast.ai's marketplace medians describe available offers; they don't establish the price of a particular on-demand rental. [6]
- Modal's converted GPU-task rate needs a separate check of CPU, memory and execution terms. [3] Its pricing page lists non-preemptible execution at 3x base prices. [3]

## How this ranking was built

The ranking uses the **lowest listed on-demand price per GPU-hour** for A100 80 GB, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The model treats dollar-only figures as USD and leaves quoted amounts unchanged, with no currency conversion or added tax. This is a comparison assumption, not confirmation of every vendor's billing currency or tax exclusion. Nebius explicitly states USD and excludes applicable taxes; Lambda states that applicable sales tax, VAT or GST is additional. [7] [5] Confirm other vendors' currency and tax treatment in the current quote. Node and per-second rates are converted to the same time unit. [3] [4]

The provider comparison starts with eight alternatives; five have an eligible A100 price. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [7] [8] [9] Nebius, Together AI and DigitalOcean have no A100 listed in the checked pricing pages. [7] [8] [9] Each company contributes one row, merging eligible variants and configurations at its lowest rate. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Marketplace listings, spot and reserved prices are excluded; A100 40 GB cards are noted, not ranked. [5] [6] H100 prices appear alongside, without changing the A100 order. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] See our [research methodology](/methodology).

| A100 rank | Alternative | A100 variant | A100 on-demand (US$/GPU-hour) | A100 price basis | H100 on-demand (US$/GPU-hour) | H100 variant and basis |
|---:|---|---|---:|---|---:|---|
| 1 | RunPod | SXM 80 GB; PCIe 80 GB ties | 1.59 | Listed per GPU-hour | 2.89 | PCIe 80 GB; listed per GPU-hour [1] |
| 2 | Crusoe | PCIe 80 GB | 2.00 | Listed per GPU-hour | 3.90 | HGX H100 80 GB; listed per GPU-hour [2] |
| 3 | Modal | A100 80 GB | 2.50 | GPU-task rate per second, converted | 3.95 | SXM5; GPU-task rate per second, converted [3] |
| 4 | CoreWeave | A100 80 GB | 2.70 | Eight-GPU node, divided by eight | 6.16 | HGX H100; eight-GPU node, divided by eight [4] |
| 5 | Lambda | SXM 80 GB | 2.79 | Per GPU-hour in an eight-GPU instance | 3.29 | PCIe 80 GB; single-GPU instance [5] |

Both price columns are before tax and use the 28 September 2026 snapshot; H100 variants differ by company. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Modal's entries are base GPU-task rates, with CPU and memory priced separately. [3]

## Which A100 alternatives have different rental terms?

CoreWeave and Lambda attach their ranked A100 rates to eight-GPU allocations, while Modal prices GPU tasks by the second with separate resource charges. [3] [4] [5] A buyer should choose between these configurations before treating the hourly figures as interchangeable.

RunPod is the starting point for the lowest listed A100 80 GB rate in this comparison. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Its PCIe and SXM entries tie, so choosing SXM does not change the ranked rate. [1] The source separates Pods, Serverless and Clusters; the winning entry comes from Pods. [1] Match the quote to the deployment model you intend to use.

Crusoe makes the A100 variant choice visible in its prices: PCIe 80 GB is US$2.00/GPU-hour and SXM 80 GB is US$2.30/GPU-hour. [2] The ranking takes PCIe because the sorting rule selects the lowest eligible rate. [2] If your requirement specifies SXM, use that quote when comparing suppliers.

Modal's A100 80 GB rate is US$0.000694/second, converted to US$2.50/GPU-hour in the table; its H100 SXM5 rate converts from US$0.001097/second to US$3.95/GPU-hour. [3] Both conversions multiply the listed rate by 3,600 and round to two decimals. [3] Modal describes serverless autoscaling by request volume and lists separate CPU, memory and volume charges. [3] Its non-preemptible execution option costs 3x base prices. [3] Keep Modal on the shortlist if GPU tasks fit your deployment, then price the required execution mode and accompanying resources.

CoreWeave's A100 rate comes from US$21.60 per eight-GPU node-hour divided by eight. [4] The H100 companion figure similarly divides US$49.24 per node-hour by eight, rounded to US$6.16/GPU-hour. [4] The node figures are the allocation prices used in this comparison. [4] Use the whole-node quote when budgeting a node; the normalised column does not establish a single-GPU rental offer. [4]

Lambda lists US$2.79/GPU-hour for A100 SXM 80 GB in its eight-GPU instance configuration. [5] Its single-GPU A100 entries in the capture have 40 GB memory, while its lowest H100 rate is a single-GPU PCIe 80 GB instance at US$3.29/GPU-hour. [5] Lambda therefore needs a configuration check on both sides of an A100-to-H100 comparison. [5]

The Lambda allocation associations follow the captured 8x/4x/2x/1x tab order and the proportional resource quantities in those tables. [5] Confirm the named configuration in a current quote; the converted GPU-hour figure does not create a single-GPU rental where the source describes a larger allocation.

## How does Vast.ai marketplace pricing compare with on-demand?

Vast.ai reports marketplace medians of US$0.99/hour for A100 SXM4 and US$2.16/hour for H100 SXM in the 28 September 2026 capture. [6] Each is the median of host-set marketplace offers, not a fixed list price. [6]

| Marketplace reference, not ranked | GPU | Listed median (US$/hour) | Price basis |
|---|---|---:|---|
| Vast.ai | A100 SXM4, 80 GB | 0.99 | Host-set marketplace offers [6] |
| Vast.ai | H100 SXM, 80 GB | 2.16 | Host-set marketplace offers [6] |

Vast.ai's price page presents both “from” and median figures and says offers update hourly. [6] A median and the lowest on-demand list price answer different questions. [1] [6] The lower marketplace number alone cannot establish your rental cost. [6]

Marketplace describes who sets the price; on-demand describes a rental type. [10] Vast.ai's official instance documentation, captured on 1 October 2026, says hosts set prices and lists on-demand, reserved and interruptible instances. [10] It describes on-demand as fixed pricing with guaranteed resources, reserved as discounted prepayment, and interruptible as access that may be paused. [10] The marketplace model therefore does not mean every Vast.ai rental is interruptible. [10]

For a Vast.ai-versus-RunPod purchase, compare a specific Vast.ai on-demand offer with the matching RunPod Pod configuration. Include the GPU variant and rental terms; check storage and bandwidth before accepting the cheaper compute quote. Vast.ai's October documentation separates compute, storage and bandwidth charges, and RunPod's September price page says storage and deployment choices affect total cost. [1] [10]

## Which other Vast.ai alternatives list H100 prices?

DigitalOcean, Nebius and Together AI list H100 on-demand prices in the checked sources, even though none has an A100 entry in the supplied comparison. [7] [8] [9] They remain H100 alternatives without an A100 rank. [7] [8] [9]

The following entries are alphabetical, not a second ranking. Prices are US dollars per GPU-hour before tax, checked 28 September 2026. [7] [8] [9]

| Alternative | H100 variant | On-demand (US$/GPU-hour) | Qualification |
|---|---|---:|---|
| DigitalOcean | HGX H100 | 4.41 | Listed on-demand GPU Droplet rate [9] |
| Nebius | HGX H100 | 3.85 | September rate; captured page announces US$4.50 effective 1 October 2026 [7] |
| Together AI | HGX H100 | 3.99 | GPU cluster on-demand rate [8] |

Together AI's cluster rate is separate from its dedicated-inference pricing and reserved-capacity rates. [8] DigitalOcean likewise lists separate reserved and spot plans. [9] Use the same rental category throughout a comparison. For a GPU-specific comparison, see [H100 rental prices by provider](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider).

## Why do published GPU prices disagree?

Published GPU prices can refer to different variants, allocation sizes or rental categories, including on-demand and reserved capacity. [1] [4] [5] [8] Comparing the labels beside the figures is the first step toward resolving a disagreement.

Lambda illustrates the memory boundary: its A100 40 GB rate starts at US$1.99/GPU-hour, while the ranked A100 80 GB configuration is US$2.79/GPU-hour. [5] A100 prices quoted without memory and allocation details can describe different purchases. [5]

The date can also change the answer. Nebius's page checked on 28 September already lists an H100 increase from US$3.85 to US$4.50/GPU-hour effective 1 October 2026. [7] The H100 companion values retain the September snapshot; a new quote should use the rate that applies when you rent. [7]

The Vast.ai billing documents used for rental terms and charges were captured on 1 October 2026. [10] [11] Those later documents explain the billing model; they do not update the 28 September GPU-price snapshot. [6] [10] [11]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

Glamdring Research ranks reported A100 prices only; the comparison does not measure workload performance, service reliability or the total cost of completing a job.

The evidence consists of company pricing pages, with different GPU variants and allocation bases preserved in the tables. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] A listed rate does not establish that the required configuration is available: Lambda describes self-serve instance access as first-come, and Vast.ai says offers change hourly. [5] [6]

For a buying decision, request the required GPU variant, allocation size, region and rental type. Confirm availability and quote the accompanying storage, transfer and resource charges. Run your own workload before treating the rate order as a cost-to-completion order.

Refresh the comparison when an official pricing page changes. Explore more [compute infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure), or [subscribe to our research](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Why is Vast.ai so cheap?

Vast.ai attributes its pricing to competition between hosts in a supply-and-demand marketplace. [10] Its official instance documentation captured on 1 October 2026 says hosts set prices based on regional demand, operating costs, machine specifications and competing offers. [10] That explains Vast.ai's stated pricing mechanism; a specific offer still needs its own configuration and billing check. [10]

### Does stopping a Vast.ai instance stop all charges?

No. Vast.ai's official payment and billing documentation captured on 1 October 2026 says stopping an instance does not avoid storage costs. [11] Active rental is charged while the instance is active/connected; storage is charged while the instance exists and is online, including stopped states. [11] The same document exempts offline instances from active-rental and storage charges, while bandwidth is charged for bytes transferred regardless of state. [11] Check the instance state and its price breakdown when closing a rental.

### Do you need credits before renting on Vast.ai?

Yes. Vast.ai requires prepaid credits for GPU rentals, according to its official billing documentation captured on 1 October 2026. [11] It provides one-time credit purchases and autobilling with a saved credit card. [11] When the balance reaches zero or below, instances stop automatically and deletion risk depends on the payment method and account history. [11] A GPU-hour quote should therefore be checked alongside the account's payment and storage arrangements.

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Vast.ai: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/instances/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
11. Vast.ai: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/reference/billing (checked October 1, 2026)

# Vast AI pricing: Vast.ai September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vast-ai-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Use Vast.ai's reported GPU median as a budget reference, then price the chosen host's compute, storage and transfers. The 28 September 2026 price snapshot is not a current instance quote; billing documentation was checked separately on 1 October 2026.

Vast.ai's reported GPU-hour medians were $0.19 for RTX 3090, $0.51 for RTX 4090 and $2.16 for H100 SXM on its pricing page captured 28 September 2026. [1] The rental bill also includes storage and bandwidth under official documentation captured 1 October 2026. [2] Use the median as a budget reference, then check the chosen host's complete price.

## TL;DR

- A starting price and a median describe different points in Vast.ai's reported offers; the captured cards don't provide a full price range. [1]
- Vast.ai distinguishes on-demand, reserved and interruptible rentals, with different commitment and interruption terms. [2] Choose the rental form before comparing quotes.
- Stopping an instance leaves storage charges running; Vast.ai's billing documentation treats offline instances separately. [3]
- Hosts set bandwidth rates, and charges cover both upload and download traffic. [2] Budget transfers alongside compute.

## How were the prices checked?

The GPU figures come from Vast.ai's pricing page captured 28 September 2026. [1] Official Vast instance-pricing and payment-billing documentation was captured separately on 1 October 2026. [2] [3] The pricing page reports available offers and says prices update hourly. [1] Dollar signs below preserve the source's notation; the captures do not specify a currency code or tax treatment. [1] [3]

The table retains the source fields **from** and **median**, without combining them into a range. [1] It is a selected model-by-model comparison, with consumer cards and enterprise GPU variants kept separate. Our [research methodology](/methodology) explains the source-bound approach.

## What does Vast.ai cost by GPU?

Vast.ai reported an RTX 4090 starting price of $0.20 per GPU-hour and a median of $0.51 in the 28 September capture. [1] Those are the card's from and median values, not the lowest and highest prices. [1] Compare the same GPU variant and rental form when requesting a current quote.

| GPU model | From ($/GPU-hour, as displayed) | Median ($/GPU-hour, as displayed) |
|---|---:|---:|
| RTX 3060 | $0.03 | $0.07 [1] |
| RTX 3090 | $0.11 | $0.19 [1] |
| RTX 4090 | $0.20 | $0.51 [1] |
| RTX 5090 | $0.33 | $0.63 [1] |
| RTX 5060 Ti | $0.09 | $0.17 [1] |
| RTX 5080 | $0.20 | $0.33 [1] |
| L4 | $0.16 | $0.32 [1] |
| L40 | $0.33 | $0.57 [1] |
| L40S | $0.47 | $0.79 [1] |
| RTX A6000 | $0.29 | $0.52 [1] |
| RTX PRO 6000 WS | $1.00 | $1.39 [1] |
| A100 PCIE | $0.47 | $0.74 [1] |
| A100 SXM4 | $0.31 | $0.99 [1] |
| H100 SXM | $1.73 | $2.16 [1] |
| H100 PCIE | $1.87 | $2.53 [1] |
| H100 NVL | $2.27 | $2.76 [1] |
| H200 | $2.63 | $4.30 [1] |
| H200 NVL | $2.67 | $4.00 [1] |
| B200 | $9.38 | $10.63 [1] |
| B300 | $8.75 | $8.75 [1] |

B300's starting price and median were both $8.75, while B200's reported median was $10.63. [1] That ordering alone gives no performance or availability comparison. [1] For quotes beyond Vast.ai, use the [H100 rental-price comparison](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider) or [B200 rental-price comparison](/post/b200-rental-price-by-provider).

## How does Vast.ai pricing work?

Vast.ai is a marketplace where hosts set their own prices, and the total rental cost combines compute, storage and bandwidth. [2] Its instance-pricing documentation says rates vary with supply and demand, machine specifications, location and host reliability. [2] Check the selected offer's terms before treating a reported median as a rental quote.

The documentation captured on 1 October distinguishes these rental forms: [2]

| Rental form | Pricing and access described by Vast.ai | Budget decision |
|---|---|---|
| On-demand | Fixed pricing with high-priority, guaranteed resources. [2] | Check the chosen instance's rate and configuration. |
| Reserved | Discounted rates with prepayment and high-priority access. [2] | Confirm the commitment before paying upfront. |
| Interruptible | Low-priority access at the lowest cost; instances may be paused. [2] | Accept it only if a pause is tolerable. |

“Fixed pricing” for on-demand describes that rental form within a host-priced marketplace. [2] It doesn't establish a single platform-wide rate for every machine with the same GPU. [2]

Vast.ai's active rental charge accrues for every second in the active/connected state. [3] Check whether a displayed offer is priced for the whole instance or per GPU before applying it to a multi-GPU budget.

## What does Vast.ai charge for storage?

Vast.ai charges for allocated storage while an instance is stopped, and storage rates vary by host. [2] [3] Its payment-billing documentation lists storage in $/GB/hr and ties the charge to the size of the storage allocation. [3] Budget the allocation and how long you retain it, including stopped time.

The payment-billing documentation gives the more specific state distinction: [3]

| Instance state | Active rental charge | Instance storage charge |
|---|---|---|
| Active/connected | Charged per second. [3] | Charged per second while online. [3] |
| Stopped but online | No active rental charge while stopped. [3] | Continues despite the stopped state. [3] |
| Offline | No active rental charge. [3] | No instance storage charge. [3] |

Stopped and offline therefore have different billing treatment. [3] The instance-pricing guide also says storage is typically more expensive for stopped instances than running ones. [2] Confirm both rates if you plan to pause a rental between jobs.

Vast.ai instructs users to delete instances completely to cease instance storage billing. [2] Copy off any data you need before deleting an instance.

## What does Vast.ai charge for bandwidth?

Vast.ai's bandwidth rates vary by host, and charges apply to both upload and download traffic per byte transferred. [2] Its payment-billing documentation displays bandwidth prices in $/TB and says transfers are chargeable regardless of instance state. [3] Check both directions when selecting a host.

Treat dataset uploads, model downloads and exported results as separate transfer requirements in your budget. A blanket assumption of free inbound or outbound traffic conflicts with Vast.ai's documented host-specific charging model. [2] [3] Use the actual offer's transfer rates before deciding whether a lower compute price saves money overall.

Vast.ai says hovering over the price on the console's Search or Instance page reveals the pricing breakdown. [3] Inspect that breakdown before renting and when reviewing an existing instance.

## How should you budget a Vast.ai rental?

Glamdring Research recommends budgeting the chosen Vast.ai offer's compute, storage and bandwidth together. [3] Vast.ai documents separate charges for those components, with storage continuing when an online instance is stopped. [3] Compare the full bill for your intended rental lifecycle, including retained data and transfers.

Use the offer's actual rates in this cost model: active instance rate multiplied by active time, plus storage allocation multiplied by its rate and billable time, plus uploaded and downloaded data multiplied by their respective transfer rates. [3] The components and billing periods follow Vast.ai's payment-billing documentation. [3]

For a rental you run, stop and later delete, compute accrues during active/connected time and storage continues through stopped online time. [3] Transfers remain chargeable per byte, even outside the active state. [3] Before accepting the quote:

- Match the GPU variant and GPU count to the workload.
- Record the active rental rate and rental form.
- Check allocated storage and the running and stopped storage rates.
- Estimate upload and download volumes separately.
- Confirm currency, tax treatment and the available configuration.
- Plan the data export and instance deletion.

Vast.ai requires prepaid credits, and saved-card autobilling can replenish the balance. [3] Include the credit balance in your operating plan as well as the hourly rate.

[Subscribe to our research](/subscribe) for new compute and infrastructure analysis.

## What the price snapshot cannot tell you

Vast.ai's 28 September 2026 price capture records the company's reported offers at that time; its pricing page says those offers update hourly. [1] Use a current instance quote for a purchase decision. The table supplies price references, without a performance test or an uptime assessment.

The captured pricing cards do not explain how Vast.ai calculates the displayed median or provide the complete spread of offers for each model. [1] They also do not identify a rental form for each price card. [1] Keep those limits attached to any comparison with another provider's quote.

Further [compute infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure) covers the wider buying decision.

## Frequently asked questions

### What happens if my Vast.ai credits run out?

Vast.ai says instances stop automatically when the balance reaches zero, while stopped storage continues to accrue charges. [3] Its billing documentation describes a grace period based on account spending history, without a fixed duration. [3] A saved card can be charged to cover a negative balance; without a saved card, instances and stored data face deletion unless you restore the balance. [3] Keep a positive balance if you need to retain the instance and its data.

### Can I get a refund for unused credits?

Vast.ai says spent credits are non-refundable, while unused credits can usually be refunded on request through its website chat. [3] The documentation captured 1 October 2026 excludes refunds for credits bought through legacy Coinbase Commerce. [3] Confirm the payment route before adding credits you may not use.

### Does Vast.ai serverless have an extra platform fee?

Vast.ai's instance-pricing documentation captured 1 October 2026 says serverless has no separate pricing tier or additional fee: users pay the underlying instance compute, storage and bandwidth costs. [2] Budget those components even when serverless manages instance scaling.

## Source notes
1. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Vast.ai: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/instances/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
3. Vast.ai: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/reference/billing (checked October 1, 2026)

# Vast.ai reviews: prices and limits, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vast-ai-review
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 2, 2026
Revised: October 2, 2026
Verdict: Assess the specific Vast.ai offer and the whole-job cost. Published rates and review aggregates do not establish the selected host's performance; interruption, idle storage and credit-balance rules change the rental decision.

Vast.ai warrants an offer-level comparison: its published prices vary by host, and the GPU rate leaves storage and bandwidth costs to account for separately. [1] The review record, checked 28 September 2026, showed Trustpilot at 3.9/5 from 256 reviews and G2 with no reviews. [2] [3] Neither establishes performance for the machine you intend to rent.

No first-hand use. GPU prices and ratings retain the September checked date; the billing terms below were captured on 1 October 2026.

## TL;DR

- Compare the published `from` price with the `median`: the RTX 4090 card showed $0.20/hr and $0.51/hr respectively. [4] A budget based only on the minimum needs a matching offer.
- G2's displayed `0/5(0)` accompanies an empty review sample. Treat it as missing customer evidence. [3] Trustpilot's aggregate includes both five-star and one-star reviews. [2] Keep the sample and checked date beside the rating.
- Vast.ai describes interruptible rentals as preemptible and says they may be reclaimed. [4] Choose that tier only when the job can tolerate interruption.
- The later billing documentation says stopped instances continue to incur storage charges; offline instances are exempt from active rental and storage charges. [5] Budget for the instance's state as well as its runtime.

## How does Vast.ai pricing work?

Vast.ai uses a GPU marketplace where hosts set prices; its documentation says the total includes compute, storage and bandwidth. [1] Compare the exact GPU variant and the selected offer's charges when assessing [compute infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) options.

These are selected cards from Vast.ai's published pricing, checked 28 September 2026. [4] Figures retain the source's `$` notation; the captured text does not specify a currency code or tax treatment. [4]

| GPU, as listed | Listed VRAM | Published `from` ($/hr) | Published `median` ($/hr) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| RTX 3090 | 24GB | 0.11 | 0.19 [4] |
| RTX 4090 | 24GB | 0.20 | 0.51 [4] |
| RTX 5090 | 32GB | 0.33 | 0.63 [4] |
| A100 SXM4 | 80GB | 0.31 | 0.99 [4] |
| H100 SXM | 80GB | 1.73 | 2.16 [4] |
| H100 PCIE | 80GB | 1.87 | 2.53 [4] |
| H200 | 141GB | 2.63 | 4.30 [4] |
| B200 | 192GB | 9.38 | 10.63 [4] |

The cards show why the cheapest displayed offer and the median deserve separate columns: Vast.ai listed an A100 SXM4 `from` $0.31/hr alongside a $0.99/hr median. [4] Preserve both values when comparing offers.

GPU names also need their suffixes. Vast.ai listed separate H100 SXM, H100 NVL and H100 PCIE cards, each with its own rates. [4] Compare the named variant in the [H100 rental-price comparison](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider); use the [B200 rental-price comparison](/post/b200-rental-price-by-provider) for a separate hardware decision.

Vast.ai says its displayed prices reflect currently available offers and update hourly. [4] Treat the September figures as a dated comparison, then check the current offer. They do not reserve a machine or establish its performance.

## What do the Trustpilot and G2 ratings establish?

Vast.ai's Trustpilot record provides a dated customer-opinion aggregate, while its G2 profile had no reviews on 28 September 2026. [2] [3] Keep those evidence types separate when deciding how much confidence to place in public reviews.

| Source | Displayed record, checked 28 September 2026 | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Trustpilot | TrustScore 3.9/5; 256 reviews [2] | A published opinion aggregate, with the sample size attached |
| G2 | `0/5(0)`; “See all 0 Vast AI reviews” [3] | No customer-review sample to interpret |

Trustpilot displayed 78% five-star, 4% four-star, 1% three-star, 2% two-star and 15% one-star reviews. [2] Reporting only the five-star share would conceal the negative responses; reporting only the one-star share would conceal the majority's positive ratings.

The profile also said Vast.ai invites customers to review, whether positive or negative. [2] Trustpilot states that it screens reviews but does not fact-check their specific claims. [2] Read the aggregate as opinion evidence. A rating cannot substitute for a test of your workload on your chosen host.

G2's empty sample warrants particular care. Its displayed zero supplies no basis for describing customer satisfaction as zero. [3] The distinction follows our [research methodology](/methodology): retain the source's figure and explain what it can establish.

## Which rental terms limit the lowest prices?

Vast.ai's interruptible tier permits the host capacity to be reclaimed, so the advertised price advantage comes with a continuity constraint. [4] A job that cannot resume after interruption needs a different rental decision.

The pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, distinguished the following terms. [4] These are Vast.ai's published descriptions, not independently measured uptime results.

| Rental type | Published terms | Decision consequence |
|---|---|---|
| On-demand | Per-second billing; “No interruptions”; “Guaranteed uptime” [4] | Confirm the applicable contract before relying on a continuity claim |
| Interruptible | “50%+ cheaper”; preemptible and may be reclaimed; described for fault-tolerant workloads [4] | Plan how to preserve work and resume it |
| Reserved | “Up to 50% Off”; long-term commitment; 1, 3 or 6 month terms; guaranteed capacity [4] | Assess the commitment as well as the hourly price |

The discount language is conditional. “50%+ cheaper” and “Up to 50% Off” are company statements on the pricing page, not a discount calculated against matched offers in this review. [4] Request the relevant offer and its terms before assigning either saving to a budget.

## What can keep the bill running after compute stops?

Vast.ai's billing documentation, captured on 1 October 2026, says storage charges continue for stopped online instances, while offline instances incur neither active rental nor storage charges. [5] Include the instance state when estimating idle costs.

The reference documentation separates active rental in $/hr, storage in $/GB/hr and bandwidth in $/TB. [5] It charges active rental by the second in the active/connected state and bandwidth for bytes sent or received regardless of instance state. [5] Rates vary from machine to machine. [5] Inspect the selected offer's breakdown before uploading data or leaving storage allocated.

The instance-pricing guide says deleting an instance ends its storage billing. [1] An offline instance falls under the separate exemption in the detailed billing reference. [5] Keep the stopped, offline and deleted states distinct when estimating costs.

Credits add another limit. Vast.ai requires prepayment and says instances stop automatically when the balance reaches zero or below. [5] Its documentation says data and storage volumes are scheduled for deletion unless credits are added; an account-history-based grace period can allow a negative balance before deletion. [5] It specifies no universal fixed duration for that buffer. [5] A saved credit card may be charged automatically to cover the negative balance, while accounts without one face destruction of instances and stored data. [5] Treat balance management and data retention as part of the rental decision.

## What should you verify before renting?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to assess a specific Vast.ai offer against the whole job: published GPU prices and review aggregates leave the selected machine's performance unresolved. The host-set pricing model and separate compute, storage and bandwidth charges make offer-level checking necessary. [1] Ratings add context within the limits of their samples. [2] [3]

Before committing, use the published terms to define the checks:

- Match the GPU model and suffix to the required memory. The listed H100 variants and VRAM values differ from the H200 and B200 cards. [4]
- Read all cost components. Vast.ai says compute pricing varies with factors including GPU quantity, host reliability and location, while transfer charges cover uploads and downloads. [1]
- Choose rental continuity deliberately. An interruptible offer may be reclaimed; reserved pricing carries a commitment. [4]
- Check what happens after stopping and when credits run out. Storage billing and scheduled deletion remain relevant after compute stops. [5]

Use the [cloud GPU provider comparison](/post/cloud-gpu-providers) to frame the alternative offers. A representative workload test should establish whether the selected machine's transfer behaviour and completed-job cost meet your requirements. Let those results determine the rental decision.

Subscribe to our research for new evidence reviews.

## Frequently asked questions

### Why is Vast.ai so cheap?

Vast.ai attributes its pricing to competition between hosts in a marketplace, with rates determined by supply and demand. [1] The September pricing page also advertised lower interruptible rates in exchange for reclaimable capacity. [4] Those explanations support comparing offers; they do not establish that Vast.ai is the cheapest provider for every workload.

### Can you get a refund for unused credits?

Vast.ai's refund documentation, captured on 1 October 2026, says customers can request a refund of unspent credits through website chat and that it can refund them in most cases. [5] It states there are no refunds after credits are spent and excludes legacy Coinbase Commerce purchases from refunds. [5] Refundability therefore depends on the credits and payment method, not simply whether a rental disappointed you.

### Does a listed GPU always have a current offer?

No. Vast.ai's GB10 card, checked 28 September 2026, displayed an indicative recent-market price of approximately $0.31/hr and explicitly said “No current offers” and “indicative price, not a live offer”. [4] A listed model and a rentable offer require separate checks.

## Source notes
1. Vast.ai documentation: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/instances/pricing (checked October 1, 2026)
2. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/vast.ai (checked September 28, 2026)
3. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/vast-ai/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Vast.ai documentation: https://docs.vast.ai/guides/reference/billing (checked October 1, 2026)

# Claude API vs subscription: Anthropic September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/claude-api-vs-subscription
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: The API costs less below the relevant subscription fee. A subscription can cost less above it when its limits permit the same work and its total bill, including paid usage, stays below the API alternative.

The Claude API is cheaper when its bill falls below your subscription's fee for the same period; a subscription can cost less above that fee if its total bill remains lower and its limits permit the same work. [1] [2] Anthropic's prices, checked 28 September 2026, put monthly Pro at $20 and Max from $100, while API charges depend on the model and tokens consumed. [1] [2] The binding constraint is how much work the subscription lets you complete. [1]

## TL;DR

- Compare both input and output tokens: Anthropic publishes a separate rate for each. [2]
- Pro's annual invoice is $200 upfront, even though the pricing page displays $17 per month. [1]
- Team prices are per seat, with Standard and Premium allowances; compare the whole team's bill, not one seat against an entire API account. [1]
- A dollar crossover establishes equal spending. [1] [2] Subscription limits and optional paid usage determine whether switching keeps the bill at that level. [1] [2]

For related comparisons, browse our [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## What do Claude Pro, Max and Team cost?

Claude Pro costs $20 on monthly billing, Max starts at $100 per month, and Team starts at $25 per Standard seat on monthly billing, according to Anthropic's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] Subscription prices exclude applicable tax. [1]

| Subscription | Monthly billing | Annual billing | Included-usage distinction |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Pro | $20/month | $200 upfront; displayed as $17/month | More usage than Free; Claude Code included. [1] |
| Max | From $100/month | Both usage options billed monthly | Choice of 5x or 20x Pro usage per five-hour session; higher output limits. [1] |
| Team Standard | $25/seat/month | $20/seat/month equivalent | More usage than Pro; organizational controls. [1] |
| Team Premium | $125/seat/month | $100/seat/month equivalent | 5x Standard-seat usage; organizational controls. [1] |

Dollar amounts are in USD, with no currency conversion. [1] [2]

For Pro, the exact annual monthly equivalent is $200 ÷ 12, approximately $16.67; use the $200 invoice when comparing annual spending. [1] Anthropic says annual subscriptions are billed once upfront for the year. [1] Team's annual equivalents therefore imply $240 per Standard seat or $1,200 per Premium seat for a year. [1]

Anthropic markets Team for 2-150 people. [1] Two Standard seats on monthly billing cost $50 per month before applicable tax. [1] Max's published starting price is the amount used below; check the price of your selected usage option before applying that comparison. [1]

## What does the Claude API charge per token?

The Claude API charges separate input and output rates for each model, with Anthropic's documentation quoting USD per million tokens. [2] The table uses Anthropic's standard rates checked 28 September 2026. [2]

| Model | Input: USD per million tokens | Output: USD per million tokens |
|---|---:|---:|
| Haiku 4.5 | $1 | $5 [2] |
| Sonnet 5 | $2 | $10 [2] |
| Opus 5.5 | $4 | $20 [2] |
| Fable 5.1 | $10 | $50 [2] |

Input and output need separate lines in your calculation: at these rates, a million output tokens costs five times a million input tokens on each listed model. [2] Anthropic bases API billing on actual monthly usage. [2]

The separate [Claude API pricing comparison](/post/claude-api-pricing) covers the API side in more detail.

## Where is the API-versus-subscription break-even point?

The Claude API and a subscription reach a cash break-even point when the API bill equals the subscription fee, assuming no extra subscription charges. [1] [2] For standard token-only usage, calculate input cost and output cost separately, then add them. [2]

**Monthly token cost = (input tokens × input rate + output tokens × output rate) ÷ 1,000,000**, using rates quoted per million tokens. [2]

For a worked comparison, take the 50,000 input tokens and 15,000 output tokens in Anthropic's published Managed Agents example. [2] Reuse those quantities as an illustration, with the standard rates above and no tools or session-runtime charges; they do not represent a typical chat or a measured amount of completed work. [2]

| Model | Input calculation | Output calculation | Token-only cost for the illustrative workload |
|---|---|---|---:|
| Haiku 4.5 | 0.05 × $1 = $0.05 | 0.015 × $5 = $0.075 | $0.125 [2] |
| Sonnet 5 | 0.05 × $2 = $0.10 | 0.015 × $10 = $0.15 | $0.25 [2] |
| Opus 5.5 | 0.05 × $4 = $0.20 | 0.015 × $20 = $0.30 | $0.50 [2] |
| Fable 5.1 | 0.05 × $10 = $0.50 | 0.015 × $50 = $0.75 | $1.25 [2] |

Divide the subscription fee by the cost of that repeated workload to find equal spending. [1] [2] For monthly Pro and Sonnet 5, $20 ÷ $0.25 = 80 illustrative workloads per month; for Opus 5.5, $20 ÷ $0.50 = 40. [1] [2]

| Subscription fee being matched | Sonnet 5 at $0.25/workload | Opus 5.5 at $0.50/workload |
|---|---:|---:|
| Pro: $20 monthly | 80/month | 40/month [1] [2] |
| Pro: $200 annual invoice | 800/year | 400/year [1] [2] |
| Max: $100 monthly starting price | 400/month | 200/month [1] [2] |
| Team Standard: $25/seat monthly | 100/seat/month | 50/seat/month [1] [2] |
| Team Standard: $20/seat/month annual equivalent | 80/seat/month | 40/seat/month [1] [2] |
| Team Premium: $125/seat monthly | 500/seat/month | 250/seat/month [1] [2] |
| Team Premium: $100/seat/month annual equivalent | 400/seat/month | 200/seat/month [1] [2] |

Each row states equal spending under the same token-only assumption. [1] [2] It establishes no entitlement to that number of workloads on the subscription. [1] Annual Team rows express average monthly spending under an annual commitment. [1]

Apply the same formula to your own billable token totals. Keep the model and any added charges attached to the result; our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out the broader evidence standard.

## Why doesn't the crossover guarantee enough subscription usage?

Claude subscriptions have rolling five-hour limits, with weekly limits on paid plans, so a fee alone cannot establish how much work you can complete. [1] Anthropic says conversation length and complexity, model choice and features affect usage; there is no fixed message count. [1]

Claude Code and chat activity draw from the same plan allowance. [1] If your coding work consumes that allowance, the remaining capacity for chat changes too. [1] Anthropic also reserves the ability to apply other caps, including model and feature limits. [1]

Paid-plan users can enable usage credits to continue at standard API rates after reaching a limit. [1] The cost comparison then becomes **subscription fee plus paid usage** against **the API bill for the same work**. [1] [2] A subscription is cheaper only while its total bill remains below that alternative. [1] [2]

## What changes the API calculation?

Claude API caching, batch processing and additional charges change the standard token-only calculation, according to Anthropic's pricing documentation. [2] Recalculate with the billing mode you intend to use.

Prompt caching has separate write and read prices. [2] For Sonnet 5, Anthropic lists $2.50 per million tokens for a five-minute cache write and $0.20 for a cache hit, compared with $2 for uncached input. [2] Cache reads reduce repeated-input cost, but the write charge belongs in the bill too. [2]

The Batch API gives asynchronous requests a 50% discount on input and output tokens. [2] That halves the illustrative Sonnet 5 workload from $0.25 to $0.125, moving its $20 monthly-Pro cash crossover from 80 to 160 workloads. [1] [2] Use that comparison only when asynchronous processing suits the work.

US-only inference applies a 1.1x token-price multiplier on supported models. [2] Opus 5.5 fast mode has higher rates of $8 input and $40 output per million tokens. [2] API web search adds $10 per 1,000 searches plus token costs. [2] Each changes the bill independently of the subscription's headline fee. [2]

For the wider cost model, read [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## Which option should you choose?

Choose the Claude API when its calculated bill is lower; choose a subscription when its limits permit the same work and its total bill, including paid usage, is lower. [1] [2] Compare the access you need as well: Anthropic describes paid-plan Claude Code usage and pay-as-you-go API credits through a Console account as distinct billing paths. [1]

Start with one real workflow. Record its model, billable input and output, cache use and any tool charges. Calculate the API cost, then compare it with the relevant monthly fee or full annual commitment. Test the subscription's capacity at the times you need to work before treating the crossover as a saving.

For Team, include every seat you need and the organizational controls you require. Anthropic lists central billing, administration and single sign-on among Team features, alongside the option to mix seat types. [1] Price equality alone cannot value those requirements.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is API included in a Claude subscription?

Direct API usage has its own usage-based bill. [2] Anthropic includes Claude Code in paid plans under the plan's shared allowance, but describes pay-as-you-go API credits through a Console account as a separate path. [1] Budget for those API charges separately from the subscription fee. [1] [2]

### How can I use a Claude subscription instead of the API?

Use Claude's included chat surfaces or Claude Code for interactive work that fits the plan allowance. [1] Anthropic says web, desktop, mobile and Claude Code activity share that allowance. [1] Compare the cost of the access your workflow needs; the subscription's included usage does not establish a prepaid token balance for a separate API bill. [1] [2]

### Is there one break-even number of messages?

No. Anthropic says there is no fixed subscription message count, while the API prices input and output tokens separately by model. [1] [2] The worked crossover uses an explicit token workload; apply your own token totals to estimate your spending. [2]

## Source notes
1. Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Anthropic: https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# CoreWeave competitors: B200 list prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/coreweave-competitors
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Modal's lowest listed B200 GPU-task base figure converts to $6.25 per GPU-hour. This is not a matched capacity price: separate resources, execution premiums, instance size, currency and tax terms matter. Nebius lists higher rates effective 1 October 2026.

Modal's printed B200 GPU-task base rate converts to $6.25 per GPU-hour after rounding, the lowest base figure in the six rows checked. [1] The comparison uses official vendor pages captured 28 September 2026, not matched instance offers. [1] Lambda, RunPod, Nebius and Together AI also list B200 figures below CoreWeave's normalized $8.60 baseline. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

## TL;DR

- Lambda's lowest B200 rate applies to an eight-GPU instance; its single-GPU rate is higher. [2]
- Modal lists CPU and memory charges separately, and charges a premium for non-preemptible execution. [1] Compare the required configuration before treating its base GPU rate as the full cost.
- Crusoe's B200 GPU instances require a quote. [7] DigitalOcean's checked GPU Droplet list has no B200 entry. [8]
- Nebius lists higher B200 and H100 rates effective 1 October 2026. [4] The ranking below preserves the September checked prices.

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research orders the checked providers by their lowest listed base B200 price per GPU-hour, using official pricing pages captured on 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Named spot and reserved rates are excluded. Modal's row is a serverless GPU resource rate, while other rows price instances or clusters; these are not equivalent traditional on-demand capacity offers.

The original computed table uses a USD, before-tax convention. We retain the quoted dollar numbers without currency conversion or added tax. Nebius explicitly accepts USD and excludes applicable taxes; Lambda states that sales tax, VAT or GST is additional. [4] [2] Currency and tax treatment are assumptions where the checked vendor page does not establish them. Confirm those terms before treating the figures as invoice costs.

The nine-provider check leaves eight fixed-list providers after removing Vast.ai's marketplace reference. Crusoe's quote-only B200 GPU instances and DigitalOcean's missing B200 listing leave six ranked rows, including CoreWeave as the baseline. [7] [8] [9] Each provider contributes one qualifying rate; spot and reserved prices are excluded. The [research methodology](/methodology) explains Glamdring's source standard.

| Rank | Provider | B200 base dollar figure per GPU-hour | B200 price basis | H100 base dollar figure per GPU-hour | H100 variant and basis |
|---:|---|---:|---|---:|---|
| 1 | Modal | 6.25 | GPU Tasks base rate; per-second conversion | 3.95 | H100 SXM5; per-second conversion [1] |
| 2 | Lambda | 6.69 | B200 SXM6 180 GB; eight-GPU instance | 3.29 | H100 PCIe 80 GB; single-GPU instance [2] |
| 3 | RunPod | 6.79 | B200 180 GB; Pods | 2.89 | H100 PCIe 80 GB; Pods [3] |
| 4 | Nebius | 7.15 | HGX B200; September rate | 3.85 | HGX H100; September rate [4] |
| 5 | Together AI | 8.19 | HGX B200; GPU Clusters | 3.99 | HGX H100; GPU Clusters [5] |
| 6 | CoreWeave | 8.60 | HGX B200; eight-GPU node normalized | 6.16 | HGX H100; eight-GPU node normalized [6] |

Nebius's captured page lists US$8.50 for B200 and US$4.50 for H100 from 1 October 2026. [4] Modal's entry is its base GPU resource rate; region selection and non-preemptible execution carry premiums. [1] The H100 column provides context and does not determine rank.

## Which pricing differences change the comparison?

Modal's base resource rate, Lambda's instance size and CoreWeave's node billing change what each B200 price buys. [1] [2] [6] Compare the deployment you need before choosing by the GPU-hour column.

Modal lists B200 at US$0.001736 per second, converted to US$6.25 per GPU-hour after rounding. [1] CPU and memory appear as separate resource charges. [1] Its pricing page lists non-preemptible execution at three times base prices and region selection at 1.15-1.75 times base prices. [1] Ask which execution policy and region your workload requires before comparing Modal's base rate with an instance quote.

Lambda's US$6.69 B200 rate belongs to its eight-GPU instance. [2] CoreWeave lists an eight-GPU HGX B200 node at US$68.80 per hour, giving the normalized US$8.60 figure. [6] A per-GPU unit makes the prices readable together; it does not remove the instance-size condition.

RunPod lists its B200 Pods rate at US$6.79 per hour, while B200 Clusters require contact with sales. [3] Use the [RunPod pricing comparison](/post/runpod-pricing) when deciding between those deployment types. Together AI's B200 GPU Clusters entry lists US$8.19 on demand and US$6.79 in its reserved schedule. [5] Only the on-demand figure enters this ranking.

## Which CoreWeave alternatives require a B200 quote?

Crusoe requires a quote for B200 GPU instances, and RunPod does for B200 Clusters. [7] [3] Quote-only status belongs to the deployment type, not every product the company sells.

Crusoe's GPU-instance table says “Contact sales” for B200, while H100 is listed at US$3.90 per GPU-hour. [7] A separate Self-Serve Deployments section lists a B200 dedicated-endpoint price. [7] That endpoint price does not supply the missing GPU-instance rate.

DigitalOcean is a different omission: its checked GPU Droplet price list has H100 at US$4.41 per GPU-hour but no B200 entry. [8] A missing entry does not establish a quote-only B200 offer.

Vast.ai sits outside the fixed-list ranking. Its B200 marketplace reference is a median listing price of US$10.63 per hour on the checked date. [9] Vast.ai says prices are market-set and available offers update hourly. [9] Compare an individual offer's terms separately from a provider's fixed list rate.

## How do the H100 prices compare?

RunPod has the lowest listed H100 rate among the fixed-list providers checked, at US$2.89 per GPU-hour for H100 PCIe. [3] The H100 column uses each provider's lowest listed variant, so it mixes PCIe with SXM/HGX configurations. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [1]

For a narrower SXM comparison, RunPod lists H100 SXM at US$3.49 per GPU-hour and Lambda lists H100 SXM in an eight-GPU instance at US$3.99. [3] [2] Modal's H100 SXM5 rate converts to US$3.95 per GPU-hour. [1] Match the variant and instance size before using those entries in a purchasing comparison.

CoreWeave's HGX H100 node lists US$49.24 per hour for eight GPUs, normalized to US$6.16 per GPU-hour. [6] The [H100 rental-price comparison](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider) is the next comparison to consult if H100 is the required hardware.

## What changes after the September price check?

Nebius lists higher B200 and H100 rates effective 1 October 2026. [4] Its captured pricing page shows both the September rate and the scheduled replacement. [4]

For B200, the listed rate changes from US$7.15 to US$8.50 per GPU-hour; H100 changes from US$3.85 to US$4.50. [4] The scheduled B200 rate exceeds Together AI's checked US$8.19 while remaining below CoreWeave's checked US$8.60. [4] [5] [6] A current buying decision needs the effective-date column and a fresh check of the other providers, too.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

A listed B200 GPU-hour price alone cannot establish the lowest cost for a completed workload. Modal's separate resource charges, Lambda's instance-size pricing and CoreWeave's whole-node billing set different purchase conditions. [1] [2] [6]

The comparison establishes the order of checked GPU list rates. It does not measure training speed, inference throughput, reliability or immediate availability. Match the hardware and deployment type, confirm the current price, then test the same workload before treating a lower hourly rate as a lower job cost.

Subscribe to our research for new findings from the [compute and AI infrastructure desk](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I rent one B200 at Lambda's lowest listed rate?

Lambda's listed single-GPU B200 SXM6 rate is US$6.99 per GPU-hour before applicable taxes. [2] The lower US$6.69 entry applies to its eight-GPU instance, so use the single-GPU rate when comparing a one-GPU rental. [2]

### Does CoreWeave's per-GPU price mean single-GPU access?

CoreWeave's normalized B200 price of US$8.60 per GPU-hour comes from its US$68.80 eight-GPU node. [6] Its pricing page also shows a per-GPU inference price, but the footnote limits GPU-based pricing to CoreWeave inference-platform customers. [6] Confirm eligibility before treating that column as a general single-GPU rental option.

## Source notes
1. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# CoreWeave vs Nebius: prices and Q2 results, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/coreweave-vs-nebius
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Nebius lists lower H100, H200 and B200 on-demand GPU-hour prices in the 28 September check, including its separately listed October rates. CoreWeave reports greater Q2 revenue; revenue backlog and customer commitments are not equivalent measures. Matched quotes are needed for committed usage.

Nebius lists cheaper H100, H200 and B200 GPU-hours than CoreWeave: H100 is $3.85 versus a normalized $6.16, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] CoreWeave reports greater Q2 2026 revenue, at $2,575 million versus Nebius Group's $582.3 million. [3] [4] Their contract-demand disclosures need separate labels: CoreWeave reports revenue backlog; Nebius reports customer commitments. [3] [4]

## TL;DR

- Nebius also lists higher rates effective 1 October 2026, though each remains below CoreWeave's checked on-demand equivalent. [1] [2]
- CoreWeave's GPU-hour equivalents come from eight-GPU node prices. [1] A normalized rate doesn't establish a general single-GPU rental option. [1]
- CoreWeave's approximately $104 billion revenue backlog includes estimated future revenue under committed contracts, subject to delivery and service availability. [3]
- Both companies advertise commitment discounts. [1] [2] Compare matched quotes before treating the on-demand price order as a contract-price verdict.

## How were the prices and results compared?

CoreWeave and Nebius are compared using their official price pages and Q2 2026 disclosures, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3] [4] Financial results cover the quarter ended 30 June 2026. [3] [5] GPU prices retain the listed dollar amounts and normalize CoreWeave's node-hour unit to GPU-hours; this does not establish matched capacity or workload cost.

Nebius explicitly accepts USD and excludes applicable taxes. [2] For CoreWeave's quoted dollar prices, the comparison's USD convention is an assumption where the captured page does not state the currency; tax treatment is not established. No currency conversion or customer tax calculation is applied.

The subject sits within [compute and AI infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure). The billing comparison divides CoreWeave's listed node-hour price by its GPU count and retains Nebius's stated GPU-hour unit. [1] [2] Our [research methodology](/methodology) provides the broader evidence standard.

## Which company lists cheaper H100, H200 and B200 GPUs?

Nebius lists lower on-demand prices than CoreWeave for H100, H200 and B200, both at the checked September rates and in its separately listed rates effective 1 October 2026. [1] [2]

| GPU | CoreWeave normalized dollar figure/GPU-hour; tax treatment unconfirmed | Nebius USD/GPU-hour, before tax, checked 28 September 2026 | Nebius listed USD/GPU-hour, before tax, effective 1 October 2026 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| HGX H100 | $6.16 [1] | $3.85 [2] | $4.50 [2] |
| HGX H200 | $6.31 [1] | $4.50 [2] | $5.40 [2] |
| HGX B200 | $8.60 [1] | $7.15 [2] | $8.50 [2] |

CoreWeave lists eight-GPU nodes at $49.24 an hour for H100, $50.44 for H200 and $68.80 for B200. [1] The GPU-hour figures are node-price equivalents rounded to cents, with half-cent ties rounded up: H200's exact $50.44 ÷ 8 = $6.305 displays as $6.31. [1] The node-hour amounts remain the listed billing basis. CoreWeave's separate GPU-based inference pricing applies exclusively to its inference customers. [1]

Keep the two Nebius date columns separate. Its captured price page labels the second set “Effective October 1, 2026”; the September check doesn't establish a later transaction price or a customer's negotiated rate. [2] The lower listed rate is a procurement starting point, with neither page establishing which company completes your workload at lower total cost. [1] [2]

## What did CoreWeave and Nebius report in Q2 2026?

CoreWeave reported Q2 2026 revenue of $2,575 million, compared with Nebius Group's $582.3 million for the same quarter. [3] [4] CoreWeave therefore has the larger reported quarterly revenue base in this comparison. [3] [4]

| Q2 2026 revenue, USD millions | CoreWeave | Nebius |
|---|---:|---:|
| Company/group revenue | $2,575 [3] | $582.3 [4] |
| Nebius AI cloud segment revenue | Not a corresponding CoreWeave segment comparison | $574.9 [4] |

Nebius's group and cloud-segment figures answer different questions. [4] The group includes other businesses; Nebius reports that its AI cloud accounted for approximately 98% of group revenue in the quarter. [4] [5] Use group revenue for the company-level comparison and the separately reported cloud figure when discussing Nebius's GPU business.

Nebius also reported annualized run-rate revenue of $3.0 billion at the end of June. [4] That measure has a different period basis from quarterly revenue; substituting it for the $582.3 million quarter would distort the comparison. [4]

## Can their reported backlog figures be compared directly?

CoreWeave's **revenue backlog** and Nebius's **customer commitments** are different disclosed measures, so they don't support a like-for-like backlog ratio. [3] [4] CoreWeave reported approximately $104 billion at 30 June 2026; Nebius's Q2 shareholder letter reported more than $40 billion of customer commitments without presenting that figure as an equivalent quarter-end revenue-backlog measure. [3] [4]

CoreWeave defines revenue backlog as remaining performance obligations plus other amounts it estimates will become revenue under committed customer contracts. [3] Recognition depends on satisfying delivery and service-availability requirements. [3] Its quarter-end figure excludes more than $25 billion of net new customer commitments added in early Q3. [3] Keep those later commitments outside the Q2 figure.

Nebius's commitment statement appears in its financing discussion alongside a secured financing transaction completed in July. [4] The letter also says the majority of its Q2 deals were signed for delivery arriving in late 2026 and would contribute primarily to 2027 revenue. [4] Contract value and earned quarterly revenue therefore describe different stages of the business. [3] [4]

Retain each company's exact measure and date. Calling both figures “backlog” would erase the definition and timing differences the disclosures leave unresolved. [3] [4]

## How do the contract models change the price comparison?

CoreWeave and Nebius both publish on-demand prices and offer discounts for committed usage, so their list-price comparison cannot determine the cheaper negotiated contract. [1] [2] CoreWeave advertises discounts of up to 60% over on-demand prices; Nebius advertises up to 35% for reserving large-scale clusters for multiple months. [1] [2] Those are advertised ceilings, not matched offers for the same order. [1] [2]

Nebius's Q2 letter describes three contract types: [4]

- Shorter-duration agreements, typically three to six months, for time-bound needs and priced at a premium. [4] Its first such deal was signed in Q3. [4]
- Mid-term agreements, described as its core business, with average durations of one to three years. [4]
- Long-term agreements with investment-grade customers, which management says support financing. [4]

Nebius also reported that roughly 70% of deals closed in Q2 included customer prepayments. [4] A buyer evaluating a commitment should request the payment schedule alongside the hourly quote. CoreWeave's captured pricing page advertises reserved compute but supplies no equivalent duration breakdown. [1]

Request quotes for the same GPU, region, GPU count and term. Specify the required start date, payment schedule and storage charges. Treat maximum advertised discounts as questions to resolve in those quotes, not inputs for an assumed saving.

## What should a GPU buyer decide from this comparison?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to start a list-price-led shortlist with Nebius: it lists lower H100, H200 and B200 GPU-hour rates than CoreWeave in the checked comparison. [1] [2] For committed usage, request matched quotes from both companies because each advertises discounts whose applicability depends on the order. [1] [2]

Keep company size separate from the rental decision. CoreWeave's greater reported revenue establishes a larger revenue base; the financial disclosures don't test your workload's speed, availability or total bill. [3] [4] Compare the same workload under the proposed terms before choosing on cost.

For a wider shortlist, use the [H100 price comparison by company](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider) and the [B200 price comparison by company](/post/b200-rental-price-by-provider). The decision changes when a matched quote or workload test overturns the listed-price advantage.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I rent one CoreWeave GPU at the normalized price?

The normalized node price alone doesn't establish that option. [1] CoreWeave lists eight-GPU H100, H200 and B200 nodes, while its separate GPU-based pricing is restricted to inference customers. [1] Confirm the purchasable configuration and applicable rate before budgeting for a single GPU.

### Are spot prices fixed alternatives to on-demand rates?

Nebius's spot prices are dynamic: its price page says they can change with available supply, utilization and demand during active use. [2] CoreWeave also lists spot prices in a separate column from on-demand prices. [1] The on-demand comparison therefore doesn't establish a fixed spot-price winner. [1] [2] Ask about the relevant interruption terms before using spot for a workload that needs uninterrupted service.

### Can companies pay Nebius by bank transfer?

Companies can pay Nebius by bank transfer. [2] Both individuals and companies can pay for resources by bank card. [2] Companies can also change their payment method by contacting support. [2]

## Source notes
1. CoreWeave pricing: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Nebius prices: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
3. CoreWeave Reports Strong Second Quarter 2026 Results: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1769628/000176962826000362/coreweave2q26earningspress.htm (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Letter to shareholders Q2 2026: https://assets.nebius.com/assets/4462517b-ce83-41f2-96ed-f2ac1bc06a05/SHLQ226%20%281%29.pdf-0 (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Nebius reports second quarter 2026 financial results: https://nebius.com/newsroom/nebius-reports-second-quarter-2026-financial-results (checked September 28, 2026)

# Deel reviews: G2, Trustpilot and pricing, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/deel-review
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Consider Deel for international hiring when a country-specific quote and employer workflow demonstration confirm fit. Published ratings remain separate customer-feedback aggregates, not a first-hand performance test.

Deel merits consideration for international hiring, but a buying decision needs a service-specific quote and an employer workflow check. [1] [2] Its published fees distinguish contractor management from employment services, while G2 and Trustpilot show positive aggregate ratings for different review populations. [1] [2] [3]

Evidence checked 28 September 2026. No first-hand use.

## TL;DR

- Read the ratings through the reviewer's role: G2's displayed filters include far more users than administrators. [2] A worker's payment experience answers a different question from an employer's payroll administration. [2]
- Match the coverage claim to the service. Deel publishes separate counts for EOR countries, US PEO states and contractor payment currencies. [1]
- Read promotional terms separately from the general pricing FAQ. The advertised PEO credit carries a minimum two-year order term, despite the FAQ's general month-to-month wording. [1]

For related buying research, browse the [HR and payroll category](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

## What do Deel's published ratings show?

On 28 September 2026, G2 displayed Deel Payroll at 4.7 out of 5 from 7,003 reviews, while Trustpilot displayed Deel at 4.6 from 9,497 reviews. [2] [3] Keep the product-level G2 result and company-level Trustpilot result separate when assessing fit. [2] [3]

| Review source | Profile captured | Published rating | Published review count | Checked date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2 | Deel Payroll | 4.7/5 | 7,003 | 28 September 2026 [2] |
| Trustpilot | Deel, deel.com | 4.6/5 | 9,497 | 28 September 2026 [3] |

These are the platforms' displayed aggregates, not a rating produced by Glamdring Research. [2] [3] No combined average is calculated.

G2's role filters showed 5,942 users and 98 administrators. [2] Its category filters included Contractor Payments and Global Payroll. [2] For an employer choosing EOR or payroll administration, read reviews that describe those responsibilities before relying on the headline rating.

Collection also needs context. Some visible G2 reviews carried both an incentivized label and a seller-invite label. [2] Trustpilot stated that Deel invites customers to review and that the profile contains reviews merged from other profiles belonging to the company. [3] These labels describe how feedback reaches the page; they don't establish that a review is false. [2] [3]

The comparison follows our [research methodology](/methodology): retain the checked date and the profile being assessed, then connect the finding to the decision it can support.

## How much does Deel publish for each service?

Deel's published cost depends on whether you need contractor administration, Contractor of Record or Employer of Record (EOR) employment. [1] Compare the service and its billing unit before comparing the amount.

| Published service | Displayed price | Billing unit | Scope described by Deel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Find talent | $14 | Per worker per month | Candidate sourcing, screening and onboarding [1] |
| Contractor management | $49 | Per contractor per month | Hire, manage and pay global contractors; classify them yourself [1] |
| Contractor of Record | $325 | Per contractor of record per month | Shift contractor classification liability to Deel [1] |
| US PEO | $125 | Per US PEO employee per month | US co-employment with benefits included [1] |
| EOR | $599 | Per EOR employee per month | Hire employees without opening a local entity [1] |

Checked 28 September 2026. Prices retain the source's dollar symbol; the displayed cards do not specify a currency code or tax treatment. [1] Confirm both in the quote before making a local-currency comparison.

The contractor rows describe different responsibility arrangements: Deel says customers can classify contractors themselves or shift liability through Contractor of Record. [1] Choose the arrangement you need before using either fee as a budget reference.

Deel's FAQ says the EOR fee covers onboarding, local compliance, payroll processing, tax filings, benefits administration and ongoing HR and legal support. [1] Request a total-cost quote that separates the service fee from salary, employer taxes and benefit premiums. Ask for any setup charges, deposits and payment costs to be listed explicitly.

The G2 page also contained vendor-supplied pricing for “Unified payroll in 130+ countries”, starting at $29.00 per employee per month. [2] Keep that payroll entry separate from the EOR fee: Deel describes EOR as employment without opening a local entity. [1] Our [Deel pricing analysis](/post/deel-pricing) is the related reading for a cost-focused comparison.

## Where does Deel say its services are available?

Deel's pricing page describes EOR employment in 130+ countries, US PEO co-employment across all 50 US states and contractor payments in 120+ currencies. [1] A country count describes geographic reach; a currency count describes payment choices. [1]

| Service | Published coverage | What to confirm for your workforce |
|---|---|---|
| EOR | Full legal employment in 130+ countries [1] | Exact country, employing entity, role eligibility and included benefits |
| US PEO | Co-employment across all 50 US states [1] | Your employing company's eligibility, state requirements and benefits terms |
| Contractor payments | Payments in 120+ currencies [1] | Worker's country, receiving bank, withdrawal method and exchange costs |

Deel also lists remote, on-site and field worker arrangements on its employee-hiring card. [1] The published service scope therefore extends beyond remote work. [1]

The G2 capture uses different geographic wording within the same profile: its seller description says payroll runs in 150+ countries, while its vendor-supplied payroll pricing entry says 130+ countries. [2] The capture does not explain the difference. [2] Treat the figures as statements attached to those sections, and ask Deel to confirm the service available in each intended country.

For a purchase, name the country and employment model in the quote request. Ask which entity employs the worker, which payroll process applies and which responsibilities stay with your company. A broad coverage statement cannot answer those country-specific questions.

## What do customer reviews reveal about payments and support?

Deel's G2 and Trustpilot summaries emphasise ease of use and payments, while also raising payment or support concerns; both summaries are generated with AI from reviews. [2] [3] Use the themes to select a demonstration, with customer experience kept separate from verified service performance.

G2's AI summary praises ease of use and fast payments, then says some users want more accessible support. [2] Trustpilot's AI summary praises navigation and onboarding, but describes withdrawal delays, difficulty tracking funds and long chat waits in some reviews. [3] Trustpilot explicitly says it does not fact-check reviews or verify their specific claims. [3]

No incident rate follows from these summaries. [2] [3] They don't provide a denominator of all payments, all support requests or all customers who experienced the system. [2] [3]

Ask for a demonstration of the payment route your workers will use. Include a failed withdrawal or missing-payment escalation. Request the exchange-rate basis, any withdrawal fee, expected timing and the support owner. For employer administration, add payroll approval, reimbursements and accounting exports to the demonstration.

## What contract limits deserve a closer reading?

Deel's general FAQ describes month-to-month pricing, but its PEO promotion requires qualifying order forms with a minimum two-year term. [1] Check the terms of the specific offer you intend to accept.

The pricing page advertises three months free of PEO. [1] Its conditions require a qualifying new order form executed between 15 July and 31 December 2026. [1] The credit applies at the end of the initial term. [1]

The promotional terms also state that early termination triggers payment of full list-price fees for the entire order form, including the promotional credit's value. [1] Assess the promotion against the commitment required, and ask for the credit timing and termination terms in the written quote.

Deel's FAQ separately says customers can cancel at any time, while warning that EOR employees remain subject to local notice or severance obligations. [1] Confirm the employee exit process as well as the commercial cancellation process. The published FAQ is Deel's description of its service terms, not country-specific legal advice.

## What would justify choosing Deel?

Deel belongs on an international-hiring shortlist when its quoted country coverage and responsibility model match the workforce, and an employer demonstration confirms the required administration. [1] [2] This is a conditional buying judgment based on Deel's published service descriptions and the review populations. [1] [2]

Use a proposed hire to test the decision. Request the country-specific total cost and identify the employing party. Then follow onboarding through payment and an exception. Record the worker's steps separately from the employer's approvals, finance exports and support escalation.

Proceed only when the written terms and demonstrated workflow meet your requirements. If country availability, the employment-cost breakdown or exception ownership remains unclear, keep the purchase open and compare the options in our [Deel competitors analysis](/post/deel-competitors).

For related evidence reviews, browse our [published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### How does Deel pay you?

Deel's contractor pricing card lists multi-currency payments and payments in 120+ currencies, while its FAQ says it offers multiple payment methods. [1] Ask which method supports your bank and currency, what it costs and how long it takes; the published currency count alone does not establish those details.

### Can you try Deel before committing?

Deel's pricing FAQ offers a free demo or a conversation with its team. [1] The captured answer does not establish access to a full free trial. [1] Confirm what you can test before signing, particularly payroll approvals and finance exports.

### Can you cancel an EOR hire at any time?

Deel says customers can cancel at any time, but its FAQ states that local labour laws apply to EOR employees, including any required notice periods or severance obligations. [1] Ask Deel to explain the process and costs for the employee's country before agreeing to the hire.

## Source notes
1. Deel: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/deel/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/deel.com (checked September 28, 2026)

# Gemini 2.5 Pro API pricing: Google, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/gemini-pro-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Gemini 2.5 Pro lists $1.25 input and $10 output per million tokens for prompts up to 200,000 tokens. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists $2 and $12. Longer prompts increase both rates, on Google's prices checked 28 September 2026.

Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens on Google's Gemini Developer API, for prompts up to 200,000 tokens. Above that, the rates rise to $2.50 and $15.00. [1] That makes it the cheaper of Google's two Pro text models: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists $2.00 and $12.00. [1] Prices are in US dollars, from Google's Gemini API pricing page, checked 28 September 2026.

Output includes thinking tokens, so a long reasoning chain bills at the output rate. [1]

## TL;DR

- **Gemini 2.5 Pro is the cheapest Pro text model.** Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview costs 60% more per input token and 20% more per output token.
- **The over-200,000-token tier doubles input and lifts output by half** on both models. Keeping prompts at or under 200,000 tokens keeps the input rate at half the long-prompt rate.
- **Context caching cuts cached reads by 90%, but storage runs $4.50 per million tokens per hour.** A Gemini 2.5 Pro cache pays for itself at four reads an hour; a Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview cache at 2.5.
- **Only Gemini 2.5 Pro has a free tier.** Free-tier content is used to improve Google's products, and caching is paid-only.
- **Batch and Flex halve token prices. Priority costs 1.8 times Standard.** Cache reads don't get the Batch discount, so caching saves less on batch jobs.

## How this ranking was built

The source is Google's Gemini Developer API pricing page, which Google marks as last updated 24 September 2026. [1] We captured and checked it on 28 September 2026, under our published [research standard](/methodology).

- **Ranked field:** the **Input price** row, Paid Tier, Standard, "prompts <= 200k tokens". Unit: USD per 1M tokens. The page doesn't state tax treatment.
- **Inclusion rule:** every model section on the page with "Pro" in its name. That gives four sections: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, Gemini 3 Pro Image (Nano Banana Pro), Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS. [1]
- **Merge:** `gemini-3.1-pro-preview-customtools` shares the Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview table, so it counts as one row. [1] Four rows remain.
- **Exclusions:** Gemini 3 Pro Image and Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS produce images and audio, priced on different output units. They're covered in their own section below. Two rows are ranked.
- **Also outside the ranking:** Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview carries the same token rates as Gemini 2.5 Pro but isn't named Pro on the Developer API page. [1]
- **Tier labels:** each Pro section shows Standard, Batch, Flex and Priority tabs above four tables. We read the tables in that order. Google's Agent Platform pricing page labels the same figures Standard, Priority and Flex/Batch, which confirms the reading. [2]

## Which Gemini Pro model is cheapest per million tokens?

Gemini 2.5 Pro, at $1.25 per million input tokens against $2.00 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. [1]

| Rank | Model | Status | Input, prompts ≤200k (USD per 1M tokens) | Output incl. thinking, prompts ≤200k (USD per 1M) | Input, prompts >200k (USD per 1M) | Output, prompts >200k (USD per 1M) | Free tier |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro (`gemini-2.5-pro`) | No preview label | $1.25 | $10.00 | $2.50 | $15.00 | Input and output free of charge |
| 2 | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (`gemini-3.1-pro-preview`) | Preview | $2.00 | $12.00 | $4.00 | $18.00 | Not available | [1]

The gap is uneven. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview charges 60% more on input and 20% more on output, so input-heavy work widens the difference and output-heavy work narrows it.

Take a request with 150,000 input tokens and 2,000 output tokens. On Gemini 2.5 Pro it costs $0.2075: $0.1875 of input and $0.02 of output. On Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview it costs $0.324: $0.30 of input and $0.024 of output.

Google describes Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview as "Our 3rd generation Pro model, built for multimodal understanding, agentic capabilities, and vibe-coding", and Gemini 2.5 Pro as "A Pro model which excels at coding and complex reasoning tasks". [1] Those are Google's claims. The price table can't tell you whether the newer model earns its premium on your workload. Run one real workflow through both and compare cost per completed task.

Google's Flash models aren't ranked here. Some list lower rates than either Pro model: Gemini 3.8 Flash lists $0.75 per million input tokens through December 31, 2026. [1] Our [full Gemini API price list](/post/gemini-api-pricing) covers them.

## What does Gemini 2.5 Pro cost above 200,000 tokens?

Once a prompt passes 200,000 tokens, Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens. [1] Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview moves to $4.00 and $18.00. [1] Cache reads double too: $0.125 to $0.25 on Gemini 2.5 Pro, and $0.20 to $0.40 on Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. [1]

The trigger is prompt length. Google's table conditions the output price on "prompts > 200k", not on output length. [1] A long prompt makes every output token dearer, too.

At 300,000 input tokens and 2,000 output tokens, Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $0.78: $0.75 of input and $0.03 of output. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview costs $1.236: $1.20 of input and $0.036 of output. The estimate assumes the whole prompt bills at the higher rate, which is how Google's table reads. Confirm this against your first invoice.

The constraint is the 200,000-token line. Retrieval that trims a 300,000-token prompt to 150,000 tokens cuts the Gemini 2.5 Pro input charge from $0.75 to $0.1875, because it halves the tokens and the rate. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the wider set of levers.

## How much does context caching save on Gemini Pro?

On Glamdring Research's calculation, a Gemini 2.5 Pro cache pays for itself at four reads an hour on prompts up to 200,000 tokens, and a Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview cache at 2.5 reads an hour. Cached reads cost a tenth of the input rate, but storage costs $4.50 per million tokens per hour on both models. [1]

| Model | Cache read, prompts ≤200k (USD per 1M) | Cache read, prompts >200k (USD per 1M) | Storage (USD per 1M tokens per hour) | Break-even reads per hour, ≤200k | Break-even reads per hour, >200k |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | $0.125 | $0.25 | $4.50 | 4.0 | 2.0 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | $0.20 | $0.40 | $4.50 | 2.5 | 1.25 | [1]

The break-even is storage price divided by the saving per read: $4.50 ÷ ($1.25 − $0.125) = 4.0 for Gemini 2.5 Pro. The cache size cancels out, so the figure holds for any cache. It assumes storage bills pro rata by the hour and that each cached read replaces a full-price read of the same tokens.

A worked case: a 150,000-token document cached on Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $0.675 an hour to store. Each read costs $0.01875 instead of $0.1875. At ten reads an hour, uncached input costs $1.875 and cached input costs $0.8625, a 54% saving. At two reads an hour, the cache costs more than it saves. The estimate counts storage and reads only.

Caching is a paid-tier feature. Google lists "Access to Context caching" under Paid, and the Gemini 2.5 Pro free tier shows caching as not available. [1]

## Can you use the Gemini Pro API for free?

Yes for Gemini 2.5 Pro, no for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro table lists input and output as "Free of charge" on the free tier. [1] The Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview table lists them as "Not available". [1]

The free tier has three costs that aren't in dollars:

- **Google uses free-tier content to improve its products.** The free tier says "Content used to improve our products"; the paid tier says it isn't. [1]
- **No caching or grounding on Gemini 2.5 Pro.** Both show "Not available" on the free tier. [1] Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview grounding "Can be tested in Google AI Studio". [1]
- **Lower, unpublished limits.** Google describes the free tier as "Limited access to certain models" [1] and points users to Google AI Studio for their active rate limits. [3] The captured pages give no free-tier request numbers for Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Google AI Studio usage is free of charge in all available regions. [1] Moving to paid means linking a billing account, which puts the project on Tier 1 with a $250 billing tier cap. Depending on billing history, Tier 1 also carries a spend rate limit of $10 per 10 minutes. [3]

## What do Batch, Flex and Priority cost on Pro models?

Batch and Flex cost half the Standard token price on both Pro text models, and Priority costs 1.8 times Standard. [1]

| Model | Tier | Input ≤200k | Output ≤200k | Input >200k | Output >200k | Cache read ≤200k | Cache storage per hour |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Standard | $1.25 | $10.00 | $2.50 | $15.00 | $0.125 | $4.50 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Batch or Flex | $0.625 | $5.00 | $1.25 | $7.50 | $0.125 | $4.50 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Priority | $2.25 | $18.00 | $4.50 | $27.00 | $0.225 | $8.10 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Standard | $2.00 | $12.00 | $4.00 | $18.00 | $0.20 | $4.50 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Batch or Flex | $1.00 | $6.00 | $2.00 | $9.00 | $0.20 | $4.50 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Priority | $3.60 | $21.60 | $7.20 | $32.40 | $0.36 | $8.10 |

All figures USD per 1M tokens; storage per 1M tokens per hour. [1]

Cache reads keep their Standard price under Batch and Flex; Google marks the Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview figure "Same as Standard". [1] That changes the caching arithmetic. On Batch, a Gemini 2.5 Pro cache needs nine reads an hour to break even ($4.50 ÷ ($0.625 − $0.125)), and a Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview cache needs 5.625.

Batch jobs have their own limits: 100 concurrent batch requests, and 5,000,000 enqueued tokens per Pro model at Tier 1, rising to 500,000,000 at Tier 2 and 1,000,000,000 at Tier 3. [3] Priority's default rate limits are 0.3 times the standard limit. [3]

## What do the Pro image and speech models cost?

Gemini 3 Pro Image charges $2.00 per million input tokens and $12.00 per million text-and-thinking output tokens, the same as Gemini 3.1 Pro, plus $120.00 per million image output tokens. [1] Google converts that to $0.134 per 1K or 2K image and $0.24 per 4K image. An input image counts as 560 tokens, or $0.0011. [1] On Batch, text drops to $1.00 in and $6.00 out, and images to $0.067 per 1K or 2K image and $0.12 per 4K image. [1] The table lists no free tier and no over-200,000-token tier.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS charges $1.00 per million text input tokens and $20.00 per million audio output tokens, or $0.50 and $10.00 on Batch. [1] It has Standard and Batch tabs only, and no free tier. [1]

## Why do other published Gemini Pro prices disagree?

Most disagreement comes from mixing price lists, tiers or prompt lengths. Four patterns explain it.

1. **Two Google price lists.** Google's Developer API page warns that its prices "may differ" from those on Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform. [1] On 28 September 2026 the Pro token rates matched. [2] Grounding allowances did not: the Developer API lists 1,500 free Google Search requests per day for Gemini 2.5 Pro, then $35 per 1,000 grounded prompts [1], while Agent Platform says Gemini 2.5 Pro "includes 10,000 Grounding Prompts per day at no additional charge". [2]
2. **Tab confusion.** A Batch figure ($0.625) or a Priority figure ($2.25) quoted as "the" Gemini 2.5 Pro input price is off by half or by 80%. [1]
3. **Ranges.** Search results for this query quote Gemini 2.5 Pro as a range, such as "$1.25-$2.50 per 1M input tokens". Both ends are right; they're the two prompt-length tiers.
4. **Schedules on other models.** Gemini 3.8 Flash lists introductory prices "through December 31, 2026" and higher prices from 1 January 2027. [1] The Pro tables carry no dated change.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

- **Model quality.** The ranking sorts by list price. Google's model descriptions are company claims.
- **Your bill.** Thinking tokens bill as output, and their count varies by request. [1] A cheaper rate can still produce a larger bill.
- **Tax and currency.** Prices are USD. The Developer API page doesn't state tax treatment. Agent Platform says non-USD payers see prices in their currency on Cloud Platform SKUs. [2]
- **Change since the last release.** We hold no earlier dated capture of this page, so we can't report what moved before 24 September 2026. This ranking refreshes when Google next updates the page.
- **Preview terms.** Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is a preview model, and Google applies tighter rate limits to preview models. [3] Google also states that rate limits "are not guaranteed". [3]

More [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure) sits in the same field. New price checks go out in the [free research briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Do thinking tokens count as output tokens on Gemini Pro?

Yes. Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview tables label the output row "Output price (including thinking tokens)". [1] A response with 500 visible tokens and 4,500 thinking tokens bills as 5,000 output tokens: $0.05 on Gemini 2.5 Pro at the short-prompt rate.

### Does Google Search grounding cost extra on Gemini Pro?

Yes, after a free allowance on the paid tier. Gemini 2.5 Pro includes 1,500 requests per day, then costs $35 per 1,000 grounded prompts. [1] Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview includes 5,000 free search requests per month, shared across all Gemini 3.x models, then costs $14 per 1,000 requests. [1] On Gemini 3.x, one request can trigger several Google Search queries, and each query is charged. [1]

### How are PDFs billed on the Gemini Pro API?

Google bills PDF tokens, the `DOCUMENT` modality, at the image token rate. [1] On Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, the input row carries one price per prompt-length tier, and Google's Agent Platform lists that price as covering text, image, video and audio input. [2]

### What does Gemini 3 Pro cost on the API?

Google's Developer API pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, has no separate Gemini 3 Pro text-model table. The third-generation Pro text model it prices is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, at $2.00 per million input tokens and $12.00 per million output tokens for prompts up to 200,000 tokens. [1] Gemini 3 Pro Image is the other third-generation Pro entry, and Google prices its text input and output the same as Gemini 3.1 Pro. [1]

## Source notes
1. Gemini Developer API pricing: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Agent Platform Pricing: https://cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platform/generative-ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Rate limits: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/rate-limits (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenAI GPT-5 API pricing: every model, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/gpt-5-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: gpt-5-nano is the cheapest GPT-5 model on the OpenAI API at $0.05 input and $0.40 output per million tokens; gpt-5.5-pro and gpt-5.4-pro are the dearest at $30 and $180. Batch and Flex halve the standard rate, and Fast mode doubles it on most models.

The cheapest GPT-5 model on the OpenAI API is gpt-5-nano, at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens on OpenAI's developer pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] The dearest are gpt-5.5-pro and gpt-5.4-pro, at $30 input and $180 output. [1] That's a 600-fold spread in input price across 20 models, so the choice of model moves a bill further than any discount tier can. This ranking sits in our [model infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) research.

## TL;DR

- Batch and Flex each charge half the standard rate. Batch covers 16 of the 20 models and Flex covers 14; gpt-5-pro and gpt-5.2-pro appear in Batch but not Flex. [1]
- Fast mode, which OpenAI called priority processing until 30 July 2026, doubles the rate on nine of the 11 GPT-5 models it lists. It costs 2.5 times standard on gpt-5.5 and 1.8 times on gpt-5-mini. [1]
- Cached input costs a tenth of the input rate on all 16 models that publish one. The four Pro models publish no cached rate. [1]
- A newer version can cost less. gpt-5.6-luna charges $0.20 input and $1.20 output against gpt-5-mini's $0.25 and $2.00. [1]
- Input price alone can mislead. gpt-5.6-terra costs more than gpt-5.2 on input and less on output, so it's the cheaper of the two whenever a prompt is under eight times the length of its reply. [1]
- Seven models publish a long-context rate, at twice the standard input price and 1.5 times the output price. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Every figure comes from OpenAI's API pricing documentation at developers.openai.com, captured at 21:12 AEST on 28 September 2026 with every "All models" toggle open. [1] The ranking covers every GPT-5 family model's API price per million tokens from OpenAI's pricing pages, checked 28 September 2026, ordered by input price.

The ranked field is OpenAI's standard short-context **Input** price, in dollars per 1M tokens, cheapest first. A model qualifies when its API name begins with gpt-5. With its toggle open, the standard Flagship table lists 39 text models, and 16 of them are GPT-5 models. [1] The Cyber table adds gpt-5.6-cyber and gpt-5.5-cyber. Its third row, gpt-5.6-sol, repeats the Flagship price and is counted once. [1] The Specialized table adds gpt-5.3-codex and gpt-5-search-api. [1] That gives 20 models.

Left out: the three GPT-6 models, chat-latest (which OpenAI doesn't tie to a version number), and the two gpt-daybreak aliases, which point to gpt-5.6-sol and gpt-5.6-cyber. [1] No image, audio or transcription model carries a GPT-5 name. Ties share a rank and keep OpenAI's page order. Figures appear exactly as OpenAI prints them, with a dash where OpenAI publishes no rate. OpenAI quotes every rate with a dollar sign, and the captured page names no currency code or tax treatment. The full research standard is on our [methodology](/methodology) page.

OpenAI's platform.openai.com pricing address, captured at 15:05 AEST the same day, shows only the three GPT-6 models in its Flagship tables until "All models" is opened. [2] The GPT-5 rows it does show by default, gpt-5.6-sol in the Cyber table and gpt-5.3-codex in the Specialized table, match the expanded capture. [2]

## What does each GPT-5 model cost per million tokens?

Glamdring Research ranked 20 GPT-5 models by standard input price on the OpenAI API, checked 28 September 2026. gpt-5-nano is cheapest at $0.05 input, $0.005 cached input and $0.40 output per million tokens. gpt-5.5-pro and gpt-5.4-pro share the top price at $30 input and $180 output, with no cached rate. [1] All figures are OpenAI's standard short-context rates.

| Rank | Model | Page section | Input ($ per 1M tokens) | Cached input ($ per 1M) | Output ($ per 1M) |
|---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | gpt-5-nano | Flagship | $0.05 | $0.005 | $0.40 |
| 2= | gpt-5.6-luna | Flagship | $0.20 | $0.02 | $1.20 |
| 2= | gpt-5.4-nano | Flagship | $0.20 | $0.02 | $1.25 |
| 4 | gpt-5-mini | Flagship | $0.25 | $0.025 | $2.00 |
| 5 | gpt-5.4-mini | Flagship | $0.75 | $0.075 | $4.50 |
| 6= | gpt-5.1 | Flagship | $1.25 | $0.125 | $10.00 |
| 6= | gpt-5 | Flagship | $1.25 | $0.125 | $10.00 |
| 6= | gpt-5-search-api | Specialized (Search) | $1.25 | $0.125 | $10.00 |
| 9= | gpt-5.2 | Flagship | $1.75 | $0.175 | $14.00 |
| 9= | gpt-5.3-codex | Specialized (Codex) | $1.75 | $0.175 | $14.00 |
| 11 | gpt-5.6-terra | Flagship | $2.00 | $0.20 | $12.00 |
| 12 | gpt-5.4 | Flagship | $2.50 | $0.25 | $15.00 |
| 13 | gpt-5.6-sol | Flagship (promotional) | $4.00 | $0.40 | $20.00 |
| 14 | gpt-5.5 | Flagship | $5.00 | $0.50 | $30.00 |
| 15= | gpt-5.6-cyber | Cyber | $12.50 | $1.25 | $75.00 |
| 15= | gpt-5.5-cyber | Cyber | $12.50 | $1.25 | $75.00 |
| 17 | gpt-5-pro | Flagship | $15.00 | - | $120.00 |
| 18 | gpt-5.2-pro | Flagship | $21.00 | - | $168.00 |
| 19= | gpt-5.5-pro | Flagship | $30.00 | - | $180.00 |
| 19= | gpt-5.4-pro | Flagship | $30.00 | - | $180.00 |

The output rate is where the generations part ways. Every gpt-5, gpt-5.1 and gpt-5.2 model charges eight times its input rate for output, Pro, mini and nano versions included. From gpt-5.4 onwards most models charge six times, and gpt-5.6-sol charges five. [1] A workload that writes long replies gains more from the newer models than the input column suggests.

Several rows share one price. gpt-5 and gpt-5.1 are identical, and gpt-5-search-api matches both. gpt-5.3-codex matches gpt-5.2 on every column. [1] gpt-5.6-sol carries a flag of its own: OpenAI says its promotional pricing "is available at least through November 21, 2026". [1]

## What do cached input and the Batch API cost for GPT-5 models?

Cached input costs 10% of the standard input rate on every GPT-5 model that lists one, and the Batch API halves input, cached input and output. On gpt-5, cached input drops from $1.25 to $0.125 per million tokens. In Batch it costs $0.625 input, $0.0625 cached input and $5.00 output. [1] OpenAI says Batch runs tasks asynchronously over 24 hours. [3]

| Model | Batch input ($ per 1M) | Batch cached input ($ per 1M) | Batch output ($ per 1M) | Flex |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| gpt-5-nano | $0.025 | $0.0025 | $0.20 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.6-luna | $0.10 | $0.01 | $0.60 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.4-nano | $0.10 | $0.01 | $0.625 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5-mini | $0.125 | $0.0125 | $1.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.4-mini | $0.375 | $0.0375 | $2.25 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.1 | $0.625 | $0.0625 | $5.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5 | $0.625 | $0.0625 | $5.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.2 | $0.875 | $0.0875 | $7.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.6-terra | $1.00 | $0.10 | $6.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.4 | $1.25 | $0.13 | $7.50 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.6-sol | $2.00 | $0.20 | $10.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.5 | $2.50 | $0.25 | $15.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5-pro | $7.50 | - | $60.00 | Not listed |
| gpt-5.2-pro | $10.50 | - | $84.00 | Not listed |
| gpt-5.5-pro | $15.00 | - | $90.00 | Same as Batch |
| gpt-5.4-pro | $15.00 | - | $90.00 | Same as Batch |

Four models have no Batch price. gpt-5.3-codex and gpt-5-search-api sit in a Specialized section that offers only Standard and Fast mode tabs, and the two Cyber models have a single price table. [1] OpenAI prints gpt-5.4's Batch cached rate as $0.13, a rounded half of its $0.25 standard rate. [1]

The GPT-5.6 models list a cache-write charge. It costs 1.25 times input, at $5.00 per million tokens on gpt-5.6-sol, $2.50 on gpt-5.6-terra and $0.25 on gpt-5.6-luna. gpt-5.6-cyber lists $15.625. [1] The other GPT-5 rows show a dash or have no cache-write column. On a workload that rebuilds its cache often, that write charge narrows the gap between a GPT-5.6 model and an older one.

## What do Flex processing and Fast mode cost?

Flex costs the same as Batch, half the standard rate, and Fast mode costs about double. Fast mode is the name OpenAI has used since 30 July 2026 for what it called priority processing. [1] On gpt-5, Flex charges $0.625 input and $5.00 output per million tokens, and Fast mode charges $2.50 and $20.00. [1] OpenAI says Flex gives "lower costs for requests in exchange for slower response times and occasional resource unavailability". [3]

| Model | Fast mode input ($ per 1M) | Fast mode cached input ($ per 1M) | Fast mode output ($ per 1M) | Multiple of standard |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| gpt-5.6-luna | $0.40 | $0.04 | $2.40 | 2 |
| gpt-5-mini | $0.45 | $0.045 | $3.60 | 1.8 |
| gpt-5.4-mini | $1.50 | $0.15 | $9.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5.1 | $2.50 | $0.25 | $20.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5 | $2.50 | $0.25 | $20.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5.2 | $3.50 | $0.35 | $28.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5.3-codex | $3.50 | $0.35 | $28.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5.6-terra | $4.00 | $0.40 | $24.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5.4 | $5.00 | $0.50 | $30.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5.6-sol | $8.00 | $0.80 | $40.00 | 2 |
| gpt-5.5 | $12.50 | $1.25 | $75.00 | 2.5 |

Nine GPT-5 models have no Fast mode price: gpt-5-nano, gpt-5.4-nano, the four Pro models, gpt-5-search-api and both Cyber models. [1] Flex leaves out gpt-5-pro, gpt-5.2-pro, the two Specialized models and the Cyber pair. [1] Requests select Fast mode with either `service_tier: "priority"` or `service_tier: "fast"`. [1]

The multiple column is our arithmetic on OpenAI's rates. gpt-5.5 is the outlier at 2.5 times, which puts its Fast mode output at $75 per million tokens, the same as the Cyber models' standard rate. [1] Microsoft's Azure price list shows the same doubled rates under the label "Priority Processing" for gpt-5.6-sol, at $8 input and $40 output, and the same $12.50 and $75 for gpt-5.5. [4]

## How much more does a long prompt cost?

A prompt over the long-context boundary costs twice the standard input rate and 1.5 times the output rate on the seven GPT-5 models that publish long-context prices. gpt-5.4 rises from $2.50 to $5.00 per million input tokens and from $15.00 to $22.50 output. [1] The other 13 GPT-5 models list a single rate with no long-context column.

| Model | Short-context input | Long-context input | Short-context output | Long-context output |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| gpt-5.6-luna | $0.20 | $0.40 | $1.20 | $1.80 |
| gpt-5.6-terra | $2.00 | $4.00 | $12.00 | $18.00 |
| gpt-5.4 | $2.50 | $5.00 | $15.00 | $22.50 |
| gpt-5.6-sol | $4.00 | $8.00 | $20.00 | $30.00 |
| gpt-5.5 | $5.00 | $10.00 | $30.00 | $45.00 |
| gpt-5.5-pro | $30.00 | $60.00 | $180.00 | $270.00 |
| gpt-5.4-pro | $30.00 | $60.00 | $180.00 | $270.00 |

Prices are dollars per 1M tokens at standard rates. Cached input and cache writes double too: gpt-5.6-sol's cached rate goes from $0.40 to $0.80 and its cache write from $5.00 to $10.00. [1] Fast mode publishes long-context rates only for the three GPT-5.6 models, and gpt-5.5-pro has no long-context Batch or Flex price. [1]

The developer page doesn't print the boundary beside the GPT-5 rows. OpenAI's business pricing page says its quoted pricing "reflects standard processing rates for context lengths under 272K", on a page that lists only GPT-6 models. [3] Microsoft labels its GPT-5.4 tiers "<272k context length" and ">272k context length". [4] Price Per Token's GPT-5 page uses a different cut-off and shows prices "for prompts ≤ 200k tokens". [5] Confirm the boundary with OpenAI before budgeting long-document work.

## What does one typical request cost on each model?

A request with a 10,000-token prompt and a 1,000-token reply costs $0.0225 on gpt-5 at standard rates, $0.0009 on gpt-5-nano and $0.48 on gpt-5.5-pro. That's Glamdring Research's arithmetic on OpenAI's rates, checked 28 September 2026: input tokens times the input rate, plus output tokens times the output rate, divided by one million. [1]

| Model | Standard, per 1,000 requests | Batch, per 1,000 requests | Fast mode, per 1,000 requests |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| gpt-5-nano | $0.90 | $0.45 | - |
| gpt-5.6-luna | $3.20 | $1.60 | $6.40 |
| gpt-5.4-nano | $3.25 | $1.625 | - |
| gpt-5-mini | $4.50 | $2.25 | $8.10 |
| gpt-5.4-mini | $12.00 | $6.00 | $24.00 |
| gpt-5 | $22.50 | $11.25 | $45.00 |
| gpt-5.2 | $31.50 | $15.75 | $63.00 |
| gpt-5.6-terra | $32.00 | $16.00 | $64.00 |
| gpt-5.4 | $40.00 | $20.00 | $80.00 |
| gpt-5.6-sol | $60.00 | $30.00 | $120.00 |
| gpt-5.5 | $80.00 | $40.00 | $200.00 |
| gpt-5-pro | $270.00 | $135.00 | - |
| gpt-5.5-pro | $480.00 | $240.00 | - |

The shape of the request changes the order. At 10,000 tokens in and 1,000 out, gpt-5.2 edges gpt-5.6-terra by 50 cents per 1,000 requests. Halve the prompt to 5,000 tokens and gpt-5.6-terra wins, at $22.00 against $22.75. The two cost the same when the prompt is exactly eight times the reply. [1] Run the sum on your own token counts before choosing between neighbouring rows.

Caching moves the bill further. If 8,000 of the 10,000 prompt tokens hit the cache on gpt-5, the request costs $13.50 per 1,000 instead of $22.50, a 40% cut. Run the same request through Batch and it falls to $6.75, because Batch prints its own cached rate of $0.0625. [1] On the GPT-5.6 models, the cache-write charge eats into that saving, and the price page doesn't say how often a write recurs.

Our [Claude API pricing ranking](/post/claude-api-pricing) prices the same 10,000-token request on Anthropic's models from Anthropic's page on the same date, so the two tables compare line by line. A production bill also carries retries, tool calls and review time. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) works through those.

## Why do other published GPT-5 prices disagree?

Most disagreement comes from rounding, reseller uplifts and model names absent from OpenAI's price page. Microsoft's Azure page lists gpt-5 cached input at $0.13 where OpenAI prints $0.125, and gpt-5.4-mini cached input at $0.08 where OpenAI prints $0.075. [4] [1] The base input and output rates match.

Azure's Data Zone deployments add 10%. gpt-5.6-sol costs $4 input on Azure Global and $4.40 in a Data Zone. [4] Azure also lists GPT-5 Codex, GPT-5 chat and GPT-5.1-codex-max at $1.25 input and $10 output. [4] None of those names appears on OpenAI's developer price page in our capture. Price Per Token's GPT-5 page agrees with OpenAI on gpt-5 itself, at $1.25 input and $10.00 output, and lists GPT-5 Codex and GPT-5 Chat beside it. [5] [1]

OpenAI's own pages are the third cause. Its business pricing page at openai.com lists GPT-6 Astra, Sol and Luna and no GPT-5 model. [3] The developer page's default view includes GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-5.6 Cyber and GPT-5.3 Codex. [2] Expanding "All models" exposes the rest of the GPT-5 family. [1]

## What changes are dated on OpenAI's price page?

Two dated notes touch GPT-5 prices. OpenAI renamed priority processing to Fast mode on 30 July 2026, and both service_tier values still work. [1] OpenAI also says gpt-5.6-sol's promotional pricing lasts at least through 21 November 2026, and it doesn't say what rate follows. [1] This is Glamdring's first capture of the page, so no earlier GPT-5 figures are compared here.

The bigger shift sits one family up. GPT-6 Sol lists at $2.00 input and $10.00 output, half the $4.00 and $20.00 that gpt-5.6-sol charges. GPT-6 Luna lists at $0.10 and $0.50 against gpt-5.6-luna's $0.20 and $1.20. [1] The decision changes when a GPT-6 model handles the same workload, because the per-token rate falls by half or more. The price page says nothing about whether it does.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

This ranking orders list prices. It says nothing about capability, speed or output quality. A cheaper rate doesn't guarantee a cheaper finished task, because a model that needs two attempts can cost more than a dearer one that succeeds first time.

Several charges sit outside the table. Regional processing endpoints add 10% for eligible models released on or after 5 March 2026, and the price page gives no release dates, so it doesn't settle which GPT-5 models carry that uplift. [1] FedRAMP endpoints add 10% over standard rates. [1] Web search costs $10.00 per 1,000 calls, plus search content tokens at the model's rates. [1] OpenAI models on Amazon Bedrock bill through AWS, at prices OpenAI says match its direct prices in commercial regions. [1]

The page lists Cyber model prices without stating who can buy them. It names no currency code and no tax treatment. These are OpenAI's published list rates, and enterprise terms such as Scale Tier and Reserved Capacity go through OpenAI's sales team. [3] New price checks across model infrastructure go out in our free [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much do 1,000 tokens cost on GPT-5?

On gpt-5, 1,000 input tokens cost $0.00125 and 1,000 output tokens cost $0.01 at standard rates. Divide any per-million price by 1,000 to get the per-1,000 figure. [1] Across the family, 1,000 input tokens run from $0.00005 on gpt-5-nano to $0.03 on gpt-5.5-pro and gpt-5.4-pro. [1]

### Is the OpenAI API free or paid?

Paid, per token. OpenAI bills Playground use the same way as regular API use. [3] The developer price page lists one free model, omni-moderation-latest. [1] You can set a monthly budget in billing settings, though OpenAI says enforcement may lag and you're responsible for any overage. [3]

### Does a $20 ChatGPT Plus plan include API access?

No. ChatGPT Plus lists at $20 a month. [6] OpenAI says its APIs are billed separately from ChatGPT Plus, Business, Enterprise and Edu. [3] A Plus subscriber who calls gpt-5 from code pays the per-token rates in the table above, billed apart from the subscription.

### How much does the ChatGPT API cost?

The model OpenAI files under "ChatGPT" on its API price page is chat-latest, at $5.00 input, $0.50 cached input and $30.00 output per million tokens. [1] The page doesn't say which model version chat-latest points to. For a fixed version, the GPT-5 models above run from $0.05 to $30 per million input tokens. [1]

## Source notes
1. Pricing | OpenAI API (every 'All models' toggle expanded): https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OpenAI API pricing (default view, toggles collapsed): https://platform.openai.com/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Business Pricing | OpenAI: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Azure OpenAI Service - Pricing: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/azure-openai/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. GPT 5 API Pricing 2026 - Costs, Performance & Providers: https://pricepertoken.com/pricing-page/model/openai-gpt-5 (checked September 28, 2026)
6. ChatGPT Pricing: https://chatgpt.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Groq competitors: gpt-oss-120b prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/groq-competitors
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: SambaNova lists the lowest gpt-oss-120b output figure, 0.59 USD per million tokens. Total-bill comparisons depend on input mix, currency and billing mode; Groq and Together AI have lower listed input figures, and Cerebras's self-serve rate is an exploration offer.

SambaNova lists the lowest output figure among the four quoted gpt-oss-120b price rows: 0.59 USD per million output tokens, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Groq lists $0.60, [2] Together AI also lists $0.60 [3] and Cerebras lists $0.75. [4] Fireworks AI's pricing landing page prints no per-token rate for the model, so it isn't ranked in this dated page comparison. [5] SambaNova's one-cent output advantage must be weighed against its higher input price.

## TL;DR

- Three of the four ranked providers sit within one cent of each other on the listed output price per million tokens. Cerebras is the outlier at $0.75, 25% above Groq's $0.60. [4] [2]
- On the listed numbers, SambaNova's output advantage does not guarantee a lower total. Its input price is 0.22 USD per million tokens against $0.15 at Groq and Together AI. [1] [2] [3] Assuming the same dollar currency and listed billing rates, SambaNova costs less only above seven output tokens per input token.
- Only Groq and Cerebras print speed figures beside their prices. Both are vendor claims, stated on each company's own terms. [2] [4]
- Cerebras ($5) and Fireworks AI ($1) state free starting credit on their pricing pages. The Groq, SambaNova and Together AI pages checked state none. [4] [5]
- Llama 3.3 70B no longer works as a shared yardstick. Groq lists it as an Enterprise model with a contact-sales price. [2]

## How this ranking was built

The ranking uses one field: the output price per 1M tokens that each provider prints for gpt-oss-120b, checked 28 September 2026. Lower ranks higher. Figures appear exactly as printed. SambaNova names the field **Output (per 1M tokens)** and labels its figures USD. [1] The other pages print a dollar sign without naming a currency, and none of the five states whether tax is included. Groq publishes per-token prices in the model table of its models documentation, so that table is Groq's source; [our Groq API pricing breakdown](/post/groq-api-pricing) covers its full rate card. [2]

This is a comparison of printed price numbers, not currency-converted invoices or matched production contracts. The worked bills below assume the listed dollar amounts use the same currency and billing mode. Confirm those terms before treating the arithmetic as an actual cost comparison.

Together's September capture also contains a “Batch API price” label. A separate check of its official model page on 1 October confirms the same $0.15 input and $0.60 output figures beside Serverless and Dedicated deployment options, rather than a batch-specific rate. [6] That later check clarifies the listing; it is not backdated as a September capture.

Row counts at each step:

1. **Five providers considered.** Cerebras and SambaNova appear in published chip comparisons against Groq. [7] Together AI and Fireworks AI appear in a published list of Groq alternatives. [8]
2. **Five pricing pages captured** on 28 September 2026.
3. **Two candidate shared models tested.** gpt-oss-120b carries a printed per-token price on four of the five pages. Llama 3.3 70B carries one on two.
4. **One exclusion.** Fireworks AI's pricing page sends readers to its documentation for serverless rates and prints none for gpt-oss-120b. [5]
5. **Four providers ranked.** Ties share a rank: Groq and Together AI both list $0.60.

Discounted tiers sit outside the rule. Groq's documentation lists Flex Processing and Batch Processing tiers; the ranking uses the standard model-table price. [2] Proprietary-model APIs that some lists name as Groq alternatives, such as OpenAI and Anthropic, fall outside it too, because the ranking compares one open model. [8] The general research standard is set out on [the methodology page](/methodology).

## Which Groq competitor lists the lowest gpt-oss-120b price?

Glamdring Research's check of four pricing pages ranks SambaNova first for gpt-oss-120b, at 0.59 USD per million output tokens, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Groq and Together AI tie second at $0.60. [2] [3] Cerebras is fourth at $0.75. [4] The spread from first to last is 16 cents per million output tokens.

| Rank | Provider | Model as listed | Output, $ per 1M tokens | Input, $ per 1M tokens | Listing status | Speed figure on page (vendor claim) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | SambaNova | gpt-oss-120b | 0.59 USD | 0.22 USD | Pricing table | None printed |
| 2= | Groq | openai/gpt-oss-120b | $0.60 | $0.15 | Production model | 500 tokens/s |
| 2= | Together AI | gpt-oss-120B | $0.60 | $0.15 | Serverless inference | None printed |
| 4 | Cerebras | GPT OSS 120B | $0.75 | $0.35 | Developer tier | ~3000 tokens/s |
| Not ranked | Fireworks AI | Not printed | Not printed | Not printed | Serverless; rates in documentation | None printed |

Sources: SambaNova [1], Groq [2], Together AI [3], Cerebras [4], Fireworks AI [5]. All checked 28 September 2026.

SambaNova undercuts Groq by one cent, about 1.7%. Together AI matches Groq on both input and output. Cerebras costs more on both fields.

Listing status changes how to read two rows. Groq lists gpt-oss-120b as a production model, with Developer-plan rate limits of 250K tokens per minute and 1K requests per minute. [2] Cerebras sells the model on its Developer tier, which it labels for exploration workloads. Production-ready capacity sits on its Enterprise tier, priced by quote. [4] Cerebras's $0.75 is a self-serve exploration price. A production buyer there would be comparing Groq's listed rate against an unpublished Enterprise quote.

## Does the lowest output price give the lowest bill?

No. Under the same-currency, listed-rate assumption, Groq and Together AI cost less than SambaNova when output tokens are fewer than seven times input tokens. SambaNova's listed input price is 0.22 USD per million tokens against $0.15. [1] [2] [3] The bills tie at seven output tokens per input token; above that ratio, SambaNova costs less. Cerebras's quoted exploration-tier rates are higher than Groq's in both directions. [4]

The break-even comes straight from the listed rates. SambaNova's bill equals Groq's when 0.07 × input tokens = 0.01 × output tokens, which is output at seven times input.

| Illustrative token mix | Groq | Together AI | SambaNova | Cerebras |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1M input + 1M output | $0.75 | $0.75 | $0.81 | $1.10 |
| 10M input + 1M output | $2.10 | $2.10 | $2.79 | $4.25 |
| 1M input + 10M output | $6.15 | $6.15 | $6.12 | $7.85 |

These mixes are computed from the listed prices. They aren't observed workloads. The second row represents a longer input and shorter output, where SambaNova's calculated total is roughly a third above Groq's. In the third row, SambaNova saves three cents in about six dollars.

Use one real workload to test the claim. Count a week of input and output tokens, then apply each provider's two prices. The ratio decides the order more than the output price does. [What controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) sets out the other levers, from caching to hardware.

## Why rank on gpt-oss-120b instead of Llama 3.3 70B?

Of the two shared models tested, gpt-oss-120b has a printed per-token price on four of the five pages; Llama 3.3 70B has one on two. Groq lists Llama 3.3 70B as an Enterprise model with "ContactSales" in its price column. [2] Cerebras's Developer tier lists gpt-oss 120b and gemma-4-31b, not Llama. [4] Fireworks AI's landing page prints no model inference rates. [5] That leaves SambaNova and Together AI as the two captured self-serve Llama 3.3 70B prices.

On that model the order flips. Together AI lists $1.04 per million tokens for both input and output. [3] SambaNova lists 0.60 USD input and 1.20 USD output. [1] A two-row ranking would put Together AI first, but it would leave Groq, the subject of the search, without a price.

Ranking one model keeps model size out of the comparison, so the remaining gap is the provider's price. It doesn't prove each provider serves identical weights at identical precision. None of the four ranked pages states the serving precision for gpt-oss-120b.

## Which Groq competitors publish speed claims?

Groq and Cerebras print speed figures on the pages checked; SambaNova, Together AI and Fireworks AI print none. Groq lists 500 tokens per second for gpt-oss-120b. [2] Cerebras lists "~3000 tokens/s" for GPT OSS 120B. [4] Both are vendor claims. Groq's table gives no test conditions. Cerebras's footer says its performance comparisons rest on third-party benchmarking or internal testing and may vary by workload, configuration, date and model. [4]

On paper, Cerebras claims six times Groq's speed for the same model, at a listed output price 25% higher. The pages can't settle whether that holds. Neither discloses prompt length, concurrency or the point at which throughput was read, and no independent measurement sits in the evidence behind this ranking.

Groq prints speed for its other models in the same table: 280 tokens per second for Llama 3.3 70B and 1000 for gpt-oss-20b. [2] Fireworks AI's page names Standard, Priority and Fast serverless tiers and offers enterprise deployments "with faster speeds", without a figure. [5]

The speed claims come from companies that design their own accelerators. Cerebras builds wafer-scale processors, SambaNova a reconfigurable dataflow unit and Groq its Language Processing Unit. [7] Together AI and Fireworks AI price NVIDIA GPU capacity by the hour on their pricing pages, such as an NVIDIA HGX H100 at $3.99 an hour on Together AI's GPU clusters [3] and an H100 80 GB GPU at $8.00 an hour for Fireworks AI on-demand deployments. [5] SambaNova designs its own chip but prints no speed on its pricing page. [1]

## Which Groq competitors offer a free tier?

Two of the four competitors state free starting credit on their pricing pages. Cerebras offers "free $5 credit to start" on its self-serve Developer tier. [4] Fireworks AI says "Get started with $1 in free credits." [5] SambaNova's and Together AI's pricing pages state no free credit, and nor does Groq's models page. On output charges alone, $5 divided by Cerebras's listed $0.75 yields about 6.7 million gpt-oss-120b output tokens; that illustration excludes input charges and does not establish credit eligibility or expiry.

Both providers publish paid usage billing alongside those starting credits. Cerebras describes its Developer tier as pay-as-you-go. [4] Fireworks AI bills serverless use per token, postpaid. [5] A starting credit is not evidence of a recurring free allowance.

Together AI lists one model, Ternary Bonsai 27B, at $0.00 per million tokens for input and output. [3] That's a zero-priced model, not account credit, and it isn't gpt-oss-120b. One published list of Groq alternatives says Together AI, Fireworks AI and Baseten give credits before payment. [8] Together AI's own pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, doesn't state that, so confirm it at sign-up. Groq's models page shows rate limits under a "Developer plan" label without stating a free allowance. [2]

## Why do other lists of Groq competitors disagree?

They define the competitor differently. CB Insights names chip companies, led by Hailo, Positron and Rebellions, as Groq's top competitors. [9] eesel's list names model APIs: OpenAI, Anthropic, Together AI, Perplexity AI and Anyscale. [8] Chipstrat, in October 2024, framed Groq as an Nvidia competitor that also competes with Google, AWS and Microsoft as cloud providers. [10] This ranking answers the API buyer's version: who sells the same open model by the token.

Prices drift as well. eesel's FAQ quotes Groq's Llama 3.1 8B Instant at $0.05 / $0.08. [8] Groq's models page, checked 28 September 2026, lists that model as Enterprise with "ContactSales" pricing. [2] eesel's Together AI figures for gpt-oss-120B, $0.15 / $0.60, match Together AI's own page. [3]

Speed statements diverge the same way. eesel says Groq "still leads on raw tokens-per-second". [8] Cerebras's own page prints ~3000 tokens/s for gpt-oss-120b against Groq's printed 500. [4] [2] Neither statement is an independent measurement.

This is the first edition of the ranking, so there's no earlier release to compare against.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking covers one listed price for one model on one date. It doesn't measure output quality, latency, uptime or rate limits under load, and it can't confirm that each provider serves gpt-oss-120b at the same precision. It excludes negotiated enterprise rates, Groq's Flex Processing and Batch Processing tiers [2] and any provider whose pricing page omits the price.

It doesn't carry across models either. On Qwen 3.8 27B, Cerebras lists $1.49 per million output tokens [4] against $4.00 for Groq's qwen/qwen3.8-27b, which Groq marks as a preview model. [2] That's the reverse of the gpt-oss-120b order.

The order changes when any ranked provider edits its gpt-oss-120b price row, or when Fireworks AI prints a rate on its pricing page. Confirm the current price on the provider's page before committing spend. More pricing and serving research sits in the [model infrastructure category](/categories/model-infrastructure), and new price checks go out in the [Glamdring email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### What are some free alternatives to Groq?

Cerebras and Fireworks AI state free starting credit on their pricing pages checked 28 September 2026: $5 at Cerebras and $1 at Fireworks AI. [4] [5] Both publish paid usage billing, but those starting-credit statements do not establish a recurring free tier or all credit conditions. Together AI lists Ternary Bonsai 27B at $0.00 per million tokens, which is a zero-priced different model rather than free gpt-oss-120b credit. [3]

### Is Cerebras faster than Groq?

Cerebras claims ~3000 tokens/s for gpt-oss-120b on its pricing page, and Groq claims 500 tokens per second for the same model. [4] [2] Both are vendor claims under conditions neither page fully discloses, so they don't support a measured verdict. The claimed speed comes with a higher listed output price: $0.75 at Cerebras against $0.60 at Groq.

### Can I still buy Llama 3.3 70B from Groq?

Groq lists llama-3.3-70b-versatile as an Enterprise model, with "ContactSales" in both its price and rate-limit columns, checked 28 September 2026. [2] Self-serve per-token prices for Llama 3.3 70B appear at Together AI, $1.04 for input and output, [3] and at SambaNova, 0.60 USD input and 1.20 USD output. [1]

## Source notes
1. SambaNova: https://cloud.sambanova.ai/plans/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Groq: https://console.groq.com/docs/models (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Cerebras: https://www.cerebras.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Fireworks AI: https://fireworks.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. gpt-oss-120b model page and deployment pricing: https://www.together.ai/models/gpt-oss-120b (checked October 1, 2026)
7. IntuitionLabs: https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/cerebras-vs-sambanova-vs-groq-ai-chips (checked October 1, 2026)
8. eesel AI: https://www.eesel.ai/blog/groq-alternatives (checked October 1, 2026)
9. CB Insights: https://www.cbinsights.com/company/groq/alternatives-competitors (checked October 1, 2026)
10. Chipstrat: https://www.chipstrat.com/p/groqs-business-model-part-3-competing (checked October 1, 2026)

# Groq vs Cerebras: price pages and speed claims, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/groq-vs-cerebras
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Groq lists GPT-OSS 120B at $0.15 input and $0.60 output per million tokens, against Cerebras's $0.35 and $0.75. Cerebras charges less on Qwen 3.8 27B below about 13.2 input tokens per output token. Its production capacity is quote-only.

Groq costs less per million tokens on GPT-OSS 120B: $0.15 for input and $0.60 for output, against $0.35 and $0.75 on Cerebras. [1] [2] On Qwen 3.8 27B, the only other model both companies price publicly, Cerebras costs less below about 13.2 input tokens per output token. Its output rate is $1.49 against Groq's $4.00. [1] [2] Cerebras claims more speed on both: about 3,000 tokens per second on GPT-OSS 120B against Groq's 500. [1] [2] Those speed figures are vendor claims, checked 28 September 2026.

## TL;DR

- **Groq publishes a production price for GPT-OSS 120B.** Cerebras's production capacity is quote-only. Its published exploration-tier rate is 71% higher at the 3:1 input-to-output mix used in its own comparison. [1] [2] [3]
- **Qwen 3.8 27B reverses the price answer.** Cerebras costs less unless a workload sends more than about 13.2 input tokens per output token. Groq lists the model as a preview for evaluation only. [1]
- **Cerebras claims 6 times Groq's speed on GPT-OSS 120B and about 4.1 times on Qwen 3.8 27B.** Both figures come from the companies' own pages. Cerebras says its performance comparisons rest on "third-party benchmarking or internal testing". [2]
- **Cerebras's public prices sit in a Developer tier for exploration workloads, with a free $5 credit.** Production capacity is quote-only. [2] Groq's page shows Developer plan rate limits but states no free-tier terms. [1]

## How these prices were checked

Glamdring Research compared each company's own page, captured on 28 September 2026. Groq's figures come from its GroqCloud **Supported Models** page, using the "Price per 1M tokens" and "Speed (T/sec)" columns. [1] Cerebras's figures come from the **Developer Tier Pricing** table on its pricing page, using the "Input", "Output" and "Speed" columns. [2] Both pages show prices with a dollar sign. Neither names a currency code or a tax treatment.

The inclusion rule was a text model with a public per-token price on both pages. Groq's page lists 13 models across its production and preview tables. Six of them are text models with a public per-token price. Cerebras's table prices two. Two models appear on both: GPT-OSS 120B and Qwen 3.8 27B. Groq lists Llama 3.1 8B and Llama 3.3 70B as Enterprise models priced through "Contact Sales", so they drop out. [1]

The blended rates below are our own arithmetic. They weight input three to one against output because that's the ratio Cerebras used when it compared its prices with Groq's. [3] The [research methodology](/methodology) sets out how Glamdring records and recomputes vendor figures, and the comparison sits within our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## Which is cheaper per million tokens on the models both host?

Groq is cheaper on GPT-OSS 120B at every token mix, and Cerebras is cheaper on Qwen 3.8 27B at an assumed 3:1 mix. On GPT-OSS 120B, Groq charges $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Cerebras charges $0.35 and $0.75. [1] [2] On Qwen 3.8 27B, Groq charges $0.80 and $4.00 while Cerebras charges $0.99 and $1.49. [1] [2] Both sets of prices were checked on 28 September 2026.

| Model | Groq input ($/1M) | Groq output ($/1M) | Cerebras input ($/1M) | Cerebras output ($/1M) | Groq blended 3:1 ($/1M) | Cerebras blended 3:1 ($/1M) | Groq model status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GPT-OSS 120B | $0.15 | $0.60 | $0.35 | $0.75 | $0.2625 | $0.45 | Production |
| Qwen 3.8 27B | $0.80 | $4.00 | $0.99 | $1.49 | $1.60 | $1.115 | Preview |

Prices as each page shows them, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Blended rates are computed: three parts input price plus one part output price, divided by four.

GPT-OSS 120B gives Cerebras no opening. Its input rate is 2.33 times Groq's and its output rate is 1.25 times Groq's, so no mix of tokens brings the two bills level. A job of 3 million input tokens and 1 million output tokens costs $1.05 on Groq and $1.80 on Cerebras.

Cerebras's own September 2025 comparison said it was "priced similarly to Groq or up to ~50% higher, assuming a 3:1 input : output token ratio". [3] At the rates both companies published on 28 September 2026, the GPT-OSS 120B gap at that ratio is 71%. The older statement predates the current price pages, so the current pages govern.

Groq also lists a smaller sibling, GPT-OSS 20B, at $0.075 input and $0.30 output with a claimed 1,000 tokens per second. [1] Cerebras's price table has no equivalent. A buyer who can accept the smaller model gets a lower rate on Groq with no Cerebras price to compare against.

## When does Cerebras cost less than Groq?

Cerebras costs less than Groq on Qwen 3.8 27B whenever a workload sends fewer than about 13.2 input tokens for each output token. Groq charges $0.80 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens. Cerebras charges $0.99 and $1.49. [1] [2] Cerebras's input premium is $0.19 per million. Groq's output premium is $2.51 per million. The bills meet where 0.19 times the input volume equals 2.51 times the output volume, which is 13.2 to 1.

At 3:1, Cerebras's blended rate is $1.115 per million tokens against Groq's $1.60, so Groq costs 43% more. At 20 input tokens per output token, Groq's blended rate is about $0.95 against Cerebras's $1.01. The cheaper endpoint depends on the workload's input-to-output ratio.

The status of each price matters as much as its size. Groq files Qwen 3.8 27B under preview models, which it says "are intended for evaluation purposes only and should not be used in production environments as they may be discontinued at short notice". [1] Cerebras labels its Developer tier "Exploration workloads" and reserves "Production-ready capacity" for its Enterprise tier, which is priced by quote. [2] Neither public Qwen 3.8 27B price is a production price.

The Cerebras page also disagrees with itself. Its tier table lists the Developer models as "gpt-oss 120b, gemma-4-31b", while its Developer price table lists GPT OSS 120B and Qwen 3.8 27B and gives no Gemma price. [2] Confirm Qwen 3.8 27B availability in the Cerebras console before planning on that rate. For the wider set of levers that move an inference bill, see our analysis of [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## Which claims more speed, Groq or Cerebras?

Cerebras claims more speed on both models the two companies price: about 3,000 tokens per second on GPT-OSS 120B against Groq's 500, and about 1,850 on Qwen 3.8 27B against Groq's 450. [1] [2] These are vendor claims from each company's own page, checked 28 September 2026. Taken at face value, Cerebras claims 6 times Groq's output speed on GPT-OSS 120B and about 4.1 times on Qwen 3.8 27B. Neither page publishes the prompt length, concurrency or region behind its figure.

| Model | Groq claimed speed (tokens/s) | Cerebras claimed speed (tokens/s) | Cerebras claim as multiple of Groq claim |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GPT-OSS 120B | 500 | ~3,000 | 6.0 |
| Qwen 3.8 27B | 450 | ~1,850 | 4.1 |

Vendor claims as published, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Multiples are computed.

At the claimed rates, a 1,000-token answer from GPT-OSS 120B streams in about 2 seconds on Groq and about a third of a second on Cerebras.

Cerebras qualifies its own numbers. Its pricing page says "Performance comparisons are based on third-party benchmarking or internal testing" and that observed speed "may vary depending on workload, configuration, date and models being tested". [2] Groq's models page gives no method for its speed column. [1]

Third-party figures point the same way but spread widely. Cerebras's September 2025 comparison cited Artificial Analysis at about 3,000 tokens per second for Cerebras and about 493 for Groq on GPT-OSS 120B. [3] The figure reaches us through Cerebras, and the original benchmark wasn't captured for this comparison. GMI Cloud, a GPU cloud company, put Groq at 476 tokens per second on the same model in May 2026. [4] Spheron, which rents GPUs, gave ranges of about 478 to 493 for Groq and about 1,700 to 3,000 for Cerebras in August 2026. [5] Every captured source puts Cerebras ahead on throughput. None of them measured both services under the same published conditions.

Throughput is also only one speed. GMI Cloud reports time to first token under 100 milliseconds on Groq and 80 to 150 milliseconds on Cerebras, without naming its test. [4] Neither company's captured page publishes a first-token figure. GMI Cloud treats voice assistants as the case where first-token time decides the choice. [4]

## Does Cerebras's speed claim change the cost answer?

Glamdring Research's reading is that the speed claim changes the cost answer only when time has a price. A per-token bill doesn't reward speed. A million output tokens on GPT-OSS 120B costs $0.60 on Groq and $0.75 on Cerebras however fast they arrive. [1] [2] Cerebras's claim of "up to a 6x price-performance advantage over Groq" folds its speed claim into the price comparison. [3]

Spheron reads the claim the same way. It says the claim is "about throughput per dollar spent generating tokens fast enough to matter for a workload, not about the sticker price per token being lower". [5] A team "paying purely by the token with no time pressure on the workload" sees none of the throughput advantage in its bill. [5] Where wall-clock time costs money, Spheron argues Cerebras "can come out ahead even at a higher price per token, because it finishes the job faster". [5] Its examples include an agent loop with a latency budget and a batch job that must finish in a set time. Work with no deadline sees only the per-token rate.

The decision changes when a team can put a number on a second of waiting. Without that number, the per-token rate decides, and on GPT-OSS 120B the per-token rate favours Groq. Use one real workflow to test the claim: run the same prompts through both APIs, then record the bill and the completion time side by side.

## What do the plans and free tiers include?

Cerebras publishes two tiers: a self-serve Developer tier for exploration with a free $5 credit, and an Enterprise tier priced by quote. [2] Groq's models page shows per-model rate limits under a Developer plan and routes some models to Enterprise pricing through sales. [1] The captured Groq page states no free-tier terms or starting credit.

| Plan detail | Groq (models page) | Cerebras (pricing page) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Self-serve tier | Developer plan; rate limits shown per model | Developer, "Exploration workloads"; self-serve pay-as-you-go |
| Starting credit | Not stated on the captured page | Free $5 credit to start |
| Published self-serve limits | GPT-OSS 120B and Qwen 3.8 27B: 250K tokens per minute, 1K requests per minute | Not published on the pricing page |
| Enterprise | Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 3.3 70B and MiniMax M2.7 priced via "Contact Sales" | "Contact us for a quote"; all preview and production models |
| Enterprise-only features | Not listed on the models page | Production-ready capacity; best priority, rate limits and latency; custom model weights; fine-tuning and training services |
| Developer support | Not stated on the captured page | Community Discord |
| Other service options | Documentation lists Performance Tier, Flex Processing and Batch Processing | Partner access through AWS Marketplace, OpenRouter, Hugging Face and Vercel |

Plan terms as each page showed them on 28 September 2026. [1] [2]

The two structures put the production line in different places. Groq publishes self-serve prices for its production models, including GPT-OSS 120B. [1] Cerebras publishes self-serve prices only for exploration, and every production price is a quote. [2] On the 28 September pages, a team that wants a production price without a sales call gets one from Groq.

Cerebras's tier structure has moved recently. In August 2026, Spheron described a Cerebras "Free Trial tier with $5 in credits" plus "a self-serve Developer tier starting at $10". [5] The 28 September page shows a single pay-as-you-go Developer tier with the $5 credit folded in. [2] Groq's Performance Tier, Flex Processing and Batch Processing pages appear in its documentation menu, but their terms weren't captured here. [1] Our [Groq API pricing breakdown](/post/groq-api-pricing) covers Groq's own price list on its own terms.

## What this comparison cannot tell you

The comparison can't tell you whether the same model name returns the same quality on both services. Cerebras's comparison says "most models running on Groq trade off accuracy for speed through quantization down to 8-bit precision" while Cerebras "supports 16-bit precision natively in hardware". [3] Cerebras is describing a rival there. Groq's captured page doesn't state precision. Test output quality on your own prompts before treating the two GPT-OSS 120B endpoints as interchangeable.

It can't tell you speed under load. Both speed columns give one figure per model. GMI Cloud says the gap against GPUs "is largest at low concurrency and smallest at high concurrency". [4] Spheron argues that above roughly 8 simultaneous requests, a rented H100 "produces more tokens per dollar than either Groq or Cerebras". [5] Both companies sell GPU capacity, and that assumption travels with their conclusions.

It can't tell you Enterprise prices. Groq's Llama models and every Cerebras production workload sit behind a quote. [1] [2] Confirm any production rate in a current quote.

The verdict changes if either company reprices GPT-OSS 120B, Groq moves Qwen 3.8 27B into production, Cerebras publishes production prices, or an independent benchmark measures both services under the same published conditions. [Glamdring's email briefing](/subscribe) carries the next check when these pages change.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Groq cheaper than Cerebras on Llama 3.3 70B?

Neither company's captured page shows a self-serve Llama 3.3 70B price on 28 September 2026. Groq lists it as an Enterprise model priced through "Contact Sales", with a claimed 280 tokens per second. [1] Cerebras's Developer price table doesn't list it. [2] Spheron's August 2026 comparison quoted $0.59 and $0.79 per million tokens for Groq against about $0.85 and $1.20 for Cerebras. It took the Cerebras rate from a third-party cost calculator. [5] Those figures no longer match either company's own page, so ask both for a quote.

### Can you fine-tune models on Groq or Cerebras?

Cerebras offers fine-tuning only in its Enterprise tier, which lists "Customize model weights" and "Fine-tuning and training services". [2] Groq's documentation includes a LoRA Inference page, but its terms weren't captured here. [1] Spheron reported in August 2026 that Groq "gates LoRA fine-tuning entirely behind its Enterprise tier and a sales request". [5] On either service, plan for a sales conversation before a fine-tuned model reaches production.

### Is Cerebras faster than Nvidia GPUs?

Cerebras says it is, and attributes its performance comparisons to "third-party benchmarking or internal testing". [2] The same page says speed improvements against GPU-based systems vary with workload, configuration, date and model. GMI Cloud reports that the gap is widest at low concurrency and narrows as concurrency rises. [4] Spheron puts the crossover at roughly 8 simultaneous requests, above which a rented H100 yields more tokens per dollar. [5] Both of those companies sell GPU capacity.

### Who competes with Cerebras?

Groq is the rival Cerebras chose for its own head-to-head comparison, published in September 2025. [3] Spheron names SambaNova's SN40L as "a third SRAM-and-dataflow-style challenger". [5]

## Source notes
1. Supported Models - GroqCloud: https://console.groq.com/docs/models (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Cerebras Inference Pricing: https://www.cerebras.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Cerebras CS-3 vs. Groq LPU: https://www.cerebras.ai/blog/cerebras-cs-3-vs-groq-lpu (checked October 1, 2026)
4. Fastest LLM Inference Platform Comparison: Groq vs Cerebras vs SambaNova vs GMI Cloud: https://www.gmicloud.ai/ja/blog/fastest-llm-platform-compare (checked October 1, 2026)
5. Groq vs Cerebras: Cheapest Inference Chip to Rent in 2026: https://www.spheron.network/blog/groq-lpu-vs-cerebras-wse-cheapest-inference-2026/ (checked October 1, 2026)

# LLM API pricing ranked: OpenRouter September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/llm-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Mistral's mistral-nemo has the lowest output price of any major-lab model on OpenRouter's list, at US$0.03 per million output tokens and US$0.019 input. Rank on output, then price your own input-to-output mix: the second-ranked listing costs more than the fifth on an input-heavy workload.

The cheapest LLM API from a major lab on OpenRouter's model list, checked 28 September 2026, is Mistral's `mistralai/mistral-nemo`: US$0.03 per million output tokens, with input at US$0.019 per million. [1] Second is `mistralai/ministral-8b-2512:batch` at US$0.075 for both. [1]

The ranking orders 318 paid listings from 13 labs by output price alone, so read the input column before you choose. It sits within our [model infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) research.

## TL;DR

- Mistral holds the top two places and 6 of the 22 listings priced at or under US$0.20 per million output tokens. OpenAI holds 5, Google and Alibaba Qwen 3 each, Meta 2, and Amazon, Cohere and Zhipu one each. [1]
- Anthropic, xAI, Moonshot AI, MiniMax and DeepSeek have nothing in that band. Anthropic's lowest output price is US$2.50, about 83 times the top of the list. [1]
- Output prices run from US$0.03 to US$600.00 per million tokens across the 318 listings. The top end is `openai/o1-pro`. [1]
- Output rank and bill rank part ways. On 10 million input and 2 million output tokens, the second-ranked listing costs US$0.90 and the fifth-ranked `openai/gpt-oss-20b` costs US$0.36. [1]
- Every figure is a listed price in US dollars, and the ranking adds no OpenRouter plan fee. Its pricing page lists 5.5% on Standard and 8% on Business. [2]

## How this ranking was built

This ranking orders the major labs' models by output price per million tokens from OpenRouter's model list, checked 28 September 2026, as the single source at full precision. [1] The source is OpenRouter's public model API, which needs no key. [1] Each listing carries two prices in US dollars per token: **pricing.completion** for output and **pricing.prompt** for input. [1] Glamdring Research multiplied both by 1,000,000 and changed nothing else, so a figure such as US$0.09375 stays as listed. [1]

The inclusion rule keeps paid listings from 13 labs: OpenAI, Mistral, DeepSeek, Meta, Alibaba Qwen, Amazon, Cohere, Google, Zhipu, MiniMax, Moonshot AI, Anthropic and xAI. That leaves 318 rows. [1] Free listings are out. OpenRouter's pricing page counts more than 25 free models on its Free plan, capped at 50 requests a day. [2] A listing with a `:batch` suffix is its own row with its own price, so it's ranked on its own. [1]

The sort is output price, lowest first. Where two listings share an output price, the lower input price goes first, then the model id in alphabetical order. Nothing was rounded, weighted or blended. [1] The [research standard](/methodology) behind single-source rankings is published separately.

## Which LLM APIs cost the least per million output tokens?

Mistral's `mistralai/mistral-nemo` costs the least, at US$0.03 per million output tokens and US$0.019 per million input tokens on OpenRouter's model list, checked 28 September 2026. [1] The 22 cheapest listings by output price all sit at or under US$0.20 per million, and they come from eight labs. [1]

| # | Model id | Lab | Output (US$ per million tokens) | Input (US$ per million tokens) | Context (tokens) |
|---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | `mistralai/mistral-nemo` | Mistral | 0.03 | 0.019 | 131,072 |
| 2 | `mistralai/ministral-8b-2512:batch` | Mistral | 0.075 | 0.075 | 262,144 |
| 3 | `meta-llama/llama-3.1-8b-instruct` | Meta | 0.08 | 0.05 | 131,072 |
| 4 | `mistralai/mistral-small-24b-instruct-2501` | Mistral | 0.08 | 0.05 | 32,768 |
| 5 | `openai/gpt-oss-20b` | OpenAI | 0.09 | 0.018 | 131,072 |
| 6 | `google/gemma-3-4b-it` | Google | 0.10 | 0.05 | 131,072 |
| 7 | `mistralai/ministral-3b-2512` | Mistral | 0.10 | 0.10 | 131,072 |
| 8 | `openai/gpt-oss-20b:batch` | OpenAI | 0.112 | 0.024 | 131,072 |
| 9 | `qwen/qwen3.7-flash` | Alibaba Qwen | 0.13 | 0.03 | 1,000,000 |
| 10 | `openai/gpt-oss-120b:batch` | OpenAI | 0.136 | 0.0296 | 131,072 |
| 11 | `amazon/nova-micro-v1` | Amazon | 0.14 | 0.035 | 128,000 |
| 12 | `cohere/command-r7b-12-2024` | Cohere | 0.15 | 0.0375 | 128,000 |
| 13 | `google/gemma-3-12b-it` | Google | 0.15 | 0.05 | 131,072 |
| 14 | `qwen/qwen3.5-9b` | Alibaba Qwen | 0.15 | 0.10 | 262,144 |
| 15 | `mistralai/ministral-8b-2512` | Mistral | 0.15 | 0.15 | 262,144 |
| 16 | `meta-llama/llama-guard-4-12b` | Meta | 0.18 | 0.18 | 163,840 |
| 17 | `openai/gpt-5-nano:batch` | OpenAI | 0.20 | 0.025 | 400,000 |
| 18 | `google/gemini-2.5-flash-lite:batch` | Google | 0.20 | 0.05 | 1,048,576 |
| 19 | `openai/gpt-4.1-nano:batch` | OpenAI | 0.20 | 0.05 | 1,047,576 |
| 20 | `z-ai/glm-5.3-flash:batch` | Zhipu | 0.20 | 0.06 | 1,048,576 |
| 21 | `qwen/qwen-2.5-7b-instruct` | Alibaba Qwen | 0.20 | 0.10 | 32,768 |
| 22 | `mistralai/ministral-14b-2512` | Mistral | 0.20 | 0.20 | 262,144 |

Every row comes from the same capture and the same two fields. [1] The 23rd listing is `meta-llama/llama-3.2-1b-instruct` at US$0.201, so the table stops at a clean US$0.20 line. [1]

Context windows in the top 22 run from 32,768 tokens to 1,048,576. `qwen/qwen3.7-flash`, ninth at US$0.13, is the cheapest listing by output price with a context window of a million tokens or more. [1] A reader who needs long documents in one request can start there.

Seven of the 22 are `:batch` listings, and a batch row isn't always the cheaper twin. [1] `mistralai/ministral-8b-2512:batch` charges US$0.075 against US$0.15 for the standard listing, and `openai/gpt-5-nano:batch` charges US$0.20 output against US$0.40. Both are half. [1] `openai/gpt-oss-20b:batch` runs the other way. Its US$0.112 output and US$0.024 input both sit above the standard listing's US$0.09 and US$0.018. [1] `deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:batch` is dearer than its standard listing too, at US$0.336 output against US$0.29. [1] The captured list doesn't say what the suffix changes in delivery, so treat each batch row as a separate product with a separate price.

## What is the cheapest model from each lab?

By output price, Mistral's cheapest listing is the cheapest of any lab at US$0.03 per million tokens and Anthropic's is the dearest at US$2.50, on OpenRouter's model list checked 28 September 2026. [1] Four labs have nothing below US$1.00 per million output tokens: MiniMax, xAI, Moonshot AI and Anthropic. [1]

| Lab | Cheapest listing by output price | Output (US$ per million tokens) | Input (US$ per million tokens) |
|---|---|---:|---:|
| Mistral | `mistralai/mistral-nemo` | 0.03 | 0.019 |
| Meta | `meta-llama/llama-3.1-8b-instruct` | 0.08 | 0.05 |
| OpenAI | `openai/gpt-oss-20b` | 0.09 | 0.018 |
| Google | `google/gemma-3-4b-it` | 0.10 | 0.05 |
| Alibaba Qwen | `qwen/qwen3.7-flash` | 0.13 | 0.03 |
| Amazon | `amazon/nova-micro-v1` | 0.14 | 0.035 |
| Cohere | `cohere/command-r7b-12-2024` | 0.15 | 0.0375 |
| Zhipu | `z-ai/glm-5.3-flash:batch` | 0.20 | 0.06 |
| DeepSeek | `deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash` | 0.28 | 0.14 |
| MiniMax | `minimax/minimax-m2.5` | 1.08 | 0.27 |
| xAI | `x-ai/grok-4.3:batch` | 2.00 | 1.00 |
| Moonshot AI | `moonshotai/kimi-k2.5` | 2.25 | 0.45 |
| Anthropic | `anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5:batch` | 2.50 | 0.50 |

The lab order shifts when the field changes. DeepSeek's `deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731` has the third-lowest input price of all 318 listings at US$0.021, but its output price is US$0.32. [1] DeepSeek's lowest output price belongs to `deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash`, at US$0.28 with US$0.14 input. [1] Meta flips the same way. `meta-llama/llama-3.2-1b-instruct` has Meta's lowest input price at US$0.027, while `meta-llama/llama-3.1-8b-instruct` has its lowest output price at US$0.08. [1]

xAI's two cheapest listings tie on both fields: `x-ai/grok-4.3:batch` and `x-ai/grok-build-0.1`, each at US$1.00 input and US$2.00 output. [1] MiniMax's cheapest output price, US$1.08 on `minimax/minimax-m2.5`, sits just under the US$1.10 of `minimax/minimax-01`, the MiniMax listing with the lowest input price. [1]

## How do you read a per-token price?

A per-token price is what one token costs. OpenRouter's model list states it in US dollars per token, separately for input, the tokens you send, and output, the tokens the model returns. [1] [3] Multiply by 1,000,000 to get the per-million figure used here. Then price a workload as input tokens times the input price, plus output tokens times the output price.

For `mistralai/mistral-nemo`, US$0.03 per million output tokens is US$0.00000003 per token. [1] TypingMind's pricing explainer puts a token at roughly three-quarters of an English word and counts prompts, uploaded documents and images as input. [3]

The table below prices one assumed workload: 10 million input tokens and 2 million output tokens. The five-to-one mix is an illustration chosen for this example, not a measured average. Every price comes from the same capture. [1]

| Listing | Output rank | Input cost (US$) | Output cost (US$) | Total (US$) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| `mistralai/mistral-nemo` | 1 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.25 |
| `mistralai/ministral-8b-2512:batch` | 2 | 0.75 | 0.15 | 0.90 |
| `meta-llama/llama-3.1-8b-instruct` | 3 | 0.50 | 0.16 | 0.66 |
| `openai/gpt-oss-20b` | 5 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.36 |
| `qwen/qwen3.7-flash` | 9 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.56 |
| `anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6` | below top 22 | 30.00 | 30.00 | 60.00 |
| `openai/o1-pro` | 318 | 1,500.00 | 1,200.00 | 2,700.00 |

`mistralai/mistral-nemo` stays cheapest on that mix. `openai/gpt-oss-20b` has the lower input price, US$0.018 against US$0.019, so it overtakes only when input tokens exceed 60 times output tokens. [1] The second-ranked listing falls behind four others because its US$0.075 input price is higher than any of theirs. [1] Take your ratio from your own request logs before relying on either order.

The per-million figure starts the estimate, and the invoice can differ. TypingMind's own estimator says prompt caching, batched calls, volume discounts, reasoning-token overhead and provider billing rules can move the final cost. [3] Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the cost drivers that sit underneath these prices.

## How far apart are input and output prices?

Output costs more than input on most listings, and the multiple runs from below one to more than 16 on OpenRouter's model list, checked 28 September 2026. [1] A low input price buys little when a model writes long answers, so the multiple tells you which column governs the bill.

Every Anthropic listing in the capture prices output at five times input. `anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5` is US$1.00 and US$5.00, `anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6` is US$3.00 and US$15.00, and `anthropic/claude-opus-5` is US$5.00 and US$25.00. [1] `openai/gpt-5` and `google/gemini-2.5-pro` both list US$1.25 input and US$10.00 output, eight to one. `google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview` is six to one at US$2.00 and US$12.00. [1]

At the flat end, Mistral's 2512 Ministral listings charge the same for both directions: US$0.10 for `mistralai/ministral-3b-2512`, US$0.15 for `mistralai/ministral-8b-2512` and US$0.20 for `mistralai/ministral-14b-2512`. `meta-llama/llama-3.1-70b-instruct` is flat at US$0.40. [1] `openai/gpt-5-image-mini` inverts the pattern, at US$2.50 input and US$2.00 output. [1] The widest gap among the listings named here is `deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro-0813`, at US$0.2523 input and US$4.20 output, more than 16 to one. [1]

TypingMind's explanation for the usual gap is compute. It says each generated token needs its own forward pass, while input tokens are processed in parallel. [3] That is a general account, and OpenRouter's list doesn't give a reason for any single price.

## Why do other published LLM prices disagree?

Published LLM prices disagree for three reasons: they come from different hosts, they were checked on different dates, and some quote input price alone. Where host, date and model match, the figures can agree exactly. Holori lists Claude Sonnet 4.6 on AWS Bedrock at $3.00 input and $15.00 output per million tokens, the same as OpenRouter's `anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.6`. [4] [1]

Host changes the number. TypingMind lists GLM-5.2 through Alibaba (China) at $1.10 input and $3.85 output, while OpenRouter lists `z-ai/glm-5.2` at US$0.6496 and US$2.0416. [3] [1] The same TypingMind page puts Kimi K3 at $2.83 and $14.13, against US$3.00 and US$15.00 for `moonshotai/kimi-k3` on OpenRouter. [3] [1] The gap is small for Qwen3.7 Flash: $0.0296 and $0.1185 at TypingMind, US$0.03 and US$0.13 on OpenRouter. [3] [1]

Date and naming change it again. Guzli's January 2026 table puts DeepSeek V3 at $0.27 input and $1.10 output. [5] None of the DeepSeek listings in the September capture is called simply V3. The capture carries `deepseek/deepseek-chat` at US$0.2574 and US$1.0287, `deepseek/deepseek-chat-v3-0324` at US$0.29 and US$1.14, and `deepseek/deepseek-chat-v3.1` at US$0.25 and US$0.95. [1] A reader matching that name to a price has three candidates and documents from January and September.

The field matters most. llm-stats names Nova 2 Lite the most affordable Bedrock model at $0.300 per million input tokens. [6] OpenRouter lists `amazon/nova-2-lite-v1` at the same US$0.30 input, with output at US$2.50, a figure a ranking on input never shows. [1] Compare host, checked date and field before two prices go side by side.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

OpenRouter lists `mistralai/mistral-nemo` at US$0.03 per million output tokens. That is a listed price, not a measured bill. [1] The ranking says nothing about output quality, speed, uptime or rate limits. OpenRouter's pricing page describes rate limits on its Standard plan as passthrough from the providers. [2]

Fees sit outside the ranked field. OpenRouter's pricing page lists a 5.5% platform fee on Standard, 8% on Business and discounts on Enterprise. Bring-your-own-key use on Standard and Business carries no fee on the first US$25,000 of list-price inference a month and 5% after. [2] That page also poses its own question about whether VAT or GST is included, but the answer wasn't in the capture, so the tax status of these prices is unconfirmed. [2] Plan fees are covered in our [OpenRouter pricing](/post/openrouter-pricing) research.

Two more limits matter when the numbers travel. The captured fields hold one input price and one output price per listing, so cached-input rates don't appear. Holori lists a separate cached-input price of $0.300 per million for Claude Sonnet 4.6 on Bedrock. [4] And these are OpenRouter's prices. The labs' own price pages weren't part of this check, so confirm a direct contract against the lab's current quote.

This is Glamdring Research's first capture of the list, so nothing here shows a price moving. The ranking changes when OpenRouter's list does. The next capture will carry a change note and its sources: subscribe to the [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Which LLM has the cheapest API?

On OpenRouter's model list checked 28 September 2026, Mistral's `mistralai/mistral-nemo` has the lowest output price of any major-lab listing, US$0.03 per million tokens, with input at US$0.019. [1] On input price alone, `openai/gpt-oss-20b` is lowest at US$0.018, with output at US$0.09. [1] Which is cheaper for a given job depends on its mix. `openai/gpt-oss-20b` costs less only when input tokens exceed 60 times output tokens.

### How much is 1 million tokens in LLM?

Across 318 paid major-lab listings on OpenRouter, checked 28 September 2026, a million output tokens cost from US$0.03 to US$600.00 and a million input tokens from US$0.018 to US$150.00. [1] Both ends of the input range and the top of the output range belong to OpenAI: `openai/gpt-oss-20b` at the bottom of input and `openai/o1-pro` at the top of both. [1] On TypingMind's rule of three-quarters of a word per token, a million tokens is roughly 750,000 English words. [3]

### How much does LLM cost?

An LLM API bill is input tokens times the input price plus output tokens times the output price, plus any platform fee. On an assumed 10 million input and 2 million output tokens, the 318 listings checked on 28 September 2026 run from US$0.25 for `mistralai/mistral-nemo` to US$2,700.00 for `openai/o1-pro`. [1] OpenRouter's pricing page lists a 5.5% platform fee on its Standard plan. [2]

### How much does ChatGPT API cost?

None of the 318 listings checked on 28 September 2026 is named ChatGPT. The OpenAI listings run from `openai/gpt-oss-20b` at US$0.018 input and US$0.09 output to `openai/o1-pro` at US$150.00 and US$600.00 per million tokens. [1] The listing `openai/gpt-chat-latest` is US$5.00 input and US$30.00 output. [1] These are OpenRouter's prices. OpenAI's own price page wasn't part of this check, so confirm a direct contract against it.

## Source notes
1. OpenRouter model list (public API), prices per token: https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/models (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OpenRouter pricing page: https://openrouter.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Alibaba (China) Qwen-MT Plus API Pricing Calculator: https://custom.typingmind.com/tools/estimate-llm-usage-costs/alibaba-cn/qwen-mt-plus (checked October 1, 2026)
4. Global.anthropic.claude Sonnet 4 6 Pricing - bedrock: https://calculator.holori.com/llm/bedrock/global.anthropic.claude-sonnet-4-6 (checked October 1, 2026)
5. Cheapest AI APIs 2026 | Budget-Friendly LLM Options: https://guzli.com/learn/ai-assistants/cheapest-ai-api/ (checked October 1, 2026)
6. Bedrock: API Pricing, Performance & Model Catalog: https://llm-stats.com/providers/bedrock (checked October 1, 2026)

# Modal GPU pricing: Modal rates, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/modal-gpu-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Modal lists H100 SXM5 at about US$3.95 per GPU-hour. Compare the full workload bill: CPU, memory, plan fees and execution options are separate cost inputs.

Modal lists the H100 SXM5 at $0.001097 per GPU-second, about US$3.95 per GPU-hour, on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Its listed GPUs range from about US$0.59 per hour for a T4 to US$7.10 for a B300. [1] CPU, memory and any monthly plan fee are separate charges. [1]

## TL;DR

- The hourly GPU figures are equivalents of Modal's per-second rates. Use them to compare prices, then estimate spending from billable GPU time. [1]
- Starter has no monthly plan fee and includes US$30 of compute per month. Team costs US$250 per month plus compute and includes US$100 of compute. [1]
- Sandbox and Notebooks use higher CPU and memory rates than standard compute; their GPU pricing points to the standard GPU tariff. [1]
- Modal lists region selection at 1.15 - 1.75x base prices and non-preemptible execution at 3x base prices. [1]

## How were Modal's hourly rates calculated?

Modal's hourly GPU equivalents are its published per-second rates multiplied by 3,600, using the pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] GPU-hour figures are rounded to two decimal places; CPU and memory conversions retain their full decimal values. [1]

The comparison retains Modal's quoted dollar figures without currency conversion or added tax. Its original parent table uses a USD, before-tax convention, but the captured pricing page does not establish those billing terms; treat them as assumptions and confirm them for your account. GPU rows retain Modal's order and names, with both A100 memory sizes kept separate. [1] Standard compute and Sandbox/Notebooks CPU and memory tariffs also remain separate. [1] The [research methodology](/methodology) explains the evidence standard.

## What does each Modal GPU cost per second and per hour?

Modal's listed GPU rates run from $0.000164 per second for the T4 to $0.001972 per second for the B300, equivalent to about US$0.59-US$7.10 per GPU-hour. [1]

Base list rates, checked 28 September 2026; quoted dollar figures unchanged. Hourly figures are calculated equivalents, rounded to cents. [1]

| GPU | USD per GPU-second | Approx. USD per GPU-hour |
|---|---:|---:|
| Nvidia B300 | $0.001972 | $7.10 [1] |
| Nvidia B200 | $0.001736 | $6.25 [1] |
| Nvidia H200 SXM | $0.001261 | $4.54 [1] |
| Nvidia H100 SXM5 | $0.001097 | $3.95 [1] |
| Nvidia RTX PRO 6000 | $0.000842 | $3.03 [1] |
| Nvidia A100, 80 GB | $0.000694 | $2.50 [1] |
| Nvidia A100, 40 GB | $0.000583 | $2.10 [1] |
| Nvidia L40S | $0.000542 | $1.95 [1] |
| Nvidia A10 | $0.000306 | $1.10 [1] |
| Nvidia L4 | $0.000222 | $0.80 [1] |
| Nvidia T4 | $0.000164 | $0.59 [1] |

For an H100 SXM5, the unrounded conversion is $0.001097 × 3,600 = US$3.9492 per GPU-hour. [1] The US$3.95 figure describes the GPU charge alone; CPU and memory have their own rates. [1]

Explore the [compute infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure) for related cost questions.

## What do Modal's plans cost?

Modal's Starter plan has a US$0 monthly fee with US$30 of included compute; Team has a US$250 monthly fee with US$100 of included compute; Enterprise pricing and included compute are custom. [1]

Plan terms checked 28 September 2026; quoted dollar figures unchanged. [1]

| Plan | Monthly plan fee, plus compute | Included compute per month | Workspace seats | GPU concurrency |
|---|---:|---:|---|---|
| Starter | $0 | $30 | Up to 3 | 10 [1] |
| Team | $250 | $100 | Unlimited | 50 [1] |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | Unlimited | Custom [1] |

Treat the Team fee and compute allowance as separate entries in a budget: the listed US$100 allowance applies to compute alongside the US$250 plan fee. [1] Starter and Team also differ in scale limits: Modal lists 100 containers for Starter and 5,000 for Team. [1] Enterprise lists volume-based discounts with custom pricing. [1]

## How much do CPU and memory cost on Modal?

Modal lists standard CPU at $0.0000131 per physical core-second and memory at $0.00000222 per GiB-second; Sandbox and Notebooks have separate, higher rates. [1] Those rates belong alongside GPU time in a workload estimate. [1]

Resource rates checked 28 September 2026; quoted dollar figures unchanged. [1]

| Compute tariff | Resource unit | USD per unit-second | Calculated USD per unit-hour |
|---|---|---:|---:|
| Standard | Physical CPU core | $0.0000131 | $0.04716 [1] |
| Standard | GiB of memory | $0.00000222 | $0.007992 [1] |
| Sandbox + Notebooks | Physical CPU core | $0.00003942 | $0.141912 [1] |
| Sandbox + Notebooks | GiB of memory | $0.00000667 | $0.024012 [1] |

Modal defines a physical core as equivalent to two vCPUs and lists a minimum of 0.125 cores per container for both tariffs. [1] Keep the physical-core unit when comparing CPU prices. The listed memory unit is GiB, so preserve that unit too. [1]

The Sandbox and Notebooks GPU entry refers back to standard GPU pricing. [1] Use the Sandbox and Notebooks tariff for CPU and memory alongside the standard GPU rate.

## Which charges can raise the base price?

Modal lists region selection at 1.15 - 1.75x base prices and non-preemptible execution at 3x base prices across its plans. [1] Check the execution options before using a base GPU rate in a budget.

Storage has a separate billing unit: Modal lists Volumes at US$0.09 per GiB per month, with 1 TiB per month included free. [1] A monthly storage rate belongs in a separate budget line from hourly compute.

For alternatives, compare [H100 rental prices by provider](/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider) or [B200 rental prices by provider](/post/b200-rental-price-by-provider). Keep the GPU variant, billable duration and additional resource charges consistent in the comparison.

## What do hourly GPU rates leave out?

Glamdring Research's conclusion is to compare the whole workload bill: Modal's GPU-hour equivalent leaves CPU, memory, storage and plan fees to be added separately. [1] The listed execution multipliers can also change the base-price estimate. [1]

Modal's billing FAQ, checked 1 October 2026, says billable container time includes application loading, input processing and a configurable keep-alive period after processing. [1] It also says CPU and memory charges use whichever is higher: the amount requested or the amount consumed. [1] Use billable container time and metered resources in the estimate, including time outside the main GPU calculation.

A GPU price table alone cannot establish cost per completed job when CPU, memory and other charges are separate inputs. [1] Compare a representative workload's duration and resource use before drawing a total-cost conclusion.

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does A100 cost per hour?

On Modal's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, the A100 40 GB is $0.000583 per second, about US$2.10 per GPU-hour. [1] The A100 80 GB is $0.000694 per second, about US$2.50 per GPU-hour. [1] Use the rate for the requested memory size and account for CPU and memory charges separately. [1]

### Do I need to buy credits before using Modal?

No. [1] Modal's pricing FAQ, checked 1 October 2026, says Starter and Team usage is pay-as-you-go and does not require pre-purchasing compute or tokens. [1] The monthly included compute is an allowance; paid usage can still accrue under those plans. [1]

## Source notes
1. Pricing as magical as our product: GPU Tasks: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenAI API pricing: OpenAI price page, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openai-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: gpt-5-nano has the lowest listed input price at $0.05 per million tokens; o1-pro has the highest at $150. Rates come from OpenAI's expanded pricing tables, checked 28 September 2026.

OpenAI's cheapest API language model is gpt-5-nano, at $0.05 per million input tokens, $0.005 for cached input and $0.40 for output, on OpenAI's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The most expensive is o1-pro, at $150.00 input and $600.00 output. [1] The current GPT-6 line sits between them: Luna at $0.10, Sol at $2.00 and Astra at $10.00 per million input tokens. [2]

Output tokens and cache hits change the bill alongside the input rate.

## TL;DR

- Output drives text bills. On every GPT-5 and GPT-6 row, output costs five to eight times the input rate. [1]
- Cached input costs a tenth of the input rate on every GPT-5 and GPT-6 model that lists one. On gpt-4.1 and o3 it's a quarter, and on gpt-4o and o1 it's half. Pro models list no cached rate. [1]
- Batch usually halves input and output; gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 carries no discount. Flex matches Batch input and output rates. Fast mode costs 1.67 to 2.5 times Standard. [1]
- Long prompts cost more. On the ten models with long-context rates, input doubles and output rises by half. [1]
- On price alone, GPT-6 Sol costs half of GPT-5.6 Sol's promotional rate, and GPT-6 Luna costs half or less of GPT-5.6 Luna. [1]
- Audio, image and embedding models use other units: realtime audio from $10.00 per million input tokens, transcription from $0.003 a minute and embeddings from $0.02 per million tokens. [1]

## How this ranking was built

This page lists every OpenAI API language model's input, cached input and output price per million tokens from OpenAI's pricing pages, checked 28 September 2026, ordered by input price. The ranked field is OpenAI's **Input** column: Standard processing, short context, per 1M tokens, from the API docs pricing page captured with every "All models" list expanded. [1] It belongs to our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure).

1. Take every row with a per-token input price for a text model from four tables: Flagship models (10 rows), its expanded All models list (29 rows), Cyber models (3 rows) and Specialized models (8 rows). [1]
2. Merge gpt-5.6-sol, which appears in both the Flagship and Cyber tables at identical rates. The Cyber table adds 2 rows, for 41. [1]
3. Move the three embedding models and omni-moderation-latest to their own section. The Specialized table adds 4 rows, for 45.
4. Sort by input price, lowest first. Ties go to the lower output price, then to the model ID.

Two other OpenAI captures from the same day, openai.com/api/pricing and platform.openai.com/docs/pricing, show the same GPT-6 rates. [2] [3] OpenAI prints every rate with a dollar sign and states no currency code or tax treatment on these pages. [1] These are OpenAI's listed prices: company statements, not measured bills. Our [research standard](/methodology) explains how Glamdring treats company figures.

## What does each OpenAI model cost per million tokens?

OpenAI lists 45 API language models, with input prices from $0.05 per million tokens for gpt-5-nano to $150.00 for o1-pro, on its pricing page checked 28 September 2026. Output runs from $0.40 to $600.00. The table gives Standard short-context rates and OpenAI's Batch rates per 1M tokens. A dash means OpenAI lists no rate. [1]

| Rank | Model | OpenAI section | Input ($/1M) | Cached input ($/1M) | Output ($/1M) | Batch input ($/1M) | Batch output ($/1M) |
|---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | gpt-5-nano | All models | $0.05 | $0.005 | $0.40 | $0.025 | $0.20 |
| 2 | gpt-4.1-nano | All models | $0.10 | $0.025 | $0.40 | $0.05 | $0.20 |
| 3 | gpt-6-luna | Flagship | $0.10 | $0.01 | $0.50 | $0.05 | $0.25 |
| 4 | gpt-4o-mini | All models | $0.15 | $0.075 | $0.60 | $0.075 | $0.30 |
| 5 | gpt-5.6-luna | Flagship | $0.20 | $0.02 | $1.20 | $0.10 | $0.60 |
| 6 | gpt-5.4-nano | All models | $0.20 | $0.02 | $1.25 | $0.10 | $0.625 |
| 7 | gpt-5-mini | All models | $0.25 | $0.025 | $2.00 | $0.125 | $1.00 |
| 8 | babbage-002 | All models | $0.40 | - | $0.40 | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| 9 | gpt-4.1-mini | All models | $0.40 | $0.10 | $1.60 | $0.20 | $0.80 |
| 10 | gpt-3.5-turbo | All models | $0.50 | - | $1.50 | - | - |
| 11 | gpt-3.5-turbo-0125 | All models | $0.50 | - | $1.50 | $0.25 | $0.75 |
| 12 | gpt-5.4-mini | All models | $0.75 | $0.075 | $4.50 | $0.375 | $2.25 |
| 13 | gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 | All models | $1.00 | - | $2.00 | $1.00 | $2.00 |
| 14 | o3-mini | All models | $1.10 | $0.55 | $4.40 | $0.55 | $2.20 |
| 15 | o4-mini | All models | $1.10 | $0.275 | $4.40 | $0.55 | $2.20 |
| 16 | gpt-5 | All models | $1.25 | $0.125 | $10.00 | $0.625 | $5.00 |
| 17 | gpt-5-search-api | Specialized | $1.25 | $0.125 | $10.00 | - | - |
| 18 | gpt-5.1 | All models | $1.25 | $0.125 | $10.00 | $0.625 | $5.00 |
| 19 | gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct | All models | $1.50 | - | $2.00 | - | - |
| 20 | gpt-5.2 | All models | $1.75 | $0.175 | $14.00 | $0.875 | $7.00 |
| 21 | gpt-5.3-codex | Specialized | $1.75 | $0.175 | $14.00 | - | - |
| 22 | davinci-002 | All models | $2.00 | - | $2.00 | $1.00 | $1.00 |
| 23 | gpt-4.1 | All models | $2.00 | $0.50 | $8.00 | $1.00 | $4.00 |
| 24 | o3 | All models | $2.00 | $0.50 | $8.00 | $1.00 | $4.00 |
| 25 | gpt-6-sol | Flagship | $2.00 | $0.20 | $10.00 | $1.00 | $5.00 |
| 26 | gpt-5.6-terra | Flagship | $2.00 | $0.20 | $12.00 | $1.00 | $6.00 |
| 27 | gpt-4o | All models | $2.50 | $1.25 | $10.00 | $1.25 | $5.00 |
| 28 | gpt-5.4 | Flagship | $2.50 | $0.25 | $15.00 | $1.25 | $7.50 |
| 29 | gpt-5.6-sol | Flagship | $4.00 | $0.40 | $20.00 | $2.00 | $10.00 |
| 30 | gpt-4o-2024-05-13 | All models | $5.00 | - | $15.00 | $2.50 | $7.50 |
| 31 | gpt-rosalind-research | Specialized | $5.00 | $0.50 | $25.00 | - | - |
| 32 | chat-latest | Specialized | $5.00 | $0.50 | $30.00 | - | - |
| 33 | gpt-5.5 | Flagship | $5.00 | $0.50 | $30.00 | $2.50 | $15.00 |
| 34 | gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09 | All models | $10.00 | - | $30.00 | $5.00 | $15.00 |
| 35 | gpt-6-astra | Flagship | $10.00 | $1.00 | $50.00 | $5.00 | $25.00 |
| 36 | gpt-5.5-cyber | Cyber | $12.50 | $1.25 | $75.00 | - | - |
| 37 | gpt-5.6-cyber | Cyber | $12.50 | $1.25 | $75.00 | - | - |
| 38 | o1 | All models | $15.00 | $7.50 | $60.00 | $7.50 | $30.00 |
| 39 | gpt-5-pro | All models | $15.00 | - | $120.00 | $7.50 | $60.00 |
| 40 | o3-pro | All models | $20.00 | - | $80.00 | $10.00 | $40.00 |
| 41 | gpt-5.2-pro | All models | $21.00 | - | $168.00 | $10.50 | $84.00 |
| 42 | gpt-4-0613 | All models | $30.00 | - | $60.00 | $15.00 | $30.00 |
| 43 | gpt-5.4-pro | Flagship | $30.00 | - | $180.00 | $15.00 | $90.00 |
| 44 | gpt-5.5-pro | Flagship | $30.00 | - | $180.00 | $15.00 | $90.00 |
| 45 | o1-pro | All models | $150.00 | - | $600.00 | $75.00 | $300.00 |

Four rows carry conditions. gpt-5.6-sol's $4.00 and $20.00 are promotional, and OpenAI says that pricing is available at least through November 21, 2026. [1] Billing for gpt-rosalind-research begins on October 5, 2026, and access is limited to approved research through OpenAI's trusted-access program. [1] The two cyber models belong to OpenAI's Daybreak program, whose aliases gpt-daybreak-blue-latest and gpt-daybreak-red-latest currently point to gpt-5.6-sol and gpt-5.6-cyber and take the underlying model's price. [1]

The input order hides how far output spreads. gpt-5-nano, gpt-4.1-nano and babbage-002 all charge $0.40 per million output tokens, while gpt-6-luna, at rank 3, charges $0.50. [1] Further up, gpt-6-sol and gpt-4.1 share a $2.00 input rate, but gpt-6-sol's output costs $10.00 against gpt-4.1's $8.00. [1] A workload that writes more than it reads should be sorted by the output column, not the rank.

## What do OpenAI's latest models cost, and when do long prompts cost more?

GPT-6 Sol and Luna have lower list prices than their GPT-5.6 counterparts. GPT-6 Sol costs $2.00 input and $10.00 output per million tokens, half of GPT-5.6 Sol's promotional $4.00 and $20.00. GPT-6 Luna's $0.10 and $0.50 is half of GPT-5.6 Luna's input and less than half of its output. GPT-6 Astra, at $10.00 and $50.00, costs twice GPT-5.5's input. These are short-context rates. For long-context requests, all ten models in OpenAI's flagship table double their input price and raise output by half. [1]

OpenAI describes Astra as "built for the hardest end-to-end work", Sol as built for "complex coding and agentic workflows" and Luna as its "most efficient model for focused, high-volume tasks". [2] Those are OpenAI's descriptions. This page compares price, not capability.

OpenAI's product page says its GPT-6 prices reflect standard processing for context lengths under 272K. [2] The docs page prints the long-context rates beside the short-context ones:

| Model | Cache writes, short ($/1M) | Long-context input ($/1M) | Long-context cached input ($/1M) | Long-context output ($/1M) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| gpt-6-astra | $12.50 | $20.00 | $2.00 | $75.00 |
| gpt-6-sol | $2.50 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $15.00 |
| gpt-6-luna | $0.125 | $0.20 | $0.02 | $0.75 |
| gpt-5.6-sol | $5.00 | $8.00 | $0.80 | $30.00 |
| gpt-5.6-terra | $2.50 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $18.00 |
| gpt-5.6-luna | $0.25 | $0.40 | $0.04 | $1.80 |
| gpt-5.5 | - | $10.00 | $1.00 | $45.00 |
| gpt-5.5-pro | - | $60.00 | - | $270.00 |
| gpt-5.4 | - | $5.00 | $0.50 | $22.50 |
| gpt-5.4-pro | - | $60.00 | - | $270.00 | [1]

GPT-6 and GPT-5.6 charge for cache writes at 1.25 times the input rate. GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.4 list no cache-write price. [1] A cached read on GPT-6 and GPT-5.6 costs a tenth of input. [1] The estimate assumes the write replaces the first request's normal input charge. On that basis, two requests that share a prefix cost 1.35 times the input rate instead of 2.0, and each further reuse adds 0.1. Confirm the billing in OpenAI's caching documentation before relying on it.

Three conditions sit outside the tables. Data residency endpoints add 10% for eligible models released on or after March 5, 2026. FedRAMP endpoints add 10% over the standard rates. [1] OpenAI models bought through Amazon Bedrock are billed by AWS, and OpenAI says Bedrock pricing in commercial regions matches its direct pricing. [1]

## How much do cached input and the Batch API save?

Cached input costs a tenth of the input rate on every GPT-5 and GPT-6 model that lists one. The Batch API usually halves input and output for jobs that run asynchronously over 24 hours; gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 is a listed exception. [1] [2] Older models get smaller cache discounts. Cached input is 25% of input on gpt-4.1, gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1-nano, o3 and o4-mini, and 50% on gpt-4o, gpt-4o-mini, o1 and o3-mini. The pro models list no cached rate. [1]

A worked example shows the scale. One million input tokens on gpt-6-sol cost $2.00. If 800,000 of them hit the cache, the bill becomes $0.40 for the 200,000 fresh tokens plus $0.16 for the cached ones: $0.56, or 72% less. [1] The estimate assumes the cached prefix was already written. Batch then halves the remaining rates: gpt-6-sol's Batch cached input is $0.10 and its Batch output is $5.00. [1] Our [explainer on what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the wider drivers behind these rates.

OpenAI offers three other processing options on the same models:

- **Flex** trades slower responses and occasional unavailability for lower prices. [2] For every model in OpenAI's Flex table, the input and output rates equal the Batch rates. [1]
- **Fast mode** is the tier OpenAI called Priority processing until it renamed it on July 30, 2026. [1] It costs twice Standard on GPT-6 and GPT-5.6. Across the models it lists, the premium runs from 1.67 times on gpt-4o-mini ($0.25 input, $1.00 output) to 2.5 times on gpt-5.5 ($12.50 input, $75.00 output). [1]
- **Data residency** adds 10%, and for GPT-6 Sol and Luna, EU data residency is available only with Standard processing. [1]

Batch has gaps. OpenAI's Batch table omits gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct, the cyber models and the specialised models, and it lists no cached rate for gpt-4.1 through o1-pro. [1] One listed row carries no discount: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 costs $1.00 and $2.00 in both Standard and Batch. [1]

## What do OpenAI's audio, realtime and transcription models cost?

OpenAI's full-size realtime voice models charge $32.00 per million audio input tokens and $64.00 per million audio output tokens, and the mini versions charge $10.00 and $20.00. Transcription and live translation run from $0.003 to $0.034 a minute. GPT-Live 1 voice sessions cost $0.05 a minute, billed per second without rounding up, with backend model and tool usage charged separately. [1]

Realtime and audio generation, per 1M tokens: [1]

| Model | Audio input | Audio cached input | Audio output | Text input | Text cached input | Text output |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| gpt-realtime-2.1 | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $24.00 |
| gpt-realtime-2 | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $24.00 |
| gpt-realtime-1.5 | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $16.00 |
| gpt-realtime | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $16.00 |
| gpt-realtime-2.1-mini | $10.00 | $0.30 | $20.00 | $0.60 | $0.06 | $2.40 |
| gpt-realtime-mini | $10.00 | $0.30 | $20.00 | $0.60 | $0.06 | $2.40 |
| gpt-audio-1.5 | $32.00 | - | $64.00 | $2.50 | - | $10.00 |
| gpt-audio | $32.00 | - | $64.00 | $2.50 | - | $10.00 |
| gpt-audio-mini | $10.00 | - | $20.00 | $0.60 | - | $2.40 |
| gpt-4o-mini-tts | - | - | $12.00 | $0.60 | - | - |

The realtime models also take image input: $5.00 per million tokens on the full-size models and $0.80 on the minis. [1] The older text-to-speech models bill by character: tts-1 costs $15.00 and tts-1-hd $30.00 per million characters. [1]

Transcription and translation: [1]

| Model | Use | Listed cost per minute | Token rates ($/1M, input / output) |
|---|---|---:|---|
| gpt-4o-mini-transcribe | Transcription | $0.003 (estimated) | $1.25 / $5.00 |
| gpt-transcribe | Transcription | $0.0045 | - |
| gpt-4o-transcribe | Transcription | $0.006 (estimated) | $2.50 / $10.00 |
| gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize | Transcription with diarization | $0.006 (estimated) | $2.50 / $10.00 |
| Whisper | Transcription | $0.006 | - |
| gpt-live-transcribe | Live transcription | $0.017 | - |
| gpt-realtime-whisper | Live transcription | $0.017 | - |
| gpt-realtime-translate | Live translation | $0.034 | - |

OpenAI's product page converts the per-minute models to per-second rates: $0.00083 for GPT-Live-1, $0.00057 for GPT-Realtime-Translate, $0.00028 for GPT-Live-Transcribe and $0.00008 for GPT-Transcribe. [2] The token-billed transcription models carry OpenAI's own per-minute estimate, so a real bill depends on the audio.

## What do OpenAI's image generation models cost?

OpenAI's GPT Image 2.5 models, gpt-image-2.5-sunburst and gpt-image-2.5-flare, both cost $8.00 per million image input tokens, $2.00 cached and $30.00 per million image output tokens, plus $5.00 per million text input tokens. The cheapest image model is gpt-image-1-mini at $2.50 image input and $8.00 image output. The most expensive is gpt-image-1 at $10.00 and $40.00. [1]

| Model | Image input | Image cached input | Image output | Text input | Text cached input | Text output | Batch image input / output |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
| gpt-image-2.5-sunburst | $8.00 | $2.00 | $30.00 | $5.00 | $1.25 | - | not listed |
| gpt-image-2.5-flare | $8.00 | $2.00 | $30.00 | $5.00 | $1.25 | - | not listed |
| gpt-image-2 | $8.00 | $2.00 | $30.00 | $5.00 | $1.25 | - | $4.00 / $15.00 |
| gpt-image-1.5 | $8.00 | $2.00 | $32.00 | $5.00 | $1.25 | $10.00 | $4.00 / $16.00 |
| chatgpt-image-latest | $8.00 | $2.00 | $32.00 | $5.00 | $1.25 | $10.00 | $4.00 / $16.00 |
| gpt-image-1-mini | $2.50 | $0.25 | $8.00 | $2.00 | $0.20 | - | $1.25 / $4.00 |
| gpt-image-1 | $10.00 | $2.50 | $40.00 | $5.00 | $1.25 | - | $5.00 / $20.00 |

All prices per 1M tokens. [1] Cached input rates for GPT Image 2 and GPT Image 2.5 apply only to images generated with the Responses API. [1] OpenAI's product page shows a Batch option at 50% off for image models, but the docs Batch table has no rows for the two GPT Image 2.5 models. [2] [1]

Images sent to a language model are billed differently. OpenAI says text models price image tokens at standard text token rates, while GPT Image and gpt-realtime use a separate image token rate, and gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1-nano and o4-mini convert images into tokens differently. [2]

## What do embeddings, moderation and built-in tools cost?

OpenAI's embedding models cost $0.02 per million tokens for text-embedding-3-small, $0.10 for text-embedding-ada-002 and $0.13 for text-embedding-3-large, and omni-moderation-latest is free. Built-in tools add per-call and storage charges on top of token costs. Web search costs $10.00 per 1,000 calls, plus the search content tokens at the model's rates. [1]

| Tool | OpenAI's listed price |
|---|---|
| Web search, all models | $10.00 per 1,000 calls, plus search content tokens at model rates |
| Web search preview, reasoning models | $10.00 per 1,000 calls, plus search content tokens at model rates |
| Web search preview, non-reasoning models | $25.00 per 1,000 calls; search content tokens free |
| Containers (Hosted Shell and Code Interpreter) | 1 GB $0.03, 4 GB $0.12, 16 GB $0.48, 64 GB $1.92 per 20-minute session per container |
| File search storage | $0.10 per GB per day (1 GB free) |
| File search tool calls | $2.50 per 1,000 calls |
| ChatKit file and image upload storage | $0.10 per GB-day after 1 GB free per account per month | [1]

Tokens used by built-in tools are billed at the chosen model's per-token rates. For gpt-4o-mini and gpt-4.1-mini with the non-preview web search tool, search content is billed as a fixed block of 8,000 input tokens per call. [1] At listed rates, that block adds $0.0012 per call on gpt-4o-mini and $0.0032 on gpt-4.1-mini, beside the $0.01 call fee. [1]

## Why do other published OpenAI prices disagree?

Glamdring Research compared three OpenAI pricing pages and two third-party tables captured on 28 September 2026. The disagreements come from stale prose, copying errors and different units. OpenAI's docs rate card, captured at two docs addresses six hours apart, gave the same GPT-6 rates both times. [1] [3] When a third-party figure differs, the docs page decides.

- **BenchLM contradicts its own table.** Its table lists GPT-5.6 Sol at $4 input and $20 output, matching OpenAI. Its buying guide puts GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-5.5 together at "$5/$30". [4] OpenAI lists gpt-5.5 at $5.00 and $30.00 and gpt-5.6-sol at a promotional $4.00 and $20.00. [1]
- **SpendHound differs on one long-context rate.** It lists GPT-5.6 Luna's long-context output at $1.90. [5] OpenAI lists $1.80. [1]
- **SpendHound's headline figures are a different unit.** Its $44,318 and $318,506 are average annual spend among its SMB and enterprise customers, drawn from its own spend data. [5] They describe contract totals and say nothing about per-token rates.
- **OpenAI's own pages differ.** The openai.com product page says web search costs $10.00 per 1,000 calls and that search content tokens are free. [2] The docs page bills those tokens at model rates, except on web search preview with non-reasoning models. [1] The product page's container line still describes pricing "Starting March 31, 2026" as a future change. [2]
- **Dates move the numbers.** Priority processing became Fast mode on July 30, 2026, GPT-5.6 Sol's promotional rate runs at least through November 21, 2026, and gpt-rosalind-research billing starts on October 5, 2026. [1] A table captured on either side of those dates will differ from this one.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking orders list prices. It can't say which model finishes a given job at the lowest cost. A model with a lower input rate can cost more per completed task if it writes more output tokens or needs more attempts. Use one real workflow, load case or unit model to test the claim.

The captured pages also leave out several things that change a bill:

- **Currency and tax.** OpenAI's pages show a dollar sign with no currency code or tax statement. [1]
- **Negotiated terms.** OpenAI sells Scale Tier and Reserved Capacity through its sales team for larger workloads, and the pages publish no rates for them. [2]
- **Spend limits.** OpenAI lets an account set a monthly budget, but says "There may be a delay in enforcing the limit, and you are responsible for any overage incurred." [2]
- **Quality.** Nothing here measures output quality, speed or context capacity.

For other providers' list prices on the same per-million-token basis, see our [Claude API pricing reference](/post/claude-api-pricing) and our [review of OpenAI API alternatives](/post/openai-api-alternatives).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is the OpenAI API free or paid?

The OpenAI API is paid. OpenAI bills API use per token at the listed input and output rates, and it bills Playground use the same way. [2] One model is listed as free: omni-moderation-latest. [1] The pricing pages captured for this ranking list no general free tier.

### How much is 1 million tokens on OpenAI?

One million tokens costs between $0.05 and $150.00 as input, and between $0.40 and $600.00 as output, depending on the model. [1] At Standard short-context rates, one million input tokens plus one million output tokens costs $0.60 on gpt-6-luna, $12.00 on gpt-6-sol and $60.00 on gpt-6-astra. Batch halves the gpt-6-sol figure to $6.00. [1]

### Does a $20 ChatGPT Plus subscription include API access?

No. ChatGPT Plus costs $20 a month, [6] and OpenAI states that its APIs are billed separately from ChatGPT Plus, Business, Enterprise and Edu. [2] A Plus subscription and an API account are two separate purchases.

### Can you still fine-tune OpenAI models, and what does it cost?

Only existing fine-tuning users can still train models. OpenAI is winding down its fine-tuning platform: new users can't access it, existing users can create training jobs "for the coming months", and fine-tuned models stay available for inference until their base models are deprecated. [1] A fine-tuned gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 costs $25.00 per 1M training tokens and $3.00 input, $0.75 cached input and $12.00 output per 1M tokens at inference. Training o4-mini-2025-04-16 costs $100.00 an hour. [1]

## Source notes
1. Pricing | OpenAI API: https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Business Pricing | OpenAI: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Pricing | OpenAI API (platform docs address): https://platform.openai.com/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OpenAI API Pricing (September 2026): Model & Token Costs: https://benchlm.ai/openai/api-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. OpenAI Pricing 2026: Plans, Spend Data, and How to Pay ...: https://www.spendhound.com/marketplace/openai-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Pricing (ChatGPT): https://chatgpt.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenAI Realtime API pricing: OpenAI price list, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openai-realtime-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: The two mini models list the lowest realtime audio prices: $10 per million input tokens and $20 per million output tokens. Full-size models charge $32 and $64. These are OpenAI's prices checked 28 September 2026.

OpenAI's gpt-realtime-2.1 costs $32.00 per million audio input tokens, $0.40 per million cached audio input tokens and $64.00 per million audio output tokens. Its text tokens cost $4.00 in, $0.40 cached and $24.00 out. The mini version, gpt-realtime-2.1-mini, charges $10.00, $0.30 and $20.00 for the same audio lines and $0.60, $0.06 and $2.40 for text. These are the rates from OpenAI's pricing pages, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2]

Audio output is the dearest line on every token-billed realtime model OpenAI lists, at twice the audio input rate. [3]

## TL;DR

- The two mini models have the lowest listed audio rates: $10 per million input tokens and $20 per million output tokens. Full-size models cost 3.2 times as much on those lines. Voice quality needs a separate workload test. [3]
- Cached input is the deepest discount on the price list. Cached audio input on gpt-realtime-2.1 costs 1.25% of the fresh rate; on the mini it costs 3%. Cached text and image input cost 10% of the fresh rate on every realtime model. [3]
- gpt-realtime-2 and gpt-realtime-2.1 carry identical prices. The older gpt-realtime and gpt-realtime-1.5 differ only on text output, at $16.00 per million against $24.00. [3]
- OpenAI's live voice, translation and transcription models bill by the minute: gpt-live-1 at $0.05, gpt-realtime-translate at $0.034 and live transcription at $0.017. [3]
- OpenAI's pricing pages give no audio tokens-per-minute figure. A per-minute cost for the token-billed models has to come from your own usage data. [1] [3]

## How these prices were checked

Every price here is read from OpenAI's own pricing pages, captured on 28 September 2026 (UTC+10) as part of Glamdring's [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure). [1] [3] We captured openai.com/api/pricing and the developer pricing table at 15:05. We captured the developer table again at 21:12 with every "All models" list expanded, which shows the four older realtime models.

The field is OpenAI's **Realtime and audio generation models** table. It gives Input, Cached input and Output / cost columns for each modality, in prices per 1M tokens unless noted. [3]

The inclusion rule is every model in that table whose ID begins with gpt-realtime. The expanded table lists 12 models and six qualify. The other six are gpt-audio-1.5, gpt-audio-mini, gpt-audio, gpt-4o-mini-tts, tts-1 and tts-1-hd. None of them has a cached-input price, and tts-1 and tts-1-hd are priced per million characters. [3] Four time-billed realtime products sit in their own section below. Nothing was merged.

The openai.com page lists only gpt-realtime-2.1 and its mini. Its 16 figures for those two models match the developer table exactly. [1] [2] Both pages show prices with a $ sign. Neither states a currency code or tax treatment in the captured text. Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out how Glamdring captures and dates vendor prices.

## What does each realtime model cost per million tokens?

Four full-size realtime models charge $32.00 per million audio input tokens and $64.00 per million audio output tokens, and the two mini models charge $10.00 and $20.00. [3] The full-size models split on text output: $24.00 per million on gpt-realtime-2.1 and gpt-realtime-2, and $16.00 on gpt-realtime-1.5 and gpt-realtime. [3] The table below gives all 48 per-token rates for the six models in OpenAI's own order.

| Model | Audio in ($/1M) | Audio cached in ($/1M) | Audio out ($/1M) | Text in ($/1M) | Text cached in ($/1M) | Text out ($/1M) | Image in ($/1M) | Image cached in ($/1M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gpt-realtime-2.1 | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $24.00 | $5.00 | $0.50 |
| gpt-realtime-2.1-mini | $10.00 | $0.30 | $20.00 | $0.60 | $0.06 | $2.40 | $0.80 | $0.08 |
| gpt-realtime-2 | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $24.00 | $5.00 | $0.50 |
| gpt-realtime-1.5 | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $16.00 | $5.00 | $0.50 |
| gpt-realtime-mini | $10.00 | $0.30 | $20.00 | $0.60 | $0.06 | $2.40 | $0.80 | $0.08 |
| gpt-realtime | $32.00 | $0.40 | $64.00 | $4.00 | $0.40 | $16.00 | $5.00 | $0.50 |

Source: OpenAI developer pricing table, checked 28 September 2026. [3]

Image tokens are input only. OpenAI gives no image output price for any realtime model. [3] OpenAI describes gpt-realtime-2.1 as its "most capable model for realtime voice interactions" and the mini as its "strongest mini model yet". [1] Those are OpenAI's descriptions. The price list is the part a buyer can check.

## What do audio tokens cost on the Realtime API?

Audio tokens on the OpenAI Realtime API cost $32.00 per million in and $64.00 per million out on the four full-size models, and $10.00 in and $20.00 out on the two mini models. [3] Cached audio input costs $0.40 per million on the full-size models and $0.30 on the minis. [3] Per 1,000 tokens, gpt-realtime-2.1 charges $0.032 for audio input and $0.064 for audio output.

Audio output costs twice audio input on all six models. The mini discount is the same on both lines: $32.00 against $10.00 in, $64.00 against $20.00 out, a factor of 3.2 each time. The 3.2 multiple applies to fresh audio input and audio output; cached audio input has a smaller gap. The quality case for the full-size model has to cover the price difference in your own tests.

The constraint for budgeting is the unit. OpenAI prices realtime audio in tokens, and the captured pricing pages give no conversion from tokens to minutes of speech. [1] [3] A per-minute or per-call figure for these models therefore depends on token counts from your own sessions. For the wider cost drivers behind model serving, see [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## What do text and image tokens cost on the Realtime API?

Text tokens on the Realtime API cost $4.00 per million in and $24.00 out on gpt-realtime-2.1 and gpt-realtime-2, $4.00 and $16.00 on gpt-realtime-1.5 and gpt-realtime, and $0.60 and $2.40 on the two mini models. [3] Image input costs $5.00 per million on the full-size models and $0.80 on the minis. [3] Cached text and image input cost one tenth of those rates.

Realtime text is dearer than text on OpenAI's general models. gpt-6-sol charges $2.00 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens at standard short-context rates. [2] gpt-realtime-2.1 charges twice that input rate and 2.4 times that output rate. The gap is wider at the small end: gpt-6-luna charges $0.10 in and $0.50 out, against $0.60 and $2.40 on gpt-realtime-2.1-mini. [2] [3]

The decision changes when a voice product also handles typed input. Text sent through a realtime session pays the realtime text rate. In October 2024 one developer in OpenAI's community forum described adding a text input panel that bypasses the Realtime API to keep costs down. [4] Routing typed turns to a text model is a design choice with a price attached, and the price list shows the size of it.

Images follow their own rate. OpenAI says text models price image tokens at standard text token rates, while GPT Image and gpt-realtime use a separate image token rate. [1] On gpt-realtime-2.1 that rate is $5.00 per million, above its $4.00 text input rate. [3]

## How much does cached input save?

Cached input is the deepest discount in OpenAI's realtime price list. Cached audio input on gpt-realtime-2.1 costs $0.40 per million tokens against $32.00 fresh, 98.75% less. [3] On gpt-realtime-2.1-mini the cached audio rate is $0.30 against $10.00, 97% less. Cached text and image input cost 10% of the fresh rate on all six realtime models. [3]

Caching applies to input only. No realtime model has a cached output rate, so audio output at $64.00 or $20.00 per million is untouched by it. [3]

The cache also narrows the gap between model sizes. Fresh audio input on gpt-realtime-2.1 costs 3.2 times the mini rate. Cached audio input costs $0.40 against $0.30, or 1.33 times. Cached audio on gpt-realtime-2.1 even costs less per token than fresh text input on the mini, at $0.40 against $0.60. [3]

Check how your usage reports cached tokens before you rely on the discount. When OpenAI added cached pricing to the Realtime API in October 2024, a developer in the announcement thread found cached-token details in the `usage` field of `response.done` events but not in the Playground's usage total. [5] That report is from 2024. Confirm the current behaviour in your own usage data.

## Do older realtime models cost less?

Older full-size realtime models cost less only on text output. gpt-realtime and gpt-realtime-1.5 charge $16.00 per million text output tokens, while gpt-realtime-2 and gpt-realtime-2.1 charge $24.00, which is 50% more. [3] Every audio, text input and image rate is identical across the four full-size models. The two mini models share one price set. [3]

Moving to an older full-size model saves a third of the text output cost and nothing on audio. For a voice product where most tokens are audio, the saving is small.

The comparison sits inside one price list captured on one day. It is a comparison across model versions, and we hold no earlier capture to show how any single model's price moved over time. OpenAI's current openai.com pricing page names only gpt-realtime-2.1 and its mini. The four older models appear in the developer table's expanded list. [1] [3] The captured pages give no retirement date for them.

## Which OpenAI realtime models are billed per minute?

OpenAI bills four realtime voice products by time: gpt-live-1 at $0.05 per minute, gpt-realtime-translate at $0.034 per minute, and gpt-live-transcribe and gpt-realtime-whisper at $0.017 per minute. [3] An hour costs $3.00, $2.04 and $1.02 respectively.

| Model | Use | Price per minute | Price per hour (computed) |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt-live-1 | Voice sessions | $0.05 | $3.00 |
| gpt-realtime-translate | Live translation | $0.034 | $2.04 |
| gpt-live-transcribe | Live transcription | $0.017 | $1.02 |
| gpt-realtime-whisper | Live transcription | $0.017 | $1.02 |

Source: OpenAI developer pricing table, checked 28 September 2026; hourly figures are the per-minute price times 60. [3]

The gpt-live-1 hourly figure is a floor. OpenAI bills gpt-live-1 sessions per second, without rounding up to a whole minute, and charges backend model and tool usage separately. [3] The openai.com page gives the per-second rates as $0.00083 for gpt-live-1, $0.00057 for gpt-realtime-translate and $0.00028 for gpt-live-transcribe. [1] gpt-transcribe, at $0.0045 per minute, is for asynchronous and batch work, so it sits outside live use. [1]

These minute prices can't be lined up against the token-billed models without a tokens-per-minute rate, and OpenAI's pricing pages don't give one.

## How do you estimate a Realtime API bill?

Glamdring Research's reading of the price list is that a Realtime API bill turns on two numbers: the share of audio input billed at the cached rate, and the volume of audio output. Audio output carries the highest rate on every realtime model, and cached audio input carries the deepest discount. [3] The illustration below uses invented token counts to show the arithmetic. It is not a measured session.

Assume one session uses 100,000 audio input tokens, of which 60,000 bill at the cached rate, and 20,000 audio output tokens.

| Line | Tokens | gpt-realtime-2.1 | gpt-realtime-2.1-mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh audio input | 40,000 | $1.28 | $0.40 |
| Cached audio input | 60,000 | $0.024 | $0.018 |
| Audio output | 20,000 | $1.28 | $0.40 |
| Total | 120,000 | $2.58 | $0.82 |
| Total with no caching | 120,000 | $4.48 | $1.40 |

Rates from OpenAI's developer pricing table, checked 28 September 2026. [3]

In this example caching cuts each bill by about 42%. Audio output then makes up about half of the gpt-realtime-2.1 bill, and no cache rate touches it.

Use one real session to test the estimate. OpenAI's usage dashboard shows tokens used in the current and past billing cycles. [1] A monthly budget stops requests once it is reached, but OpenAI says there may be a delay in enforcing the limit and the customer is responsible for any overage. [1]

Azure OpenAI meters realtime usage on its own terms. A Microsoft moderator answered in July 2025 that Azure bills from the portal metrics processed_prompt_tokens and generated_completion_tokens, and that the Realtime API's own token counts are not what Azure uses for cost. [6]

Voice activity detection also moves the bill. In October 2024 a developer in OpenAI's community forum reported that background noise can trigger a generation, and described a push-to-talk button that made costs more predictable. [4]

## What these prices cannot tell you

OpenAI's price list fixes the token and minute rates. It leaves open how many tokens a minute of speech produces, which discounts and uplifts reach realtime models, and how the models perform.

The captured pricing pages give no audio tokens-per-minute rate, so per-minute or per-call costs for token-billed models need your own usage data. [1] [3]

The developer table gives Batch, Flex and Fast mode rates for flagship models but lists one rate set for realtime models. [3] OpenAI charges a 10% uplift on regional processing endpoints for eligible models released on or after March 5, 2026. The captured text doesn't say whether realtime models are eligible. [3] FedRAMP endpoints carry a 10% uplift over the corresponding standard model rates. [3] Prices appear with a $ sign and no stated currency code or tax treatment.

The price list says nothing about voice quality, reasoning or response speed. Test those on your own workload. Azure OpenAI publishes its own pricing page and billing metrics, so an Azure deployment needs its own check. [6]

New pricing checks across model infrastructure go out in [Glamdring's email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much do 1,000 tokens cost on the OpenAI Realtime API?

On gpt-realtime-2.1, 1,000 audio input tokens cost $0.032 and 1,000 audio output tokens cost $0.064. Text costs $0.004 per 1,000 input tokens and $0.024 per 1,000 output tokens. On gpt-realtime-2.1-mini the same four lines cost $0.01, $0.02, $0.0006 and $0.0024. Each figure is OpenAI's per-million price divided by 1,000. [3]

### Is the OpenAI Realtime API free or paid?

The OpenAI Realtime API is paid per token or per minute. OpenAI bills Playground usage the same as regular API usage. API access is billed separately from ChatGPT Plus, Business, Enterprise and Edu subscriptions, so a ChatGPT plan doesn't cover Realtime API calls. [1]

### How much does the rest of the OpenAI API cost?

OpenAI's flagship text models range from $0.10 per million input tokens on gpt-6-luna to $50.00 per million output tokens on gpt-6-astra, at standard short-context rates. gpt-6-sol sits between them at $2.00 in and $10.00 out. [2] For other providers' rates on similar work, see our comparison of [OpenAI API alternatives](/post/openai-api-alternatives).

### Does the Batch API discount apply to realtime models?

OpenAI's captured pricing pages don't publish a Batch rate for realtime models. The Batch API saves 50% on inputs and outputs and runs tasks asynchronously over 24 hours. [1] The developer table lists Batch rates for flagship models and one rate set for realtime models. [3] A 24-hour asynchronous window also doesn't fit a live voice conversation. Confirm in the current quote before you budget on a discount.

## Source notes
1. Business Pricing | OpenAI: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Pricing | OpenAI API docs (default view): https://platform.openai.com/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Pricing | OpenAI API docs (all 'All models' lists expanded): https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Realtime API extremely expensive: https://community.openai.com/t/realtime-api-extremely-expensive/966825/43 (checked September 28, 2026)
5. New Realtime API voices and cache pricing: https://community.openai.com/t/new-realtime-api-voices-and-cache-pricing/998238/6 (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Azure OpenAI Realtime API: Token usage vs Billing metrics: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/answers/questions/5488278/azure-openai-realtime-api-token-usage-vs-billing-m (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenAI Whisper API pricing: OpenAI docs, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openai-whisper-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Whisper costs $0.006 a minute ($0.36 an hour). OpenAI lists gpt-transcribe at $0.0045 and gpt-4o-mini-transcribe at an estimated $0.003. These prices were checked 28 September 2026; accuracy needs a separate test.

OpenAI's Whisper API costs $0.006 per minute of audio, which is $0.36 an hour, on OpenAI's pricing pages checked 28 September 2026. [1] Whisper is not OpenAI's cheapest transcription model. gpt-4o-mini-transcribe ranks first at an estimated $0.003 per minute, and gpt-transcribe costs $0.0045. [1] OpenAI prints these figures with a dollar sign and states neither the currency code nor the tax treatment. [1]

## TL;DR

- Whisper's $0.006 a minute ties with gpt-4o-transcribe and gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize for third place among eight transcription models. [1]
- For recorded audio, gpt-transcribe costs 25 per cent less than Whisper and gpt-4o-mini-transcribe costs half as much. At 1,000 hours a month that is $270 or $180 against Whisper's $360. [1]
- Live transcription costs nearly three times as much as Whisper: gpt-live-transcribe and gpt-realtime-whisper are both $0.017 a minute. Live translation costs $0.034. [1]
- Text-to-speech is priced per character or per token, never per minute: tts-1 at $15.00 and tts-1-hd at $30.00 per 1M characters, and gpt-4o-mini-tts at $0.60 per 1M text input tokens and $12.00 per 1M audio output tokens. [1]
- OpenAI's pricing pages publish no accuracy figures. Price decides the shortlist; a test on your own audio decides the model. This price table sits in our [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked every model in the Transcription models table of OpenAI's API pricing documentation by one field: **Estimated cost**, per minute of audio. [1] Prices appear per minute or per million tokens as published, from OpenAI's pricing pages, checked 28 September 2026. The documentation was captured with every "All models" list expanded. The default view of the same table shows six models. Whisper and gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize appear only in the expanded list. [2] [1]

The table holds eight models and all eight are ranked. Equal prices share a rank. Three models tie at $0.006 and two at $0.017. [1] We checked each figure against OpenAI's main API pricing page, captured the same day. That page lists gpt-transcribe at "$0.0045 per minute / $0.00008 per second" and gpt-live-transcribe at "$0.017 per minute / $0.00028 per second". Both match the documentation. [3] The main page does not list Whisper. [3]

Hourly and monthly figures are our arithmetic: the per-minute price times 60, then times the hours stated. Text-to-speech and voice-conversation models are listed separately and left unranked, because OpenAI prices them per character, per token or per session minute. [1] Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out how company-published prices are treated: they are OpenAI's statements, not measured market prices.

## How much does each OpenAI transcription model cost per minute?

Whisper costs $0.006 per minute on OpenAI's API, the same as gpt-4o-transcribe and gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize. [1] gpt-4o-mini-transcribe is the cheapest at an estimated $0.003 per minute, followed by gpt-transcribe at $0.0045. [1] The live models, gpt-live-transcribe and gpt-realtime-whisper, cost $0.017, and gpt-realtime-translate costs $0.034. [1] These are OpenAI's published prices, checked 28 September 2026.

| Rank | Model | OpenAI's use case | Estimated cost ($ per minute, as printed) | Per hour (our arithmetic) | Token rates shown (per 1M, input / output) |
|---|---|---|---:|---:|---|
| 1 | gpt-4o-mini-transcribe | Transcription | $0.003 | $0.18 | $1.25 / $5.00 |
| 2 | gpt-transcribe | Transcription | $0.0045 | $0.27 | None shown |
| 3 | gpt-4o-transcribe | Transcription | $0.006 | $0.36 | $2.50 / $10.00 |
| 3 | gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize | Transcription + diarization | $0.006 | $0.36 | $2.50 / $10.00 |
| 3 | Whisper | Transcription | $0.006 | $0.36 | None shown |
| 6 | gpt-live-transcribe | Live transcription | $0.017 | $1.02 | None shown |
| 6 | gpt-realtime-whisper | Live transcription | $0.017 | $1.02 | None shown |
| 8 | gpt-realtime-translate | Live translation | $0.034 | $2.04 | None shown |

Model names, use cases and prices are OpenAI's, as the documentation gives them. [1]

The table mixes two billing shapes. Three models carry per-token rates beside the per-minute figure: gpt-4o-transcribe and gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize at $2.50 input and $10.00 output per 1M tokens, and gpt-4o-mini-transcribe at $1.25 and $5.00. [1] For those three, the per-minute figure is OpenAI's estimate of what the tokens cost. The other five show no token rate. OpenAI's main pricing page prints gpt-transcribe's figure as its price, with a per-second equivalent. [3]

OpenRouter gives Whisper's API model ID as `whisper-1`. It routes requests for the model to OpenAI, lists it at "$0.0001/second" and describes it as "Priced per minute of audio duration, billed to the nearest second." [4] That per-second rate is $0.006 divided by 60, so the two sources agree.

At volume, the gaps widen in absolute terms. 1,000 hours of recorded audio a month costs $360 on Whisper, $270 on gpt-transcribe and $180 on gpt-4o-mini-transcribe at the listed rates. The same 1,000 hours through gpt-live-transcribe costs $1,020. [1]

## Is Whisper the cheapest way to transcribe audio on OpenAI's API?

No. Two OpenAI transcription models cost less than Whisper's $0.006 per minute: gpt-transcribe at $0.0045 and gpt-4o-mini-transcribe at an estimated $0.003. [1] OpenAI describes gpt-transcribe as "A speech-to-text model for asynchronous and batch workloads", the recorded-audio work that Whisper's "Transcription" row also covers. [3] [1] Glamdring Research's verdict on price alone: a new batch workload has no reason to start on Whisper.

The decision changes when the transcript needs more than text. gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize, listed for "Transcription + diarization", costs the same $0.006 per minute as Whisper. [1] Speaker labels therefore carry no per-minute premium over Whisper on OpenAI's list. The decision also changes for live audio. gpt-realtime-whisper, the live-transcription row that carries Whisper's name, costs $0.017 per minute. So does gpt-live-transcribe, which OpenAI describes as transcribing "speech live as the speaker talks". [1] [3] Streaming costs about 2.8 times the recorded-file rate.

The constraint is accuracy, and OpenAI's pricing pages publish none. The cheapest model wins only if its transcripts are good enough for the work. gpt-4o-mini-transcribe's $0.003 is also an estimate built on token rates, so its billed cost moves with the tokens a file produces. [1] Run one representative hour of your own audio through gpt-transcribe, gpt-4o-mini-transcribe and Whisper. Compare the word errors and the billed amount in your usage dashboard, which OpenAI says shows usage "during the current and past billing cycles". [3]

## What do OpenAI's text-to-speech models cost?

OpenAI prices text-to-speech per character or per token, never per minute of audio produced. tts-1 costs $15.00 per 1M characters and tts-1-hd costs $30.00 per 1M characters. gpt-4o-mini-tts costs $0.60 per 1M text input tokens and $12.00 per 1M audio output tokens. [1] All three sit in the Realtime and audio generation models table of OpenAI's pricing documentation, checked 28 September 2026.

| Model | Input price | Output price | Unit |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| tts-1 | $15.00 | None listed | per 1M characters of text |
| tts-1-hd | $30.00 | None listed | per 1M characters of text |
| gpt-4o-mini-tts | $0.60 (text) | $12.00 (audio) | per 1M tokens |
| gpt-live-1 | $0.05 per minute | Backend model and tool usage charged separately | per session minute |
| gpt-realtime-2.1 | $32.00 (audio) | $64.00 (audio) | per 1M tokens |
| gpt-realtime-2.1-mini | $10.00 (audio) | $20.00 (audio) | per 1M tokens |
| gpt-audio-1.5 | $32.00 (audio) | $64.00 (audio) | per 1M tokens |
| gpt-audio-mini | $10.00 (audio) | $20.00 (audio) | per 1M tokens |

Prices from OpenAI's pricing documentation. [1] The realtime models also carry text and image rates; gpt-realtime-2.1, for example, charges $4.00 per 1M text input tokens and $24.00 per 1M text output tokens. [1]

The character-priced models are the simplest to budget. A 50,000-character script costs $0.75 on tts-1 and $1.50 on tts-1-hd. 1,000 characters cost $0.015 and $0.03. gpt-4o-mini-tts cannot be converted the same way from the captured pages, because they don't state how many audio tokens a minute of speech produces.

gpt-live-1 is the only voice model priced per minute. OpenAI says its sessions "are billed per second, without rounding up to a whole minute", and that "Backend model and tool usage is charged separately." [1] At $0.05 a minute, an hour of conversation costs $3.00 before those backend charges.

## How does OpenAI define the per-minute figure?

OpenAI labels the ranked column "Estimated cost" and heads the table "Prices per 1M tokens unless noted." [1] For models with token rates, the per-minute figure is OpenAI's estimate of the token cost of a minute of audio. For Whisper, gpt-transcribe and the live models, no token rate appears, so the per-minute figure is the only price shown. [1]

The distinction matters for budgeting. A per-minute price scales with audio length alone. A token price scales with what the model reads and writes, so two files of equal length can bill differently. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers why token counts vary with the work.

Two adjustments sit outside the table. Regional processing endpoints for data residency carry "a 10% uplift for models released on or after March 5, 2026, that are eligible for data residency." [1] FedRAMP endpoints carry a 10 per cent uplift over standard rates. [1] The captured pages don't say which speech models qualify for data residency or when each was released.

OpenAI's main pricing page shows a mode selector above its voice models reading "Standard", "Batch -50%" and "Data residency +10%". [3] The capture records standard prices only. Whether the batch discount applies to each speech model was not confirmed.

## Why do other published Whisper prices disagree?

The third-party sources captured for this research price Whisper at $0.006 per minute or its hourly or per-second equivalent, matching OpenAI. They differ from OpenAI on what else a transcript costs and on which models exist. [4] [5] [6]

BrassTranscripts, a transcription service, lists three OpenAI options: Whisper and GPT-4o Transcribe at $0.006 and GPT-4o Mini Transcribe at $0.003. [6] It omits gpt-transcribe at $0.0045, which OpenAI's current pages list. [1] It also adds "separate diarization (≈$0.005/min)" on top of Whisper, stating that "Whisper API does NOT identify speakers." [6] OpenAI's own list includes gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize at $0.006 per minute, so diarization on OpenAI's API need not add a second service. [1]

Billed amounts can also differ from list arithmetic. In November 2023 a developer on OpenAI's community forum reported transcribing 2,333,349 seconds of audio, estimating $233.34 and being charged $397.08. The poster concluded the "real cost should be 0.010 $ per minute". [7] The captured thread doesn't show the replies' content, so the cause is unresolved here. That is one user's report from 2023, not a current OpenAI rate.

The Whisper rate itself has held. A December 2023 forum post put the Whisper API at "$0,36/h", the same $0.006 a minute OpenAI lists in September 2026. [5] [1] The field around it differs. OpenAI's September 2026 table lists two recorded-audio models below Whisper's price and shows Whisper only in its expanded view. [1] [2]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking orders OpenAI's prices. It cannot show which model transcribes your audio most accurately, because OpenAI's pricing pages publish no accuracy or error-rate figures. A cheaper model that needs more correction can cost more per usable transcript.

Three figures are estimates built on token rates: gpt-4o-mini-transcribe, gpt-4o-transcribe and gpt-4o-transcribe-diarize. [1] Their billed cost can move away from the listed minute rate. The prices are OpenAI's statements, printed with a dollar sign and no currency code or tax treatment. [1] Local-currency prices were not captured.

The pricing pages carry no deprecation note for Whisper. We did not check OpenAI's separate deprecation schedule. OpenAI's main pricing page lists GPT-Live-Transcribe, GPT-Transcribe and GPT-Realtime-Translate as its speech-to-text and translation models and leaves Whisper out. [3] Teams weighing transcription outside OpenAI can start from our survey of [alternatives to the OpenAI API](/post/openai-api-alternatives).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is the OpenAI Whisper API free to use?

No free allowance for Whisper appears on OpenAI's captured pricing pages; the documentation lists it at $0.006 per minute. [1] OpenAI's pricing FAQ also states that its APIs "are billed separately from ChatGPT Plus, Business, Enterprise and Edu", so a ChatGPT subscription does not cover API transcription. [3]

### Is OpenAI Whisper free and open source?

The Whisper model is open source; OpenRouter describes it as "OpenAI's open-source automatic speech recognition model". [4] Running it on your own hardware avoids OpenAI's per-minute charge, but you pay for the compute and its upkeep. In December 2023 one forum user compared the API's "$0,36/h" with "$0,39/h" for a rented 4090 spot instance on RunPod, with both taking "roughly 2 minutes for an hour of speech". [5] Those are one user's 2023 figures, not current rates.

### How much do 1,000 tokens cost on OpenAI's speech models?

On gpt-4o-transcribe, 1,000 input tokens cost $0.0025 and 1,000 output tokens cost $0.01, from its $2.50 and $10.00 per 1M rates. [1] On gpt-4o-mini-transcribe the figures are $0.00125 and $0.005. On gpt-4o-mini-tts, 1,000 text input tokens cost $0.0006 and 1,000 audio output tokens cost $0.012. [1] Whisper has no token price; it bills by audio length.

### How much does the OpenAI API cost outside speech?

OpenAI's flagship text models are priced per 1M tokens. At standard rates for short context, GPT-6 Luna costs $0.10 input and $0.50 output, GPT-6 Sol $2.00 and $10.00, and GPT-6 Astra $10.00 and $50.00. [3] The Batch API takes 50 per cent off inputs and outputs for tasks run asynchronously "over 24 hours". [3]

### Does Whisper charge for a full minute on a short file?

OpenAI's captured pricing pages don't state Whisper's rounding rule. OpenRouter, which routes `whisper-1` requests to OpenAI, says it is "Priced per minute of audio duration, billed to the nearest second" at $0.0001 per second. [4] On those terms, a 30-second clip costs $0.003.

## Source notes
1. Pricing | OpenAI API: https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Pricing | OpenAI API (default view): https://platform.openai.com/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Business Pricing | OpenAI: https://openai.com/api/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OpenAI: Whisper 1: https://openrouter.ai/openai/whisper-1 (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Is Whisper API really 10x more expensive than self hosted?: https://community.openai.com/t/is-whisper-api-really-10x-more-expensive-than-self-hosted/576427 (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Whisper API Pricing (2026) — $0.006/min vs Self-Host Costs: https://brasstranscripts.com/blog/openai-whisper-api-pricing-2025-self-hosted-vs-managed (checked September 28, 2026)
7. API model whisper - Real cost: https://community.openai.com/t/api-model-whisper-real-cost/469816 (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenRouter vs Ollama: official prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openrouter-vs-ollama
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Choose the execution location first: OpenRouter for access across hosted model providers, local Ollama for own-hardware execution, or Ollama Cloud when its models, usage credits and concurrency fit the workload. Published prices alone establish no universal cheapest option.

OpenRouter routes requests to hosted model providers; Standard charges 5.5% when you buy credits, with a US$0.80 minimum. [1] [2] [1] Local Ollama is free to use on your own hardware, while Ollama Cloud publishes paid plans starting with Pro at $20 per month. [3] The official prices and terms were checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] [3]

## TL;DR

- Choose the model and execution location before comparing prices: OpenRouter offers access across providers, while Ollama separates local use from Cloud usage. [1] [3]
- Ollama Cloud subscriptions include token-priced usage credits, so compare the subscription payment with the credits your workload can consume. [3]
- For parallel Cloud workloads, check concurrency as well as credit allowance: Ollama publishes separate limits for each plan. [3]

## What is the difference between OpenRouter and Ollama?

OpenRouter is a unified API for hosted model providers; Ollama supports running models on your own hardware and offers Ollama Cloud for hosted execution. [1] [3] The comparison therefore has three choices with different payment and operating responsibilities. [1] [3]

Browse related [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure).

| Dimension | OpenRouter | Local Ollama | Ollama Cloud |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where inference runs | At the model provider receiving the routed request. [1] | On your own hardware. [3] | Hosted compute, primarily in the United States; Europe and Singapore may supply extra capacity. [3] |
| Published payment model | Model usage deducted from credits, plus the Standard credit-purchase fee. [1] [2] | Local execution is included in the $0 Free plan. [3] | Free access with starter usage; paid subscriptions include credits; every plan can buy more. [3] |
| Model access | Standard advertises 500+ models across 80+ providers, including access to frontier models. [2] [1] | Local model execution; Cloud access has separate credit terms. [3] | Starter models on Free; buying usage credits unlocks all Cloud models. [3] |
| Constraint to check | Required model, provider price and credit-purchase fee. [1] | Test the intended model on the hardware you plan to use. | Required model's token rates, monthly allowance and concurrency limit. [3] |

These are published company prices and terms, following the distinction between source statements and measured results in our [research methodology](/methodology). [1] [2] [3] OpenRouter confirms US-dollar pricing. [1] Ollama's checked pricing page displays `$` without an explicit currency label; VAT/GST inclusion is unconfirmed in the checked pages for both services. [1] [2] [3]

## How much does OpenRouter cost?

OpenRouter Standard publishes a 5.5% credit-purchase fee with a US$0.80 minimum, separate from the model's inference charge. [1] [2] [1] OpenRouter says it passes through underlying provider prices without an inference markup. [1] Budget for both the credits consumed by requests and the fee paid to purchase those credits. [1]

OpenRouter commonly lists separate prompt and completion prices per million tokens, although some models also charge for requests, images or reasoning tokens. [1] A single “OpenRouter token price” would hide those model-specific terms. [1] Compare the exact model and provider you intend to use.

The US$0.80 minimum creates a floor under the purchase fee, so small top-ups need particular attention. [1] The FAQ separately lists a 5% fee for crypto payments. [1]

The pricing table lists Business at 8% and says Enterprise fee discounts are available. [2] The checked material does not establish the precise charging basis for Business's 8%; confirm that term before budgeting a Business account. [2] Keep the published Standard fee separate from a Business or Enterprise quote.

For the wider billing question, see [OpenRouter pricing](/post/openrouter-pricing).

## How much does Ollama Cloud cost?

Ollama Cloud publishes Pro at $20 per month with $60 of monthly usage credits, and Max at $100 per month with $300 of monthly usage credits. [3] The subscription price buys an allowance valued at Ollama's model rates; the included credit figure is separate from the cash payment. [3]

| Ollama plan | Published subscription price | Included Cloud usage | Concurrent Cloud requests |
|---|---|---|---:|
| Free | $0 [3] | Starter usage for starter models; amount unspecified on the checked page. [3] | 1 [3] |
| Pro | $20/month, or $200/year; the page displays $16.67/month billed annually. [3] | $60/month [3] | 3 [3] |
| Max | $100/month [3] | $300/month [3] | 10 [3] |
| Team, early access | $500/month [3] | $1,000/month shared across unlimited users. [3] | 10 [3] |
| Enterprise | Custom [3] | Confirm in the quote. | Confirm in the quote. |

Every plan can buy usage credits, including Free. [3] Ollama consumes included plan credits first and then draws from the purchased balance. [3] Local use on your own hardware remains unlimited under Ollama's published usage terms. [3]

Cloud usage is measured in tokens at each model's input, cached-input and output rates. [3] Selected published rates illustrate the difference between a credit allowance and the amount of model usage it buys. [3]

| Ollama Cloud model | Input, $/million tokens | Cached input, $/million tokens | Output, $/million tokens |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| gpt-oss:20b | $0.07 | $0.035 | $0.30 [3] |
| gpt-oss:120b | $0.15 | $0.014 | $0.60 [3] |
| kimi-k3 | $3.00 | $0.30 | $15.00 [3] |
| deepseek-v4.1-flash | $0.30 | $0.006 | $1.20 [3] |
| deepseek-v4.1-flash, off-peak | $0.15 | $0.003 | $0.60 [3] |

Ollama lists off-peak pricing outside the 12:00-18:00 UTC weekday period and all day on weekends. [3] Use the applicable model rate, cache treatment and execution time when estimating consumption. A larger subscription credit allowance doesn't establish which service costs less for the same work. [1] [3]

## Where do models run, and what happens to prompts?

OpenRouter forwards requests to model providers, local Ollama runs models on your own hardware, and Ollama Cloud uses hosted compute. [1] [3] A locally running application can still send requests to a hosted model; identify the inference destination separately from the application's location. [1] [3]

OpenRouter says it logs basic request metadata such as timestamps, model names and token counts. [1] It says prompt and completion content is not logged by default, with opt-in logging available. [1] Its FAQ also describes privacy settings that restrict routing to eligible providers. [1] Check the selected provider's policy alongside OpenRouter's settings.

Ollama says its Cloud models and compute are hosted primarily in the United States, with possible routing to Europe and Singapore for additional capacity. [3] It says prompt and response data is never logged or used for training. [3] Those statements describe a hosted service's policy; they do not make Cloud inference local or promise a single hosting country. [3]

For a workload that must execute on your own hardware, assess local Ollama. [3] Evaluate any surrounding application and network connections separately before making a broader privacy claim.

## Which models can you access?

OpenRouter advertises a broad hosted catalogue, while Ollama offers local execution and a separately priced Cloud model selection. [2] [3] OpenRouter's Standard, Business and Enterprise plans list 500+ models across 80+ providers; its FAQ says the selection includes frontier models from major AI labs. [2] [1]

OpenRouter's Free tier advertises 25+ free models. [2] The FAQ sets a default total limit of 50 free-model requests per day, rising to 1,000 if you have purchased at least 10 credits. [1] Free access therefore needs a separate capacity check from paid-model access. [1]

Ollama's Cloud pricing table includes gpt-oss:20b, gpt-oss:120b, kimi-k3 and deepseek-v4.1-flash among its listed models. [3] Ollama describes its hosted catalogue as open models, and buying usage credits unlocks all Cloud models under its published terms. [3] A Cloud pricing entry establishes hosted access; check local availability and hardware fit separately before choosing local Ollama. [3]

Start with the exact model you need. Check its available execution mode and required features before comparing payment plans.

## Which should you choose for your workload?

Glamdring Research recommends choosing the execution location before comparing OpenRouter and Ollama on price: OpenRouter routes to hosted providers, while Ollama offers both own-hardware use and Cloud execution. [1] [3] The relevant cost comparison then depends on model rates, credit terms and the work you intend to run. [1] [3]

Choose OpenRouter when the priority is accessing models from multiple providers through a unified API and billing system. [1] Check the required model's terms and include the credit-purchase fee in your budget. [1]

Choose local Ollama when executing on your own hardware is the requirement. [3] Test the model with your intended task, context and simultaneous workload. Treat hardware and operating costs as inputs to your own calculation; the $0 software price covers a different boundary. [3] For that next question, read [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

Consider Ollama Cloud when its listed models match your work and a subscription's included credits fit your recurring usage. [3] Check concurrency before choosing the tier: Pro's allowance and its simultaneous-request limit are separate constraints. [3]

For a cloud-to-cloud decision, estimate the same input, cached-input and output workload at each service's applicable rates. Include OpenRouter's purchase fee and Ollama's subscription payment, then account for any extra credits required. [1] [3] Change the choice if the required model, actual monthly consumption or concurrency requirement changes.

## Frequently asked questions

### Do Ollama Cloud credits roll over?

Unused included usage does not roll over; Ollama refreshes the included amount at each monthly reset. [3] Pro, Max and Team reset on the monthly anniversary of the subscription start date, including annual plans. [3] The checked rollover answer concerns included usage, so confirm purchased-credit expiry separately. [3]

### What happens when Ollama Cloud requests exceed the concurrency limit?

Ollama queues requests beyond the plan's concurrency limit and processes them when a slot becomes available. [3] The queue has a fixed limit; when it is full, requests are rejected until a concurrency slot opens. [3] Check your peak simultaneous workload as well as expected token consumption.

### Does bringing your own provider key remove OpenRouter fees?

OpenRouter's bring-your-own-key arrangement has a fee-free allowance, followed by a fee on usage above it. [1] Pay-as-you-go includes US$25,000 per month of list-price inference with no BYOK fee; the FAQ lists US$200,000 for Enterprise. [1] Above the allowance, OpenRouter charges 5% of what the same model and provider would normally cost on OpenRouter. [1] The allowance removes the OpenRouter BYOK fee within its scope; it does not supply free inference from the underlying provider. [1]

## Source notes
1. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/docs/faq (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Ollama: https://ollama.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Rippling vs ADP: pricing and RUN plans compared

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/rippling-vs-adp
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Neither checked official source publishes numeric package prices. Compare Rippling's required core and selected products with the relevant ADP RUN package and add-ons, then request matching quotes.

Neither Rippling's pricing page nor ADP RUN's package comparison publishes numeric package prices in the checked sources. [1] [2] Rippling describes a required core with separately purchased products; ADP RUN lists named payroll and HR packages. [1] [2] Rippling pricing was captured 28 September 2026; the valid official ADP RUN package page was captured 1 October 2026. [1] [2] Compare the published scope, then request matching quotes.

## TL;DR

- Rippling's modular purchase still requires the core Rippling Platform. [1] Buying Payroll doesn't remove that requirement. [1]
- ADP RUN's package ladder makes service thresholds visible: Enhanced adds payroll services; Complete adds HR support; HR Pro adds further HR tools. [2]
- ADP RUN lists time and attendance, retirement and insurance as add-ons, including for HR Pro. [2]
- A cost comparison needs the same services and payroll frequency. [1] [2] Neither checked source supports naming a cheaper provider. [1] [2]

## What do Rippling and ADP RUN publish about pricing?

Rippling and ADP RUN publish purchase structures, but neither checked page supplies numeric package prices. [1] [2] Rippling explains how products are purchased and billed; ADP RUN explains package inclusions and factors affecting payroll cost. [1] [2] The published information supports a scope comparison before a price comparison. [1] [2]

For a wider shortlist, browse our [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll).

| Comparison point | Rippling | ADP RUN |
|---|---|---|
| Numeric package price | Not published in the checked pricing page; custom quote requested. [1] | Not published in the checked package comparison; business-specific pricing requested. [2] |
| Purchase structure | Required Rippling Platform plus separately purchasable HR, Finance and IT products. [1] | Essential Payroll, Enhanced Payroll, Complete Payroll & HR Plus, HR Pro Payroll & HR. [2] |
| Published billing information | Most products use per-employee, per-month billing; some may carry a monthly base fee. [1] | Cost depends on payroll frequency, people paid, changes to payees and add-on services. [2] |
| Separately scoped items | Payroll, Expenses, Benefits and Device Management are examples of products purchased alongside the required core. [1] | Time and Attendance, retirement, workers' compensation and health insurance are listed as add-ons. [2] |
| Checked date | 28 September 2026. [1] | 1 October 2026. [2] |

ADP package findings below refer only to RUN's US small-business package comparison. [2] Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets the evidence standard; request current terms for your own business before choosing.

## What does Rippling include, and what needs a quote?

Rippling requires the core Rippling Platform and lets buyers purchase individual HR, Finance and IT products alongside it. [1] Its pricing FAQ names Payroll, Expenses, Benefits and Device Management as examples. [1] The published purchase model lets you select products, but the checked page supplies no numeric price for the core or those products. [1]

Rippling says most products are billed per employee per month, while some may be charged with a monthly base fee. [1] Ask for separate lines showing the required core, each selected product and any base fee. Confirm which workers count toward each charge.

The pricing page also promotes cross-system reports, workflow automation, AI queries and app creation. [1] It doesn't provide a priced entitlement matrix assigning those capabilities to a specific purchase. [1] Treat the headline descriptions as questions for the quote: which capabilities are included in the proposed core, and which require another product or tier?

For payroll procurement, request the required core plus Payroll first. Then add the products your team needs. Keep device management or expenses separate in the comparison if you're evaluating a payroll-only purchase.

For the vendor-specific view, see our [Rippling pricing research](/post/rippling-pricing).

## What is included in each ADP RUN package?

ADP RUN lists four packages: Essential Payroll, Enhanced Payroll, Complete Payroll & HR Plus and HR Pro Payroll & HR. [2] The published ladder retains the preceding package's services and adds payroll services or HR support. [2] None has a numeric package price in the checked comparison. [2]

| RUN package | Selected published inclusions or additions | Published package price |
|---|---|---|
| Essential Payroll | Payroll through computer, mobile app or phone; direct deposit; tax filing; reporting; general ledger interface; new-hire reporting; payroll delivery; employee access; onboarding; single-county background checks. [2] | Not published; request pricing. [2] |
| Enhanced Payroll | Essential's services plus check signing/security, State Unemployment Insurance (SUI) management, garnishment payment service, job costing, labor law posters, ZipRecruiter and electronic Form I-9. [2] | Not published; request pricing. [2] |
| Complete Payroll & HR Plus | Enhanced's services plus HR HelpDesk, Employee Handbook Wizard, salary benchmarks, HR forms and documents, and HR training and toolkits. [2] | Not published; request pricing. [2] |
| HR Pro Payroll & HR | Complete's services plus enhanced HR HelpDesk and handbook support, a CareerPlug-powered applicant tracking system, learning management, sexual harassment prevention training and third-party legal assistance. [2] | Not published; request pricing. [2] |

ADP's detailed matrix lists payroll tax calculation, filing, deposits and reconciliation across all four packages. [2] It also lists multi-company management, multi-jurisdiction payroll and 24/7 payroll customer support across all four. [2] The HR HelpDesk starts at Complete, so distinguish payroll support from the HR support added by an upgrade. [2]

ADP's matrix also lists ADP Assist's virtual assistant, payroll inspector and smart timesheet import in every package, alongside Bill Pay and Client Invoicing. [2] Those common inclusions don't require moving up the published package ladder. [2]

ADP's shorter package summaries place HR Tracking under Complete, while the detailed matrix marks it included in every package. [2] Background checks appear in Essential and are also repeated in the Enhanced summary. [2] Ask ADP to confirm those entitlements; the repeated wording alone doesn't establish an upgrade benefit. [2]

Use the package thresholds to narrow the quote request. If SUI management or garnishment payments are required, Enhanced is the first package the matrix marks as including them. [2] If access to the HR HelpDesk is required, begin with Complete. [2]

## Which charges sit outside the headline package?

Rippling flags possible monthly base fees, while ADP RUN identifies add-ons and separately charged services. [1] [2] ADP RUN also says payroll fees increase with payroll frequency. [2] A package name alone therefore doesn't establish the full recurring bill. [1] [2]

ADP RUN lists Time and Attendance, retirement, workers' compensation and health insurance under add-ons for every package. [2] The checked comparison supplies no numeric prices for those add-ons. [2] Ask for each required service to appear as its own line in the quote, with any eligibility or availability conditions.

ADP's matrix marks W-2 and 1099 forms as included across the packages, but the description explicitly says creating and delivering them carries an additional fee. [2] Ask for the year-end charge and what it covers. An inclusion tick establishes availability, not an absence of fees. [2]

ADP's cost FAQ names how often payroll runs, how many people are paid and how often payees are added or removed as cost factors. [2] Its RUN FAQ permits payroll outside the regular schedule but says fees increase with frequency. [2] Request a quote using your normal payroll schedule and ask how an extra run would be charged.

For Rippling, confirm whether the proposed products carry only per-employee monthly charges or also a base fee. [1] Request setup and migration charges from both vendors as procurement questions. The checked sources don't establish numeric amounts for those items. [1] [2]

## How should you compare the quotes?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to compare Rippling and ADP RUN on matching service scope and payroll frequency before comparing totals. Rippling requires a core purchase, while ADP RUN separates package inclusions from add-ons and additional fees. [1] [2] Neither checked page supports a cheaper-provider verdict. [1] [2]

Give both vendors the same requirements:

- Workers to be paid and the payroll schedule, including expected extra runs.
- Payroll services and the jurisdictions you need covered.
- HR support, onboarding and recruiting requirements.
- Time tracking, benefits or insurance requirements.
- Required accounting exports and any work outside payroll.

Request an itemised recurring total, year-end charges and any one-off costs. For Rippling, separate the required core from each selected product. For ADP RUN, name the package and each add-on. Ask each vendor to state the currency, tax treatment, billing unit and terms for changing headcount or services.

Start with ADP RUN when you want to price a defined payroll package and identify the upgrade needed for HR support. Its published matrix makes those thresholds visible. [2] Consider Rippling when your intended purchase spans separately selected HR, Finance or IT products. Its published model permits those purchases alongside the required core. [1] These are reasons to request a particular quote, not evidence that either vendor is better or cheaper for your business.

The decision changes when matching quotes establish the total price and the exact inclusions you need.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can you change ADP RUN packages later?

Yes. ADP says buyers can switch between RUN Powered by ADP packages by contacting an ADP sales associate. [2] Before switching, request the revised inclusions and total charge, including any retained add-ons.

### Does ADP RUN require a long-term contract?

ADP's checked RUN FAQ says you don't have to sign a contract and services can be terminated at any time. [2] Confirm the terms attached to your proposed purchase and any separate services. Keep that published statement specific to RUN.

### How does ADP RUN charge for contractor payments?

ADP says RUN's contractor payment bundle has a monthly base price plus a per-contractor fee, with year-end processing fees also applying. [2] The checked FAQ publishes the billing structure but no numeric amounts. [2] Request the contractor bundle separately so its charges don't get confused with an employee payroll package.

Subscribe to our research for future pricing comparisons.

## Source notes
1. Rippling pricing: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. RUN Powered by ADP payroll packages comparison: https://www.adp.com/what-we-offer/payroll/payroll-for-1-49-employees/payroll-packages.aspx (checked October 1, 2026)

# Rippling vs Workday: pricing and scope, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/rippling-vs-workday
Category: HR and payroll
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Rippling explains a required platform and selectable products; Workday publishes broad HCM scope, but the checked vendor pages provide no matched numeric prices to establish which costs less.

Rippling publishes a custom-quote pricing model without a numeric subscription rate on its pricing page. [1] Workday's HCM overview publishes no price. [2] Rippling describes HR, payroll, IT and finance on one system; Workday presents a suite of HR products. [3] [2] The vendor pages, checked 28 September 2026, don't supply a priced bundle for a like-for-like cost comparison. [1] [2]

## TL;DR

- Rippling's core Rippling Platform is required. [1] HR, finance and IT products can be purchased separately alongside it, so a product's presence in the catalogue doesn't establish its inclusion in your purchase. [1]
- Workday expressly says HCM includes Workday Skills Cloud. [2] Its overview describes broader product scope but doesn't provide a priced plan-by-plan entitlement table. [2]
- Workday's enterprise positioning sits alongside links to midsize business solutions. [2] Its own published navigation gives no basis for treating it as enterprise-only. [2]

## What do Rippling and Workday publish side by side?

Rippling describes a system spanning HR, payroll, IT and finance, while Workday presents an HCM suite. [3] [2] Rippling also explains which core is required and how products can be purchased; Workday's HCM overview concentrates on capabilities. [1] [2]

Browse the [HR and payroll research](/categories/hr-and-payroll) for adjacent comparisons.

| Published dimension | Rippling | Workday HCM |
|---|---|---|
| Numeric subscription price | Not published on the checked pricing page; custom quote. [1] | Not published on the checked HCM overview; contact-sales route. [2] |
| Billing unit | Most products: per employee, per month; some may have a monthly fee. [1] | No HCM billing unit stated in the checked overview. [2] |
| Purchase structure | Required Rippling Platform, with individual HR, finance and IT products purchased alongside it. [1] | Suite and product descriptions, without a priced entitlement table. [2] |
| HR and talent scope | Benefits, recruiting, performance and learning management. [3] | Core HCM, talent management, workforce planning, HR analytics and Employee Voice. [2] |
| Payroll and workforce scope | Payroll for employees and contractors around the world. [3] | Global Payroll, Workforce Management and Contingent Worker Management listed. [2] |
| IT and wider business scope | Identity, access and devices; finance products including corporate cards, expenses, procurement, bill pay and travel. [3] | Wider site navigation lists finance, accounting, planning and platform products; their presence doesn't establish inclusion in an HCM purchase. [2] |
| Expressly stated core or inclusion | Rippling Platform is required. [1] | Workday Skills Cloud is included in Workday HCM, according to its FAQ. [2] |

Read each scope entry as a vendor description. The table compares published information, not tested performance or the contents of a negotiated contract.

## What pricing does each vendor publish?

Rippling's pricing page publishes a custom-quote process without a numeric rate, while Workday's HCM overview publishes no price. [1] [2] The checked sources cannot establish which system costs less. [1] [2]

Rippling's instruction is direct: "Tell us what services you need, and we'll send you a custom quote." [1] Its pricing FAQ says most products are billed per employee, per month, with some products charged at or including a monthly fee. [1] The billing unit is public; the amount needed to calculate a subscription total isn't. [1]

Applying an assumed per-employee rate to your headcount would leave both the rate and any additional monthly fee unconfirmed. [1] Our separate [Rippling pricing article](/post/rippling-pricing) provides a focused place to continue that question.

Workday's HCM overview directs readers to contact sales, but it doesn't state an HCM starting price or employee-based rate. [2] That finding applies to the checked overview, not to every Workday product or page.

A cheaper-system verdict needs quotes for the same workforce and product scope. Neither checked source supplies those comparable amounts. [1] [2]

## What does Rippling include?

Rippling requires its core Rippling Platform and lets customers purchase individual HR, finance and IT products alongside it. [1] The purchasing rule establishes the prerequisite, but it doesn't make every listed product part of a single subscription. [1]

The pricing FAQ names Payroll, Expenses, Benefits and Device Management as examples of separately purchasable products. [1] The homepage describes these product areas: [3]

- HR: benefits, recruiting, performance and learning management. [3]
- Payroll: paying employees and contractors around the world. [3]
- IT: identity, access and device management, with security and compliance policies. [3]
- Finance: corporate cards, expenses, procurement, bill pay and travel. [3]

Rippling also describes custom workflows and applications through App Studio. [3] Its pricing page promotes dashboards, reports and workflow automation across systems, without assigning numeric prices to those capabilities. [1]

Rippling says its products share workforce context such as roles, organisation charts and reporting lines. [3] It describes dynamic, role-based permissions and approvals across apps. [3] The published system therefore extends into employee-related IT and finance work, while the pricing FAQ leaves the product selection to the customer's purchase. [1] [3]

Confirm each required product in the quote, including payroll, benefits and device management. The pricing FAQ explicitly requires the core platform. [1]

## What does Workday HCM include?

Workday HCM lists core HR, talent, payroll and workforce products, and expressly says it includes Workday Skills Cloud. [2] The overview describes a broad HR suite without providing a priced module-entitlement table. [2]

Its HCM product navigation lists Core HCM, Talent Management, Global Payroll, Workforce Management, HR Analytics, Employee Voice, Contingent Worker Management and Workforce Planning. [2] Those names show the range of work Workday addresses; they don't identify the licences included in a particular quote. [2]

Workday describes modelling, forecasting and budgeting a workforce from a unified data core. [2] Its workforce management descriptions cover scheduling, time capture, approvals, absence and payroll. [2] Talent-related descriptions cover acquisition, learning and internal mobility. [2]

Workday's HCM FAQ gives a more specific inclusion statement: HCM "includes Workday Skills Cloud". [2] Retain that express inclusion when comparing products, but request the commercial scope of the other named modules.

Workday's wider navigation also lists Financial Management, Spend Management and Financial Planning. [2] Their appearance on the same website doesn't establish that an HCM subscription includes them. [2] Keep that wider product catalogue separate from the HR suite being quoted.

## Who does each vendor say it is built for?

Rippling addresses companies that want to grow faster; Workday uses enterprise positioning and also links to midsize business solutions. [1] [2] The checked descriptions don't establish an exclusive company-size boundary for either system. [1] [2]

Rippling titles its pricing page "The platform for companies that want to grow faster". [1] Its homepage describes managing an entire global workforce, including onboarding, paying and managing employees and contractors. [3] Its published emphasis is bringing HR, payroll, IT and finance work into one system. [3]

Workday calls its HCM system an "enterprise AI platform". [2] It also includes a "Midsize Business" link in its HCM navigation and "Midsize Business Solutions" in the wider navigation. [2] The checked overview describes international operation with local management and tools intended to adapt to changing business objectives. [2]

Neither checked vendor description gives a headcount cutoff for choosing between the systems. [1] [2] Compare the work you need covered with the products each vendor names, then confirm the purchased scope.

## What can the published information settle?

Glamdring Research's verdict is to compare the published scope first and reserve a cost verdict for matched written quotes. Rippling explains its required core and selectable products; Workday describes HCM scope and an express Skills Cloud inclusion. [1] [2] Neither checked source supplies the numeric prices needed to rank the two by cost. [1] [2]

For combined employee, device-access and spending requirements, Rippling names relevant products directly. [3] For workforce planning, talent and employee-feedback requirements, Workday names those HCM product areas directly. [2] These are reasons to investigate the named scope, not evidence that either system performs better.

The comparison uses Rippling's pricing page and homepage plus Workday's US-English HCM overview, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [3] [2] The [research methodology](/methodology) explains the publication's approach to sources. Revisit the cost verdict when the vendors provide prices for matching configurations.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I buy Rippling Payroll without the Rippling Platform?

No. [1] Rippling lists Payroll among products that can be purchased separately alongside the "core, required Rippling Platform". [1] Separate product purchasing still carries that platform prerequisite. [1]

### Does Workday cover contractors as well as employees?

Workday's HCM overview lists Contingent Worker Management and describes managing contractors as part of a total workforce view. [2] That description doesn't establish employer-of-record services or their inclusion in an HCM quote. [2]

### Do the published pages give a price currency or tax basis?

The checked Rippling pricing page and Workday HCM overview provide no numeric HCM subscription prices to which a currency or tax basis can be attached. [1] [2] Request the currency and applicable taxes with the quoted amounts before comparing totals.

## Source notes
1. Rippling pricing: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Workday Human Capital Management overview: https://www.workday.com/en-us/products/human-capital-management/overview.html (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Rippling homepage: https://www.rippling.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Sprinto pricing: official plans, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/sprinto-pricing
Category: Compliance automation
Published: October 1, 2026
Revised: October 1, 2026
Verdict: Sprinto publishes Foundation and Growth with one selected framework each but no monetary plan prices. Growth adds configurable automation, governance and support; additional frameworks and enterprise extensions require explicit quote scope.

Sprinto does not publish a price for its Foundation or Growth plans on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Both plans include one selected framework; additional frameworks are listed as add-ons. [1] To establish your cost, request a quote for the plan and framework scope you need. [1]

## TL;DR

- The advertised framework library exceeds the included allowance: both plans list 25+ automated frameworks and 200+ digitized frameworks, while the plan note specifies one selected framework. [1]
- Growth adds programmable monitors, custom workflows, more approval controls and priority support. [1] Its published framework allowance is the same as Foundation's. [1]
- Basic risk, vendor and trust functions appear in both plan descriptions; enterprise extensions are separately labelled add-ons. [1]
- Sprinto includes in-house lead-auditor guidance for the first audit of each framework on your plan. [1] The guidance statement does not specify whether the external auditor's fee is covered. [1]

## What plans does Sprinto publish, and what do they include?

Sprinto publishes Foundation for startups pursuing their first certification and Growth for teams automating compliance. [1] The main published differences are configurable automation, approval controls and support, alongside the same selected-framework allowance. [1]

The comparison below uses Sprinto's own plan descriptions, checked 28 September 2026. [1] For related reading, browse the [compliance automation research](/categories/compliance-automation).

| Dimension | Foundation | Growth |
|---|---|---|
| Published price | No monetary price published | No monetary price published [1] |
| Included framework scope | One selected framework | One selected framework [1] |
| Advertised framework library | 25+ automated out of the box; 200+ digitized | 25+ automated out of the box; 200+ digitized [1] |
| Monitoring and evidence | Continuous monitoring across 300+ integrations; automated evidence collection | Same published base, plus programmable monitors, custom workflows, custom API and an organization-specific rule engine [1] |
| Audit management | Audit planning, auditor-network access and bring your own auditor | Same listed functions, plus bring your own controls and internal audit management [1] |
| Policy and personnel compliance | AI-assisted policies and mapping; policy acknowledgements; onboarding/offboarding; ready-to-use training and tests | Same listed functions, plus multi-step policy approvals, targeted compliance campaigns and custom training modules [1] |
| Vendor and risk management | Vendor discovery, inventory, AI document reviews and periodic vendor reviews; periodic risk assessments, risk library and treatment tracking | Same functions listed in the plan description [1] |
| Trust management | AI security questionnaire automation, 20/year; public trust center with custom domain | Same published allowance and trust-center scope [1] |
| AI and AI governance | Custom AI agents, questionnaire automation, vendor assessments and evidence gap analysis; AI systems inventory, reviews and risk assessments | Same functions listed in the plan description [1] |
| Reporting and access | Unified reporting, compliance health and gap reports; default roles and SSO | Same listed reporting, plus custom security roles, RBAC, multiple approval pathways, configurable SLAs and Sprinto API [1] |
| Support | 24×5 standard email support and in-app support | 24×5 priority email; in-app, Slack and MS Teams support; weekend support for priority issues; quarterly business reviews and a dedicated customer success manager [1] |

Foundation already spans evidence collection, audit management, policies, personnel, vendors, risk and trust. [1] Its plan description also lists AI governance functions. [1] Compare the operating controls you need against the specific functions each plan lists.

For a team that needs custom monitoring logic, targeted campaigns or internal audit management, Growth is the plan whose description names those functions. [1] The pricing page gives no monetary upgrade amount, so the additional cost requires a quote. [1]

## How many frameworks does each Sprinto plan include?

Sprinto's pricing note gives Foundation and Growth one selected framework: “Get any one framework of your choice with either plan”. [1] Additional frameworks appear as add-ons. [1] Moving to Growth does not increase that published base allowance. [1]

Both plan descriptions advertise 25+ frameworks automated out of the box and 200+ frameworks digitized. [1] Those are library-capability statements; the separate one-framework note defines the included plan scope. [1] “Automated” and “digitized” are also distinct descriptions in Sprinto's wording, so the larger figure should not be read as an equally large fully automated library. [1]

The selected-framework list names SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR, PCI DSS, NIST CSF and ISO 42001 among the choices. [1] For a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 requirement, ask Sprinto to name both in the quote and identify the additional-framework charge. The published base allowance covers one selected framework. [1]

The [research methodology](/methodology) informs this distinction: compare the stated plan allowance separately from the wider product catalogue.

## Which Sprinto capabilities are add-ons?

Sprinto labels additional frameworks and professional services as add-ons, alongside enterprise extensions for risk, trust and vendor risk management. [1] The pricing page supplies no monetary amounts for these additions. [1]

The published add-on list also names AI Governance, Unified Commitments and Zones for multiple business units. [1] These labels require more precise scoping than a broad yes-or-no feature comparison.

For example, Foundation and Growth already list an AI systems inventory, system reviews and risk assessments. [1] AI Governance also appears in the add-on list. [1] Ask which additional functions the AI Governance add-on provides beyond the base description, and have those functions written into the quote.

The same distinction applies to risk, vendor and trust management: both plans list basic functions, while the page separately names enterprise extensions. [1] Confirm the extension by name if your requirement goes beyond the base plan description.

## What does Sprinto publish for mature GRC teams?

Sprinto separately describes Continuous Compliance and enterprise modules for mature governance, risk and compliance (GRC) teams, without publishing monetary module prices. [1] Continuous Compliance has a broader framework-support description than the selected-framework note attached to Foundation and Growth. [1]

| Module | Published scope |
|---|---|
| Continuous Compliance | Access reviews and offboarding; employee training; policy approvals; security questionnaire workflows; audit management; multi-entity workspaces. [1] Its “Infinite Frameworks” engine lists 200+ frameworks plus custom regulations. [1] |
| Enterprise TPRM | Vendor inventory and discovery; procurement and onboarding workflows; due diligence; AI document analysis; a vendor questionnaire portal; configurable vendor risk parameters; breach monitoring and reports. [1] |
| Enterprise Risk Management | Multiple risk registers, configurable risk attributes and scoring scales, periodic assessments, treatment tasks, continuous monitoring, dashboards and reporting. [1] |
| Enterprise Trust Management | Public and private trust profiles, multiple trust centers, custom domains, access controls, NDA functions, analytics and AI-assisted questionnaire workflows. [1] |

Sprinto marks professional services as an available add-on within each of these module descriptions. [1] Its module navigation also names AI Governance with a “Coming soon” label, plus Privacy Management and Unified Commitments, but supplies no corresponding detailed descriptions in the checked pricing text. [1] Confirm availability and scope before including these in a purchase decision.

In this modular section, Sprinto lists shared foundations including SSO, an evidence library, integrations, API access, Jira task synchronization, programmable monitors, custom workflows and access roles. [1] Keep that modular description separate from the Foundation and Growth cards, which distinguish several of those capabilities by plan. [1]

## What should a Sprinto quote confirm?

Glamdring Research recommends matching a Sprinto quote to named frameworks and operating requirements before comparing cost. The published plans specify a selected-framework allowance, feature differences and add-ons, but no monetary prices. [1] A quote is needed to connect that scope to a budget. [1]

Ask for:

- The plan or module names and every included framework.
- Separate amounts for additional frameworks, enterprise extensions and professional services.
- The currency, tax treatment, billing period, contract term and renewal terms.
- The questionnaire allowance and terms for any usage beyond it.
- The support channels, service commitments and business-unit scope.
- A clear statement of what auditor services and fees the price covers.

Sprinto says its in-house lead auditors guide the first audit for every framework on your plan, included as standard. [1] Its plan descriptions also list auditor-network access and the option to bring your own auditor. [1] Neither statement establishes the amount or inclusion of an external auditor's fee. [1]

For a wider shortlist, consult the [Vanta pricing reference](/post/vanta-pricing) and [Drata pricing reference](/post/drata-pricing). Compare current quotes on the same framework and service scope.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I use my own auditor with Sprinto Foundation?

Yes, Sprinto's Foundation description explicitly lists “Bring your own auditor (BYOA)”. [1] Growth lists it too. [1] The description specifies auditor choice but does not state the external auditor's fee or payment terms. [1]

### Does Growth include more security questionnaires than Foundation?

No higher allowance is published in the plan descriptions. [1] Both Foundation and Growth list AI-powered security questionnaire automation at 20/year. [1] Ask Sprinto to specify the terms for additional questionnaire usage in your quote.

## Source notes
1. Plans that meet you where you are: Foundation and Growth: https://sprinto.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Commercial pest control plan: what Rockhampton businesses should ask for

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/commercial-pest-control-plan-rockhampton
Category: Property services
Published: September 30, 2026
Revised: September 30, 2026
Verdict: Ask for a written plan that names the included and excluded areas, the access arrangements, what each visit records and who acts on follow-up. Let a site inspection set the frequency, agree the record format before the first visit and book termite inspection separately.

Ask for a written plan that states four things: the areas it covers, how the technician gets in, what is recorded at each visit and what happens between visits. Those four items (scope, access, treatment records and follow-up) let you check whether a commercial pest control plan matches your site's risk. Without them you have a visit calendar and little else. Insight Termite & Pest Solutions, which operates from Gracemere, makes the same point in its published service information: the choice of service should follow a site assessment. [1]

## TL;DR

- Put the scope in writing. It should state the included areas, visit frequency, records, follow-up and exclusions, which are the items Insight's published pricing guidance tells buyers to ask for. [1]
- Let an inspection set the frequency. Food, waste, deliveries, storage, several tenancies or customer areas point toward recurring service. A defined problem at one accessible site may need a single visit. [1]
- Agree the record format before work starts. Insight's service information warns buyers against assuming a compliance or logbook format that nobody agreed. [1]
- Record who fixes what. Door seals, leaks, waste practices and storage can fall to the business, the landlord or a contractor, and the plan should list those jobs apart from the treatment. [1]
- Book termites separately. Insight states that general pest servicing does not cover a termite inspection. [1]
- Compare quotes only on matching scopes. Site size, pest, access, risk zones, records and frequency all move the price. [1]

## What should a commercial pest control plan include?

A commercial pest control plan is a written scope for pest work at a business site. It names the areas included and excluded, the visit frequency, the access arrangements, the record produced at each visit and the follow-up between visits. It also lists building and housekeeping actions that fall to the business or the landlord. A plan missing any of these parts leaves you no way to check the work against the quote. [1]

Each part changes the job in a specific way:

| Plan item | What to ask for | Why it changes the job |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Named zones inside and outside the building, plus exclusions | A small office kitchenette and a food premises with storage, waste and deliveries are different jobs |
| Access | Access window, key contact, shutdown or security needs, areas that can't be treated during trading | Preparation, timing and re-entry depend on the treatment and the site |
| Treatment records | Date, areas inspected or treated, pest evidence, work completed, access limits, recommendations | Without a record you can't check what each visit did |
| Follow-up | What happens between visits, who on site receives recommendations, who fixes building issues | Gaps, leaks and waste practices can keep pests coming back after treatment |
| Price basis | A quote built from the scope | Price follows site size, pest, risk zones, access, records and frequency | [1]

Insight's commercial page sets out the same parts as a five-step process: a site and operating brief, a site inspection, a treatment and access plan, a service record with actions, then a review of recurring risks. [1] You can use that sequence as a checklist for any provider. If a quote skips the inspection and goes straight to a visit count, ask what the count is based on.

## How does a site inspection set the service scope?

A site inspection sets the scope by finding where pests feed, shelter and get in, and those places often sit outside the room where someone saw one. Insight's published commercial service information says it inspects pest activity, access points, food and waste areas, storage and building conditions before it recommends a service. Its page adds that shared walls, delivery doors, bins and roof or storage areas may matter beyond the room where the pest was seen. [1]

For a sense of how wide a proper inspection runs, Insight's page on [commercial pest control Rockhampton](https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/commercial-pest-control-rockhampton/) lists the areas it commonly assesses: [1]

- kitchens, tea rooms, amenities and staff areas;
- storerooms, shelving, packaging and delivery zones;
- bins, waste areas and exterior service spaces;
- roller doors, vents, pipework and utility penetrations;
- roof-space or subfloor clues where relevant and accessible;
- gardens, sheds, rear entries and shared tenancy edges.

The same page names the site types it scopes: offices, retail tenancies, cafes and food-adjacent premises, warehouses, workshops, storage areas and managed commercial property. It asks businesses to confirm the exact site type and operating constraints when booking. [1]

Compare each provider's proposed scope with the areas that need assessment. For a shop with shared bins and an adjoining takeaway, ask whether the rear lane and tenancy edges are included. Record the reason for any exclusions.

## Should the plan be one-off or recurring?

Choose recurring service when the site has ongoing exposure, and a one-off visit when the problem is defined and contained. Insight's published guidance draws the line this way: a single visit may suit an ant trail, an isolated cockroach report or new rodent evidence at one accessible site. Recurring service may suit sites where food, waste, deliveries, storage, several tenancies or customer areas keep the exposure going. Either way, the site assessment should decide. [1]

Some examples of how that line falls, applying the published criteria to common Rockhampton premises:

| Site situation | Likely fit | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Ant trail in one office kitchenette | One-off visit | Defined issue at one accessible site |
| Single cockroach report in a quiet shopfront | One-off visit, then watch | Isolated report |
| Cafe with food preparation, bins and daily deliveries | Recurring | Food, waste and deliveries create ongoing exposure |
| Warehouse holding stored goods behind roller doors | Recurring | Storage keeps the exposure going |
| Managed property with several tenancies | Recurring, recorded per tenancy | Multiple tenancies create ongoing exposure |

These rows apply the published criteria to typical cases. The inspection of your own site decides the real answer.

On a recurring plan, Insight's page tells buyers to ask how often monitoring is proposed, what happens between visits, which areas are included and who on site receives recommendations. [1] Its FAQ names food handling, waste volume, deliveries, storage, customer traffic and building condition as the factors that raise or lower a sensible frequency. It says food premises typically need more frequent servicing than a low-traffic office. [1]

The page also warns that a recurring plan should not be sold as a generic calendar detached from the actual risk. [1] A plan that repeats the same visit whatever the last visit found is that calendar. Ask each provider how the schedule would change if the findings changed.

## What access details should the plan settle?

The plan should settle when the technician can enter, who lets them in, which areas stay off-limits while the business trades and what staff do before and after treatment. Insight's published process covers this in its treatment and access plan step, which agrees the pest, treatment zones, preparation, timing and any areas that cannot be serviced while operations continue. Site instructions for occupants, food, stock, equipment and re-entry depend on the treatment selected. [1]

When you enquire, Insight asks for the preferred access window, the key contact and any shutdown or security requirements. Its FAQ says timing can be discussed but availability is not assumed. [1] Treat any provider's after-hours offer the same way. Get the agreed window in writing.

Food premises need more detail here. Insight's page says preparation, product selection and timing take stock, surfaces and equipment into account around food areas, and some work may need to happen outside operating hours. [1]

Access limits belong in the record too. Insight lists access limitations among the items a service record should hold. [1] If the roof space was locked or a storeroom was packed to the ceiling on the day, the record should say so. On paper, an area nobody could reach looks the same as an area that was clear.

## What treatment records should you receive after each visit?

Each visit should produce a record of the date, the areas inspected or treated, the pest evidence found, the work completed, any access limits and the recommendations. Insight's published service information lists those items. It tells buyers to ask what documentation is included and not to assume a particular compliance or logbook format unless it is agreed. [1]

Cafes, restaurants, takeaways and food-adjacent premises usually need records that fit an audit trail. Insight's page advises confirming the record format your auditor, landlord or franchise system expects when booking, so the documentation matches what you need to produce. [1] Settle the format before the first visit. Changing it after months of visits leaves a history in two shapes.

Property managers have a different use for the same records. Insight's page says recurring servicing across managed properties can be scheduled and documented per tenancy, so records stay usable at lease change or in a dispute. [1]

A service record shows what a technician inspected and did. Whether it meets a particular audit or lease requirement depends on that requirement. So let the party who will read the record define its format, and write that format into the plan.

## What should follow-up cover between visits?

Follow-up should cover two things: what happens if pests appear between visits, and who fixes the site conditions that let them in. Insight's published process ends with a review of recurring risks. Its page says building gaps, damaged door seals, waste practices, storage, leaks and outdoor harbourage may need action by the business, the landlord or a contractor. It says treatment and maintenance responsibilities should be recorded separately. [1]

Recording the two separately decides whether a plan improves over time. Treatment deals with the pests present on the day. A gap under a roller door or a leak behind a storeroom shelf keeps inviting them back, and treatment alone won't close it.

Ask for each recommendation to name who acts on it. Ask who on site receives the recommendations, since Insight lists that as a question for any recurring plan. [1] If the same damaged door seal appears on three records in a row with no owner, you're paying to treat the same entry point every visit.

## What does a Rockhampton site change about the plan?

Rockhampton premises shape the plan through their building layout and climate. Insight's published service information describes local premises that include older mixed-use buildings, CBD tenancies, standalone shops, offices, food businesses, warehouses and workshops. Rear lanes, shared bins, roller doors, storerooms and attached tenancies can change how pest pressure moves across a site. Warm conditions and rain can also change cockroach, ant and rodent activity around waste, moisture and stored goods. [1]

Local context points the inspection at the right places. Insight's page says each site's operations and access determine the service plan. [1] For a CBD tenancy with a shared bin in the rear lane, ask whether the lane and the shared tenancy edge sit inside the scope. Ask who reports back if a neighbour's waste area turns out to be the source.

## Does a commercial pest plan cover termites?

General pest servicing does not include a termite inspection, according to Insight's published commercial service information. The page says commercial buildings still face termite pressure, and structural timber, storerooms, wall voids and adjoining tenancies can conceal activity for a long time. Where timber damage, mud-like workings or moisture problems appear, it advises booking a termite inspection as a separate assessment. [1]

Ask any provider whether termite work sits inside or outside the plan, and get the answer in the written scope. If an inspection finds activity, Insight also publishes a guide to [termite treatment cost in Rockhampton](https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/resources/termite-treatment-cost-rockhampton/).

## How do you compare commercial pest control quotes?

Compare quotes only after the scopes match. Insight's published pricing guidance lists what moves the price: site size, business type, pest, number of risk zones, internal and external scope, access outside operating hours, food or stock preparation, number of tenancies, reporting needs and one-off versus recurring service. It notes that a small office kitchenette and a food premises with storage, waste and deliveries are not comparable jobs. [1]

Put the same questions to every provider:

1. Which areas are included, and which are excluded?
2. Does the inspection go beyond the room where pests were seen?
3. How often will you visit, and what sets that frequency?
4. What access window, key contact and preparation do you need?
5. What will each visit's record contain, and in what format?
6. What happens if we see pests between visits?
7. Which recommendations fall to us or the landlord, and how are they recorded?
8. Who inspects, who treats and who keeps the records?
9. Is a termite inspection included or separate?

The eighth question decides whether each visit builds on the last one. Insight's page says owner and technician Brendan Bartley does its commercial work himself and carries 10 years of pest, termite, commercial and construction-sector experience. It says the person who inspects the site is the person who plans the treatment, keeps the records and answers the phone on the next visit. [1] Ask every provider the same question and judge the answer against your site.

Expect a quote built from the scope. Insight's FAQ asks for enough operational detail to prepare a scope-based quote. [1]

## Frequently asked questions

### What is a pest management plan?

A pest management plan is the agreed scope for controlling pests at a site over time. It sets where the technician inspects and treats, how often visits happen, how access works, what each visit records and what follow-up happens. For a business, it also records which building or housekeeping fixes fall to the business or the landlord. [1]

### Is commercial pest control worth it?

It depends on the site's exposure. Insight's published guidance says recurring service may suit sites with ongoing food, waste, delivery, storage or multi-tenancy exposure, while one-off treatment may suit a defined issue. [1] The value of a plan sits in the parts you can check: named zones, a record after each visit and follow-up with an owner.

### Does a commercial pest control plan make a business compliant?

A pest plan produces service records. Whether those records satisfy an auditor, landlord or franchise system depends on that party's requirements. Insight's published service information says documentation requirements differ between businesses, landlords and internal systems, and should be agreed before work starts. [1]

### Can a property manager put several tenancies on one plan?

Insight's published service information says a property manager can book for several tenancies. It asks for each address or tenancy, the access contact, shared areas and reporting needs, and says multi-site or multi-tenancy scope should be documented clearly. [1]

### Can pest treatment be scheduled outside trading hours?

Timing can be discussed, but agree it before you rely on it. Insight's FAQ says availability is not assumed and asks for the preferred access window, key contact and any shutdown or security requirements at enquiry. [1]

### What should you send when asking for a quote?

Send the business type, opening hours, affected zones, recent sightings, customer or staff reports, food or storage areas, access contacts and any landlord or internal record requirements. Insight lists those items as the site and operating brief that starts its process. [1] A quote prepared without most of them rests on guesses about the scope.

---

Disclosure: Searchmaxxed manages Insight marketing and publishes Glamdring Research. This article has a commercial relationship with Insight.

## Source notes
1. Commercial Pest Control Rockhampton: https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/commercial-pest-control-rockhampton/ (checked September 30, 2026)

# Termite Barriers or Baiting: What to Compare Before Choosing

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/termite-barriers-or-baiting-central-queensland
Category: Property services
Published: September 30, 2026
Revised: September 30, 2026
Verdict: Choose from the property's inspection findings and access. Get the system-specific maintenance and monitoring requirements in writing, and retain regular professional termite inspections.

Compare termite barriers and baiting after an inspection of the property. Construction, access, termite activity and ongoing maintenance affect the choice. Insight Termite & Pest Solutions describes both as options within a property-specific termite management plan. [1] Neither method removes the need for regular inspection and the installed system's maintenance. [2]

## TL;DR

- Start with an inspection of accessible areas and any earlier treatment records.
- Ask how the proposed system fits the construction and the parts of the property that can be reached.
- Confirm monitoring and maintenance requirements in writing.
- Use the installed system's notice and product requirements to plan servicing.
- QBCC recommends a professional inspection and report every year, or more often in high-hazard areas. [2]

## What question should an inspection answer first?

The first question is what is happening at the property. Visible termite activity, earlier treatment and conditions that help termites enter can lead to different recommendations. Insight's published barrier guidance says its work begins with accessible-area checks and a property-specific assessment. [1]

An inspection may consider roof voids and subfloors where access is safe. Internal and external areas, foundations and moisture conditions also matter. Insight says it uses moisture detection and thermal imaging alongside those checks. [1] Ask which areas could not be reached and how that limits the findings.

Give the inspector earlier reports and any installation or treatment records. A system already in place may have specific inspection and maintenance requirements. QBCC says the termite management notice should record the type of system and the installer's or manufacturer's inspection recommendations. [2]

If you have found possible live termites, leave the evidence undisturbed and arrange an assessment. Insight's published guidance makes inspection the first step before selecting treatment. [1]

## What should you compare between barriers and baiting?

Compare the proposed scope for your property. A method name alone does not tell you which areas are included or what follow-up will be needed.

| Question | Barrier proposal | Baiting proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Where will the work happen? | Identify the protected areas and any access limitations | Identify station locations and access needed for checking them |
| What must happen first? | Record preparation and any work needed to reach the proposed areas | Record inspection findings and any access or preparation needs |
| What follows installation? | Get the inspection and maintenance requirements | Get the monitoring and servicing requirements |
| What records do you receive? | Installation details and the system's maintenance instructions | Monitoring records and the agreed service instructions |
| What affects the quote? | Property construction, access and the agreed installation scope | The agreed station and monitoring scope |

The table is a buying checklist. Your inspector should explain which of these questions apply to the specific system proposed. Insight's published service information describes liquid barriers, baiting, follow-up and monitoring as options selected after assessment. [1]

## How does property access affect the choice?

Access affects what can be inspected and where work can be carried out. Insight lists construction, soil conditions, access, moisture and earlier termite activity among the factors it considers before recommending a barrier. Paving and garden beds can also affect the plan. [1]

Tell the inspector about narrow sides and covered slab edges. Mention extensions and areas where stored goods restrict access. The proposed scope should explain which areas will be reached and which remain limited.

For a local example of the enquiry process, the [termite barrier Rockhampton](https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/termite-barriers-rockhampton/) page asks owners for the property type and access concerns. That helps establish the site questions before a recommendation. [3]

## What maintenance should you agree before installation?

Agree the installed system's inspection and maintenance requirements. QBCC says a termite management notice records the system type and relevant recommendations. Where chemicals are used, it should also record the life expectancy on the APVMA label. [2]

That information is more useful than a generic claim that every barrier lasts the same number of years. Ask where the notice will be kept and which records you should retain. QBCC says a termite management notice can usually be found in the electrical meter box. [2] Leave electrical enclosures and wiring to appropriately qualified people.

For baiting, ask which monitoring visits are included and how findings will be recorded. For a barrier, ask which maintenance or replenishment requirements apply to that particular system. Insight's published guidance says recommendations should be matched to the property and followed by the appropriate inspection or monitoring. [1]

## Does either system replace termite inspections?

Regular inspections remain part of termite management. QBCC recommends hiring a licensed pest controller to inspect and report on the property every year, or more often in high-hazard areas. It also says owners need to meet their system's maintenance requirements. [2]

A bait-station check and a whole-property inspection can have different scopes. Ask the provider what each visit includes. Keep reports and treatment records together so later findings can be compared with the earlier history.

## How should you compare the total cost?

Compare quotes with matching scope and follow-up. Insight's [termite treatment cost guide](https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/resources/termite-treatment-cost-rockhampton/) describes property-specific pricing factors. Ask what installation, monitoring and any later servicing include before comparing the total. [4]

Put four questions to each provider:

1. Why does this option suit the inspection findings?
2. Which areas and work are included?
3. What maintenance and monitoring will be required?
4. What is excluded from the quote and any system guarantee?

The answers should connect the method to your property. Keep the written proposal with the inspection report and the system records.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is baiting always better than a barrier?

The choice depends on the property and the inspection findings. Insight's published guidance includes both options within an assessment-led plan. Ask the provider to explain the access and follow-up requirements of its recommendation. [1]

### Can an existing home have a termite-management system?

Insight's service information covers assessment of established homes as well as different construction and access conditions. The system proposed should fit the actual structure and the areas that can be reached. [1]

### What should you do if the property already has a system?

Gather its installation and service records. Check the termite management notice for the system type and inspection or maintenance recommendations. QBCC says owners must meet those maintenance requirements. [2]

### Does a termite-management guarantee cover every property problem?

Read the particular guarantee's conditions with the written scope. Ask which system and work it covers and what inspections or maintenance are required. Avoid treating a headline guarantee as a substitute for those terms.

Disclosure: Searchmaxxed manages Insight marketing and publishes Glamdring Research. This article has a commercial relationship with Insight.

## Source notes
1. Insight termite barrier service: https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/service/termite-barriers/ (checked September 30, 2026)
2. QBCC: Protect against termites: https://www.qbcc.qld.gov.au/home-owner-hub/maintain-protect/protect-against-termites (checked September 30, 2026)
3. Insight Termite Barriers Rockhampton: https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/termite-barriers-rockhampton/ (checked September 30, 2026)
4. Insight termite treatment cost guide: https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/resources/termite-treatment-cost-rockhampton/ (checked September 30, 2026)

# A100 GPU price per hour by provider: September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/a100-rental-price-by-provider
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: RunPod lists the lowest on-demand A100 80 GB price of five GPU clouds checked on 28 September 2026, at $1.59 per GPU-hour.

RunPod lists the lowest on-demand price for an Nvidia A100 80 GB of the five GPU clouds checked: $1.59 per GPU-hour on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Lambda sits at the other end at $2.79, which is 75% above RunPod's rate. [2]

The spread is wide for one card, and the cheapest rate isn't always the cheapest way in.

## TL;DR

- RunPod ($1.59) and Crusoe ($2.00) list the only on-demand A100 80 GB rates at $2 or less among the five clouds ranked.
- CoreWeave and Lambda sell the 80 GB card on demand only as an eight-GPU unit, so their smallest on-demand order costs $21.60 and $22.32 an hour.
- Dropping to the 40 GB card saves $0.80 per GPU-hour at Lambda and about $0.40 at Modal. The other three ranked clouds list no on-demand 40 GB A100.
- The Vast.ai marketplace median for an A100 SXM4 was $0.99 an hour, 38% below RunPod's list price. Hosts set those prices and they change hourly, so the median sits beside the ranking, not in it.
- Nebius, Together AI and DigitalOcean list no A100 at all.

## How this ranking was built

Each provider is ranked by its lowest listed on-demand A100 80 GB price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026. The ranking belongs to our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure) and follows the [Glamdring research method](/methodology).

- **Source.** Each provider's public pricing page, captured on 28 September 2026.
- **Field.** The on-demand hourly price. Lambda labels it **PRICE/GPU/HR**; [2] CoreWeave labels it **On-Demand Price (Per Hour)**. [3]
- **Unit.** US dollars per GPU-hour, before tax. Lambda states that sales tax, VAT or GST is added to its prices. [2] The other pages captured show no tax line.
- **Conversions.** Modal prices per second: $0.000694 × 3,600 = $2.4984, shown as $2.50. [4] CoreWeave prices an eight-GPU node: $21.60 ÷ 8 = $2.70. [3]
- **Merges.** Where a provider lists both PCIe and SXM versions, the lower price ranks and the other appears in the table.
- **Exclusions.** Spot, reserved, cluster and serverless-inference rates are left out of the rank and noted where they change the reading. The 40 GB card is covered separately.
- **Row counts.** Nine pricing pages captured. One is a marketplace (Vast.ai), leaving eight fixed-price clouds. Three of those list no A100: Nebius, [5] Together AI [6] and DigitalOcean. [7] Five clouds remain and all five are ranked.

This is the first edition of the ranking. The next check of the same pages replaces it.

## A100 80 GB on-demand prices, ranked

| Rank | Provider | A100 80 GB variant listed | On-demand price (USD per GPU-hour, pre-tax) | Smallest on-demand unit |
|---:|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | RunPod | SXM and PCIe, same price | $1.59 | One GPU (Pod) |
| 2 | Crusoe | PCIe; SXM at $2.30 | $2.00 | Priced per GPU-hour |
| 3 | Modal | 80 GB, form factor not stated | $2.50 | Priced per second |
| 4 | CoreWeave | Eight-GPU node | $2.70 | Eight GPUs, $21.60 an hour |
| 5 | Lambda | SXM, eight-GPU instance | $2.79 | Eight GPUs, $22.32 an hour |

Prices as listed by RunPod, [1] Crusoe, [8] Modal, [4] CoreWeave [3] and Lambda, [2] checked 28 September 2026. Lambda's eight-GPU hourly figure is its $2.79 rate multiplied by eight.

## Which cloud is cheapest for a single A100 80 GB?

RunPod is, at $1.59 per GPU-hour for one A100 SXM Pod with 16 vCPUs and 125 GB of RAM. [1] Its A100 PCIe Pod carries the same $1.59 rate with 8 vCPUs and 117 GB of RAM. [1] Crusoe is next at $2.00 per GPU-hour for the PCIe card. [8]

The order changes once the buying unit enters the sum. CoreWeave lists its on-demand A100 as an eight-GPU node at $21.60 an hour. [3] Its single-GPU price of $2.70 applies only to customers of CoreWeave's inference platform. [3] Lambda lists the 80 GB A100 only in its eight-GPU instance, at $2.79 per GPU-hour. [2] Outside CoreWeave's inference platform, a team that needs one 80 GB card can't buy one on demand at either.

At list price, a job that uses 100 GPU-hours costs $159 at RunPod and $279 at Lambda.

Form factor moves the price at one provider only. Crusoe charges $0.30 more for SXM than for PCIe, [8] while RunPod prices both the same. [1] JarvisLabs' specification table puts the 80 GB SXM at up to 2,039 GB/s of memory bandwidth against up to 1,935 GB/s for the 80 GB PCIe card. [9]

## How much cheaper is the A100 40 GB than the 80 GB?

Between about $0.40 and $0.80 per GPU-hour, at the two ranked clouds that list both. Lambda lists the 40 GB A100 at $1.99 against $2.79 for the 80 GB, so the larger card costs 40% more. [2] Modal lists the 40 GB at $0.000583 a second, or $2.10 an hour, against $2.50 for the 80 GB: 19% more. [4]

Lambda's pricing page lists the 40 GB card at $1.99 per GPU-hour in all four of its instance tables, in SXM and PCIe versions, while the 80 GB card appears only in the eight-GPU table. [2] For a single-card workload at Lambda, the 40 GB A100 is the only A100 on offer.

RunPod, [1] Crusoe [8] and CoreWeave [3] list no on-demand 40 GB A100 on the pages checked.

The extra money buys memory and bandwidth. JarvisLabs lists the 40 GB PCIe card with 40 GB of HBM2 and up to 1,555 GB/s, and the 80 GB PCIe card with 80 GB of HBM2e and up to 1,935 GB/s. [9] Its own guidance is to start with 40 GB unless you know you need more, and to choose 80 GB for training or fine-tuning models in the 13B to 65B parameter range. [9] That is one GPU rental company's view. Test it against your own model size, context length and batch size.

## How does the Vast.ai marketplace median compare?

It sits below every ranked list price. Vast.ai showed a median of $0.99 an hour for an A100 SXM4 with 80 GB, with offers from $0.31, and a median of $0.74 for an A100 PCIe with 80 GB, with offers from $0.47. [10] The SXM4 median is $0.60 below RunPod's list price.

The median stays out of the ranking for three reasons. Vast says its prices are set by the market, not by Vast. [10] It says prices reflect currently available offers and update hourly. [10] And it sells three tiers: on-demand, interruptible capacity that may be reclaimed, and reserved terms. [10] The page doesn't say which tier the median covers.

The decision changes when the work can survive interruption. Vast describes its interruptible tier as ideal for fault-tolerant workloads that checkpoint and resume. [10] A fixed list price buys predictability; the marketplace median shows what the same card fetches when hosts compete.

## How do providers define the hourly price?

Each provider prices a different bundle, so the same "per hour" label covers different purchases. Three things differ.

**The unit sold.** RunPod and Crusoe price one GPU. [1] [8] CoreWeave and Lambda price the 80 GB card inside an eight-GPU unit. [3] [2] Modal prices per second. [4]

**What comes with the GPU.** A RunPod A100 SXM Pod lists 16 vCPUs and 125 GB of RAM, [1] with storage priced separately from $0.05 per GB a month. [1] Modal charges CPU at $0.0000131 per physical core per second and memory at $0.00000222 per GiB per second on top of the GPU. [4] A CoreWeave A100 node lists 128 vCPUs, 2,048 GB of system RAM and 7.68 TB of local storage. [3] Lambda's eight-GPU A100 80 GB instance lists 240 vCPUs, 1,800 GiB of RAM and 19.5 TiB of SSD. [2]

**The product line.** RunPod alone lists three A100 rates: $1.59 for a Pod, $1.79 for an A100 SXM in its multi-GPU Clusters, and $2.72 for an 80 GB worker in its Serverless product. [1] Only the Pod rate is on-demand GPU rental in the sense this ranking uses.

The constraint is the unit, not the headline rate. Compare two quotes only after converting both to the same GPU count, the same bundled CPU and memory, and the same billing increment.

## Why do other published A100 prices disagree?

Mostly because they were checked on other dates and priced other configurations. Northflank's comparison, published on 4 August 2025, listed the 80 GB A100 at $2.17 on RunPod, $3.40 on Modal and $1.79 on Lambda. [11] Glamdring Research's check on 28 September 2026 found $1.59 at RunPod, [1] $2.50 at Modal [4] and $2.79 at Lambda. [2]

Two of those moved down and one moved up. The pages don't say why. Lambda's current 80 GB rate is for an eight-GPU SXM instance, [2] and Northflank labelled its Lambda figure as bundled full-node pricing, [11] so the two figures may not describe the same configuration.

Bundling is the second cause. Northflank's own table mixes "GPU only" rates with bundled rates that include CPU, RAM and storage. [11] It notes that many platforms list low hourly rates but charge separately for CPU, RAM and storage. [11] One figure in that table did hold: it listed Modal's 40 GB A100 at $2.10, [11] which matches Modal's current per-second rate converted to an hour. [4]

The third cause is speed of change. RunPod dated its pricing page 27 September 2026, [1] and Vast's marketplace prices update hourly. [10] Any A100 price without a checked date is already a guess.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

A list price doesn't promise capacity. Lambda describes its instances as self-serve with first-come access. [2] Confirm availability in the console before you plan around a rate.

It doesn't measure cost per finished job either. JarvisLabs argues that the key metric is cost per completed task, not cost per hour, and reports that the H100 is often 1.5 to 3 times faster than the A100 in many LLM inference setups. [9] A faster card at a higher hourly rate can finish cheaper. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) sets out the drivers beyond the GPU-hour.

The ranking covers eight fixed-price clouds and one marketplace. AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, Oracle Cloud, JarvisLabs and Northflank weren't checked, so their absence says nothing about their prices.

RunPod's page offers both Community Cloud and Secure Cloud. [1] The captured rate doesn't state which tier it belongs to, so confirm the tier in the current quote.

The ranked figure is the pre-tax GPU rate. Storage is priced on top where a provider charges for it, as RunPod does, [1] so price the whole workload, not the card.

New price checks go out through the [Glamdring research briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does an A100 cost per hour?

On 28 September 2026, five GPU clouds listed an on-demand A100 80 GB at between $1.59 per GPU-hour at RunPod [1] and $2.79 at Lambda. [2] The 40 GB card listed from $1.99 at Lambda [2] and about $2.10 at Modal. [4] On the Vast.ai marketplace, the median A100 SXM4 offer was $0.99 an hour. [10] All figures are US dollars before tax.

### Is spot or reserved A100 capacity cheaper than on-demand?

Where it's listed, yes. CoreWeave's North American spot price for its eight-GPU A100 node was $9.65 an hour against $21.60 on demand, 55% lower. [3] Vast says its interruptible tier is 50% or more cheaper and its reserved terms up to 50% off. [10] RunPod and Crusoe route A100 reserved or spot pricing through their sales teams. [1] [8] Vast warns that interruptible capacity may be reclaimed, so it suits fault-tolerant work that can checkpoint and resume. [10]

### Does the A100 hourly price include CPU, RAM and storage?

It depends on the provider. RunPod lists the vCPUs and RAM that come with each A100 Pod and prices storage separately. [1] Modal bills CPU and memory on top of the GPU. [4] CoreWeave and Lambda price a whole eight-GPU machine with its CPUs, RAM and local storage listed alongside. [3] [2]

### What does an A100 80 GB cost to buy outright?

JarvisLabs lists new street prices of $9,500 to $14,000 for the 80 GB PCIe card and $18,000 to $20,000 for the 80 GB SXM card. [9] It says these are street prices observed through resellers and vary by region, warranty and seller. [9] Northflank notes that an eight-GPU A100 node can cost upwards of $150,000 once CPUs, RAM, networking and chassis are added. [11]

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. JarvisLabs (GPU rental company): https://jarvislabs.ai/ai-faqs/nvidia-a100-gpu-price (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Northflank: https://northflank.com/blog/nvidia-a100-gpu-cost (checked September 28, 2026)

# B200 GPU price per hour: 6 clouds ranked, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/b200-rental-price-by-provider
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Ranked by the lowest listed on-demand B200 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026, Modal leads at $6.25 (GPU only; CPU and memory billed separately), ahead of Lambda at $6.69 and RunPod at $6.79.

Modal's own pricing page gives the lowest on-demand B200 price of the six GPU clouds we ranked: $6.25 per GPU-hour, converted from $0.001736 per second, checked 28 September 2026. [1] CoreWeave is the dearest at $8.60, the per-GPU share of its $68.80 8-GPU node. [2] That's a spread of $2.35 an hour for the same chip, and the host, billing unit and minimum size behind each price explain most of it.

## TL;DR

- Ranked by the lowest listed on-demand B200 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026, Modal ($6.25), Lambda ($6.69) and RunPod ($6.79) sit within 54 cents of each other. [1] [3] [4]
- Modal's rate buys the GPU alone. CPU and memory are billed on top, so its lead narrows or disappears once a host is attached. [1]
- Crusoe and DigitalOcean list no on-demand B200 price. Crusoe sends B200 instance buyers to sales; DigitalOcean's GPU Droplet list has no B200 at all. [5] [6]
- A B200 hour costs 1.40 to 2.05 times an H100 hour at the same provider. It carries 180 GB of memory against 80 GB, so it's cheaper per gigabyte of GPU memory everywhere we could compare. [3] [4] [2]
- Interruptible capacity roughly halves the price: Together AI lists preemptible B200s at $4.09 and CoreWeave's spot node works out to $4.26 per GPU. [7] [2]
- Nebius lists $8.50 from 1 October 2026, up from $7.15, which drops it from fourth to fifth. [8]
- The hourly rate is only one input to what a model costs to run. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the rest of the bill.

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research checked eight GPU clouds that rent capacity by the hour: Modal, Lambda, RunPod, Nebius, Together AI, CoreWeave, Crusoe and DigitalOcean. We captured each company's own pricing page on 28 September 2026, plus the Vast.ai pricing page as a marketplace reference.

- **Source:** each provider's public pricing page, captured 28 September 2026.
- **Field:** the lowest listed **on-demand** B200 price per GPU-hour at each provider. HGX B200 and B200 SXM6 listings both count.
- **Unit:** US dollars per GPU per hour, before tax. Lambda lists its prices "plus applicable sales tax/VAT/GST". [3] Nebius shows all prices "without any applicable taxes, including VAT". [8]
- **Conversions:** CoreWeave prices a whole 8-GPU node, so its node price is divided by eight. Modal prices per second, so its rate is multiplied by 3,600. No other figure is changed.
- **Row count:** nine pages captured, eight providers checked, six listing an on-demand B200 price, six ranked.
- **Not ranked:** Crusoe and DigitalOcean, which list no on-demand B200 price; Vast.ai, whose prices are set by hosts on a marketplace; spot, preemptible and reserved rates, which have their own section below.

These are company statements about company prices, and our [research methodology](/methodology) treats them that way. The ranking sits in our [model infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) coverage.

## Which cloud rents the B200 cheapest on demand?

Modal does, at $6.25 per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Lambda is second at $6.69 on its 8-GPU B200 instance, and RunPod third at $6.79. [3] [4] CoreWeave is last at $8.60. [2]

| Rank | Provider | B200 listing | On-demand (US$ per GPU-hour) | How the page lists it |
|---:|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | Modal | Nvidia B200 | 6.25 | $0.001736 per second, × 3,600 |
| 2 | Lambda | B200 SXM6 180 GB, 8-GPU instance | 6.69 | $6.69 per GPU-hour, plus tax |
| 3 | RunPod | B200 180 GB pod | 6.79 | $6.79/hr |
| 4 | Nebius | HGX B200 | 7.15 | $7.15 per GPU-hour; $8.50 from 1 October 2026 |
| 5 | Together AI | HGX B200, GPU Clusters | 8.19 | $8.19 per GPU-hour |
| 6 | CoreWeave | HGX B200, 8-GPU node | 8.60 | $68.80 per node-hour, ÷ 8 |

Each row comes from that provider's own pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [3] [4] [8] [7] [2]

The top three are close. Modal, Lambda and RunPod sit within 54 cents, and the median of all six is $6.97. The break comes after Nebius: Together AI and CoreWeave are both more than a dollar above the median.

Over a 30-day month of 720 hours, one B200 costs about $4,500 at Modal's rate and $6,192 at CoreWeave's. That's the GPU line alone, before storage, network and tax.

Lambda's price depends on instance size. The same B200 SXM6 lists at $6.69 per GPU on the 8-GPU instance, $6.79 on four GPUs, $6.89 on two and $6.99 on one. [3] A buyer who needs one GPU pays $6.99 at Lambda, which moves it behind RunPod's single-pod $6.79. [4]

## What does the hourly B200 price include?

It includes a different host at each provider, and at Modal it includes no host at all. Modal lists the B200 GPU at $0.001736 per second and bills CPU at $0.0000131 per physical core per second and memory at $0.00000222 per GiB per second, separately. [1]

The other five price a machine. RunPod's B200 pod comes with 28 vCPUs and 283 GB of RAM. [4] Lambda's 1-GPU B200 instance carries 26 vCPUs, 360 GiB of RAM and a 2.75 TiB SSD; the 8-GPU instance carries 208 vCPUs, 2,900 GiB and 22 TiB. [3] CoreWeave's node price covers eight B200s, 128 vCPUs, 2,048 GB of RAM and 61.44 TB of local storage. [2]

As an illustration, give a Modal B200 the same host as Lambda's 1-GPU instance: 13 physical cores, the 2-vCPU equivalent of Lambda's 26 vCPUs, and 360 GiB of memory. The hour then comes to about $9.74, against Lambda's $6.99. [1] [3] Modal's pricing assumes you won't provision that much. It says customers "never pay for idle resources" and pay for "actual compute time". [1] For a short or bursty job with a lean host, its $6.25 holds. For a long job on a heavy host, a bundled machine is cheaper.

Minimum size matters as much as the rate. CoreWeave's on-demand B200 comes as an 8-GPU node at $68.80 an hour. [2] Its table also lists a single-GPU B200 price of $8.60, but a footnote limits GPU-based pricing to customers of the CoreWeave inference platform. [2] Together AI's $8.19 is its GPU Clusters rate, and it separately lists Dedicated Inference on B200 at $8.99 per GPU-hour. [7]

## Which providers only quote B200 prices through sales?

Crusoe is the clearest case among the eight. Its GPU instance table lists the 180 GB HGX B200 with "Contact sales" in both the on-demand and spot columns, while it prints $3.90 per GPU-hour for the H100. [5] The only B200 figure Crusoe publishes is $9.65 an hour for a self-serve managed inference deployment, which is a dedicated model endpoint, not an instance rental. [5]

DigitalOcean doesn't list the B200 at all. Its GPU Droplet page, repriced from 1 August 2026, lists B300, H200, H100, L40S, RTX Ada and AMD Instinct GPUs, with no B200 in the on-demand, spot or reserved plans. [6]

Several ranked providers also move B200 capacity to sales beyond a certain size or term:

- RunPod lists B200 multi-node Clusters as "Contact sales". [4]
- Lambda's 1-Click Clusters of 16 or more B200s for a year or longer carry no printed price and point to its team. [3]
- Together AI prints reserved B200 rates up to 180 days, then asks buyers to contact it for 181 days or more. [7]
- Modal offers volume-based discounts on its custom-priced Enterprise plan. [1]

The pattern is consistent. Short, small B200 rentals have public prices. Long terms and big clusters are negotiated.

## How much more does a B200 cost than an H100?

At the same provider, a B200 hour costs between 1.40 and 2.05 times an H100 hour, checked 28 September 2026. The gap in dollars runs from $2.30 at Modal to $4.20 at Together AI. Each pair below compares the provider's B200 with its own SXM-class or HGX H100 on the same terms.

| Provider | B200 (US$ per GPU-hour) | H100 SXM or HGX (US$ per GPU-hour) | Gap (US$) | B200 ÷ H100 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Modal | 6.25 | 3.95 | 2.30 | 1.58 |
| Lambda, 8-GPU instance | 6.69 | 3.99 | 2.70 | 1.68 |
| RunPod | 6.79 | 3.49 | 3.30 | 1.95 |
| Nebius | 7.15 | 3.85 | 3.30 | 1.86 |
| Together AI, GPU Clusters | 8.19 | 3.99 | 4.20 | 2.05 |
| CoreWeave, 8-GPU node | 8.60 | 6.16 | 2.45 | 1.40 |

Sources: each provider's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [3] [4] [8] [7] [2] Modal's H100 SXM5 converts from $0.001097 per second, and CoreWeave's HGX H100 from a $49.24 8-GPU node. [1] [2] The median ratio across the six is 1.77.

The premium buys memory first. Lambda, RunPod and CoreWeave list the B200 at 180 GB per GPU and the H100 at 80 GB, which is 2.25 times the memory. [3] [4] [2] Every ratio in the table is below 2.25, so per gigabyte of GPU memory the B200 is the cheaper chip:

| Provider | B200, US cents per GB-hour | H100, US cents per GB-hour |
|---|---:|---:|
| Lambda | 3.72 | 4.99 |
| RunPod | 3.77 | 4.36 |
| CoreWeave | 4.78 | 7.69 |

The decision changes with the model. A job that fits in 80 GB pays the full premium for memory it doesn't use, so the H100 is cheaper per hour and likely per task. A model that needs two H100s just to hold its weights, 160 GB between them, can fit on one 180 GB B200, and then the per-gigabyte figures above are the relevant ones. Memory isn't throughput, though. Confirm the per-task cost on one representative job before committing.

## What do spot and reserved B200 prices cost?

Interruptible B200 capacity costs about half the on-demand rate where it's listed. Commitment discounts are smaller, and one provider charges more for clusters than for instances. Checked 28 September 2026:

| Provider | Spot or preemptible (US$ per GPU-hour) | Reserved or committed (US$ per GPU-hour) | On-demand (US$ per GPU-hour) |
|---|---|---|---:|
| Nebius | from 0.99 | Up to 35% below on-demand for multi-month clusters | 7.15 |
| Together AI | 4.09 | 7.99 (7–30 days), 7.79 (31–90), 6.79 (91–180); 181+ days on request | 8.19 |
| CoreWeave | 4.26 in North America ($34.11 node ÷ 8); 4.36 in Europe ($34.87 ÷ 8) | Not listed | 8.60 |
| Lambda | Not listed | 1-Click Clusters, 2 weeks to 1 year: 9.86 (16 GPUs), 9.36 (64), 8.87 (256+) | 6.69 |
| RunPod | Not listed for B200 | Contact sales | 6.79 |
| Modal | Not listed | Volume-based discounts on Enterprise | 6.25 |

Sources: each provider's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [8] [7] [2] [3] [4] [1]

Nebius's "from $0.99" is a floor on a moving price. It says spot prices are dynamic, can change as often as every 15 minutes, and top out one cent below the current on-demand rate. [8] Together AI's $4.09 preemptible B200 is almost exactly half its $8.19 on-demand rate, and CoreWeave's spot node is about half its on-demand node. [7] [2]

Commitment saves less. Together AI's 91–180 day rate of $6.79 is 17% below its on-demand price. [7] Nebius's "up to 35%" would put its B200 near $4.65 at today's rate, but the page gives no B200-specific figure. [8] Lambda runs the other way: its cheapest 1-Click Cluster rate, $8.87 for 256 or more B200s, sits $2.18 above its $6.69 8-GPU instance, and the page doesn't say what the premium covers. [3]

## How does the Vast.ai marketplace price compare?

Vast.ai's median B200 listing was $10.63 an hour on 28 September 2026, above every fixed on-demand price in the ranking. [9] Its lowest B200 offer at that capture was $9.38. [9]

The marketplace moves fast. Vast.ai says its prices are "set by supply and demand across 40+ data centers". [9] Its B200 detail page, captured about 90 minutes later the same day, headlined B200 rental "for $6.25/hr", said prices "update hourly" and rated availability "Low". [10] Both pages label the card at 192 GB, where the ranked clouds list 180 GB. [9] [10] A median of host-set offers is a different figure from a list price, so Vast.ai sits beside the ranking rather than in it.

## Why do other published B200 prices disagree?

Most of the disagreement comes from which providers are counted, the date and the unit. Thunder Compute's guide, last reviewed 18 September 2026, puts the B200 at $5.99 to $16.11 per GPU-hour. [11] Its low end is Hyperbolic at $5.99 and Hyperstack at $6.00, neither of which we checked. [11] Its high end is the hyperscalers: Oracle Cloud at $14.00, AWS at $14.24 and Google Cloud at $16.11, all normalised from 8-GPU instances. [11]

Where the guides and this ranking cover the same provider, the figures mostly agree. Thunder Compute's prices for Modal ($6.25), Lambda ($6.69), RunPod ($6.79), Nebius ($7.15) and CoreWeave ($8.60) match our 28 September capture. [11] Its Vast.ai figure doesn't: $6.82, described as the median of two verified US or Canadian hosts, against the platform-wide median of $10.63 we captured. [11] [9]

Older figures drift for another reason. Northflank's guide, published 6 August 2025, lists RunPod's B200 at $8.64 an hour. [12] That matches RunPod's current Serverless B200 rate, not the $6.79 pod rate. [4] The same guide lists Northflank's own bundled B200 at $5.87 and Google Cloud at $18.53. [12] A B200 price is only comparable once the product line, the date and the per-GPU unit are pinned down.

## What changes in October 2026?

Nebius has published its next B200 rate: $8.50 per GPU-hour from 1 October 2026, up $1.35, or 19%, from $7.15. [8] At $8.50 it moves from fourth to fifth, behind Together AI's $8.19 and just ahead of CoreWeave's $8.60. Its H100 rises at the same time, from $3.85 to $4.50, so its B200-to-H100 ratio barely moves, from 1.86 to 1.89. [8]

Other pages were repriced recently. RunPod dates its pricing page 27 September 2026, and DigitalOcean's new GPU pricing took effect on 1 August 2026. [4] [6] Together AI's page carries a banner saying on-demand B200s are now available on its GPU Clusters. [7] This is Glamdring's first B200 price ranking, so there's no earlier release to compare.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking covers eight selected clouds, not the whole market. Hyperbolic's $5.99 and Hyperstack's $6.00, as reported by Thunder Compute on 18 September, would both rank ahead of Modal if they still held. [11] We didn't check their pricing pages.

It doesn't measure availability. A listed price says what a provider charges, not whether a B200 can be launched in your region today, and Vast.ai rated its own B200 availability low on the day we checked. [10]

It doesn't measure cost per task. The host bundled with each GPU differs, Modal bills its host separately, and storage, network and idle time add to the GPU line. Run one representative job on the two or three cheapest options that fit it, and compare the cost of the finished job. Confirm the instance size, region and tax in the current quote.

One ranked figure carries a label question. RunPod's page offers Community Cloud and Secure Cloud views, and the page text we captured doesn't say which view carries the $6.79. [4]

More compute price rankings are in our [published research](/research), and new ones go out in our [free email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Why is the Nvidia B200 so expensive?

Thunder Compute, a GPU cloud that doesn't rent B200s itself, gives three reasons: high demand for large-scale training, capacity reserved for large enterprise customers, and the cost of the liquid-cooled, high-power systems the chip requires. [11] It lists the B200 at 1,000 W and says liquid cooling is required. [11] In rental terms, the premium over an H100 at the same provider ran from 1.40 to 2.05 times on 28 September 2026. The main difference those pricing pages list is memory: 180 GB per B200 against 80 GB per H100. [3] [2]

### What does it cost to buy a B200 instead of renting one?

Nvidia doesn't publish a list price, so purchase figures come from resellers and estimates. Thunder Compute estimates $45,000 to $55,000 for a single B200 at street prices and $450,000 to $550,000 for an 8-GPU HGX B200 system. [11] A European reseller lists the 8-GPU DGX B200 at €455,000 to €628,000, for businesses in Europe only. [13] At Modal's $6.25 an hour, $45,000 to $55,000 buys roughly 7,200 to 8,800 GPU-hours of rental, or 10 to 12 months of continuous use, before counting the server, power and cooling an owned card needs.

### Is the B200 better than the H100?

It has more than twice the memory, 180 GB against 80 GB on the pages we checked, and costs 1.40 to 2.05 times as much per hour at the same provider. [3] [4] [2] For a model that needs two H100s just to hold its weights, one B200 can do it and costs less per gigabyte of memory. For a job that fits comfortably on an H100, the older chip is cheaper per hour. Which is cheaper per task depends on the workload, so test one representative job on both.

## Source notes
1. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing/gpu/B200 (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Thunder Compute: https://www.thundercompute.com/blog/nvidia-b200-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
12. Northflank: https://northflank.com/blog/how-much-does-an-nvidia-b200-gpu-cost (checked September 28, 2026)
13. aiserver.eu: https://aiserver.eu/product/nvidia-dgx-b200/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# BambooHR pricing: official price page, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/bamboohr-pricing
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: BambooHR publishes its list prices: a flat rate starting at $250 USD a month for 25 or fewer employees, and from $10 (Core), $17 (Pro) and $25 (Elite) per employee per month above 25, checked 28 September 2026.

BambooHR's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, lists a flat rate starting at $250 USD a month for companies with 25 or fewer employees. Above 25 employees it charges per employee per month, starting at $10 for Core, $17 for Pro and $25 for Elite. [1] Payroll, benefits administration, time and attendance and global employment are add-ons with no published price. [1] The figure you pay comes from a quote, because volume discounts apply automatically by headcount.

## TL;DR

- At exactly 25 employees, the $250 flat rate works out to $10 a head, Core's listed rate. At 10 employees it's $25 a head. [1]
- Pro's listed rate is 70% above Core's, and Elite's is 150% above. [1]
- At list, 100 employees cost $12,000 a year on Core, $20,400 on Pro and $30,000 on Elite, before discounts, add-ons and implementation. [1]
- Payroll covers US employees only and has no published price. Eligible buyers on a 12-month minimum pay $0 in payroll subscription fees until 31 December 2026, so the free stretch shrinks every month a buyer waits. [1]
- Third-party pages that say BambooHR keeps its prices private, or quote $10 to $22 per employee, don't match the pricing page on the checked date. [2] [3]
- Ask for an itemised quote: the plan rate after volume discount, each add-on and any implementation charge.

## How this ranking was built

We captured BambooHR's US pricing page on 28 September 2026 and took every price exactly as listed, in US dollars, following [Glamdring's research standard](/methodology). [1] The ranked field is the listed starting price per employee per month, which the page labels **per employee/month**. The page doesn't say whether tax is included.

The inclusion rule is every HR software plan with a listed price. That gives three plans: Core, Pro and Elite. The small-company flat rate sits outside the ranking because it's a monthly amount for the whole company, not a per-employee rate. Four add-ons (Payroll, Benefits Administration, Time & Attendance and Global Employment) are excluded because the page gives no price for them. [1]

Every cost projection below is our arithmetic on those listed rates. None of it includes the automatic volume discounts, because BambooHR doesn't publish the discount schedule.

## BambooHR plans ranked by listed price

Core is the cheapest plan at $10 per employee per month. Elite is the most expensive at $25. [1]

| Rank | Plan | Listed price (USD per employee per month, from) | Applies to | What the plan adds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Core | $10 | Companies with more than 25 employees | Employee records, reports, time-off management, applicant tracking, 1 compliance training course |
| 2 | Pro | $17 | Companies with more than 25 employees | Everything in Core, plus performance management, employee community, recognition and rewards, 15 compliance training courses |
| 3 | Elite | $25 | Companies with more than 25 employees | Everything in Pro, plus compensation management, custom dashboards, HR benchmarks, premium services, 300+ compliance training courses |

Prices and plan contents are from BambooHR's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Each plan price carries an asterisk that points to one note: volume and non-profit discounts are available. [1]

Companies with 25 or fewer employees pay a monthly flat rate starting at $250 USD instead. [1] The page doesn't say which plan that rate buys.

## What does BambooHR cost with 25 or fewer employees?

BambooHR charges companies with 25 or fewer employees a monthly flat rate starting at $250 USD. [1]

The flat rate turns headcount into the variable that matters. Divided across the team, $250 a month is $10 per employee at 25 people, $25 at 10 and $50 at 5. At 25 employees the flat rate equals Core's listed per-employee price exactly. Below that, every person you don't have raises the cost per head.

The word "starting" matters here. The pricing page gives no flat-rate figure for Pro or Elite and doesn't say whether $250 covers Core features only. [1] A company of 12 that wants performance reviews or compensation planning should ask for the flat rate on that plan before assuming $250.

## What do Core, Pro and Elite cost above 25 employees?

Above 25 employees, BambooHR's listed prices start at $10 per employee per month for Core, $17 for Pro and $25 for Elite. [1]

Those are starting prices. The page says volume discounts are applied automatically based on headcount and increase as headcount rises. [1] The listed rate opens the quote. It isn't the contract figure.

At list, before any discount, the monthly and annual cost looks like this:

| Employees | Core per month | Pro per month | Elite per month | Core per year | Pro per year | Elite per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | $260 | $442 | $650 | $3,120 | $5,304 | $7,800 |
| 50 | $500 | $850 | $1,250 | $6,000 | $10,200 | $15,000 |
| 100 | $1,000 | $1,700 | $2,500 | $12,000 | $20,400 | $30,000 |

The step from 25 to 26 employees is where the model changes. A company at 25 pays from $250 a month on the flat rate. At 26 on Core list, it pays $260.

## What does each plan add for the extra money?

Pro adds people-management tools to Core, and Elite adds compensation and analytics tools to Pro. [1]

Core covers the HR record system: employee records, a custom report builder, workflows and approvals, dashboards, job posting, time-off management and benefits tracking. It also includes an AI assistant for HR data questions, compliance guidance powered by VirgilHR and one compliance training course. [1]

Pro adds $7 per employee per month to Core's listed rate. For that, it adds 360° review cycles, 1:1s, an employee community, recognition and points-based rewards, and 15 compliance training courses. [1] The feature comparison also raises applicant tracking from 5 job openings on Core to 25 on Pro. [1]

Elite adds another $8 per employee per month over Pro. It brings compensation planning with Mercer salary benchmarks, job levels and salary bands, customisable dashboards, HR benchmarks for turnover, age, gender and employee satisfaction, and 300+ compliance training courses. [1] Its premium services are 2 hours a year of data integrity services, 2 new-administrator training sessions a year, dedicated customer support and insider webinars. [1] Applicant tracking rises to 50 job openings. [1]

The decision changes when one module is the reason for buying. A company that needs compensation planning is buying Elite, and pays Elite's rate for every employee, not only for the managers who run pay reviews.

## What does BambooHR Payroll cost?

BambooHR doesn't publish a price for Payroll. It's an add-on to the HR plans, and the pricing page marks it for US employees only. [1] BambooHR's homepage describes it as its own add-on payroll system with full-service tax filing. [4]

The listed features are direct deposit, flexible pay schedules, federal and state tax filing, a single source of data and a specialised support team. [1] BambooHR says a dedicated payroll project manager sets the system up and runs the first payroll with the customer. [1]

Three sets of terms change the payroll bill:

- **Launch offer.** Between 1 August and 31 December 2026, eligible customers who buy qualifying Payroll offerings and commit to a minimum 12-month agreement may receive Payroll subscription fees at $0 through 31 December 2026. [1]
- **Eligibility.** With the Elite plan, the offer covers a new purchase or an eligible upgrade made at the time of the Payroll purchase, and the customer must not have been billed for Payroll or Elite before. With Managed Payroll Services, it covers new customers and existing customers adding both services; existing Payroll customers aren't eligible. [1]
- **Bundle discount.** Combining Payroll and Benefits Administration with any plan brings a 15% discount, currently for US-based employees only. [1]

The launch offer ends on a fixed date, not after a fixed number of months. A customer who signs on 1 October 2026 gets three months at $0 (October, November and December) and is committed for nine more months at a price the page doesn't show. Sign later and the free share of the 12 months falls.

The offer terms as captured stop mid-sentence at "Implementation, multi-state filing, and additional payroll…". [1] They name implementation and multi-state filing as separate items, but the visible text doesn't say how they're charged. Get both priced in writing.

## Which discounts does BambooHR publish?

BambooHR publishes three discounts: automatic volume discounts, 15% off for registered nonprofits and a 15% bundle discount. [1]

- **Volume.** Applied automatically to all accounts based on headcount, rising as headcount rises, with no request or negotiation needed. The schedule isn't published. [1]
- **Nonprofit.** An additional 15% off for registered nonprofit organisations. [1] On Core's $10 listed rate, 15% off is $8.50 per employee per month.
- **Bundle.** 15% off when Payroll and Benefits Administration are combined with any plan, for US-based employees. [1]

The page says "additional" for the nonprofit discount but doesn't say how the three combine. Ask the quote to show each discount as its own line.

## Why do other sites quote different BambooHR prices?

Third-party pricing pages disagree with BambooHR's own page on several points. On the checked date, BambooHR published starting prices for all three plans and the small-company flat rate. [1]

People Managing People says BambooHR's pricing details "aren't readily available online" and need a sales quote, though it also gives the $10 Core figure. [3] It says the Pro plan includes compensation planning; BambooHR's page puts compensation planning in Elite. [3] [1] It also says specific discounts for nonprofits aren't widely advertised, while BambooHR's pricing page states 15% off for registered nonprofits. [3] [1]

OutSail puts BambooHR at "$10 and 22 PEPM" in its article body and "$12 to 22 PEPM" in its own FAQ. [2] Neither range matches the $10, $17 and $25 on BambooHR's page. OutSail also applies the $250 flat fee to companies "with fewer than 25 employees", where BambooHR's page says 25 or fewer. [2] [1]

The company page is the authority on BambooHR's list price. It's still BambooHR's statement about its own offer, not evidence of what customers pay after discounts.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking shows list prices. It can't show the contract price, because BambooHR doesn't publish its volume discount schedule. [1]

It also leaves these open:

- **Add-on prices.** Payroll, Benefits Administration, Time & Attendance and Global Employment (powered by Remote) carry no price on the page. [1]
- **Implementation.** The pricing page lists no implementation fee for the HR plans. People Managing People says there's a one-time implementation fee. [3] OutSail estimates it at about 5% to 15% of annual software fees. [2] That's an adviser's estimate, not a BambooHR price.
- **Tax.** The page doesn't say whether prices include tax.
- **Other countries.** These are US-site prices in US dollars. BambooHR runs separate Canada and UK sites, which we didn't check. [1]
- **Change over time.** This is our first capture of the page, so it can't show what changed since an earlier version. The next change to bamboohr.com/pricing triggers a refresh.

Glamdring's other software pricing and comparison work sits in [our published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is BambooHR free to use?

No. The pricing page lists no free plan. The cheapest listed option is the $250 USD monthly flat rate for companies with 25 or fewer employees. [1] BambooHR offers a free trial through a "Try it free" link. [1] People Managing People puts the trial at 7 days. [3] The only $0 price on the page is the Payroll subscription offer, which requires a minimum 12-month agreement and ends on 31 December 2026. [1]

### Does BambooHR charge an implementation fee?

BambooHR's pricing page lists no implementation fee for its HR plans, but its Payroll offer terms name implementation as a separate item. [1] People Managing People and OutSail both say a one-time implementation fee applies. [3] [2] OutSail estimates it at 5% to 15% of annual software fees. [2] On $12,000 a year of Core at list for 100 employees, that estimate works out to $600 to $1,800. Confirm the figure in the quote.

### Can I pay BambooHR monthly?

Yes. BambooHR offers month-to-month terms or an extended term. [1] Monthly customers can pay by credit card or ACH. Customers paying annually upfront can also pay by wire transfer or cheque. [1]

### Does BambooHR's price change as the company grows?

Yes. BambooHR says pricing adjusts automatically as a company scales, and that the volume discount increases with headcount. [1] A company that crosses 25 employees also moves from the monthly flat rate to per-employee pricing. [1]

## Source notes
1. BambooHR: https://www.bamboohr.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OutSail: https://www.outsail.co/post/how-much-does-bamboohr-cost (checked September 28, 2026)
3. People Managing People: https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/bamboohr-pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. BambooHR: https://www.bamboohr.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# BambooHR reviews: G2 and Trustpilot, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/bamboohr-review
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: The published record supports BambooHR as a well-rated HR system for its main G2 reviewer base, mid-market companies of 51 to 1,000 employees (G2 4.4/5 from 6,780 reviews; Trustpilot 3.4 from 151, checked 28 September 2026).

BambooHR's review record splits by platform. On G2, checked 28 September 2026, it holds 4.4 out of 5 from 6,780 reviews, and 94.8% of those reviews give four or five stars. [1] On Trustpilot the same day, it holds a TrustScore of 3.4 from 151 reviews, and 30% of them give one or two stars. [2] BambooHR publishes list prices of $10, $17 and $25 USD per employee per month for its Core, Pro and Elite plans. [3] No first-hand use is claimed.

## TL;DR

- **Verdict:** the published record supports BambooHR as a well-rated HR system for its main reviewer base, which on G2 is mid-market companies of 51 to 1,000 employees. The weak points sit after the sale: onboarding help and support access in recent Trustpilot reviews, and unpublished prices for payroll, benefits and time tracking.
- **The two ratings measure different crowds.** G2's sample is about 45 times larger than Trustpilot's, and Trustpilot itself warns that BambooHR's reviews there may not be representative.
- **Core plan prices are public; the full bill is not.** The three plan prices are on BambooHR's own page. Add-on prices are quote-only, so the total cost of a payroll-plus-HR setup can't be computed from public sources.
- **Small teams pay a flat fee.** Companies with 25 or fewer employees pay a flat monthly rate starting at $250 USD, which works out to $25 per head at 10 employees.
- **Some widely read reviews are stale on price.** A Business News Daily review updated 6 August 2026 says BambooHR publishes no pricing. BambooHR's pricing page showed list prices on 28 September 2026.

## How this review was built

This review uses only published pages, each captured on 28 September 2026 (AEST): BambooHR's US pricing page, its G2 product reviews page, its Trustpilot company page, its Glassdoor employer page and one independent editorial review from Business News Daily. No first-hand use is claimed. Nothing here comes from a trial, a demo or a sales quote.

Ratings, review counts and star distributions are quoted exactly as each platform displayed them. They are reported figures from self-selected reviewers, not measured outcomes. Shares such as "94.8% four or five stars" are computed from the counts G2 publishes; Trustpilot publishes percentages only, so those are quoted directly. Prices are BambooHR's own list prices in US dollars. The page doesn't say whether they include tax. Our [research standard](/methodology) explains how figures are checked and dated.

## What do BambooHR's G2 and Trustpilot ratings show?

G2 rates BambooHR 4.4 out of 5 from 6,780 reviews, and Trustpilot gives it a TrustScore of 3.4 from 151 reviews. [1] [2] Both were checked on 28 September 2026.

| Platform | Score | Reviews | 4 and 5 stars | 3 stars | 1 and 2 stars | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2 | 4.4 / 5 | 6,780 | 94.8% | 3.9% | 1.3% | 28 Sep 2026 |
| Trustpilot | 3.4 TrustScore | 151 | 65% | 5% | 30% | 28 Sep 2026 |

G2 shows the count behind each star level: 4,567 five-star, 1,862 four-star, 262 three-star, 42 two-star and 47 one-star reviews. [1] Those counts add to 6,780, and the shares in the table are computed from them. G2's own summary rounds the two lowest levels down to 0%. [1]

Trustpilot shows percentages only: 51% five-star, 14% four-star, 5% three-star, 8% two-star and 22% one-star. [2] So on Trustpilot almost one review in three is negative. On G2 it's closer to one in 76.

The G2 base also tells you who is doing the rating. Of the reviews tagged by company size, 4,243 come from mid-market companies of 51 to 1,000 employees, 1,686 from small businesses of 50 or fewer, and 385 from enterprises of more than 1,000. [1] That's 67.2% mid-market among the 6,314 size-tagged reviews. North America accounts for 4,478 reviews, or 66.0% of the total, and Australia and New Zealand for 145. [1]

## Why do G2 and Trustpilot disagree?

The two platforms collect reviews from different people in different ways, and Trustpilot flags its own BambooHR sample as possibly unrepresentative. [2] The gap between 4.4 and 3.4 says more about who reviews where than about two versions of the product.

Three facts on the pages explain most of it.

**Sample size.** G2 holds 6,780 reviews against Trustpilot's 151, roughly 45 times as many. [1] [2] On Trustpilot, 36 reviews arrived in the last 12 months. [2] A handful of angry customers can move a score built on that base.

**Invitation.** Trustpilot's page states that BambooHR "hasn't invited customers recently, so reviews may not be representative", and that it "hasn't replied to negative reviews". [2] The recent reviews shown are labelled as unprompted. Without invitations, the sample depends on who seeks the page out. Trustpilot's flag establishes that the sample may be skewed; it doesn't say in which direction.

**Verification.** G2 says it requires verified methods to write a review and validates the reviewer's identity before approving. [1] Trustpilot says it screens every review with automated software but doesn't fact-check reviews, and labels them "Verified" only when it can confirm a business interaction. [2]

The decision changes when you know which crowd resembles your company. A mid-market HR team will find more of its peers on G2. A 20-person company buying without an HR specialist may find Trustpilot's complaints closer to its own risk.

## What do reviewers praise and complain about?

Reviewers praise ease of use and complain about missing features, customisation and post-sale support. G2's tag counts put "Ease of Use" first with 1,527 mentions, followed by "Simple" (680), "User Interface" (555), "Intuitive" (500) and "Helpful" (450). [1] The leading negative tags are "Limited Features" (320), "Limited Customization" (316), "Missing Features" (238), "Integration Issues" (188) and "Feature Absence" (187). [1] G2's AI-generated summary adds that some users say the mobile app experience could be improved. [1]

Across those ten tags, positive mentions outnumber negative ones by about three to one: 3,712 against 1,249. One review can carry several tags, so treat that as a rough balance, not a count of people.

Trustpilot's recent negative reviews centre on what happens after signing. Its top-mention labels begin with staff, customer service and user experience. [2] A one-star review posted 17 September 2026, from a buyer describing a business of about 20 employees, says the QuickStart option was "primarily self-guided training through videos". [2] A two-star review posted 15 September 2026 says onboarding was "far more self-service than we were led to expect". [2]

Those are individual accounts, not verified findings. They do match BambooHR's process as an independent reviewer describes it. Business News Daily reports that most customers opt for an implementation service with a dedicated specialist, that implementation typically takes around four to six weeks, and that organisations with 25 or fewer employees use a QuickStart process built on self-guided videos. [4] It lists support by email and phone on weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mountain Time. [4]

The practical reading: the product itself draws few complaints about basic use. The risk sits in setup for small buyers. Ask for the implementation scope in writing before you sign.

## How much does BambooHR cost?

BambooHR lists three plans at $10, $17 and $25 USD per employee per month, for companies with more than 25 employees. [3] Companies with 25 or fewer employees pay a monthly flat rate starting at $250 USD. [3]

| Plan | List price (USD, per employee per month) | Job openings in applicant tracking | Compliance training courses | What the plan adds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | $10 | 5 | 1 | Employee records, reporting, hiring and onboarding, time off, benefits tracking, eNPS surveys, AI assistant for HR data questions |
| Pro | $17 | 25 | 15 | Everything in Core, plus performance management, employee community, recognition and rewards |
| Elite | $25 | 50 | 300+ | Everything in Pro, plus compensation management, custom dashboards, HR benchmarks, premium services |

Plan contents, limits and prices are from BambooHR's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [3] Tax status isn't stated.

The step-ups are steep in percentage terms. Pro costs 70% more than Core, and Elite costs 2.5 times Core. At 50 employees, list prices come to $500, $850 and $1,250 a month, or $6,000, $10,200 and $15,000 a year, before any discount.

The small-team flat rate has its own maths. $250 is exactly 25 employees at the Core list price. Below 25 heads, the effective price per employee rises: at 10 employees, a $250 fee is $25 per head, the same as Elite's list rate. The page says "starting at", so the plan that $250 buys isn't stated. [3]

BambooHR says volume discounts apply automatically by headcount and that registered nonprofits get an additional 15% off. [3] It doesn't publish the headcount thresholds for those volume discounts.

## What do the add-ons and discounts change?

Add-ons change the total bill, and their prices aren't published. BambooHR lists four add-ons: Payroll, Benefits Administration, Time & Attendance, and Global Employment, which is powered by Remote. [3] The pricing page directs buyers to a quote form rather than stating add-on prices. [3]

Two of the four are limited to the United States. Payroll and Benefits Administration both carry the note "US employees only". [3] The 15% bundle discount for combining Payroll and Benefits Administration with any plan is also only available for US-based employees. [3] For a company with staff in Australia, the UK or Canada, the published payroll offer doesn't apply to those employees.

A payroll promotion runs through the end of 2026. Its terms say the offer is valid from 1 August to 31 December 2026, and eligible customers who commit to a minimum 12-month agreement may receive BambooHR Payroll subscription fees at $0 through 31 December 2026. [3] The same page's banner says "until January 2027"; the written terms are the narrower statement.

Elite's premium services are the only support tier with published quantities: two hours a year of data integrity services, two new-administrator training sessions a year, dedicated customer support and an additional 30 days of implementation for Elite features. [3]

BambooHR offers month-to-month terms or an extended term, and accepts credit cards and ACH for monthly payment. [3]

## Why do other published BambooHR figures disagree?

Other figures disagree because some are out of date and some measure something else. Business News Daily's review, updated 6 August 2026, states that BambooHR "does not publish or advertise the pricing for any of its products or services" and lists each plan as "Custom quote required". [4] BambooHR's pricing page showed $10, $17 and $25 list prices on 28 September 2026. [3] The same review gives BambooHR an editor's score of 9.4 out of 10 and discloses that the publisher earns commissions from some listed providers. [4]

G2's own pricing panel shows the same three figures as "$10.00", "$17.00" and "$25.00" "Per Month", without the per-employee unit. [1] Read alone, that panel understates the cost by a factor of your headcount.

Glassdoor's 3.4 rating isn't a product rating at all. It's BambooHR's employer rating from 804 employee reviews, and Glassdoor reports it has decreased by 13% over the last 12 months. [5] It sits in the same search results as the product reviews and happens to match the Trustpilot score, which makes it easy to misread. Our [published research](/research) covers other enterprise-software systems on the same evidence standard.

## What the evidence cannot show

The public record can't show how BambooHR performs in a specific company, and several figures a buyer needs aren't published anywhere in the sources checked.

- **Outcomes.** Review scores are reported opinions from self-selected reviewers. They don't measure uptime, support response times, payroll accuracy or customer retention.
- **Total cost.** Add-on prices, volume-discount thresholds and implementation fees aren't on the pricing page. A combined HR, payroll and time-tracking cost can't be computed from public sources.
- **Non-US pricing.** The captured page is BambooHR's US page in US dollars. BambooHR runs separate Canadian and UK sites, which weren't checked. [3]
- **Company claims.** BambooHR's pricing page says it is "Trusted by 30,000+ companies" and shows customer savings figures. [3] Those are the company's own statements, and no independent source in this review confirms them.
- **Individual complaints.** Trustpilot doesn't fact-check reviews. [2] The onboarding accounts quoted above are consistent with the published process but aren't verified events.
- **Tag overlap.** G2's pros-and-cons counts are generated from reviews and can overlap, so they rank themes rather than count reviewers.

The view would change with a new G2 or Trustpilot capture showing a material score shift, a Trustpilot invitation programme that broadens the sample, or published add-on prices.

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does BambooHR cost per employee per month?

BambooHR's list prices are $10 USD for Core, $17 for Pro and $25 for Elite, per employee per month, for companies with more than 25 employees. [3] Smaller companies pay a flat monthly rate starting at $250 USD. Payroll, benefits administration, time tracking and global employment cost extra and are priced by quote. Checked 28 September 2026.

### Is BambooHR legit?

The public record shows an operating software company with a large review footprint. BambooHR has 6,780 reviews on G2, which says it validates each reviewer's identity before approving a review. [1] Its Trustpilot profile has been claimed since July 2021. [2] The complaints behind its lower Trustpilot score concern onboarding and support after purchase.

### Can BambooHR run payroll for employees outside the United States?

Not through its own Payroll add-on, which BambooHR lists for US employees only. [3] For staff in other countries, BambooHR offers a Global Employment add-on powered by Remote, covering employer of record and contractor management. [3] Its price isn't published.

### Is BambooHR's Glassdoor rating the same thing as its Trustpilot rating?

No. Both read 3.4, but Glassdoor's figure comes from 804 employee reviews of BambooHR as a place to work. [5] Trustpilot's 3.4 comes from 151 reviews of the product and service. [2] The two figures share a number, not a subject.

## Source notes
1. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/bamboohr/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/bamboohr.com (checked September 28, 2026)
3. BambooHR: https://www.bamboohr.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Business News Daily: https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/16117-bamboohr.html (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Glassdoor: https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/BambooHR-Reviews-E676898.htm (checked September 28, 2026)

# Battery storage by state in Australia: AEMO July 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/battery-storage-capacity-by-state-australia
Category: Energy storage
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Queensland has the most reported battery storage in the NEM, both in total (146,674.1 MWh) and in service (4,331.8 MWh). Its lead rests on Publicly Announced projects; excluding that class, New South Wales leads with 35,622.2 MWh against Queensland's 22,571.4 MWh.

Queensland has the most battery storage in the National Electricity Market (NEM). AEMO's NEM Generation Information release of 31 July 2026 lists 146,674.1 MWh of reported storage capacity in Queensland across every status, and 4,331.8 MWh in service. [1] New South Wales is close behind on the total, at 139,937.2 MWh. [1]

Almost none of it is built yet. Of 412,965.7 MWh reported across the NEM, 12,383.7 MWh is operating. [1]

## TL;DR

- Queensland leads on both measures: total reported capacity (146,674.1 MWh) and capacity in service (4,331.8 MWh). [1]
- The total ranking rests on projects AEMO classes as Publicly Announced. They make up 326,425.7 MWh, or 79.0% of the NEM total. [1]
- Set Publicly Announced aside and New South Wales leads, with 35,622.2 MWh against Queensland's 22,571.4 MWh. [1]
- On operating capacity, Victoria (3,337.4 MWh) sits ahead of New South Wales (2,961.5 MWh). [1]
- No state's largest listed battery is operating. Queensland's Magnetite Energy Hub is the biggest, at 5,740.8 MWh. [1]
- Tasmania reports 4,274 MWh, all Publicly Announced, with nothing in service. [1]
- For individual batteries rather than state totals, see our [ranking of the largest battery storage sites in Australia](/post/largest-battery-storage-sites-australia).

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring ranks the states on one field from one AEMO release: NEM Generation Information, July 2026, dated 31 July 2026. We used the file `nem-generation-information-july-2026.xlsx`, sheet `Generator Information`. [1]

- **Field:** **Agg Nameplate Storage Capacity (MWh)**, the reported storage capacity in megawatt-hours. [1]
- **Inclusion:** rows where Technology Type is Battery Storage. [1]
- **Exclusion:** rows with the status Withdrawn. [1]
- **Merge:** generating-unit rows that share a site name and region count as one site. After the merge, 485 sites remain across the five states. [1]
- **Grouping:** capacity summed by state and by AEMO status. [1]
- **Operating:** In Service plus Announced Withdrawal, which AEMO uses for an operating plant with a closure announced. Every other status is not yet built. [1] No state reports any Announced Withdrawal battery capacity. [1]

AEMO records these figures. That is a registry figure, not a measured output. The status names are AEMO's own, applied as published. Glamdring's wider rules for sources and figures are on the [methodology page](/methodology).

## Which state has the most battery storage?

Queensland, with 146,674.1 MWh of reported storage capacity across all statuses. [1] New South Wales is second, Victoria third, South Australia fourth and Tasmania fifth. [1]

| Rank | State | Reported storage, all statuses (MWh) | In service (MWh) | Listed sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Queensland | 146,674.1 | 4,331.8 | 139 |
| 2 | New South Wales | 139,937.2 | 2,961.5 | 165 |
| 3 | Victoria | 83,361.1 | 3,337.4 | 107 |
| 4 | South Australia | 38,719.2 | 1,753 | 69 |
| 5 | Tasmania | 4,274 | 0 | 5 | [1]

The margin at the top is narrow. Queensland leads New South Wales by 6,736.9 MWh, even though New South Wales lists 26 more sites. [1] Queensland's projects are bigger on average: 1,055.2 MWh per listed site, against 848.1 MWh in New South Wales, 779.1 MWh in Victoria and 561.1 MWh in South Australia. [1]

The release lists five states. Western Australia and the Northern Territory don't appear in it, so this ranking says nothing about them. [1]

## Which state has the most battery storage in service?

Queensland, with 4,331.8 MWh In Service. [1] The operating order differs from the total: Victoria moves to second and New South Wales drops to third. [1]

| Rank | State | In service (MWh) | Share of the state's reported total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Queensland | 4,331.8 | 3.0% |
| 2 | Victoria | 3,337.4 | 4.0% |
| 3 | New South Wales | 2,961.5 | 2.1% |
| 4 | South Australia | 1,753 | 4.5% |
| 5 | Tasmania | 0 | 0% | [1]

Across the NEM, 12,383.7 MWh is in service: 3.0% of the reported total. [1] South Australia has the highest operating share of its own total. New South Wales has the lowest of the four states with any operating battery capacity. [1]

The two rankings answer different questions. In-service capacity describes the batteries on the grid in July 2026. The total adds everything AEMO lists at every development stage.

## How much capacity is operating versus announced?

Most of it is announced. Projects in AEMO's Publicly Announced class hold 326,425.7 MWh, or 79.0% of the NEM total, while 12,383.7 MWh is operating. [1]

| State | In Service | In Commissioning | Committed | Committed* | Anticipated | Publicly Announced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Queensland | 4,331.8 | 1,238 | 2,996.3 | 2,400 | 11,605.3 | 124,102.7 | 146,674.1 |
| New South Wales | 2,961.5 | 2,905 | 5,869.1 | 1,832.7 | 22,053.9 | 104,315 | 139,937.2 |
| Victoria | 3,337.4 | 849.9 | 5,020.7 | 668 | 8,701.2 | 64,783.9 | 83,361.1 |
| South Australia | 1,753 | 120 | 950.7 | 932.7 | 6,012.7 | 28,950.1 | 38,719.2 |
| Tasmania | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4,274 | 4,274 | [1]

All figures are MWh. Announced Withdrawal is zero in every state, so the table leaves it out. [1]

Queensland's lead depends on the Publicly Announced class. It holds 84.6% of Queensland's reported total, against 77.7% in Victoria, 74.8% in South Australia, 74.5% in New South Wales and 100% in Tasmania. [1]

Take that class out and the order changes. Counting operating capacity plus In Commissioning, Committed, Committed* and Anticipated:

| Rank | State | Reported storage excluding Publicly Announced (MWh) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | New South Wales | 35,622.2 |
| 2 | Queensland | 22,571.4 |
| 3 | Victoria | 18,577.2 |
| 4 | South Australia | 9,769.1 |
| 5 | Tasmania | 0 | [1]

New South Wales leads this measure on two counts. It has the most Anticipated capacity, at 22,053.9 MWh, and the most In Commissioning, Committed and Committed* capacity combined, at 10,606.8 MWh. [1]

The decision changes with the question. For where storage is being proposed, use the total. For what runs on the grid now, use In Service. For capacity in AEMO's other development classes, drop Publicly Announced and New South Wales comes first.

## What is the largest battery in each state?

In every state, the largest listed battery site is not yet operating. [1] Queensland's Magnetite Energy Hub is the largest of the five, at 5,740.8 MWh. [1]

| State | Largest listed site | Reported storage (MWh) | AEMO status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Queensland | Magnetite Energy Hub | 5,740.8 | Publicly Announced |
| New South Wales | Great Western Battery | 4,500 | Anticipated |
| Victoria | Connewarren BESS | 4,400 | Publicly Announced |
| Tasmania | Nook BESS | 3,024 | Publicly Announced |
| South Australia | Bundey BESS and Solar Project | 3,000 | Publicly Announced | [1]

Great Western Battery is the only state leader outside the Publicly Announced class. [1] Tasmania's Nook BESS is larger than South Australia's biggest listed site, and it alone accounts for 70.8% of Tasmania's reported capacity. [1]

This extract names the largest site by reported capacity at any status. It doesn't name the largest operating battery in each state. The site ranking linked above ranks individual batteries.

## What does reported storage capacity mean?

It is the storage capacity AEMO lists for each project, in megawatt-hours, summed across a site's units. The release field is **Agg Nameplate Storage Capacity (MWh)**. [1]

Megawatt-hours measure how much energy a battery holds. Megawatts measure how fast it charges or discharges. A ranking in MW can order the states differently, and this extract doesn't carry a MW figure.

Other published totals can disagree with these for three reasons. They may count power in MW rather than energy in MWh. They may count only operating or committed projects. Or they may draw on an earlier AEMO release. Check the unit, the status scope and the release date before comparing any two figures.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

- **Whether announced projects get built.** Status records where a project sat in AEMO's classes on 31 July 2026. This extract carries no probability of completion. [1]
- **Measured output.** These are reported nameplate figures, not measured delivery or availability.
- **Change since the previous release.** Only the July 2026 release is covered here, so no release-on-release movement is shown.
- **Western Australia and the Northern Territory.** Neither appears in the NEM release. [1]
- **Power rating.** A ranking in MW needs a different field.
- **The largest operating battery in each state.** For individual sites, use the site-by-site ranking.

More grid storage research sits in the [energy storage category](/categories/energy-storage). We refresh this ranking when AEMO publishes its next Generation Information release. [Subscribe to our research](/subscribe) to receive the update.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does this ranking include Western Australia?

No. It uses AEMO's NEM Generation Information release, which lists Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Western Australia and the Northern Territory aren't in it. [1]

### Does Tasmania have any operating grid batteries in AEMO's release?

Not in the July 2026 battery rows. Tasmania reports 0 MWh In Service and 4,274 MWh across five sites, all Publicly Announced. [1] Nook BESS makes up 3,024 MWh of that. [1]

### How often is this ranking updated?

We refresh it when AEMO publishes its next NEM Generation Information release. The current version uses the release dated 31 July 2026. [1]

## Source notes
1. AEMO NEM Generation Information, July 2026: battery storage by state and status: https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information (checked September 28, 2026)

# Brex pricing: plans and fees, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/brex-pricing
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Essentials at $0 per user covers cards, bill pay and reimbursements. Pay Premium's $12 per user only for more than two entities, several expense policies or VAT documentation. Get the FX markup, billing term and user definition in writing.

Brex's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, lists Essentials at $0 per user per month, Premium at $12 per user per month and Enterprise at custom pricing. [1] Ten users cost $0 a month on Essentials and $120 a month on Premium, or $1,440 a year. The page publishes no transaction fee amounts. Beyond the seat prices, its fee statement is one line: "Some Brex products have associated fees." [1]

## TL;DR

- Essentials costs nothing per user and already includes bill pay, reimbursements, accounting integrations, local currency wires, Brex API access and travel booking. [1] A 10-user team can run cards and expenses on Brex with no software charge.
- Premium's $12 per user buys control: multiple expense policies, dynamic review chains, multi-entity support, ERP and HRIS integrations, VAT documentation and live budgets. [1] Pay it when one of those replaces a manual process the team runs today.
- Enterprise and Smart Card have no published price. [1] Budget them from a written quote.
- The largest variable cost sits outside the plan. Expenditure reported on 16 September 2026 that Brex states an FX markup of up to 3% on card purchases that need currency conversion. [2] At the full 3%, foreign-currency card spend above $4,000 a month costs a 10-user team more in markup than Premium costs in seats.
- The pricing page leaves out the billing term, the definition of a user and the overage rule. Get all three in writing. Brex's place among other card and expense systems is covered in our [spend management research](/categories/spend-management).

## How these prices were checked

Every plan price here comes from Brex's own pricing page at brex.com/pricing, captured on 28 September 2026. [1] The field is the price printed under each plan name: "$0 user/month" for Essentials and "$12 user/month" for Premium. [1] The page shows a dollar sign. It states no currency code, no tax treatment and no billing term.

The 10-user figures multiply the listed per-user price by 10, then by 12 for a year. They assume every user is billed every month at the listed rate.

Fee figures that the pricing page doesn't show come from Expenditure's reading of Brex's pages on 16 September 2026, and they are labelled that way wherever they appear. [2] Expenditure sells expense software that competes with Brex. Treat its figures as a report to confirm with Brex. Our [research standard](/methodology) sets out how Glamdring dates and sources each figure.

## What does each Brex plan cost per user?

Brex lists Essentials at $0 per user per month, Premium at $12 per user per month and Enterprise at custom pricing, checked 28 September 2026. [1] A fourth product, Smart Card, is a procurement card with custom pricing. [1] Only the two lower plans carry a public number. A buyer can price Essentials and Premium from the page and needs a sales quote for anything above them.

| Plan | Brex describes it as for | Listed price, $ per user per month | 10 users, $ per month | 10 users, $ per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essentials | Startups and growing companies | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Premium | Mid-sized companies looking to scale | 12 | 120 | 1,440 |
| Enterprise | Global enterprises with custom needs | Custom pricing | By quote | By quote |
| Smart Card | Companies that want to simplify procurement | Custom pricing | By quote | By quote |

Plan names, descriptions and prices come from Brex's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] The 10-user columns are Glamdring's arithmetic on those prices.

Brex's footer summarises the same structure: "Plans start at $0 per user, per month, and more advanced features are available for $12 per user, per month." [1] The sign-up paths differ by plan. Essentials offers "Try Brex for free", Premium offers "Open an account", and Enterprise and Smart Card both route to "Contact sales". [1]

Smart Card sits beside the three plans as a procurement product. Brex lists global cards accepted worldwide, local-currency cards in 50+ countries, and merchant card controls with custom approvals. [1] Its price is set in the same sales conversation as Enterprise.

## What does Premium add over Essentials?

Premium adds policy, approval and entity controls on top of everything in Essentials. [1] Essentials already covers the core spend workflow, including card acceptance, AI-powered custom rules, up to two entities, accounting integrations, bill pay and reimbursements. [1] The upgrade matters when a company outgrows two entities or needs more than one expense policy.

| What the company needs | Lowest Brex plan that lists it |
|---|---|
| Global card acceptance and 1 local card program | Essentials |
| Up to two entities, one of them global | Essentials |
| Bill pay, reimbursements and accounting integrations | Essentials |
| Local currency wires and travel booking | Essentials |
| Multiple expense policies with role-based exceptions and auto-approval rules | Premium |
| Dynamic expense review chains and Spend Limit approval chains | Premium |
| Multi-entity support across the US and internationally | Premium |
| Customizable ERP and HRIS integrations | Premium |
| VAT documentation | Premium |
| Live budgets, group travel and advanced travel rules | Premium |
| Unlimited US or global entities | Enterprise |
| Local card issuance, collections, reimbursements and policies | Enterprise |
| A named account manager and an admin center | Enterprise |

Each row reflects Brex's plan lists on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

Premium also adds AI-powered compliance audit detection and insights, on top of the AI-powered custom rules Essentials already carries. [1] Enterprise then adds fully customizable implementation services. [1] Read down the table and the plan boundary follows complexity. A company within two entities and one expense policy fits Essentials, and each extra entity or policy layer moves it up a plan.

## What do 10 users cost on Brex?

Ten users cost $0 a month on Essentials and $120 a month on Premium, which comes to $1,440 a year at Brex's listed price, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Enterprise has no public figure. The 10-user cost there is whatever Brex quotes.

The arithmetic is 10 users at $12, then 12 months at $120. Two gaps on the pricing page can move that result. The page shows "$12 user/month" without saying whether Premium is billed monthly or annually. [1] So $1,440 is twelve monthly charges, and it may differ from a quoted annual contract. The page also leaves "user" undefined. If Brex bills a narrower group than everyone with access, the bill falls. Confirm the definition in the order form.

For a team that spends in foreign currencies, the seat price can be the smaller number. Expenditure reports that Brex states an FX rate markup of up to 3% when a card purchase needs conversion into another currency. [2] At the full 3%, $4,000 a month of converted card spend costs $120 in markup. The same $120 pays for 10 Premium seats for a month. Expenditure's own example puts $10,000 a month of spending in euros at up to $300 a month in markup. [2] A team that buys heavily in foreign currencies should get Brex's exact FX rate before it compares seat prices.

## Which fees does Brex list?

Brex's pricing page lists plan prices and no transaction fee amounts, as checked on 28 September 2026. [1] Its general fee language is one footer sentence: "Some Brex products have associated fees." [1] The page marks travel booking as free on Essentials and prices Enterprise and Smart Card as "Custom pricing". [1]

The page's footnotes cover Treasury returns. They post a "total treasury return" between 3.53% and 3.87%, which Brex describes as an annualized compounded figure. [1] The return is income on invested cash, and it moves daily with the fund yield and the balance tier. [1]

Brex's fee terms sit on other pages. Expenditure read them on 16 September 2026 and reported these lines:

| Cost line | What Brex states, as reported by Expenditure |
|---|---|
| Card purchases that need currency conversion | FX rate markup of up to 3%, using daily rates based on Mastercard wholesale rates |
| ACH, checks, domestic and international wires from a Brex business account | No Brex transaction fee; third-party and recipient banks may still charge their own wire fees |
| Card annual fee | None listed |
| Software billing | In arrears on net 30 terms, or upfront |
| Overages | Priced by the terms of the contract |

All five lines come from Expenditure's 16 September 2026 comparison. [2] Expenditure attributes the billing and overage terms to a Brex support article on the cost of its services. [2] These lines rest on Expenditure's reading. Confirm each one in Brex's current agreement before signing.

## When does Premium earn its $12 per user?

Glamdring Research's verdict: Premium earns its $12 per user when a company needs more than two entities, more than one expense policy or VAT documentation, because Essentials lists none of those. [1] A company inside those limits gets cards, bill pay, reimbursements and accounting integrations at $0. [1] For that company, Premium buys workflow refinement: dynamic review chains, compliance audit detection and live budgets. [1]

Test the claim on one real month of spend. Count the legal entities that need cards. List the expense policies the finance team enforces by hand today. Count the approvals that happen in email or chat instead of in the system. If the answers are two entities or fewer, one policy and no VAT paperwork, Essentials holds.

The decision changes when a manual step has a cost the team can name. A second policy for contractors, a third entity for a new country, or a controller rebuilding budgets in a spreadsheet each month all point to Premium. At 10 users, the upgrade costs $1,440 a year at the listed price. [1] Set that against the hours the manual step consumes.

Our [Center and Ramp comparison](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) runs the same workflow test on two rival card and expense systems. It also lists Ramp's published tiers as checked on 1 September 2026.

## What the pricing page cannot tell you

The pricing page fixes the plan structure and the two public seat prices. It leaves six cost questions open:

- Billing term: the page shows "$12 user/month" with no annual or monthly qualifier. [1]
- Who counts as a user: the page gives no definition.
- Currency and tax: prices carry a dollar sign with no currency code and no tax statement.
- Enterprise and Smart Card prices: both read "Custom pricing". [1]
- Transaction fees: the page says some products have associated fees and names none. [1]
- Credit approval: the page states that all loans are subject to approval, including underwriting, credit and collateral approval, and it publishes no threshold. [1]

Three events would change this reading. Brex could change the Premium seat price. It could publish a fee schedule on the pricing page. Or it could move multi-entity support or multiple expense policies between plans. Any of those resets the 10-user arithmetic and the Premium verdict.

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does Brex cost per month?

Brex costs $0 per user per month on Essentials and $12 per user per month on Premium, according to its pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The monthly bill scales with users. At the listed price, 25 Premium users cost $300 a month. Enterprise and Smart Card are priced by quote. [1]

### Is it hard to get a Brex card?

Brex publishes no approval threshold on its pricing page. [1] The page states that all loans are subject to approval, including underwriting, credit and collateral approval. [1] Expenditure reports that Brex sets limits at underwriting from the company's financials. Expect to share recent bank activity and financial statements. [2]

### What happened with Brex?

Capital One now owns Brex. The pricing page states that Brex LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One, N.A. [1] Expenditure reports that Capital One's acquisition of Brex closed on 7 April 2026, and that Brex still publishes its Essentials and Premium plans. [2]

### Does Brex charge an annual fee for its card?

Expenditure's 16 September 2026 comparison lists no annual card fee for Brex. [2] The pricing page names no card fee either. It states only that some Brex products have associated fees. [1] Confirm the card terms in the agreement Brex sends with the account.

New spend management research goes out in our [free email briefing](/subscribe).

## Source notes
1. Brex pricing: https://www.brex.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Brex vs Divvy pricing 2026: https://expenditure.ai/blog/brex-vs-divvy-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Brex reviews: G2, Trustpilot and pricing, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/brex-review
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Brex's ratings split by platform: 4.8 out of 5 on G2 from 1,637 reviews and a 1.9 TrustScore on Trustpilot from 575, both checked 28 September 2026.

Brex rates well with software users and badly with account applicants. On 28 September 2026, G2 showed 4.8 out of 5 from 1,637 reviews. [1] Trustpilot showed a TrustScore of 1.9 from 575 reviews. [2] Brex lists Essentials at $0 and Premium at $12 per user per month. [3] The split tracks the reviewers. Most G2 reviews sit in expense management, and 10 of Trustpilot's 13 reviews from the past year concern getting or keeping an account. [1] [2]

## TL;DR

- G2 and Trustpilot record different experiences of Brex. G2 collects reviews of the expense software. Trustpilot's recent reviews are about applications, verification and closed accounts. [1] [2]
- Trustpilot's all-time bar chart is 79% four- or five-star. Eleven of the 13 reviews from the past 12 months give one star. [2]
- Brex's own page lists Premium at $12 per user per month. The pricing panel Brex supplies to G2 lists Premium as "Contact Us". [3] [1]
- Brex says some products carry fees, and the captured pricing page names none of them. It also publishes no approval rate. Confirm both in a current quote. [3]
- Settle eligibility before comparing features. Related systems sit in our [spend management research](/categories/spend-management).

## What do Brex's G2 and Trustpilot ratings show?

G2 rates Brex 4.8 out of 5 from 1,637 reviews. [1] Trustpilot gives it a TrustScore of 1.9 from 575 reviews and labels that rating "Poor". [2] Both figures were checked on 28 September 2026. The two platforms disagree by almost three points on a five-point scale.

| Platform | Rating | Reviews | Star split (5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1) | Reviews in the past 12 months |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2 | 4.8 out of 5 | 1,637 | 91% / 6% / 1% / 0% / 0% | Not shown [1] |
| Trustpilot | 1.9 TrustScore, "Poor" | 575 | 73% / 6% / 1% / 1% / 19% | 13 [2] |

An evidence review of Brex from its published pages and dated rating aggregates (G2, Trustpilot), checked 28 September 2026. No first-hand use is claimed. Each rating figure comes from the platform's own Brex page on that date. Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out the standard behind these checks.

The platforms collect reviews in different ways. G2 says it "requires verified methods to write a review and validates the reviewer's identity before approving". [1] Trustpilot says anyone can write a review on its site, and that it doesn't verify reviewers' specific claims. [2] Trustpilot also records that Brex invites its customers to review and has replied to 100% of negative reviews. [2]

G2's reviewers lean toward small firms in North America. Its filters count 897 reviews from businesses with 50 or fewer staff, 621 from mid-market firms and 96 from enterprises. [1] North America accounts for 1,309 reviews. Australia and New Zealand account for 6. [1] A buyer outside the United States has very little G2 evidence from companies like theirs.

## Why is Brex's Trustpilot rating so much lower than its G2 rating?

Glamdring Research reads the gap as two platforms sampling two stages of the customer relationship. G2's reviewers write as people using Brex's expense software. Trustpilot's recent reviewers write about applying, verifying or losing an account. The evidence for that reading sits in each platform's own labels and counts. [1] [2]

G2 files 1,506 of Brex's 1,637 reviews under expense management. [1] The reviews on its first page, under G2's default sort, describe expense reports, cards, bill pay and travel. Eight of those ten carry an "Incentivized" label. Seven list "Seller invite" as their source, one lists "G2 invite on behalf of seller" and two are marked "Organic". [1] One page is a small slice of 1,637 reviews. It shows that invited reviews are present on G2. It can't show their share of the whole set. Trustpilot's page states that companies there "aren't allowed to offer incentives or pay to hide reviews". [2]

Trustpilot's own numbers carry a time pattern. Across all 575 reviews, 73% are five-star and 6% are four-star, so 79% sit at four or five stars. [2] Trustpilot counts 13 reviews in the past 12 months. We read all 13. Eleven give one star, one gives three and one gives five. [2] The captured page doesn't explain how the TrustScore is calculated. The link between the recent run of one-star reviews and the 1.9 is therefore our reading. Trustpilot doesn't state it on the page.

Ramp shows the same split. G2 lists Ramp first among Brex's alternatives, at 4.8 out of 5 from 2,526 reviews. [1] On Trustpilot, Ramp rates 2.3 from 214 reviews. [2] The gap between platforms is therefore not Brex's alone, though Brex's 1.9 sits below Ramp's 2.3. Our [comparison of Center and Ramp](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) covers two other spend-management systems on the terms that change a purchase.

## What do recent Trustpilot reviews say about Brex?

Most recent Trustpilot reviews are about access to Brex. Of the 13 reviews from the past 12 months, 10 describe a declined application, a closed or frozen account, an eligibility change, a slow verification or a cut credit limit. Two criticise the expense and travel tools. One is positive. [2]

Three reviewers say Brex declined their application. One, from August 2026, writes that Brex's "website and AI chat agent" had said the business was a good fit. [2] Another says that after a declined card application, Brex "immediately revoked my access to the account". That reviewer says it stopped them unlinking bank accounts they had connected. [2]

Eligibility runs through the rest. A three-star reviewer with four years on Brex says the company now accepts only customers with "a US company AND residential address". [2] Another reviewer objects to Brex blocking existing users who can't prove a physical address. [2] One reviewer, the only one of the 13 carrying Trustpilot's "Verified" label, says their account closed without warning while investor funds were in transit. [2] Another says a line of credit went to zero overnight. [2]

Brex answers these reviews in its own words. It says it requires "a physical address to meet security and regulatory standards". [2] It says "not all applications can be approved" and that credit decisions "can change over time". [2] It also says it "may place temporary holds or adjust account features as part of our standard security and compliance reviews". [2]

Read together, the reviewers and the company describe the same mechanism. Brex screens applicants and existing customers, and it can change their access. Neither side publishes how often that happens. The individual accounts are reviewers' claims, and Trustpilot doesn't fact-check them. [2]

The two product complaints are about daily use. One reviewer calls the expense tool "kludge and time consuming". Another says the card "cannot be used for a variety of payments", so staff still need a personal card for some costs. [2]

## What do G2 reviewers praise and criticise about Brex?

G2 reviewers mostly praise ease of use. G2's tag counts put "Ease of Use" first with 367 mentions, followed by "Expense Management" at 131 and "Customer Support" at 116. The most-counted problem tags are "Approval Issues" at 54 and "Upload Issues" at 26. [1]

G2's AI-generated summary names one common limitation: "the occasional lack of clarity in the mobile app's user interface". [1] The first-page reviews add specific faults. One reviewer says expense-view customisations "disappear and revert back to the default settings". Another says purchases from one vendor are sometimes split into "two separate vendor IDs". [1] Travel draws two complaints. One reviewer finds booking steps "a bit time-consuming". Another wants more approval steps so bookings aren't charged before approval. [1]

One mid-market reviewer gives Brex five stars and still writes that its rewards and features are "heavily tailored to specific, high-growth startups or larger corporations". [1]

The tag "Approval Issues" is ambiguous. The tag name doesn't say whether it covers expense approvals or account approval. Read the tagged reviews on G2 before treating it as evidence for either.

## How much does Brex cost?

Brex lists three plans. Essentials costs $0 per user per month, Premium costs $12 per user per month and Enterprise uses custom pricing. [3] A separate Smart Card product for procurement also uses custom pricing. [3] The same page says "Some Brex products have associated fees". The captured page names none of those fees. [3]

| Plan | Listed price | Brex's stated audience | Selected inclusions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essentials | $0 per user per month | Startups and growing companies | Bill pay, reimbursements, accounting integrations, travel booking, API access, up to two entities (1 global entity) |
| Premium | $12 per user per month | Mid-sized companies looking to scale | Essentials plus multiple expense policies, multi-entity (US and international), ERP and HRIS integrations, VAT documentation, live budgets |
| Enterprise | Custom pricing | Global enterprises with custom needs | Premium plus unlimited US or global entities, local card issuance, a named account manager |
| Smart Card | Custom pricing | Companies that want to simplify procurement | Global cards, local-currency cards in 50+ countries, merchant card controls [3] |

At the listed rate, a 25-user Premium account comes to $300 a month or $3,600 a year before any product fees. [3] The page shows a dollar sign with no currency code and no tax note. The Brex entities named on the same page have San Francisco and Salt Lake City addresses. [3]

G2 shows no price for Premium. Its pricing panel, marked "Pricing provided by Brex", lists Essentials as "Free" and both Premium and Enterprise as "Contact Us". [1] Brex's own pricing page is the more direct statement. Confirm the Premium rate in a current quote.

A plan doesn't guarantee credit. Brex's page states that "All loans are subject to approval, including underwriting, credit, and collateral approval". [3] Card rewards appear on the page only as "Competitive card rewards", with no rate attached. [3]

## What the evidence cannot show

The captured pages can't show how often Brex approves applicants, what its product fees cost or whether any reviewer's account is accurate. For a company not yet approved, those gaps weigh more than either rating.

Brex publishes no approval rate on the pages checked. Reviews can't stand in for one. Brex says on its Trustpilot profile that "Over 30,000" companies run their finances on Brex. [2] Thirteen Trustpilot reviews in a year is a thin sample against that claim. Trustpilot's reviewers also choose themselves. [2]

The fee schedule is missing from the captured pricing page. So are the currency code, tax treatment and reward rates. [3] The Trustpilot accounts are unverified claims with Brex's replies attached. The G2 set includes invited and incentivised reviews in an unknown share. Trustpilot's page doesn't explain how the TrustScore is calculated. [1] [2]

Three things would change this verdict. A published fee schedule would settle cost. Published eligibility rules would settle who can apply. A year of Trustpilot reviews that moves away from access complaints would weaken the case that access is Brex's main risk.

New spend-management research goes out in our [free email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Brex a legitimate company?

Brex's pricing page states that Brex LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One, N.A. [3] The same page names Brex Payments LLC as a licensed money transmitter with NMLS #2035354. It says Brex's Checking account is provided by Column N.A., Member FDIC. [3] These are Brex's own statements. We didn't check them against the NMLS or FDIC registers.

### Is Brex hard to get approved for?

Brex doesn't publish an approval rate on the pages we checked. Its pricing page says all loans are subject to underwriting, credit and collateral approval. [3] In its Trustpilot replies, Brex says not all applications can be approved and that it requires a physical address. [2] Three of the 13 Trustpilot reviews from the past year describe a declined application. [2] They show that declines happen. They can't show the rate.

### How much does Brex cost per month?

Essentials lists at $0 per user per month. Premium lists at $12 per user per month, so 10 users come to $120 a month. [3] Enterprise and Smart Card use custom pricing. Brex says some products carry separate fees. [3]

### Is a Brex card worth it?

The published evidence can't settle value for a particular company. It shows a $0 entry plan and a 4.8 G2 rating from mostly expense-management reviews. [3] [1] It also shows a Trustpilot record led by access complaints. [2] Brex names Emigrant Bank, Fifth Third Bank N.A. or Airwallex (Netherlands) B.V. as issuers of its Mastercard corporate card. It names Sutton Bank as issuer of its Visa commercial card. [3] Get the reward terms and your eligibility in writing before moving spend.

### Does Brex's Glassdoor rating reflect the product?

No. Glassdoor's 3.8 out of 5 comes from 618 reviews and rates Brex as an employer. [4] It says nothing direct about the card or the software.

## Source notes
1. Brex Reviews & Product Details: https://www.g2.com/products/brex/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Brex Reviews: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/brex.com (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Brex pricing page: https://www.brex.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Brex Reviews: Pros & Cons of Working At Brex: https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Brex-Reviews-E2040671.htm (checked September 28, 2026)

# Brex vs Mercury: plans and fees, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/brex-vs-mercury
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Both start at $0. Brex's paid tier costs $12 per user per month, so it passes MercuryPlus's shown $29.90 at three users and MercuryPro's $299 at 25, but the tiers buy different things: policy controls at Brex, invoicing and accounting at Mercury.

Brex and Mercury both start at $0, checked 28 September 2026. Brex charges $12 per user per month for Premium and quotes Enterprise on request. [1] Mercury's pricing page shows MercuryPlus at $29.90 a month and MercuryPro at $299 a month, with no per-user unit, while its own FAQ says paid plans start at $35 a month. [2] So Brex's paid cost grows with headcount and Mercury's doesn't. [1] [2] Mercury also publishes its wire, currency and Treasury fees on the pricing page. [2] Brex's pricing page says only that some products carry fees. [1]

## TL;DR

- At list price, Brex Premium costs more than MercuryPlus from the third user and more than MercuryPro from the 25th. The two paid tiers buy different things, though: Brex Premium adds expense policy and approval controls, and Mercury's paid plans add invoicing and accounting features. [1] [2]
- Both free plans carry working features. Brex Essentials includes bill pay, reimbursements and travel booking. [1] Mercury's base plan includes free ACH, domestic wires, bill pay and unlimited invoices. [2]
- Mercury's published fees include 1% on non-USD international wires, an optional $15 flat fee on USD international wires and a 0.15% to 0.60% annual fee on Treasury, which opens at a $250,000 balance. [2]
- Brex's captured pricing page gives no transaction fee schedule. [1] Get it in writing before you compare foreign-exchange or wire costs.
- Mercury's page carries two entry prices for paid plans, $29.90 and $35. [2] Confirm the billing period in a quote.

## How this comparison was built

We compared the two companies on their own pricing pages, brex.com/pricing and mercury.com/pricing, both captured on 28 September 2026. [1] [2] The subject sits in our [spend management coverage](/categories/spend-management). Plan names, prices, units and fees are copied as each page displays them, in dollars. Neither capture states how tax applies.

No single published field can rank these plans, so the article compares them side by side. A price on a company's own page is that company's statement, and we report it as one. Our [research standard](/methodology) explains how we date and source figures.

Brex's own Brex vs Mercury page is used only for Brex's claims about itself. [3] Two third-party comparisons give context. FintechLabs, dated 16 April 2026, discloses Mercury as a sponsor. [4] Rippling, updated 25 November 2025, sells its own spend product. [5]

## What do Brex and Mercury charge for each plan?

Brex prices by the user and Mercury by the account. Brex Essentials is $0 per user per month, Premium is $12 per user per month, and Enterprise and the Smart Card procurement product are custom-priced. [1] Mercury's base plan is $0 a month. MercuryPlus shows $29.90 a month, MercuryPro shows $299 a month and larger customers can ask for custom pricing. [2]

| Company | Plan | Published price | Unit | Who the page says it's for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brex | Essentials | $0 | per user, per month | Startups and growing companies |
| Brex | Premium | $12 | per user, per month | Mid-sized companies looking to scale |
| Brex | Enterprise | Custom pricing | quote | Global enterprises with custom needs |
| Brex | Smart Card | Custom pricing | quote | Companies that want to simplify procurement |
| Mercury | Mercury | $0 | per month | Every account |
| Mercury | MercuryPlus | $29.90 shown; FAQ says paid plans start at $35 | per month | More efficiencies and streamlined invoicing |
| Mercury | MercuryPro | $299 shown | per month | Complex operations that need a relationship manager |
| Mercury | Custom | On request | quote | Contact sales |

Sources: Brex pricing page [1]; Mercury pricing page [2].

Mercury's two entry figures need one more step. Its page shows an "Annual Pricing (15% off)" option next to the $29.90 and $299 figures, and its FAQ says paid plans start at $35 a month. [2] A 15% cut from $35 gives $29.75, not $29.90, so the capture doesn't show which billing period each number belongs to. Rippling's November 2025 comparison listed Mercury at the same $29.90 and Brex at the same $12 per user. [5]

## What does each Brex plan include?

Brex Essentials, at $0 per user, covers the core spend system: cards, bill pay, reimbursements, accounting integrations, travel booking and API access. [1] Premium, at $12 per user, adds policy depth. Enterprise adds unlimited entities and local card issuance. [1]

Essentials lists global card acceptance with one local card program, AI-powered custom rules, up to two entities (one global), local currency wires, real-time reporting, bill pay and reimbursements. [1] Travel booking is marked free on Essentials. [1]

Premium includes everything in Essentials plus multiple customisable expense policies, dynamic expense review chains, AI-powered compliance audit detection, dynamic spend-limit approval chains, US and international multi-entity support, customisable ERP and HRIS integrations, VAT documentation, group travel and live budgets. [1]

Enterprise includes everything in Premium plus unlimited US or global entities, local card issuance, collections, reimbursements and policies, a named account manager, an admin centre and customisable implementation services. [1] The Smart Card product lists global cards, local-currency cards in 50+ countries and merchant card controls with custom approvals. [1]

The plan grid on the page also lists unlimited global cards accepted in 210+ countries and territories, and local-currency cards and billing in 50+ countries. The captured grid doesn't show which tiers get each row. [1]

## What does each Mercury plan include?

Mercury's $0 plan is the banking layer: accounts, free ACH and domestic wires, bill pay and unlimited invoicing. [2] The paid plans add invoicing, tax-form and accounting features. [2]

On the base plan, customers can create, send, track and take payment on as many invoices as they like. [2] Mercury Bill Pay costs nothing to use. [2] QuickBooks and Xero enriched automations, bank-feed imports across QuickBooks, Xero and NetSuite, debit and IO credit cards, receipt policies and user permissions are free. [2] Mercury Personal, which Mercury prices at $240 a year, comes free with any business plan. [2]

MercuryPlus adds invoicing with ACH debit at $1 per transaction, recurring invoices, unlimited 1099 tax filings, $50 off eligible LegalZoom Compliance Plans and six months of free Xero with a $100 Amazon gift card. [2] MercuryPro adds a relationship manager, cuts the ACH-debit invoice charge to $0 per transaction and adds NetSuite categorisations. [2] The FAQ also says a paid plan is needed to reimburse more team members and to use enriched NetSuite automations. [2] The page doesn't say how many team members the free plan can reimburse. [2]

## Which fees do Brex and Mercury publish?

Mercury publishes a fee schedule on its pricing page, and Brex's pricing page doesn't. [1] [2] Mercury lists free ACH, domestic wires and real-time payments, a 1% fee on non-USD international wires and a 0.15% to 0.60% annual Treasury fee. [2] Brex's page says: "Some Brex products have associated fees." [1]

| Fee item | Brex (captured pricing page) | Mercury (captured pricing page) |
|---|---|---|
| Plan fee | $0 or $12 per user per month; Enterprise custom | $0, $29.90 or $35, or $299 per month; custom on request |
| Minimum balance, overdraft, account opening | Not shown | None |
| ACH and domestic wires | Not shown | Free to send and receive |
| Real-time payments | Not shown | Free; Column-held accounts only |
| USD international wire | Not shown | Free (SHA), or a $15 flat fee (OUR) so the recipient is more likely to get the full amount |
| Non-USD international wire | Not shown | 1% conversion fee; contact Mercury above $200K |
| Non-USD card transactions | Not shown | International transaction fee; rate not shown |
| Card annual fee | Not shown | None on IO credit cards |
| Invoice paid by ACH debit | Not listed | $1 per transaction on Plus, $0 on Pro |
| Invoice paid by card | Not listed | Stripe's fee, typically 2.9% + $0.30 |
| Bill pay | Included from Essentials | Free |
| Travel booking | Free on Essentials | Not listed |
| Treasury | Not shown on pricing page | Opens at $250,000 in balances; 0.15% to 0.60% annual fee |

Sources: Brex pricing page [1]; Mercury pricing page [2].

Mercury also names fee-bearing features it doesn't price on the page, including mass payments through its API and Treasury account management. [2] Brex's own Brex vs Mercury page says its treasury product comes with "no hidden fees and no minimums". [3] That's Brex's claim. Its pricing page capture shows no treasury fee schedule to test it against.

The gap in the Brex column is a gap in the published record, not evidence that those fees are zero. A team that sends foreign-currency wires or spends in other currencies can't compare the two companies from these pages alone.

## How does per-user pricing compare with a flat monthly fee?

At list price, Brex Premium costs more than MercuryPlus from three users and more than MercuryPro from 25 users. [1] [2] Brex Premium is $12 per user per month. [1] MercuryPlus shows $29.90 a month, or $35 on the FAQ's figure, and MercuryPro shows $299 a month. [2] The table multiplies those published figures, and the tiers it prices buy different things.

| Users | Brex Essentials | Brex Premium ($12 × users) | Mercury base | MercuryPlus | MercuryPro |
|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | $0 | $12 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |
| 2 | $0 | $24 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |
| 3 | $0 | $36 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |
| 5 | $0 | $60 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |
| 10 | $0 | $120 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |
| 24 | $0 | $288 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |
| 25 | $0 | $300 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |
| 50 | $0 | $600 | $0 | $29.90 ($35) | $299 |

Monthly list cost from each company's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. Mercury's plans are shown with no per-user unit. [1] [2]

The crossover points matter less than what each upgrade buys. Brex Premium buys multiple expense policies, review chains and multi-entity support. [1] MercuryPlus buys recurring invoices, ACH-debit invoicing and unlimited 1099 filings. [2] A company that needs layered approvals across entities should weigh Brex Premium's per-user cost against its own finance workload. A company whose main need is billing customers already gets unlimited invoicing on Mercury's free plan, and needs MercuryPlus only for recurring or ACH-debit invoices. [2]

Run the numbers on your own case. Take your headcount, your monthly non-USD wire volume and your foreign-currency card spend. Price them against Mercury's published rates, then ask Brex for its schedule for the same three lines.

## What the published prices cannot tell you

The pricing pages settle plan prices and plan contents. They don't settle total cost. Brex's transaction fees, card reward rates and Enterprise pricing aren't on its captured pricing page. [1] Mercury doesn't state its non-USD card fee rate or the billing period behind its $29.90 and $35 figures. [2] Neither captured page states tax treatment. [1] [2]

Mercury's page also carries the line "$35/mo, waived until Dec 31, 2026" in the block that lists the free plan's contents. [2] The capture doesn't show which item it's attached to, so we haven't assigned it to a plan.

Ownership has changed. Brex's pricing page states that Brex LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One, N.A. [1] The prices here are the ones both pages showed on 28 September 2026. Pricing pages change, so check both again before signing.

For a comparison of two other spend-management systems, see our [Center vs Ramp guide](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide), or browse all [published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Mercury a bank?

No. Mercury describes itself as a fintech company, not an FDIC-insured bank, with banking services provided through Choice Financial Group and Column N.A., Members FDIC. [2] Brex's business account also uses a partner: its Checking account is provided by Column N.A., and funds in Brex Treasury aren't FDIC-insured. [1]

### What happened to Brex?

Capital One now owns it. Brex's pricing page states that Brex LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One, N.A. [1] FintechLabs reported in April 2026 that Capital One had agreed in January 2026 to buy Brex in a $5.15 billion cash-and-stock transaction. [4] The pricing page still listed Essentials at $0 and Premium at $12 per user on 28 September 2026. [1]

### Who is Brex's main competitor?

The captured sources don't name one main competitor. Brex runs a dedicated Brex vs Mercury comparison page. [3] FintechLabs groups Mercury, Brex and Ramp as the three main digital players in small and mid-sized business finance. [4]

### Is Mercury the best bank for startups?

The published evidence can't settle "best", and Mercury says it isn't a bank. [2] FintechLabs calls Mercury widely considered the default bank for startups, but it also discloses Mercury as a sponsor. [4] On price, Mercury's base plan is $0 a month with no minimum balance, overdraft or account opening fees. [2]

### Does Mercury charge for Treasury?

Yes. Mercury Treasury opens to customers with more than $250,000 across their Mercury accounts and carries an annual fee of 0.15% to 0.60%, depending on total Mercury balances. [2]

### Is a Brex card worth it?

The published figures can't answer that for a given company. Brex Essentials, which includes global card acceptance, costs $0 per user per month. [1] The captured pricing page lists "Competitive card rewards" as a feature but gives no reward rates or card fees, so the card's value can't be calculated from it. [1]

## Source notes
1. Brex: https://www.brex.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Mercury: https://mercury.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Brex: https://www.brex.com/versus/mercury (checked September 28, 2026)
4. FintechLabs (Jim Bruene), posted Apr 16, 2026: https://fintechlabs.com/mercury-vs-brex-vs-ramp-2026-which-finance-stack-should-smbs-use/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Rippling (Mary Hanley), updated Nov 25, 2025: https://www.rippling.com/blog/brex-vs-mercury (checked September 28, 2026)

# Claude API pricing per model: Anthropic, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/claude-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Haiku 4.5 is the cheapest current Claude API model at $1 input and $5 output per million tokens; Fable 5.1 is the dearest current model at $10 and $50.

Haiku 4.5 is the cheapest current Claude model on the Anthropic API, at $1 per million input tokens and $5 per million output tokens. Sonnet 5 costs $2 and $10, Opus 5.5 costs $4 and $20, and Fable 5.1 costs $10 and $50. [1] Those are Anthropic's published rates, checked 28 September 2026, in US dollars. [1] The Batch API takes 50% off both input and output. [1]

Output costs five times input on every model Anthropic prices, so a long answer moves the bill faster than a long prompt.

## TL;DR

- Opus 5.5, at $4 input and $20 output, costs less per token than all five Opus models Anthropic now files as legacy, which list at $5 and $25. [1] [2]
- A 5-minute cache write costs 1.25 times the input rate and a 1-hour write costs twice it. Cache reads cost 10% of input, except on Opus 5.5 (5%) and Fable 5.1 (2.5%). [1]
- Our worked request, a 10,000-token prompt with a 1,000-token reply, costs $0.030 on Sonnet 5. With 8,000 prompt tokens cached, a repeat of it on Opus 5.5 costs $0.0296, slightly less than the uncached Sonnet 5 request.
- Fable 5.1 matches Fable 5 on input, output and cache writes, and reads from cache at $0.25 against Fable 5's $1. [1]
- Claude subscriptions sell app and Claude Code usage under rolling limits with no published token allowance, so there's no exact break-even against the API. [2] Light, irregular or automated use favours the API. All-day interactive use favours a plan.
- More cost and serving analysis sits in our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## How this ranking was built

Every per-token figure comes from Anthropic's API pricing documentation, captured at 15:05 AEST on 28 September 2026. [1] Anthropic's public pricing page, captured the same minute, shows the same input, output, 5-minute cache write and cache read rates for all 12 models it lists. [2]

- **Ranked field:** the documentation's **Input** column, in US dollars per million tokens (**MTok**). All prices on that page are in USD. [1]
- **Order:** lowest input price first. Models with the same input price share a rank.
- **Inclusion:** the documentation prices 16 models. Twelve also appear on the pricing page, four under "Latest models" and eight under "Legacy models". [2] Those 12 are ranked. The other six follow the table, unranked. Nothing was merged.
- **Cache columns:** the documentation prints the 5-minute write, the 1-hour write and the read rate, which it calls "Hits and refreshes", for every model. [1]
- **Batch columns:** printed per model in the documentation's batch table, not computed by us. [1]
- **Tax:** Anthropic states no tax position for API token rates. It says its plan prices exclude applicable tax. [2]

These are list prices Anthropic publishes about its own service. They're company statements, not measured market prices. Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out how we capture, date and check figures like these.

## Claude API prices by model, ranked by input price

Haiku 4.5 has the lowest input price of the 12 models on Anthropic's pricing page, at $1 per MTok. Fable 5.1 and Fable 5 share the highest, at $10. [1]

| Rank | Model | Pricing page status | Input ($/MTok) | Output ($/MTok) | 5-min cache write ($/MTok) | 1-hour cache write ($/MTok) | Cache read ($/MTok) | Batch input ($/MTok) | Batch output ($/MTok) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Haiku 4.5 | Latest | 1 | 5 | 1.25 | 2 | 0.10 | 0.50 | 2.50 |
| 2 | Sonnet 5 | Latest | 2 | 10 | 2.50 | 4 | 0.20 | 1 | 5 |
| 3= | Sonnet 4.6 | Legacy | 3 | 15 | 3.75 | 6 | 0.30 | 1.50 | 7.50 |
| 3= | Sonnet 4.5 | Legacy | 3 | 15 | 3.75 | 6 | 0.30 | 1.50 | 7.50 |
| 5 | Opus 5.5 | Latest | 4 | 20 | 5 | 8 | 0.20 | 2 | 10 |
| 6= | Opus 5 | Legacy | 5 | 25 | 6.25 | 10 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 12.50 |
| 6= | Opus 4.8 | Legacy | 5 | 25 | 6.25 | 10 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 12.50 |
| 6= | Opus 4.7 | Legacy | 5 | 25 | 6.25 | 10 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 12.50 |
| 6= | Opus 4.6 | Legacy | 5 | 25 | 6.25 | 10 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 12.50 |
| 6= | Opus 4.5 | Legacy | 5 | 25 | 6.25 | 10 | 0.50 | 2.50 | 12.50 |
| 11= | Fable 5.1 | Latest | 10 | 50 | 12.50 | 20 | 0.25 | 5 | 25 |
| 11= | Fable 5 | Legacy | 10 | 50 | 12.50 | 20 | 1 | 5 | 25 |

Standard, cache and batch rates come from Anthropic's documentation, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

Three ratios hold on every row. Output is five times input, a 5-minute cache write is 1.25 times input, and batch rates are half the standard rates. Cache reads are where the rows split.

Within each family, the newest model is never dearer per token than the one before it. Opus 5.5 lists below Opus 5 on every price, and Sonnet 5 lists below Sonnet 4.6 on every price. Fable 5.1 ties Fable 5 on everything except the cache read, which is a quarter of the price. [1]

Six more models appear in the documentation's table but not on the pricing page. [1] Mythos 5.1 and Mythos 5 carry a marker the capture doesn't label, and BenchLM lists Mythos 5 as limited access. [3] Opus 4.1, Opus 4, Sonnet 4 and Haiku 3.5 appear without links to model pages.

| Model (documentation only) | Input ($/MTok) | Output ($/MTok) | 5-min cache write ($/MTok) | 1-hour cache write ($/MTok) | Cache read ($/MTok) | Batch input ($/MTok) | Batch output ($/MTok) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mythos 5.1 | 10 | 50 | 12.50 | 20 | 0.25 | 5 | 25 |
| Mythos 5 | 10 | 50 | 12.50 | 20 | 1 | 5 | 25 |
| Opus 4.1 | 15 | 75 | 18.75 | 30 | 1.50 | 7.50 | 37.50 |
| Opus 4 | 15 | 75 | 18.75 | 30 | 1.50 | 7.50 | 37.50 |
| Sonnet 4 | 3 | 15 | 3.75 | 6 | 0.30 | 1.50 | 7.50 |
| Haiku 3.5 | 0.80 | 4 | 1 | 1.60 | 0.08 | 0.40 | 2 |

Haiku 3.5's $0.80 input rate is the lowest anywhere in Anthropic's table, but the pricing page doesn't list it. [1] Haiku 4.5 is the cheapest model Anthropic presents on that page.

## What do cache writes, cache reads and batch processing cost?

A 5-minute cache write costs 1.25 times a model's input rate and a 1-hour write costs 2 times it. A cache read costs 0.1 times input, except 0.05 times on Opus 5.5 and 0.025 times on Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1. [1] The Batch API halves input and output rates. [1]

On Sonnet 5 that means $2.50 per MTok to write a 5-minute cache, $4 for a 1-hour cache and $0.20 to read either, against $2 for plain input. [1]

The economics follow from those ratios. At 10% of input, a cache hit repays a 5-minute write after one read and a 1-hour write after two reads. [1] Opus 5.5 reads at $0.20 and Fable 5.1 at $0.25, so every later read on those two models saves more. [1] The risk runs the other way. A block written to cache and never read inside its lifetime costs 25% more than plain input on a 5-minute cache, and 100% more on a 1-hour cache.

Anthropic's pricing page shows 5-minute cache prices only. [2] The 1-hour rates in the ranked table come from the documentation.

The discounts combine. Anthropic says the caching multipliers stack with the Batch API discount and with data residency pricing. [1] Batch processing is asynchronous, so it suits work that doesn't need an immediate answer. [1] Fast mode can't be used with the Batch API. [1]

## What does one typical request cost on each model?

A request with a 10,000-token prompt and a 1,000-token reply costs $0.030 on Sonnet 5 at standard rates, $0.015 on Haiku 4.5, $0.060 on Opus 5.5 and $0.150 on Fable 5.1. That's our arithmetic on Anthropic's rates, checked 28 September 2026: input tokens times the input rate, plus output tokens times the output rate, divided by one million. [1]

The request shape is our illustration. Picture a fixed system prompt carrying instructions and reference material, a short question and a one-page answer. Anthropic's rough guide is that one token is about four characters or 0.75 English words, which puts the prompt near 7,500 words. [1]

Here is the Sonnet 5 arithmetic in full.

- Input: 10,000 × $2 ÷ 1,000,000 = $0.020.
- Output: 1,000 × $10 ÷ 1,000,000 = $0.010.
- Total: $0.030. A thousand such requests cost $30.

Now cache 8,000 of the 10,000 prompt tokens for five minutes.

- The first request writes the cache: (8,000 × $2.50 + 2,000 × $2 + 1,000 × $10) ÷ 1,000,000 = $0.034.
- A repeat inside five minutes reads it: (8,000 × $0.20 + 2,000 × $2 + 1,000 × $10) ÷ 1,000,000 = $0.0156.
- Two requests cost $0.0496 with caching and $0.060 without.

Sent through the Batch API with no cache, the same Sonnet 5 request costs $0.015. Batched with a cache hit, and with the multipliers stacking as Anthropic describes, the repeat request costs $0.0078. [1]

The same scenarios on every ranked model:

| Model | Standard request ($) | First request, writes 8,000-token cache ($) | Repeat request, reads cache ($) | Batch request, no cache ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haiku 4.5 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.0078 | 0.0075 |
| Sonnet 5 | 0.030 | 0.034 | 0.0156 | 0.015 |
| Sonnet 4.6 or 4.5 | 0.045 | 0.051 | 0.0234 | 0.0225 |
| Opus 5.5 | 0.060 | 0.068 | 0.0296 | 0.030 |
| Opus 5, 4.8, 4.7, 4.6 or 4.5 | 0.075 | 0.085 | 0.039 | 0.0375 |
| Fable 5.1 | 0.150 | 0.170 | 0.072 | 0.075 |
| Fable 5 | 0.150 | 0.170 | 0.078 | 0.075 |

Opus 5.5's cheap cache read changes the model decision. Its repeat request, at $0.0296, costs slightly less than a standard Sonnet 5 request at $0.030 and well under an uncached Sonnet 4.6 request at $0.045. Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5 both read cached tokens at $0.20 per MTok, so once most of the prompt is cached, the gap between them comes down to the fresh input and the output. [1] The decision changes when a workload reuses a long fixed prompt many times inside the cache lifetime.

Use one real workflow to test this. Log a day of actual input, cached and output tokens, then price them against the ranked table.

## What else changes the per-token bill?

Three published options change the rate itself. US-only inference costs 1.1 times standard on Claude 4.6 and later models, across input, output, cache writes and cache reads. [1] Fast mode costs $8 input and $40 output per MTok on Opus 5.5, and $10 and $50 on Opus 5 and Opus 4.8. [1] The Batch API halves the rate. [1]

Context length doesn't. Claude 4.6 and later models bill a 900k-token request at the same per-token rate as a 9k-token request. [1]

Applied to the worked example, US-only inference lifts Sonnet 5 to $2.20 input and $11 output per MTok, so the request costs $0.033. Fast mode doubles the Opus 5.5 request from $0.060 to $0.120.

Tools bill on top of tokens.

- Web search costs $10 per 1,000 searches, plus standard token costs for the content it brings back. [1]
- Web fetch adds no charge beyond the tokens the fetched content adds to the conversation. [1]
- Code execution is free when the request also includes web search or web fetch. [1] Otherwise the documentation gives each organisation 1,550 free hours a month and bills $0.05 per hour per container after that. [1] The pricing page states the allowance as 50 free hours a day. [2]
- Managed Agents sessions cost $0.08 per session-hour of running time, plus tokens. [1]

## Is the API or a Claude subscription cheaper?

Glamdring Research's verdict: the API costs less for light, irregular or automated use, and a subscription suits one person who works in Claude's apps or Claude Code for most of the day. Anthropic publishes no token allowance for its plans. Usage resets on a rolling five-hour window, paid plans add weekly limits, and chat and Claude Code draw from the same pool. [2]

The plans on Anthropic's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026:

- Free costs $0 and covers chat on web, desktop and mobile. [2]
- Pro costs $17 a month billed annually ($200 up front), or $20 billed monthly. [2]
- Max starts at $100 a month [2] and offers 5 or 20 times Pro's usage. [2]
- A Team Standard seat costs $20 a month billed annually or $25 monthly. A Premium seat costs $100 or $125. [2]
- Enterprise costs US$20 per seat a month, billed annually, plus usage at API rates. [2]

Plan prices exclude applicable tax. [2]

At API rates, Pro's $20 monthly price buys about 667 of the example Sonnet 5 requests, or about 333 on Opus 5.5. Max's $100 buys about 3,333 Sonnet 5 requests. Someone below those volumes pays less on the API. The arithmetic can't say how many requests a plan's limits allow, because Anthropic doesn't publish that figure. Jet Admin's Claude Code pricing guide reaches the same shape of conclusion: heavy daily use is usually cheaper on Max, and low or irregular use often costs less through the API. [4]

Claude Code is included in every paid plan. For heavy coding sessions, Anthropic points users to pay-as-you-go API credits through a Console account. [2] Enterprise combines both models, a seat fee plus usage at API rates, so the ranked table prices the usage half of an Enterprise bill. [2]

## Why do other published Claude prices disagree?

Most disagreement comes from model turnover. MetaCTO's API pricing guide, dated 12 January 2026 with a May 2026 update, lists Opus 4.8 as the newest model at $5 input and $25 output. [5] Anthropic's pricing page now files Opus 4.8 under legacy models and lists Opus 5.5 at $4 and $20. [2]

Rules of thumb drift too. Jet Admin's guide, which says it was re-checked against Anthropic's page in September 2026, states that cache reads cost 10% of the standard input price. [4] That holds for 10 of the 12 ranked models, but Opus 5.5 reads at 5% of input and Fable 5.1 at 2.5%. [1]

Plan prices differ the same way. Jet Admin lists Max 20x at $200 a month. [4] Anthropic's captured plan card prints Max as "From $100" and doesn't show the 20x price. [2]

Token counts move the comparison even where rates look settled. Claude 4.7 and later models use a tokenizer that produces about 30% more tokens for the same text, while Sonnet 4.6 and earlier use the previous one. [1] A per-token rate compared across generations therefore understates the newer model's cost for the same text. Lift Sonnet 5's $2 input rate by 30% and it's about $2.60 for text that would cost $3 on Sonnet 4.6, so Sonnet 5 stays cheaper. Lift Opus 5.5's $4 by 30% and it's about $5.20, slightly above the $5 of Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.5, which predate the new tokenizer. The estimate assumes the 30% figure holds for your text, and Anthropic says the exact increase depends on content and workload.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

This ranking orders list prices. It says nothing about capability, speed or output quality, and a lower rate doesn't make a model cheaper per finished task. A model that needs two attempts at $2 input costs more than one that succeeds first time at $3.

- **Negotiated rates.** Volume discounts are negotiated case by case, [1] and sales-assisted Enterprise lists tiered incentives on committed spend. [2] Neither is published.
- **Other clouds.** Amazon Bedrock and Google Cloud publish their own Claude prices, which sit outside this ranking. [1]
- **Tool overhead.** Tool definitions, tool results and search results add input tokens that a per-token table doesn't show.
- **Change over time.** This edition rests on captures from one day. It will be refreshed when Anthropic changes its pricing or adds a model.

For the serving economics underneath these list prices, see our analysis of [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost). Other published work is in the [Glamdring research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is the Claude API cheaper than the ChatGPT API?

On list price at the flagship tier, yes by BenchLM's figures. BenchLM's pricing page, captured 28 September 2026, lists GPT-5.6 Sol at $5 input and $30 output per MTok against Opus 5.5 at $4 and $20, and GPT-5.6 Terra at $2 and $12 against Sonnet 5 at $2 and $10. [3] We haven't checked the OpenAI rates against OpenAI's own price page. Tokenizers also differ between providers, so compare cost on token counts measured from your own prompts.

### Can I get the Claude API for free?

Only for testing. New API users receive a small amount of free credits. [1] The free Claude plan is a separate consumer product and doesn't provide general API access. [3] Universities on Anthropic's Education plan get dedicated API credits for student learning. [2]

### How is the Claude API billed?

By actual monthly usage, in US dollars. Credit card and invoicing are both available, and usage is tracked in the Claude Console. [1] Each request is charged for its input, output, cache write and cache read tokens at the model's rates, [1] plus tool charges such as web search. [1]

### Why is the Claude API expensive for some workloads?

Output drives most of the bill. Every model charges five times as much for output as for input, from Haiku 4.5's $1 and $5 to Fable 5.1's $10 and $50. [1] A task that writes long answers costs more than one that reads long documents and answers briefly. Model choice multiplies that: the example request costs ten times as much on Fable 5.1 as on Haiku 4.5. Caching repeated context and batching work that can wait are the two published ways to cut the rate, and they can be combined. [1]

## Source notes
1. Anthropic: https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. BenchLM: https://benchlm.ai/anthropic/api-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Jet Admin: https://www.jetadmin.io/blog/claude-code-pricing-plans-api-rates-and-total-cost-in-2026/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. MetaCTO: https://www.metacto.com/blogs/anthropic-api-pricing-a-full-breakdown-of-costs-and-integration (checked September 28, 2026)

# Claude Code API Pricing vs Plans: Anthropic, Sept 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/claude-code-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Claude Pro, at $20 a month billed monthly, is the cheapest plan with Claude Code. At Anthropic's example session of 50,000 input and 15,000 output tokens, API list rates cost less than Pro below 40 Opus 5.5 sessions a month.

Claude Pro is the cheapest plan that includes Claude Code: $20 a month billed monthly, or $17 a month on a $200 annual payment. [1] Anthropic lists both figures before tax, and we checked them on 28 September 2026. [1] Through the API, Claude Code has no plan fee and bills per million tokens (MTok), from $1 input and $5 output on Haiku 4.5 up to $10 and $50 on Fable 5.1. [1] At the token volume of Anthropic's own one-hour coding-session example, Pro's $20 equals the API cost of 40 sessions on Opus 5.5. [1] [2]

## TL;DR

- Four priced routes include Claude Code. Billed monthly and before tax, they are Pro at $20, a Team Standard seat at $25, Max from $100 and a Team Premium seat at $125. [1] Annual billing cuts Pro to $17 and the Team seats to $20 and $100. Max bills monthly only. [1]
- On the API, Opus 5.5 costs $4 input and $20 output per MTok. Anthropic calls it the "Daily driver for agentic coding and enterprise work". [1]
- A session of 50,000 input and 15,000 output tokens, the size of Anthropic's worked example, costs $0.50 on Opus 5.5 and $0.25 on Sonnet 5 at list rates. [2] Below 40 Opus 5.5 sessions a month, the API costs less than Pro.
- Above the break-even, a plan wins only if its usage limit covers the work. Anthropic states plan limits as multiples of other plans and gives no token count. [1]
- Enterprise charges $20 a seat a month plus usage at API rates. For the same tokens it costs $20 a seat a month more than the API alone, in exchange for administration controls. [1]
- Claude Code pricing sits inside our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure), next to the wider [Claude API pricing](/post/claude-api-pricing) research.

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked every paid Claude plan or seat that includes Claude Code by one field: the listed price per user per month when billed monthly, in US dollars. [1] The source is Anthropic's plans and pricing page, captured on 28 September 2026. It states: "Prices shown don’t include applicable tax." [1]

The page lists seven routes: Free, Pro, Max, the Team plan's Standard and Premium seats, Enterprise and an Education plan. [1] Free drops out because its comparison table marks Claude Code "No". [1] Education shows no price. Enterprise bills annually and adds usage at API rates, so it has no monthly-billed figure. [1] Four routes remain. Max is ranked at its "From $100" entry price, because the page prints no separate prices for its 5x and 20x options. [1]

Monthly billing is the ranking field because Max has no annual option. [1] API rates come from the same page and from Anthropic's pricing documentation, which states "All prices are in USD." [2] Session costs and break-even counts are our arithmetic on those listed rates, with the inputs shown beside each figure. Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out how company-published prices are handled.

## Which Claude plans include Claude Code, and what do they cost?

Claude Pro is the cheapest plan with Claude Code, at $20 per user per month billed monthly. [1] A Team Standard seat costs $25, Max starts at $100 and a Team Premium seat costs $125, all billed monthly and before tax. [1] Anthropic's pricing FAQ states that Claude Code "is included in all paid plans". [1]

| Rank | Plan or seat | Billed monthly (USD per user per month, before tax) | Billed annually (USD per user per month) | Usage as Anthropic states it |
|---|---|---:|---:|---|
| 1 | Pro | $20 | $17 ($200 billed up front) | At least 5x Free per 5-hour session |
| 2 | Team Standard seat | $25 | $20 | More than Pro |
| 3 | Max | From $100 | Not offered | 5x or 20x Pro per 5-hour session |
| 4 | Team Premium seat | $125 | $100 | 5x a Standard seat |
| Unranked | Enterprise | Not offered | $20 per seat, plus usage at API rates | Usage billed at API rates |
| Unranked | API through a Console account | No plan fee | No plan fee | Per-token rates |
| Excluded | Free | $0 | Not applicable | Claude Code not included |

Every price and usage description is Anthropic's, as the page gives it. [1]

Every plan draws Claude Code from the same allowance as chat. Anthropic's FAQ says Claude Code "shares the same usage limits as the rest of your plan, so your work in the terminal and your chats draw from one pool." [1] Those limits reset on a rolling five-hour window, and paid plans add weekly limits on top. [1]

Annual billing saves a fixed amount. Pro costs $240 a year billed monthly against $200 paid up front, a $40 saving. A Team Standard seat costs $300 a year monthly against $240 annually. A Team Premium seat costs $1,500 against $1,200. [1] Max has no annual option, and the FAQ confirms both Max options are "billed monthly". [1]

The Team plan is sold "For teams of 2 to 150", so the smallest Team bill is two Standard seats at $50 a month billed monthly. [1] Seat types can be mixed. The plan's feature list includes "Claude Code and Claude Cowork", and its comparison table marks Claude Code "Yes" for Team with no split by seat. [1] A Premium seat billed monthly costs $25 more than Max's entry price. It adds central billing, single sign-on and admin controls. [1] The two capacities cannot be compared on the page, because a Premium seat is defined against a Standard seat and Max against Pro.

Model access differs by plan. Opus is available on Pro, Max and Team. Fable is reached through usage credits on Pro and capped at "50% of weekly limits" on Max. [1]

Enterprise is priced at "US$20/seat/month, billed annually", or $240 a seat a year, with "Usage cost scales with model and task." [1] That structure makes Enterprise the API plus a seat fee. It buys controls the other plans lack, such as SCIM, audit logs and custom data retention. [1]

## What are the Claude API per-token rates for Claude Code?

Claude Code on the API pays Anthropic's standard per-token rates: $4 input and $20 output per MTok on Opus 5.5, $2 and $10 on Sonnet 5, $1 and $5 on Haiku 4.5, and $10 and $50 on Fable 5.1. [1] On all four current models the output rate is five times the input rate. Anthropic's documentation states every price in US dollars. [2]

| Model | Anthropic's description | Input (USD/MTok) | Output (USD/MTok) | Cache write, 5-minute (USD/MTok) | Cache read (USD/MTok) | Batch input (USD/MTok) | Batch output (USD/MTok) |
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Fable 5.1 | "Next generation intelligence for long-running agents" | $10 | $50 | $12.50 | $0.25 | $5 | $25 |
| Opus 5.5 | "Daily driver for agentic coding and enterprise work" | $4 | $20 | $5 | $0.20 | $2 | $10 |
| Sonnet 5 | "High-performance model for coding and agents" | $2 | $10 | $2.50 | $0.20 | $1 | $5 |
| Haiku 4.5 | "Fastest, most cost-efficient model" | $1 | $5 | $1.25 | $0.10 | $0.50 | $2.50 |

List and cache rates are from Anthropic's pricing page; batch rates are from its documentation. [1] [2]

Caching changes the input side of the bill. A 5-minute cache write costs 1.25 times the input rate and a 1-hour write costs twice it. [2] A cache read costs 10 per cent of input on most models, 5 per cent on Opus 5.5 and 2.5 per cent on Fable 5.1. [2] Anthropic's documentation says a 5-minute write pays for itself after one read, and a 1-hour write after two. [2] Where a session resends the same files and instructions on each turn, the cached part is billed at the read rate.

The Batch API halves input and output prices. [2] It processes requests asynchronously, so the discount fits queued jobs. A live, turn-by-turn terminal session is billed at the standard rates in the first four columns.

Three modifiers raise the rate. US-only inference costs 1.1 times standard on all token categories for Claude 4.6 and later models. [2] Fast mode for Opus 5.5 costs $8 input and $40 output per MTok. [2] Tools add input tokens: the tool-use system prompt adds 286 tokens on Opus 5.5, and web search costs $10 per 1,000 searches on top of tokens. [2]

## Is Claude Code cheaper through the API or a plan?

Glamdring Research puts the break-even at 40 Opus 5.5 sessions a month against Pro's $20, using the 50,000 input and 15,000 output tokens of Anthropic's one-hour coding-session example. [2] Below that count, the API at list rates costs less than Pro. Above it, Pro costs less only if its usage limit covers the extra sessions. Anthropic states that limit as a multiple of other plans and gives no token figure. [1]

The session cost comes first. Anthropic's example uses 50,000 input tokens and 15,000 output tokens, with a cached variant in which 40,000 of the input tokens are cache reads. [2] Priced at the current models' list rates, the same session costs:

| Model | Session cost, no caching (USD) | Session cost, 40,000 cache reads (USD) |
|---|---:|---:|
| Fable 5.1 | $1.25 | $0.86 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.50 | $0.348 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.25 | $0.178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.125 | $0.089 |

Our arithmetic: input tokens times the input rate plus 15,000 output tokens times the output rate. The cached column splits input into 10,000 uncached tokens and 40,000 cache reads. [1] [2] It leaves out the first cache write, as Anthropic's example does. Writing those 40,000 tokens to the 5-minute cache on Opus 5.5 costs $0.20 once. [1] Anthropic's example also adds $0.08 of session runtime, a charge for its Managed Agents product that the figures above exclude. [2]

Dividing each plan price by a session cost gives the monthly session count at which the plan and the API cost the same:

| Route | Monthly price (USD) | Opus 5.5, no caching | Opus 5.5, cached | Sonnet 5, no caching | Sonnet 5, cached |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Pro, billed annually | $17 | 34 | 48.9 | 68 | 95.5 |
| Pro, billed monthly | $20 | 40 | 57.5 | 80 | 112.4 |
| Team Standard seat, billed monthly | $25 | 50 | 71.8 | 100 | 140.4 |
| Max, entry price | $100 | 200 | 287.4 | 400 | 561.8 |
| Team Premium seat, billed monthly | $125 | 250 | 359.2 | 500 | 702.2 |

Prices from Anthropic's pricing page; session costs from the table above. [1]

The decision turns on the model. Moving from Opus 5.5 to Sonnet 5 roughly doubles every break-even, because Sonnet 5's input and output rates are half of Opus 5.5's. [1] At 20 working days a month, our assumption, Pro's break-even on Opus 5.5 is two sessions a day. Max's entry price covers ten.

Output tokens dominate the session bill. In an uncached Opus 5.5 session, output is $0.30 of the $0.50. With caching, output is $0.30 of $0.348, or 86 per cent. [1] Caching cuts only the input side, so a workload heavy in generated code gains less from it than one that rereads a large codebase.

The constraint is the plan limit. Anthropic says "there's no fixed message count" and that usage depends on conversation length, model and features. [1] A plan caps spend at a known price. The API charges exactly for tokens used and has no plan cap. Run one real week of Claude Code on API credits, read the token count in the Claude Console and price it with the rates above. [2] That week's figure places the workload on one side of the break-even. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers why token counts per task vary.

## Why do other published Claude Code prices disagree?

Guides from Jet Admin and Superblocks disagree with Anthropic's captured page on three points: the Max 20x price, the current Opus rate and Team seat access. [3] [4] Both guides list Max 20x at $200 a month. [3] [4] Anthropic's page, captured on 28 September 2026, shows only "From $100" for Max. [1]

Jet Admin's guide gives Opus 5 at $5 input and $25 output as a base rate. [3] Anthropic now lists Opus 5 under Legacy models at that price and lists Opus 5.5 at $4 and $20. [1] A guide that treats Opus 5 as the current rate prices Opus input and output 25 per cent above Opus 5.5.

Team access is the third point. Jet Admin describes Claude Code as sitting with Premium seats, and Superblocks prices Team at "$100-$125/seat/month". [3] [4] Anthropic's comparison table marks Claude Code "Yes" for the Team plan with no seat distinction. [1] Confirm seat-level access in the current Team checkout before buying Standard seats for developers.

Third-party token allowances also circulate. Jet Admin states that Pro users get "approximately 44,000 tokens per 5-hour period". [3] Anthropic's own FAQ gives no token figure and says usage depends on conversation length, model and features. [1]

Rate comparisons across model generations need one more adjustment. Claude 4.7 and later models use a tokenizer that "produces approximately 30% more tokens for the same text", while Sonnet 4.6 and earlier use the previous one. [2] At 30 per cent more tokens, Sonnet 5's $2 input rate works out near $2.60 for text that Sonnet 4.6 bills at $3. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking prices access, and Anthropic does not publish the token capacity behind each plan. Pro, Max and Team usage is stated only as multiples: Pro at least 5x Free, Max 5x or 20x Pro, and a Premium seat 5x a Standard seat. [1] The break-even counts show where the API stops being cheaper. They cannot show whether a plan's limit reaches that far.

The prices are Anthropic's own statements in US dollars before tax. [1] Local-currency prices were not captured. The page also states that "Price and plans are subject to change at Anthropic's discretion." [1] Volume discounts on the API are "negotiated on a case-by-case basis". [2]

The session example is one size. Anthropic's documentation puts one token at about 4 characters or 0.75 English words, and real sessions vary with repository size, model choice and tool use. [2] Claude models on Amazon Bedrock and Google Cloud are priced by those providers and are outside this ranking. [2]

## Frequently asked questions

### Does Claude Code have a free API?

No free route includes Claude Code on a continuing basis. The Free plan's comparison table marks Claude Code "No". [1] On the API, Anthropic's documentation says "New users receive a small amount of free credits to test the API" and does not state the amount. [2]

### Is Claude Code a subscription or an API product?

Claude Code is available both ways. Every paid plan includes it within the plan's usage limits. [1] Anthropic's FAQ adds that "For heavy coding sessions, you can also switch to pay-as-you-go API credits through a Console account." [1] API billing is "based on actual monthly usage". [2]

### Why is the Claude API so expensive for coding sessions?

The API bills every token, and output costs five times input on all four current models. [1] In a session of 50,000 input and 15,000 output tokens on Opus 5.5, output accounts for $0.30 of the $0.50 total. [1] [2] Caching and batch pricing reduce input and queued work. Neither reduces the output rate of a live session.

### Can Claude Max be billed annually?

No. Anthropic's comparison table lists Max 5x and Max 20x with a "Monthly" billing cycle, and its FAQ says both options are "billed monthly". [1] Pro and Team offer annual billing. [1]

### Does US-only inference change what Claude Code costs on the API?

US-only inference multiplies every token price by 1.1 on Claude 4.6 and later models, including cache writes and reads. [2] Opus 5.5 then costs $4.40 input and $22 output per MTok, and the 50,000-input, 15,000-output session rises from $0.50 to $0.55. [1] Against Pro's $20, the break-even falls from 40 sessions to 36.4.

## Source notes
1. Plans & Pricing | Claude by Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Pricing (Claude API documentation): https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Claude Code Pricing: Plans, API Rates, and Total Cost in 2026: https://www.jetadmin.io/blog/claude-code-pricing-plans-api-rates-and-total-cost-in-2026/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Claude Code Pricing 2026: Plans, Limits, and Hidden Costs: https://www.superblocks.com/blog/claude-code-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Claude Haiku API pricing: Anthropic, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/claude-haiku-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Haiku is the cheapest Claude line on every token rate Anthropic publishes. Haiku 4.5 costs $1 input and $5 output per million tokens, exactly half of Sonnet 5 and one third of Sonnet 4.6.

Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1 per million input tokens and $5 per million output tokens on Anthropic's API. Claude Haiku 3.5 is still in Anthropic's model price table at $0.80 input and $4 output, the lowest input price of the 18 Claude models listed. All prices are in US dollars, from Anthropic's published pricing, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

Every Sonnet model costs at least twice as much per token. Haiku stays the cheapest Claude option per task unless a larger model finishes the same job on half the tokens or fewer.

## TL;DR

- Haiku 4.5 charges $1 input and $5 output per million tokens. A cache hit costs $0.10, a 5-minute cache write $1.25 and a 1-hour cache write $2. [1]
- The Batch API halves the token rates. Haiku 4.5 drops to $0.50 input and $2.50 output, and Haiku 3.5 to $0.40 input and $2 output. [1]
- Haiku 3.5 is priced in Anthropic's pricing documentation and has no card on the main pricing page. CloudPrice records a Haiku 3.5 deprecation date of 4 July 2026. [1] [2] [3]
- A request with 2,000 input tokens and 500 output tokens costs $0.0045 on Haiku 4.5 and $0.0090 on Sonnet 5 at standard rates. Sonnet 4.6 charges $0.0135 for the same token counts.
- Sonnet 5 uses a newer tokenizer that counts the same text as roughly 30% more tokens. On matching text its premium over Haiku 4.5 grows to about 2.6 times.
- Anthropic's 1.1x US-only inference multiplier covers Claude 4.6 and later models. Haiku 4.5 and Haiku 3.5 carry earlier version numbers and bill at standard rates. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Every Glamdring ranking follows the published [research methodology](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/methodology).

The ranked field is the **Input** price under "Base tokens" in the Model pricing table of Anthropic's pricing documentation. The unit is US dollars per million tokens (MTok), and the documentation states that all prices are in USD. The page was captured on 28 September 2026. [1]

The table holds 4 headline models and 14 under "Additional models". All 18 rows are ranked. Tied models share a rank. Output costs five times input on every row, so sorting by output gives the same order. [1]

Anthropic's main pricing page shows 12 model cards, 4 under "Latest models" and 8 under "Legacy models". [2]

Each card's input, output and cache prices match the documentation table. Six documentation rows have no card: Haiku 3.5, Sonnet 4, Opus 4.1, Opus 4, Mythos 5.1 and Mythos 5. The "Main pricing page" column records where each model appears.

Fast mode, cloud marketplaces and subscription plans fall outside the ranking. Anthropic states that partner-operated platforms (Bedrock and Google Cloud) have independent regional pricing. [1]

The documentation gives no tax treatment for direct API billing.

## Claude API models ranked by input price

Claude Haiku 3.5 ranks first at $0.80 per million input tokens. Claude Haiku 4.5 ranks second at $1, and Claude Sonnet 5 third at $2. [1]

| Rank | Model | Main pricing page | Input ($/MTok) | Output ($/MTok) | Cache hit ($/MTok) | 5-minute cache write ($/MTok) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Haiku 3.5 | No card | 0.80 | 4 | 0.08 | 1 |
| 2 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Latest models | 1 | 5 | 0.10 | 1.25 |
| 3 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Latest models | 2 | 10 | 0.20 | 2.50 |
| 4= | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Legacy models | 3 | 15 | 0.30 | 3.75 |
| 4= | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Legacy models | 3 | 15 | 0.30 | 3.75 |
| 4= | Claude Sonnet 4 | No card | 3 | 15 | 0.30 | 3.75 |
| 7 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Latest models | 4 | 20 | 0.20 | 5 |
| 8= | Claude Opus 5 | Legacy models | 5 | 25 | 0.50 | 6.25 |
| 8= | Claude Opus 4.8 | Legacy models | 5 | 25 | 0.50 | 6.25 |
| 8= | Claude Opus 4.7 | Legacy models | 5 | 25 | 0.50 | 6.25 |
| 8= | Claude Opus 4.6 | Legacy models | 5 | 25 | 0.50 | 6.25 |
| 8= | Claude Opus 4.5 | Legacy models | 5 | 25 | 0.50 | 6.25 |
| 13= | Claude Fable 5.1 | Latest models | 10 | 50 | 0.25 | 12.50 |
| 13= | Claude Mythos 5.1 | No card | 10 | 50 | 0.25 | 12.50 |
| 13= | Claude Fable 5 | Legacy models | 10 | 50 | 1 | 12.50 |
| 13= | Claude Mythos 5 | No card | 10 | 50 | 1 | 12.50 |
| 17= | Claude Opus 4.1 | No card | 15 | 75 | 1.50 | 18.75 |
| 17= | Claude Opus 4 | No card | 15 | 75 | 1.50 | 18.75 |

Prices: Anthropic pricing documentation, Model pricing table. Card placement: Anthropic's pricing page. Both checked 28 September 2026.

Cache hits break the input order in two places. Anthropic sets a cache hit at 0.1x base input on most models, 0.05x on Claude Opus 5.5 and 0.025x on Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1. [1]

Opus 5.5 therefore reads from cache at $0.20, the same price as Sonnet 5. On cached tokens the gap between Haiku 4.5 and Opus 5.5 narrows from four times to two. Coverage of model serving economics sits on the [model infrastructure desk](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/categories/model-infrastructure).

## What does Claude Haiku 4.5 cost per million tokens?

Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1 per million input tokens and $5 per million output tokens at standard rates. A cache hit costs $0.10. A 5-minute cache write costs $1.25 and a 1-hour cache write $2. [1]

| Haiku 4.5 rate | $ per MTok | Anthropic basis |
|---|---|---|
| Standard input | 1 | Model pricing table |
| Standard output | 5 | Model pricing table |
| Cache hit | 0.10 | Model pricing table |
| 5-minute cache write | 1.25 | Model pricing table |
| 1-hour cache write | 2 | Model pricing table |
| Batch input | 0.50 | Batch processing table |
| Batch output | 2.50 | Batch processing table |
| Batched cache hit | 0.05 | 0.10 with the 50% batch discount applied |

Anthropic's pricing page calls Haiku 4.5 its "Fastest, most cost-efficient model" and shows the same standard rates. It notes that its cache prices reflect a 5-minute TTL. [2]

Output costs five times input. A classification call with a long prompt and a one-word answer pays almost entirely for input, so caching moves its bill most. A drafting call pays mostly for output, where only batch processing or a cheaper model cuts the rate.

## Which Haiku versions does Anthropic still price?

Anthropic prices two Haiku models: Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Haiku 3.5. Haiku 3.5 sits at the foot of the documentation table at $0.80 input and $4 output, with cache hits at $0.08 and a 1-hour cache write at $1.60. [1]

Anthropic's main pricing page lists Haiku 4.5 under "Latest models". [2] Its "Legacy models" section holds Opus, Sonnet and Fable cards and no Haiku card. [2]

CloudPrice, a third-party price tracker, lists a Haiku 3.5 deprecation date of 4 July 2026. [3] The same tracker lists Claude Haiku 3 at $0.250 input and $1.25 output, marked "Deprecated". [3]

Anthropic's documentation table has no Claude 3 Haiku row. On the evidence captured, Haiku 4.5 and Haiku 3.5 are the only Haiku versions Anthropic still prices.

The decision changes when a workload already runs on Haiku 3.5. Its rates sit 20% below Haiku 4.5 on both input and output. A price row shows a rate. It gives no date for when the model stops answering requests. Confirm Haiku 3.5 availability in the Claude Console before you budget on it.

## How do prompt caching and batch processing change the Haiku bill?

A cache hit costs 0.1 times the base input price on Haiku, and a 5-minute cache write costs 1.25 times. Anthropic states that these multipliers stack with the Batch API discount. [1]

The Batch API processes requests asynchronously with a 50% discount on input and output tokens. [1]

Take a request with a 10,000-token shared prefix, such as a long system prompt, plus 500 fresh input tokens and 500 output tokens.

| Request type | Haiku 3.5 ($) | Haiku 4.5 ($) | Sonnet 5 ($) |
|---|---|---|---|
| No cache | 0.0104 | 0.0130 | 0.0260 |
| First call, 5-minute cache write | 0.0124 | 0.0155 | 0.0310 |
| First call, 1-hour cache write | 0.0184 | 0.0230 | 0.0460 |
| Later call, cache hit | 0.0032 | 0.0040 | 0.0080 |

Calculated from Anthropic's Model pricing table, checked 28 September 2026.

On Haiku 4.5 the 5-minute write adds $0.0025 to the first call. Each later cache hit saves $0.0090 against an uncached call. The 1-hour write adds $0.0100, so it needs two hits before it pays.

Anthropic's documentation reaches the same break-even. Caching pays off after one cache read for the 5-minute duration and after two cache reads for the 1-hour duration. [1]

The two discounts combine. A cached batch request on Haiku 4.5 brings input down to $0.05 per million tokens, according to Fast.io's pricing guide. [4]

The constraint on batch is time. Anthropic's cost guidance reserves the Batch API for non-time-sensitive tasks, so it fits poorly with a live chat reply. [1]

## How much does one request cost on Haiku versus Sonnet?

A request with 2,000 input tokens and 500 output tokens costs $0.0045 on Haiku 4.5 and $0.0090 on Sonnet 5 at standard rates. Sonnet 4.6 charges $0.0135 for the same token counts, three times Haiku 4.5.

| Model | Input ($/MTok) | Output ($/MTok) | Per request, standard ($) | Per request, batch ($) | Per 1,000 requests, standard ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 3.5 | 0.80 | 4 | 0.0036 | 0.0018 | 3.60 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 5 | 0.0045 | 0.00225 | 4.50 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 2 | 10 | 0.0090 | 0.0045 | 9.00 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3 | 15 | 0.0135 | 0.00675 | 13.50 |

Calculated from Anthropic's Model pricing and Batch processing tables, checked 28 September 2026. Request: 2,000 input tokens and 500 output tokens.

The formula is plain. Multiply input tokens by the input rate and output tokens by the output rate, add the two, then divide by 1,000,000. For Haiku 4.5: (2,000 × $1 + 500 × $5) ÷ 1,000,000 = $0.0045.

Token counts differ between models for the same text. Anthropic's documentation says Claude 4.7 and later models use a newer tokenizer that produces approximately 30% more tokens for the same text. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and earlier models use the previous tokenizer. [1]

By version number, Sonnet 5 falls under the newer tokenizer and Haiku 4.5 under the previous one. If the same text becomes 2,600 input tokens and 650 output tokens on Sonnet 5, the request costs about $0.0117. Sonnet 5's premium over Haiku 4.5 then rises from 2 times to about 2.6 times. The exact increase depends on the content.

Tool use adds a hidden system prompt to each request. Anthropic lists 496 tokens for Haiku 4.5 and 354 tokens for Sonnet 5 when tool choice is auto or none. [1]

At list rates that overhead costs $0.000496 per request on Haiku 4.5 and $0.000708 on Sonnet 5. Haiku keeps its lead even with the longer tool prompt.

## When is Haiku the cheapest Claude option?

Glamdring Research's reading of Anthropic's rates is that Haiku is the cheapest Claude line on every token price Anthropic publishes. Haiku 4.5 is the cheapest model with a card on the main pricing page. Haiku 3.5 undercuts it in the documentation table.

Per task, Haiku 4.5 loses only when a larger model finishes the job on far fewer billed tokens. Sonnet 5 ties Haiku 4.5 when it bills half as many tokens at the same input and output mix. Sonnet 4.6 ties at one third.

Retries count as tokens. If Haiku 4.5 needs a full second attempt on every request, its cost doubles and only then matches one Sonnet 5 attempt. Against Sonnet 4.6, the tie arrives at three Haiku attempts per request.

Anthropic's own cost guidance points the same way: "Choose Haiku for simple tasks, Sonnet for most production workloads, and Opus for the most complex reasoning". [1]

Use one real workflow to test the claim. Run the same inputs through Haiku 4.5 and Sonnet 5. Count billed tokens and attempts per accepted result, then multiply by each model's list rates. The cost drivers beyond the price list are set out in [what controls AI inference cost](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## Why do other published Haiku prices disagree?

Published Haiku prices differ by channel, model version and cache duration. The top Google result for "claude haiku api pricing" on 28 September 2026 quoted Haiku 4.5 at $1.10 input and $5.50 output. That figure is a provider rate for AWS Bedrock, with a cache write of $1.38 and a cache read of $0.11. [5]

Anthropic states that Bedrock and Google Cloud set independent regional pricing. A buyer on a cloud marketplace pays that marketplace's rate. [1]

Version labels drift on trackers. CloudPrice's version table marks Claude Haiku 4.5 "Deprecating" and Claude Haiku 3.5 "Current". [3] Anthropic's pricing page lists Haiku 4.5 under "Latest models" on the same date. [2]

Tokenizer figures vary too. Fast.io says Opus 4.7 and later models produce up to 35% more tokens for the same input text. [4] Anthropic's documentation gives approximately 30%. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking measures list price per token on Anthropic's direct API. It says nothing about output quality, speed or the tokens each model spends on a task. Anthropic's description of Haiku 4.5 as its fastest model is a company claim.

Per-token rank and per-text cost can diverge because newer models count the same text as more tokens. Compare models on the same workload before you rely on the per-token order.

Negotiated prices sit outside the ranking. Anthropic says volume discounts may be available for high-volume users and are negotiated case by case. [1]

Every figure carries the checked date of 28 September 2026. Other dated cost and market work sits in the [Glamdring research archive](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does it cost to use the Claude API?

Anthropic bills the Claude API per token on actual monthly usage. New users receive a small amount of free credits to test the API. [1]

Standard rates on 28 September 2026 run from $0.80 input and $4 output per million tokens on Haiku 3.5 to $15 input and $75 output on Opus 4.1 and Opus 4. Haiku 4.5 costs $1 input and $5 output. [1]

### Does US-only inference change Haiku's price?

Anthropic's documentation applies a 1.1x multiplier to US-only inference on Claude 4.6 and later models. Earlier models don't support the inference_geo parameter and always use standard pricing. A request that includes the parameter on those models returns a 400 error. [1]

Haiku 4.5 and Haiku 3.5 both carry version numbers below 4.6. Anthropic's main pricing page prints its 1.1x note under the Haiku 4.5 card without naming the models it covers. [2] Confirm the behaviour in the Claude Console before you plan US-only Haiku traffic.

### Can I still use Claude 3 Haiku through Anthropic?

Anthropic's documentation table has no Claude 3 Haiku row on 28 September 2026. Its cheapest Haiku row is Claude Haiku 3.5. [1]

CloudPrice lists Claude Haiku 3 at $0.250 input and $1.25 output and marks it "Deprecated". [3] Treat that as a tracker record and confirm availability in the Claude Console.

## Source notes
1. Pricing - Claude API documentation, Model pricing table: https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Plans & Pricing | Claude by Anthropic, Legacy models: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Claude Haiku 3.5 pricing & specs, Specifications: https://cloudprice.net/models/anthropic-claude-3-5-haiku (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Anthropic API Pricing 2026: Claude Model Costs: https://fast.io/resources/anthropic-api-pricing-guide/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. AWS Bedrock claude-haiku-4-5 API Pricing & Cost: https://www.requesty.ai/models/bedrock/claude-haiku-4-5-ap-northeast-1 (checked September 28, 2026)

# Claude Opus API pricing: Anthropic, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/claude-opus-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Opus 5.5 is the cheapest of the eight Opus versions Anthropic prices, at $4 input and $20 output per million tokens (checked 28 September 2026).

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4 per million input tokens and $20 per million output tokens through Anthropic's API, with cache reads at $0.20 per million. [1]

Those figures come from Anthropic's published pricing, checked 28 September 2026.

Opus 5.5 is the cheapest of the eight Opus versions Anthropic prices. The oldest two, Opus 4.1 and Opus 4, top all 18 Claude models on output price at $75 per million tokens. [1]

That's almost four times the current Opus rate, for the same model family.

## TL;DR

- **Opus 5.5 is the cheapest Opus.** It costs $4 input, $20 output, $5 for a 5-minute cache write, $8 for a 1-hour cache write and $0.20 for a cache read, per million tokens. [1]
- **Five older versions share one card; the two oldest cost three times that.** Opus 5, Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.5 each cost $5 input and $25 output. Opus 4.1 and Opus 4 cost $15 and $75. [1]
- **Against Sonnet and Haiku, Opus 5.5 costs twice Sonnet 5 and four times Haiku 4.5 per input and output token.** On cache reads it matches Sonnet 5 at $0.20. [1]
- **Batch processing takes 50% off input and output,** which puts Opus 5.5 at $2 and $10 per million tokens. [1]
- **Caching decides an agent's bill more than the model tier does.** In Glamdring Research's worked 100-call task, Opus 5.5 costs $5.60 with caching and $35.60 without it, against $9.00 on Opus 5 and $3.60 on Sonnet 5.
- **Same price doesn't mean same bill.** Opus 4.7 and later count roughly 30% more tokens for the same text than Opus 4.6 and earlier, at identical rates.

## How this ranking was built

This ranking belongs to our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure) and follows the publication's [research standard](/methodology) for captured and computed figures.

- **Source:** Anthropic's pricing documentation at docs.claude.com, captured 28 September 2026 at 15:05 AEST, cross-checked against Anthropic's summary pricing page captured the same minute. Neither page shows a release date, so the checked date stands in for one.
- **Field:** the documentation's **Output** price under "Base tokens", in US dollars per million tokens (the page writes "MTok"). Every model's output price is five times its input price, so ranking by input gives the same order. [1]
- **Currency:** the documentation states that all prices are in USD. [1]
- **Tax:** the documentation makes no tax statement for direct API billing.
- **Inclusion:** every row in the documentation's model pricing table, 4 current models plus 14 under "Additional models". 18 captured, 18 ranked, no merges.
- **Cross-check:** the summary page shows 12 of the 18, split into "Latest models" and "Legacy models", and every figure it shows matches the documentation. It omits Mythos 5.1, Mythos 5, Opus 4.1, Opus 4, Sonnet 4 and Haiku 3.5.
- **Exclusions:** subscription plans; charges billed per search, per container-hour or per session-hour; the fast mode and US-only multipliers, which the caching and version sections cover.
- **Ties:** tied models share a rank and appear in the documentation's order.

These are Anthropic's list prices: what Anthropic says it charges, before any negotiated discount.

## Claude API models ranked by output price

| Rank | Model | Summary page status | Output price (US$ per million tokens) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1= | Claude Opus 4.1 | Not listed | 75 |
| 1= | Claude Opus 4 | Not listed | 75 |
| 3= | Claude Fable 5.1 | Latest | 50 |
| 3= | Claude Mythos 5.1 | Not listed | 50 |
| 3= | Claude Fable 5 | Legacy | 50 |
| 3= | Claude Mythos 5 | Not listed | 50 |
| 7= | Claude Opus 5 | Legacy | 25 |
| 7= | Claude Opus 4.8 | Legacy | 25 |
| 7= | Claude Opus 4.7 | Legacy | 25 |
| 7= | Claude Opus 4.6 | Legacy | 25 |
| 7= | Claude Opus 4.5 | Legacy | 25 |
| 12 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Latest | 20 |
| 13= | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Legacy | 15 |
| 13= | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Legacy | 15 |
| 13= | Claude Sonnet 4 | Not listed | 15 |
| 16 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Latest | 10 |
| 17 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Latest | 5 |
| 18 | Claude Haiku 3.5 | Not listed | 4 |

Output prices exactly as Anthropic's model pricing table lists them. [1]

Among the four current models, output price falls at each step down the line: $50 for Fable 5.1, $20 for Opus 5.5, $10 for Sonnet 5 and $5 for Haiku 4.5. [1]

The older rows run the other way. Every older Opus costs more than Opus 5.5, and every older Sonnet costs more than Sonnet 5. Opus 4.1 and Opus 4 cost more than any Fable or Mythos model. Only Haiku 3.5, at $4, undercuts its successor. [1]

## What does each Opus version cost?

Anthropic prices eight Opus versions on its API. Opus 5.5 costs $4 per million input tokens and $20 per million output tokens. Opus 5, Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.5 each cost $5 and $25. Opus 4.1 and Opus 4 cost $15 and $75. [1]

| Opus version | Input | Output | 5-min cache write | 1-hour cache write | Cache read | Batch input | Batch output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opus 5.5 | $4 | $20 | $5 | $8 | $0.20 | $2 | $10 |
| Opus 5 | $5 | $25 | $6.25 | $10 | $0.50 | $2.50 | $12.50 |
| Opus 4.8 | $5 | $25 | $6.25 | $10 | $0.50 | $2.50 | $12.50 |
| Opus 4.7 | $5 | $25 | $6.25 | $10 | $0.50 | $2.50 | $12.50 |
| Opus 4.6 | $5 | $25 | $6.25 | $10 | $0.50 | $2.50 | $12.50 |
| Opus 4.5 | $5 | $25 | $6.25 | $10 | $0.50 | $2.50 | $12.50 |
| Opus 4.1 | $15 | $75 | $18.75 | $30 | $1.50 | $7.50 | $37.50 |
| Opus 4 | $15 | $75 | $18.75 | $30 | $1.50 | $7.50 | $37.50 |

All figures are US dollars per million tokens. [1]

At the 28 September 2026 check, Opus 5.5 undercuts every other Opus on every line. Against the five-version card it saves 20% on input, output and both cache writes, and 60% on cache reads.

The cache-read gap comes from a different multiplier as well as a lower base price. Most Claude models charge 10% of the input price for a cache hit, and Opus 5.5 charges 5%. [1]

Identical rates don't produce identical bills. Claude 4.7 and later models use a newer tokenizer that produces approximately 30% more tokens for the same text, and the documentation says the exact increase depends on the content and workload. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and earlier models use the previous tokenizer. [1]

So Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7 charge the same $5 per million input tokens, but the same document sent to Opus 4.7 can count about 30% more tokens. The same arithmetic trims Opus 5.5's lead over Opus 4.6: 30% more tokens at a 20% lower rate comes to about 4% more for identical text. Against Opus 5 and Opus 4.8, which share its tokenizer, the 20% cut holds in full.

Versions also differ on fast mode. Opus 5.5 runs in fast mode at $8 input and $40 output, and Opus 5 and Opus 4.8 at $10 and $50. Opus 4.7 returns an error on fast mode requests, and Opus 4.6 runs them at standard speed and standard rates. [1]

Anthropic's summary pricing page lists Opus 5 under "Legacy models" at $5 input and $25 output. [2]

That page also lists Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.5 as legacy models. Opus 4.1 and Opus 4 appear only in the documentation. Neither page says whether they remain open to new API accounts, so confirm availability before planning on either.

## How does Opus compare with Sonnet and Haiku?

Opus 5.5 costs twice as much as Sonnet 5 and four times as much as Haiku 4.5 per input and output token. Sonnet 5 costs $2 and $10 per million tokens and Haiku 4.5 costs $1 and $5, against $4 and $20 for Opus 5.5. The gap narrows on cached context: Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5 both charge $0.20 per million cache-read tokens, and Haiku 4.5 charges $0.10. [1]

| Model | Input | Output | 5-min cache write | Cache read | Input and output vs Opus 5.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $10 | $50 | $12.50 | $0.25 | 2.5× |
| Opus 5.5 | $4 | $20 | $5 | $0.20 | 1× |
| Sonnet 5 | $2 | $10 | $2.50 | $0.20 | 0.5× |
| Sonnet 4.6, 4.5, 4 | $3 | $15 | $3.75 | $0.30 | 0.75× |
| Haiku 4.5 | $1 | $5 | $1.25 | $0.10 | 0.25× |
| Haiku 3.5 | $0.80 | $4 | $1 | $0.08 | 0.2× |

US dollars per million tokens. The ratio column is computed from Anthropic's figures. [1]

The premium tiers are priced to reward caching. Fable 5.1 costs 2.5 times Opus 5.5 per fresh token but 1.25 times per cached read. Opus 5.5 costs twice Sonnet 5 per fresh token and the same per cached read.

The decision changes with the share of a workload that re-reads cached context. A chat that sends fresh text and returns long answers pays the full 2× premium for Opus 5.5 over Sonnet 5. An agent that re-reads a large codebase on every turn pays far less than 2×, because its biggest line is priced the same on both.

Anthropic's own guidance is to choose Haiku for simple tasks, Sonnet for most production workloads and Opus for the most complex reasoning. [1]

These ratios hold only when two models spend the same tokens on the same job. A cheaper model that needs more calls, longer outputs or retries closes the gap, and the rate card publishes no token-efficiency data. For what drives inference cost beyond the list price, see our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## What do prompt caching and batch processing cost?

On Opus 5.5, a 5-minute cache write costs $5 per million tokens, a 1-hour cache write $8 and a cache read $0.20, against $4 for ordinary input. [1]

The Batch API takes 50% off both input and output tokens. That puts Opus 5.5 at $2 input and $10 output per million tokens, and every Opus from Opus 5 to Opus 4.5 at $2.50 and $12.50. [1]

| Cache operation | Multiplier on input price | Opus 5.5 | Opus 5 to Opus 4.5 | Opus 4.1 and Opus 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-minute write | 1.25× | $5 | $6.25 | $18.75 |
| 1-hour write | 2× | $8 | $10 | $30 |
| Read (hit) | 0.05× on Opus 5.5, 0.1× on the others | $0.20 | $0.50 | $1.50 |

Multipliers from Anthropic's prompt caching terms; dollar figures from its model pricing table, in US dollars per million tokens. [1]

A 5-minute cache on Opus 5.5 pays for itself on the first re-read. The write costs $1 per million tokens more than plain input, and each later read saves $3.80. A 1-hour write costs $4 more, so it needs two reads to break even.

Anthropic's documentation gives the same break-even points for models on the standard 10% read rate: one read for the 5-minute cache and two reads for the 1-hour cache. [1]

The constraint is the cache lifetime. A prefix that isn't read again inside five minutes has to be written again at the premium rate, which is the case for paying for the 1-hour write.

Anthropic states that the caching multipliers stack with other pricing modifiers, including the Batch API discount and data residency. [1]

Anthropic's pricing page describes the Batch tier as for asynchronous workloads that can be processed together for better efficiency. [2]

An agent that needs each answer before its next step can't sit in a batch queue, so batch pricing suits backlogs and overnight runs rather than interactive agents.

Two limits are explicit. Fast mode is not available with the Batch API, and the Batch API discount doesn't apply to Claude Managed Agents sessions, because sessions are stateful and interactive. [1]

For Claude 4.6 and later models, US-only inference through the inference_geo parameter adds a 1.1x multiplier to all token categories, including input tokens, output tokens, cache writes and cache reads. [1]

On Opus 5.5 that makes $4.40 input, $22 output and $0.22 per cache read.

Claude 4.6 and later models include the full 1M-token context window at standard pricing, so a 900k-token request is billed at the same per-token rate as a 9k-token request. [1]

## What does one long agentic task cost on Opus?

Glamdring Research's worked estimate puts one long agentic task at $5.60 on Opus 5.5, against $9.00 on Opus 5 or any Opus from 4.5 to 4.8, $27.00 on Opus 4.1, $3.60 on Sonnet 5 and $1.80 on Haiku 4.5, at Anthropic's published pricing, checked 28 September 2026. The task is illustrative: 100 model calls, each re-reading an 80,000-token cached context, adding 4,000 new tokens and generating 1,000. Without prompt caching, the same Opus 5.5 run costs $35.60.

Anthropic's own worked example is smaller. It prices a one-hour Claude Managed Agents coding session on Opus 5 that uses 50,000 input tokens and 15,000 output tokens at $0.705, including $0.08 of session runtime. With 40,000 of the input tokens served as cache reads, the total falls to $0.525. [1]

| Model | No caching | 40,000 input tokens cached |
|---|---|---|
| Opus 5.5 | $0.580 | $0.428 |
| Opus 5 (Anthropic's figures) | $0.705 | $0.525 |
| Opus 4.1 | $1.955 | $1.415 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.330 | $0.258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.205 | $0.169 |

US dollars. The Opus 5 row is Anthropic's; the other rows apply the same token counts and the same $0.08 runtime to each model's rates. Anthropic's example lists no cache-write line, so read it as a session whose cache was already warm.

A session that small hides the effect of scale. The 100-call estimate assumes:

- **100 model calls** in one task, the shape of a coding or research agent that reads files, runs tools and edits across many turns.
- **8 million cache-read tokens:** each call re-reads an average 80,000-token cached context of instructions, files and history.
- **400,000 cache-write tokens** at the 5-minute rate: each call adds 4,000 new tokens of tool results and file content to the cache.
- **100,000 output tokens:** each call generates 1,000 tokens, including any reasoning tokens.
- Standard pricing, no batch, every read landing inside the 5-minute window, and the same token counts on every model.

| Model | Cache reads (8M tokens) | Cache writes (0.4M tokens) | Output (0.1M tokens) | Task total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $2.00 | $5.00 | $5.00 | $12.00 |
| Opus 5.5 | $1.60 | $2.00 | $2.00 | $5.60 |
| Opus 5 to Opus 4.5 | $4.00 | $2.50 | $2.50 | $9.00 |
| Opus 4.1, Opus 4 | $12.00 | $7.50 | $7.50 | $27.00 |
| Sonnet 5 | $1.60 | $1.00 | $1.00 | $3.60 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.80 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $1.80 |

US dollars, computed from Anthropic's per-million-token rates.

Three results follow from the arithmetic. On identical token counts, Opus 5.5 finishes the task for 38% less than Opus 5, and the biggest single saving is the cache-read line, which falls from $4.00 to $1.60.

Opus 5.5 costs 1.56 times Sonnet 5 on this task, well short of the 2× its token rates imply. Both charge $1.60 for the same 8 million cached reads, so the gap sits only in writes and output.

Caching is the largest lever of all. Sent as plain input, the 8.4 million context tokens cost $33.60 on Opus 5.5, and output adds $2.00. Caching cuts that $35.60 run by 84%.

Tools add input on every call. On Opus 5.5, any tool definition brings a tool-use system prompt of 286 tokens with tool choice set to auto or none. [1]

Web search costs $10 per 1,000 searches, plus standard token costs for the content it returns. [1]

The estimate holds token counts fixed, and that is its main limit. ModemGuides reports Anthropic's estimate that Opus 5.5 at default settings costs 40% less than Opus 5 on typical workloads, because it needs fewer tokens and steps. It also reports Artificial Analysis measuring Opus 5.5 at about 1.6 times Opus 5's output tokens per task at maximum effort, which left cost per task level with the older model. [3]

In this model, 1.6 times the output alone lifts Opus 5.5 to $6.80, still below Opus 5's $9.00. A level result means those runs changed more than output volume. Effort settings move the answer as much as the rate card does.

Opus 5.5 can't run with thinking disabled, so every response carries reasoning tokens that API users pay for. [3]

Use one real workflow to test the claim. Log one agent run's cache reads, cache writes, uncached input and output as separate lines, then price each line at the rates in this article. That breakdown shows which model is cheaper for the job; the headline rate doesn't.

## Why do other published Opus prices disagree?

Opus prices that differ from Anthropic's usually come from resellers and cloud listings that apply their own discount or multiplier to Anthropic's list rates, or from pages written before Opus 5.5 launched. Three such pages captured on 28 September 2026 show the pattern: one reseller advertises up to 30% off, another 5% off, and a Bedrock calculator lists Opus 4.6 at 1.1 times Anthropic's rate.

LLM.API's Claude Opus 4.8 page lists Anthropic's own price at $5 in and $25 out, and offers the same model at up to 30% below list price. [4]

OpenModel lists claude-opus-4-6 at $4.75 input, $23.75 output, $5.9375 cache write and $0.475 cache read, labelled 5% off, and a lower price available only via Claude Code. [5]

Each OpenModel API figure is 0.95 times Anthropic's Opus 4.6 card. Those are resellers' statements about their own channels. Confirm them in the current quote.

Holori's calculator lists the Bedrock model us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 at $5.50 input, $27.50 output and $0.550 cached input per million tokens. [6]

The same listing prices cache creation at $6.8750 per million tokens, and $11.0000 above one hour. [6]

Every one of those Bedrock figures is exactly 1.1 times Anthropic's own Opus 4.6 rate, the same multiple Anthropic applies to US-only inference on its API.

Anthropic's documentation says partner-operated platforms, Bedrock and Google Cloud, have independent regional pricing. [1]

Dates cause the rest. ModemGuides dates Opus 5.5's release to 22 September 2026. [3]

A page written before that date can only quote an older Opus as the current model, at $5 and $25.

Subscription prices add more confusion. Claude Pro costs $17 a month with an annual subscription or $20 billed monthly, and Max starts from $100 a month. [2]

Those plans carry usage limits, not per-token rates, so they don't compare directly with API pricing.

## What changed with Opus 5.5?

Opus 5.5 cut every Opus token rate against Opus 5. Input and output fell 20%, from $5 and $25 to $4 and $20 per million tokens. Cache reads fell 60%, from $0.50 to $0.20, and cache writes fell from $6.25 to $5. [3]

Anthropic's pricing documentation, checked 28 September 2026, carries the same rates for both models, and the 1-hour cache write fell from $10 to $8.

The fast mode rate fell with it: $8 input and $40 output on Opus 5.5, against $10 and $50 on Opus 5 and Opus 4.8. [1]

Opus 5 stayed on the summary pricing page as a legacy model at its old rates. [2]

The cache-read cut is the one that reaches agent bills. ModemGuides reports Anthropic stating that cache reads make up the majority of agentic and coding costs, because a coding agent re-reads the same repository context and instructions on every turn. [3]

That is Anthropic's claim about its customers' workloads, not a measured market figure. The worked 100-call task shows the mechanism either way: cache reads are the largest line on Opus 5 and fall by $2.40 on Opus 5.5.

Opus 5.5 also hands some requests to older models. ModemGuides reports Anthropic's announcement saying that most cybersecurity tasks will be re-routed to Opus 4.8, and that biology and frontier-LLM-development requests fall back to Opus 5. [3]

The same report says the launch page doesn't state whether a rerouted request is billed at the Opus 5.5 rate. [3]

On the rate card that is the gap between $4 and $5 per million input tokens. Teams in those fields should confirm billing for rerouted requests on their own invoices before modelling cost.

The Sonnet and Haiku comparison is due to move. ModemGuides reports that Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 follow in the coming weeks with many of the same efficiency changes. [3]

Until Anthropic publishes their rates, Sonnet 5 at $2 and $10 and Haiku 4.5 at $1 and $5 remain the comparison points.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

- **What a buyer pays.** These are list prices. Anthropic says volume discounts may be available for high-volume users, negotiated case by case. [1]
- **What a task costs.** Cost per task depends on token counts, effort settings, the tokenizer and cache hit rates. The rate card shows none of them.
- **Partner-cloud prices.** Bedrock and Google Cloud set their own rates. This ranking covers Anthropic's own API.
- **Tax.** The documentation makes no tax statement for direct API billing.
- **Which model answers.** Rerouted requests, and how they're billed, sit outside the rate card.
- **Quality.** Price ranks cost, not capability. A cheaper model that fails a task costs the attempt and the rerun.

This ranking changes when Anthropic publishes a new rate card, with Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 the next expected. New research arrives through [our email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Does the Claude API cost money?

Yes. Billing is based on actual monthly usage, and new users receive a small amount of free credits to test the API. [1]

Input rates run from $0.80 per million tokens on Haiku 3.5 to $15 on Opus 4.1 and Opus 4, with Opus 5.5 at $4. [1]

Some tools carry their own charges. Web search costs $10 per 1,000 searches on top of standard token costs. [1]

### How much does it cost to access the Opus 5 API?

Opus 5 costs $5 per million input tokens, $25 per million output tokens, $6.25 per million tokens for a 5-minute cache write and $0.50 per million for a cache read. Batch processing halves input and output to $2.50 and $12.50. [1]

Opus 5.5 charges $4 and $20 for the same input and output tokens, and Anthropic's summary pricing page lists Opus 5 as a legacy model. [1] [2]

### Is Opus cheaper through a Claude subscription than through the API?

The two don't compare directly. Pro includes Opus and costs $17 a month with an annual subscription or $20 billed monthly, and Max starts from $100 a month. [2]

Anthropic publishes usage limits for those plans rather than a token allowance, so no per-token comparison is possible.

For heavy coding sessions, Anthropic's pricing page says Claude Code users can switch to pay-as-you-go API credits through a Console account. [2]

## Source notes
1. Pricing (Claude documentation), model pricing table: current models: https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Plans & Pricing | Claude by Anthropic, Legacy models: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Is Claude Opus 5.5 Cheaper? Pricing, Limits, and the Catch: https://www.modemguides.com/blogs/ai-news/is-claude-opus-5-5-cheaper?srsltid=AU7gw4Vl7n4QV7Du2N1GYLTuE_Jddf1IaZCB1kMEhrmwE2_og9qtGIkA (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Claude Opus 4.8 API: Endpoint & 30% Discount: https://llmapi.ai/models/anthropic-claude-opus-4-8 (checked September 28, 2026)
5. claude-opus-4-6 API Pricing & Specs: https://www.openmodel.ai/model-pricing/claude-opus-4-6 (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Us.anthropic.claude Opus 4 6 V1 Pricing - bedrock: https://calculator.holori.com/llm/bedrock/us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1 (checked September 28, 2026)

# Claude Sonnet API pricing: Anthropic, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/claude-sonnet-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Sonnet 5 is the cheapest Sonnet on Anthropic's API at $2 input and $10 output per million tokens, two-thirds of Sonnet 4.6 ($3 and $15) on every rate. Its newer tokenizer counts about 30% more tokens, so it saves about 13% on the same text.

Claude Sonnet 5 is the cheapest Sonnet on Anthropic's API, at $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens. [1]

Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3 input and $15 output, the same as Sonnet 4.5 and Sonnet 4. [1]

Those are Anthropic's list prices in its pricing documentation, checked 28 September 2026. The headline gap is a third, but Sonnet 5 counts more tokens for the same text, so the real saving is smaller.

## TL;DR

- **Sonnet 5 undercuts every older Sonnet by exactly a third on every line:** $2 input, $10 output, $2.50 for a 5-minute cache write, $4 for a 1-hour write and $0.20 for a cache hit, per million tokens. [1]
- **Sonnet 4.6, 4.5 and 4 share one rate card:** $3, $15, $3.75, $6 and $0.30. [1]
- **Batch halves input and output:** $1 and $5 on Sonnet 5, $1.50 and $7.50 on the older three. [1]
- **Long context costs nothing extra on Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5.** A 900k-token request pays the same per-token rate as a 9k-token one. Anthropic publishes no such statement for Sonnet 4.5 or Sonnet 4. [1]
- **For the same text, Sonnet 5 saves about 13%, not 33%.** Its newer tokenizer produces roughly 30% more tokens. [1]
- **Caching moves the bill more than the model choice.** In our worked support-assistant example, caching cuts the daily cost by 77% on either model.

## How this ranking was built

This ranking sits in our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure) and follows the publication's [research standard](/methodology) for captured and computed figures.

- **Source:** Anthropic's pricing documentation at docs.claude.com, captured 28 September 2026 at 15:05 AEST. Anthropic's summary pricing page, captured the same minute, is the cross-check. Neither page shows a release date, so the checked date stands in for one.
- **Field:** input price per million tokens, the documentation's **Base tokens: Input** column. The page writes the unit as "MTok". [1]
- **Currency:** the documentation states that all prices are in USD. [1]
- **Tax:** the documentation makes no tax statement for direct API billing.
- **Inclusion:** every model named Sonnet in the documentation's model pricing table. The table holds 18 Claude models; 4 are Sonnet models, and all 4 are ranked. No merges.
- **Cross-check:** the summary page lists Sonnet 5 under "Latest models" and Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 4.5 under "Legacy models". Every Sonnet figure it shows matches the documentation. It doesn't list Sonnet 4. [2]
- **Exclusions:** subscription plans, per-search charges and the US-only multiplier. The body sections cover the multiplier.
- **Ties:** tied models share a rank and appear newest first.

Output prices give the same order, because every Sonnet's output price is five times its input price.

## Claude Sonnet models ranked by input price

| Rank | Model | Announced | Summary page status | Input price (US$ per million tokens) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 30 Jun 2026 | Latest | 2 |
| 2= | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 17 Feb 2026 | Legacy | 3 |
| 2= | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 29 Sep 2025 | Legacy | 3 |
| 2= | Claude Sonnet 4 | 22 May 2025 | Not listed | 3 |

Prices exactly as Anthropic's model pricing table lists them; announcement dates from Anthropic's Sonnet page. [1] [3]

Three Sonnet releases, from May 2025 to February 2026, share one price on the current rate card. Sonnet 5 is the only one priced lower.

Anthropic's summary page doesn't list Sonnet 4, and neither page says whether it stays open to new API accounts. Confirm availability before planning on it.

## What does each Sonnet model cost per million tokens?

Sonnet 5 costs $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens. Sonnet 4.6, Sonnet 4.5 and Sonnet 4 each cost $3 and $15. [1]

| Model | Input | Output | 5-min cache write | 1-hour cache write | Cache hit | Batch input | Batch output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sonnet 5 | $2 | $10 | $2.50 | $4 | $0.20 | $1 | $5 |
| Sonnet 4.6 | $3 | $15 | $3.75 | $6 | $0.30 | $1.50 | $7.50 |
| Sonnet 4.5 | $3 | $15 | $3.75 | $6 | $0.30 | $1.50 | $7.50 |
| Sonnet 4 | $3 | $15 | $3.75 | $6 | $0.30 | $1.50 | $7.50 |

US dollars per million tokens. The cache-hit column is the documentation's **Hits and refreshes**. [1]

Every Sonnet 5 figure is two-thirds of the matching Sonnet 4.6 figure. No line gets a bigger or smaller cut.

Same rate doesn't mean same bill. Anthropic says Claude 4.7 and later models use a newer tokenizer that produces approximately 30% more tokens for the same text, and that Claude Sonnet 4.6 and earlier models use the previous one. The exact increase depends on the content and workload. [1]

Sonnet 5 comes after 4.7, so it counts on the newer tokenizer. Priced per unit of text, its input rate works out at about $2.60 against Sonnet 4.6's $3, and its output at about $13 against $15. That's roughly 13% cheaper, not 33%.

Tool definitions add fixed input too, and here Sonnet 5 is leaner. Any tool brings a tool-use system prompt of 354 tokens on Sonnet 5 with tool choice set to auto or none, against 497 tokens on Sonnet 4.6. [1]

Anthropic publishes no fast mode rate for Sonnet. Its fast mode pricing covers Opus 5.5, Opus 5 and Opus 4.8 only. [1]

## What do prompt caching and batch processing cost on Sonnet?

On Sonnet 5, a 5-minute cache write costs $2.50 per million tokens, a 1-hour write $4 and a cache hit $0.20, against $2 for ordinary input. On the three older Sonnets the same lines cost $3.75, $6 and $0.30. [1]

Those prices follow fixed multipliers on each model's input rate: 1.25 times for a 5-minute write, 2 times for a 1-hour write and 0.1 times for a hit. [1]

Anthropic's documentation says a cache pays off after one read at the 5-minute duration, or after two reads at the 1-hour duration. [1]

On Sonnet 5, the 5-minute write costs $0.50 per million tokens more than plain input, and each hit saves $1.80. The 1-hour write costs $2 more, so it needs a second hit to come out ahead.

The constraint is the cache lifetime. A prefix that isn't read again within five minutes has to be written again at the premium rate. That's the case for paying for the 1-hour write.

The Batch API takes 50% off both input and output tokens. [1]

That puts Sonnet 5 at $1 input and $5 output, and Sonnet 4.6, Sonnet 4.5 and Sonnet 4 at $1.50 and $7.50. [1]

The discounts combine. Anthropic states that caching multipliers stack with other pricing modifiers, including the Batch API discount and data residency. [1]

Stacked, a cache hit inside a batch costs $0.10 per million tokens on Sonnet 5 and $0.15 on the older three. That's our arithmetic from the published multipliers, not a figure Anthropic prints.

US-only inference goes the other way. For Claude 4.6 and later models, the inference_geo parameter set to US-only adds a 1.1x multiplier to input, output, cache writes and cache reads. [1]

On Sonnet 5 that means $2.20 input, $11 output and $0.22 per cache hit. On Sonnet 4.6 it means $3.30, $16.50 and $0.33.

Sonnet 4.5 and Sonnet 4 can't be pinned to the US on Anthropic's API. Earlier models don't support the parameter, always use standard pricing, and return a 400 error if a request includes it. [1]

## Does Sonnet charge more for long context?

No, not on Sonnet 4.6 or Sonnet 5. Anthropic says Claude 4.6 and later models include the full 1M-token context window at standard pricing. [1]

A 900k-token request is billed at the same per-token rate as a 9k-token request, and caching and batch discounts apply at standard rates across the full window. [1]

So a 900,000-token prompt costs $1.80 of input on Sonnet 5 and $2.70 on Sonnet 4.6. Served as a cache hit, the same prompt costs $0.18 and $0.27.

Anthropic's Sonnet page describes Sonnet 4.6 as featuring a 1M context window. [3]

The captured documentation publishes no long-context rate for Sonnet 4.5 or Sonnet 4, and its flat-rate statement covers only Claude 4.6 and later. Confirm the context limit and any long-context charge in Anthropic's current documentation before sending a large prompt to either.

## What does a real workload cost on Sonnet 5 versus Sonnet 4.6?

In our two worked examples, Sonnet 5 costs $1,040 against $1,200 on Sonnet 4.6 for a batch-sized classification job, and about $143 against $165 for a day of a cached support assistant. Both results allow for the newer tokenizer. Both are illustrations built on Anthropic's published rates, checked 28 September 2026, not measured bills.

**Example 1: classifying 100,000 documents.** Each document is 3,000 input tokens and each answer 200 output tokens, counted on Sonnet 4.6's tokenizer. At Anthropic's rough estimate of 0.75 words per token, that's about 2,250 words a document. [1]

| Model | Standard price | Batch price |
|---|---|---|
| Sonnet 4.6, 4.5 or 4 | $1,200 | $600 |
| Sonnet 5, same token counts | $800 | $400 |
| Sonnet 5, 30% more tokens | $1,040 | $520 |

US dollars, computed from Anthropic's per-million-token rates. 300 million input and 20 million output tokens on the older tokenizer.

A job like this doesn't need an answer inside a second. Batch halves it on any Sonnet, which beats switching model.

**Example 2: a support assistant for one day.** It serves 10,000 requests. Each re-reads a cached 20,000-token system prompt and reference set, adds 1,000 fresh input tokens and returns 500 output tokens. The cache stays warm, so one 20,000-token write covers the day.

| Line | Sonnet 4.6 | Sonnet 5, same tokens |
|---|---|---|
| Cache hits (200M tokens) | $60.00 | $40.00 |
| Fresh input (10M tokens) | $30.00 | $20.00 |
| Output (5M tokens) | $75.00 | $50.00 |
| One 5-minute cache write (20,000 tokens) | $0.08 | $0.05 |
| **Day total** | **$165.08** | **$110.05** |
| Same day with no caching | $705.00 | $470.00 |

US dollars, computed from Anthropic's per-million-token rates.

Caching cuts the day by 77% on either model. Moving from Sonnet 4.6 to Sonnet 5 cuts it by a third at identical token counts, or to about $143 once the 30% tokenizer uplift is applied.

The estimate holds token counts fixed, and that's its limit. A model that needs fewer attempts or shorter answers changes the result more than the rate card does. For the other drivers of a bill, see our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

Use one real workflow to test the claim. Log cache hits, cache writes, fresh input and output as separate lines for one day, then price each line at the rates above.

## How does Sonnet compare with Opus and Haiku?

Sonnet 5 costs half of Opus 5.5 and twice Haiku 4.5 per input and output token. Opus 5.5 costs $4 and $20 per million tokens and Haiku 4.5 costs $1 and $5. [1]

| Model | Input | Output | 5-min cache write | Cache hit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $10 | $50 | $12.50 | $0.25 |
| Opus 5.5 | $4 | $20 | $5 | $0.20 |
| Opus 4.6 | $5 | $25 | $6.25 | $0.50 |
| Sonnet 5 | $2 | $10 | $2.50 | $0.20 |
| Sonnet 4.6 | $3 | $15 | $3.75 | $0.30 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $1 | $5 | $1.25 | $0.10 |

US dollars per million tokens, from Anthropic's model pricing table. [1]

Cache hits break the usual order. Sonnet 5 and Opus 5.5 both charge $0.20 per million cached tokens. Sonnet 4.6 charges $0.30, half as much again as Opus 5.5.

The decision changes with the share of a workload that re-reads cached context. For a cache-heavy agent, staying on Sonnet 4.6 pays more for its largest line than moving up to Opus 5.5 would. For fresh text and long answers, Sonnet 4.6 still costs three-quarters of Opus 5.5.

Anthropic's guidance is to choose Haiku for simple tasks, Sonnet for most production workloads and Opus for the most complex reasoning. [1]

The full Claude rate card, including Opus, Fable, Mythos and Haiku, is in our [Claude API pricing ranking](/post/claude-api-pricing).

## Why do other published Sonnet prices disagree?

Most published Sonnet prices that differ from Anthropic's come from four causes: a single cache-write figure, the US-only multiplier, partner-cloud pricing and pages written before Sonnet 5.

**One cache-write figure.** TypingMind's calculator lists Sonnet 4.6 at $3.00 input, $15.00 output, $0.3000 cache read and $3.75 cache write per million tokens. [4]

That matches Anthropic's 5-minute write. Anthropic's own summary page shows one write figure too, and notes that its caching prices reflect the 5-minute duration. [2]

The 1-hour write, $6 on Sonnet 4.6, appears only in the documentation. [1]

**The US-only multiplier.** Some price trackers show Sonnet 4.6 at $3.00 to $3.30 per million input tokens. $3.30 is exactly 1.1 times $3, the US-only rate.

**Partner clouds.** Anthropic says Bedrock and Google Cloud have independent regional pricing. [1]

Its own marketplace channels don't reprice. Claude Platform on AWS rates usage at standard per-model rates in US dollars, applies any negotiated discount, then converts to Claude Consumption Units at $0.01 each. [1]

**Dates.** Sonnet 5 was announced on 30 June 2026. [3]

A page written before then quotes Sonnet 4.6 at $3 and $15 as the current Sonnet. Those numbers are still right for Sonnet 4.6. They're no longer the cheapest Sonnet.

## What changed since Sonnet 4.6?

Sonnet 5 cut every Sonnet rate by a third, from $3 input and $15 output to $2 and $10 per million tokens. Cache hits fell from $0.30 to $0.20 and batch input from $1.50 to $1. [1]

Anthropic's Sonnet page states the same $2 and $10, with up to 90% savings from prompt caching and 50% from batch processing. [3]

The summary page now lists Sonnet 4.6 under legacy models, still at $3 and $15. [2]

The current rate card shows no price step between the three older models. Sonnet 4.5 and Sonnet 4 sit on the same $3 and $15 card as Sonnet 4.6. [1]

The tokenizer changed with Sonnet 5, which is why the per-text saving is closer to 13% than 33%. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

- **What a buyer pays.** These are list prices. Anthropic says volume discounts may be available for high-volume users, negotiated case by case. [1]
- **What a task costs.** Cost per task depends on token counts, the tokenizer, cache hit rates and retries. The rate card shows none of them.
- **Partner-cloud prices.** Bedrock and Google Cloud set their own rates. This ranking covers Anthropic's own API.
- **Tax.** The documentation makes no tax statement for direct API billing.
- **Quality.** Price ranks cost, not capability. A cheaper model that fails a task pays for the attempt and the rerun.

This ranking changes when Anthropic publishes a new Sonnet rate card. New research arrives through [our email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does the Claude API cost?

It depends on the model. Input rates run from $0.80 per million tokens on Haiku 3.5 to $15 on Opus 4.1, and output from $4 to $75. [1]

Sonnet sits in the middle at $2 input and $10 output on Sonnet 5. [1]

New users receive a small amount of free credits to test the API. [1]

Some tools add their own charges. Web search costs $10 per 1,000 searches on top of standard token costs. [1]

### Can I use Claude Sonnet without paying for the API?

Yes, through Claude's apps rather than the API. Anthropic's plan table includes Sonnet on the Free plan as well as on Pro and Max. [2]

Pro costs $17 a month with an annual subscription, or $20 billed monthly. [2]

Those plans carry usage limits rather than per-token rates, so they don't compare directly with API pricing.

### Is Sonnet cheaper through AWS or Microsoft?

Not through Anthropic's own marketplace channels. Claude Platform on AWS rates token usage at the standard per-model rates, applies any negotiated discount and bills the result as Claude Consumption Units at $0.01 each. [1]

Claude in Microsoft Foundry bills the same way through the Azure Marketplace. [1]

Bedrock and Google Cloud set their own regional prices, so check their pricing pages directly. [1]

## Source notes
1. Pricing (Claude documentation), model pricing table: Claude Sonnet 5 row: https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Plans & Pricing | Claude by Anthropic, Latest models: Sonnet 5 card: https://www.anthropic.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Claude Sonnet product page, announcements: Claude Sonnet 5: https://www.anthropic.com/claude/sonnet (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.6 API Pricing Calculator: https://custom.typingmind.com/tools/estimate-llm-usage-costs/anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6 (checked September 28, 2026)

# Cloud GPU providers ranked by H100 price, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/cloud-gpu-providers
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Ranked by lowest listed on-demand H100 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026, RunPod leads at $2.89 (H100 PCIe) and CoreWeave is last at $6.16 ($49.24 per 8-GPU node). All eight clouds rent H100s.

RunPod lists the cheapest on-demand H100 of the eight GPU clouds we checked on 28 September 2026: $2.89 per GPU-hour for an 80 GB H100 PCIe. [1] Lambda is second at $3.29, also for an H100 PCIe. [2] All eight rent H100s. CoreWeave lists the highest rate, $49.24 an hour for an 8-GPU HGX H100 node, which is $6.16 per GPU-hour. [3]

That's a gap of about 2.1 times for one chip family. The form factor, the bundle and the billing unit explain much of it.

## TL;DR

- Ranked by lowest listed on-demand H100 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026: RunPod $2.89, Lambda $3.29, Nebius $3.85, Crusoe $3.90, Modal $3.95, Together AI $3.99, DigitalOcean $4.41, CoreWeave $6.16.
- The top two prices are for H100 PCIe. Among the other H100 listings, RunPod's H100 SXM at $3.49 is still the cheapest. [1]
- Billing units differ. Modal and DigitalOcean bill by the second, Lambda by the minute, Crusoe and Together AI by the hour, and CoreWeave prices a whole 8-GPU node. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [3]
- Commitment cuts the rate. Together AI lists $3.19 for 91 to 180 days and DigitalOcean $3.26 on a 12-month contract. The other six give a maximum discount, a cluster rate or a sales contact instead of a reserved H100 price. [8] [5]
- The order moves on 1 October 2026, when Nebius lists $4.50 and drops from third to seventh. [9]

## How this ranking was built

We ranked one field: the lowest on-demand H100 price each provider lists on its own public pricing page, in US dollars per GPU-hour. The pages were captured on 28 September 2026. Our [methodology page](/methodology) sets out the research standard these figures follow.

- **Scope.** Any H100 variant counts: PCIe, SXM, NVL or HGX. Each provider's cheapest H100 listing is its ranked price.
- **Conversions.** CoreWeave prices an 8-GPU node, so its node-hour rate is divided by eight. Modal prices per second, so its rate is multiplied by 3,600. No other figure is changed.
- **Exclusions.** Spot, preemptible and reserved prices are reported beside the ranking, not in it. Vast.ai is a marketplace of host-set offers, so its median is shown for reference and not ranked. [10]
- **Row count.** Nine pricing pages captured. Eight list an on-demand H100 price. Eight ranked.

These are company-published list prices. They establish what each provider says it charges. They don't establish what a buyer pays after a quote, a discount or a stock-out.

## Which cloud GPU providers rent H100s, and which is cheapest?

All eight rent H100s on demand, and RunPod is cheapest at $2.89 per GPU-hour. More GPU and serving-cost analysis sits in our [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure).

| Rank | Provider | H100 listing ranked | On-demand price (USD per GPU-hour, as listed) | Price as the provider lists it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RunPod | H100 PCIe 80 GB | 2.89 | $2.89/hr, Secure Cloud [1] [11] |
| 2 | Lambda | H100 PCIe 80 GB, single-GPU instance | 3.29 | $3.29 per GPU-hour [2] |
| 3 | Nebius | HGX H100 | 3.85 | $3.85 per GPU-hour; $4.50 from 1 October 2026 [9] |
| 4 | Crusoe | HGX H100 80 GB | 3.90 | $3.90/GPU-hr [7] |
| 5 | Modal | H100 SXM5 | 3.95 | $0.001097 per second [4] |
| 6 | Together AI | HGX H100, GPU Clusters | 3.99 | $3.99 per GPU per hour [8] |
| 7 | DigitalOcean | HGX H100 | 4.41 | $4.41/GPU/hour [5] |
| 8 | CoreWeave | HGX H100, 8-GPU node, North America | 6.16 | $49.24 per node-hour [3] |

Five of the eight fall between $3.85 and $4.41. The spread at the edges is wider: $2.89 at the bottom and $6.16 at the top.

RunPod's pricing page offers Community Cloud and Secure Cloud views. RunPod's own guide gives $2.89 as a Secure Cloud starting rate. [11] Lambda and Nebius state their prices exclude tax, and DigitalOcean says it applies tax in some countries. [2] [9] [5] The other five pages don't state tax status in the captured text.

## Which GPUs does each provider list?

Every provider lists more than the H100, and all eight also list at least one Blackwell B200 or B300 system. The lists below are what each pricing page names, including models priced only through sales.

| Provider | H100 variants listed | Other GPUs on the pricing page |
|---|---|---|
| RunPod | PCIe 80 GB, SXM 80 GB, NVL 94 GB | B300, B200, H200, A100 PCIe and SXM, RTX Pro 6000, L40S, L40, RTX 6000 Ada, A40, RTX A6000, RTX A5000, RTX 5090, RTX 4090, RTX 3090, L4 [1] |
| Lambda | SXM 80 GB, PCIe 80 GB | B200 SXM6, GH200, A100 SXM and PCIe, A10, A6000, Tesla V100, Quadro RTX 6000 [2] |
| Nebius | HGX H100 | GB300 NVL72, GB200 NVL72, HGX B300, HGX B200, HGX H200, RTX PRO 6000, L40S [9] |
| Crusoe | HGX H100 80 GB | GB200 NVL72, B200, H200, A100 SXM and PCIe 80 GB, L40S, AMD MI355X, AMD MI300X [7] |
| Modal | H100 SXM5 | B300, B200, H200 SXM, RTX PRO 6000, A100 80 GB and 40 GB, L40S, A10, L4, T4 [4] |
| Together AI | HGX H100 | GB200 NVL72, GB300 NVL72, HGX B200, HGX B300, HGX H200 [8] |
| DigitalOcean | HGX H100 | HGX B300, HGX H200, RTX 4000 Ada, RTX 6000 Ada, L40S, AMD MI355X, MI350X, MI325X, MI300X [5] |
| CoreWeave | HGX H100 | GB300 NVL72, GB200 NVL72, HGX B300, HGX B200, HGX H200, GH200, RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition, L40S, L40, A100 [3] |

The breadth splits into two groups. RunPod, Lambda and Modal run long lists that reach down to cards such as the RTX 4090, Tesla V100 and T4. [1] [2] [4] Together AI's GPU Clusters list only H100, H200 and Blackwell systems. [8] Nebius adds RTX PRO 6000 and L40S options, and CoreWeave adds those plus A100, L40 and GH200 nodes. [9] [3] Crusoe and DigitalOcean are the two that list AMD Instinct accelerators beside NVIDIA's. [7] [5]

A listed GPU isn't always a priced GPU. Crusoe lists its GB200, B200 and MI355X under "Contact sales", and CoreWeave does the same for its GB300 NVL72. [7] [3]

## How does each provider bill for GPU time?

Six of the eight state a price per GPU-hour, Modal states a price per second and CoreWeave states a price per 8-GPU node-hour. The metering behind the headline differs again.

| Provider | Price unit on the page | Metering stated | Smallest H100 unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| RunPod | per GPU-hour, with a per-second view | per second [11] | not stated |
| Lambda | per GPU-hour | by the minute [6] | 1 GPU (PCIe and SXM) |
| Nebius | per GPU-hour | not stated in the capture | not stated |
| Crusoe | per GPU-hour | by the hour [7] | not stated |
| Modal | per GPU-second | per second; CPU and memory billed separately [4] | not stated |
| Together AI | per GPU-hour | hourly [8] | cluster, size not stated |
| DigitalOcean | per GPU-hour | per second, 5-minute minimum [5] | 1 or 8 GPUs |
| CoreWeave | per 8-GPU node-hour | not stated in the capture | 8-GPU node [3] |

The unit matters most for short jobs. Per-second and per-minute metering charge a 20-minute test for about 20 minutes, and DigitalOcean's 5-minute minimum only bites on runs shorter than that. [5] Crusoe and Together AI describe their GPU pricing in hourly terms, and the captured pages don't state a shorter increment. [7] [8]

Modal prices the GPU on its own. It charges CPU at $0.0000131 per physical core per second and memory at $0.00000222 per GiB per second on top. [4] RunPod, Lambda, Nebius, DigitalOcean and CoreWeave list vCPUs and memory beside each GPU price. DigitalOcean adds one condition for idle machines: a powered-off GPU Droplet is still billed until it is destroyed. [5]

For how a GPU-hour rate turns into the cost of serving a model, see our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## How much less do reserved and spot H100s cost?

Commitment and interruptible capacity both cut the on-demand rate. Only Together AI and DigitalOcean publish an exact reserved H100 price; the rest give a maximum discount, a cluster rate or a sales contact.

| Provider | On-demand H100 (USD per GPU-hour) | Reserved or committed | Spot or preemptible |
|---|---|---|---|
| RunPod | 2.89 | H100 SXM reserved clusters, 1 to 12+ months: contact sales [1] | not listed for H100 |
| Lambda | 3.29 | reserved capacity: contact sales; H100 1-Click Clusters $6.16 to $5.54 for 2 weeks to 1 year [2] | not listed |
| Nebius | 3.85 | up to 35% less for multi-month cluster reservations [9] | from $0.79 [9] |
| Crusoe | 3.90 | contact sales for "our lowest rates" [7] | contact sales [7] |
| Modal | 3.95 | committed spend through the AWS and GCP marketplaces; Enterprise volume discounts [4] | not listed |
| Together AI | 3.99 | $3.69 (7 to 30 days), $3.45 (31 to 90 days), $3.19 (91 to 180 days) [8] | $1.99 [8] |
| DigitalOcean | 4.41 | $3.26 on a 12-month contract [5] | no H100 spot plan listed |
| CoreWeave | 6.16 | up to 60% off on-demand for committed usage [3] | $19.71 per node-hour, $2.46 per GPU-hour [3] |

Three published figures can be read directly. Together AI's 91-to-180-day rate is 20% below its on-demand rate. DigitalOcean's 12-month rate is 26% below its on-demand rate. CoreWeave's North American spot node rate is 60% below its on-demand node rate. [8] [5] [3]

Lambda's cluster table runs the other way. Its 16-GPU H100 cluster lists at $6.16 per GPU-hour for 2 weeks to 1 year, above every one of its self-serve H100 instance rates. [2] That rate buys a production cluster for a fixed term; Lambda describes these clusters as running from 16 to 2,000+ GPUs. [2]

Spot prices move. Nebius says its spot prices "may vary during the active use, including as frequently as every 15 minutes". [9] DigitalOcean says spot Droplets "can be reclaimed at any time". [5]

## Why do H100 prices differ so much between providers?

The cheapest two listings are for the PCIe card, and the rest are SXM, NVL or HGX listings with different CPU, memory and storage attached. Compare like for like before comparing prices.

Set the two PCIe listings aside and RunPod still leads, with its H100 SXM at $3.49. [1] Nebius follows at $3.85, Crusoe at $3.90 and Modal at $3.95. [9] [7] [4] Together AI and Lambda's 8-GPU SXM instance both list $3.99. [8] [2] RunPod also lists a 94 GB H100 NVL at $3.19. [1]

The bundle varies with the price:

- RunPod's H100 PCIe comes with 16 vCPUs and 188 GB of RAM. [1]
- Lambda's H100 PCIe comes with 26 vCPUs, 225 GiB of RAM and a 1 TiB SSD. [2]
- Nebius's HGX H100 comes with 16 vCPUs and 200 GB of RAM. [9]
- DigitalOcean's H100 Droplet comes with 20 vCPUs, 240 GiB of memory, a 720 GiB boot disk and a 5 TiB scratch disk. [5]

Instance size changes the rate at Lambda. Its H100 SXM falls from $4.29 per GPU-hour on the single-GPU instance to $3.99 on the 8-GPU instance. [2]

Modal's base rate carries conditions. Its page lists region selection at 1.15 to 1.75 times base prices and non-preemptible execution at 3 times base prices. [4] On the H100, three times the base rate is $11.85 per GPU-hour.

The decision changes when the workload can't be interrupted or needs a fixed region. The ranked price holds for the default terms each page shows. Confirm this in the current quote.

## What changes the ranking after 28 September 2026?

Nebius's listed price change on 1 October 2026 moves it from third to seventh. Its HGX H100 goes from $3.85 to $4.50 per GPU-hour, which puts it above DigitalOcean's $4.41 and below CoreWeave's $6.16. [9]

Three other dated items bear on the table:

- RunPod's pricing page is marked "Updated September 27, 2026", one day before capture. [1]
- DigitalOcean's current prices took effect on 1 August 2026. [5]
- Together AI's Dedicated Inference H100 carries a $3.99 promotional rate, down from $5.49, "valid until 09/30/26". Its GPU Clusters H100 rate of $3.99, the one ranked here, carries no promotion label. [8]

The table is refreshed when any of the nine pricing pages changes.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

List prices say nothing about stock. This ranking doesn't record whether an H100 was available to launch at the time of capture.

The ranking doesn't measure performance per dollar. It prices the rental hour, not the work done in it, and the PCIe, SXM and HGX listings aren't the same machine.

It covers eight GPU clouds, not AWS, Microsoft Azure or Google Cloud. Google Cloud lists the H100 among its Compute Engine GPUs and bills per second, but its H100 rate wasn't captured for this ranking. [12] AWS and Azure weren't checked at all.

Marketplace prices sit outside it. Vast.ai showed a median of $2.16 per hour for H100 SXM listings, with offers from $1.73. [10] Those are prices set by individual hosts, so the median moves with supply rather than a published rate card.

## Frequently asked questions

### Which cloud providers offer H100 GPUs?

All eight providers in this ranking list H100s: RunPod, Lambda, Nebius, Crusoe, Modal, Together AI, DigitalOcean and CoreWeave. Google Cloud's Compute Engine also lists the H100. [12] Vast.ai offers H100 SXM, H100 PCIe and H100 NVL through host-set marketplace listings. [10]

### Which cloud GPU provider is best for H100s?

On listed on-demand price, RunPod is cheapest at $2.89 per GPU-hour for H100 PCIe and $3.49 for H100 SXM. [1] For a published multi-month rate without a sales call, Together AI lists $3.19 per GPU-hour for 91 to 180 days. [8] For whole 8-GPU nodes, CoreWeave prices by the node. [3] The right choice depends on the variant, term and billing unit the workload needs.

### Can I get a cloud GPU for free?

Modal's Starter plan includes $30 a month of free compute, and its Team plan $100 a month. [4] Modal also offers academics up to $10k in compute credits. [4] Nebius advertises an AI Builder Program with "$400+ in credits and discounts". [9] None of the eight pages lists a free on-demand H100.

### Do cloud GPU prices include tax?

Not on the pages that say. Lambda lists its prices "plus applicable sales tax/VAT/GST". [2] Nebius shows prices "without any applicable taxes, including VAT". [9] DigitalOcean says it applies taxes in some countries as required by law. [5] All eight quote in US dollars.

New GPU cloud rankings go out in our free research email. [Subscribe to our research](/subscribe).

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/instances (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
11. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/articles/guides/top-cloud-gpu-providers (checked September 28, 2026)
12. Google Cloud: https://cloud.google.com/gpu (checked September 28, 2026)

# Coal-fired power stations in Australia: AEMO July 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/coal-power-stations-australia-closure-dates
Category: Electricity generation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Eraring in New South Wales is the largest NEM coal station at 2,880 MW and its owner expects to close it in 2029. All 15 coal stations in AEMO's 31 July 2026 release, 21,335 MW, are operating.

Eraring in New South Wales is Australia's largest coal-fired power station, at 2,880 MW of reported nameplate capacity in AEMO's NEM Generation Information release of 31 July 2026, and its owner expects to close it in 2029. [1] The release lists 15 coal stations in the National Electricity Market, 21,335 MW in all, and every one is still operating. [1] Owners' expected closure years run from Yallourn W in 2028 to Millmerran in 2051, with Callide C recorded at 2200. [1] The same release sits behind our [ranking of battery storage sites](/post/largest-battery-storage-sites-australia).

## TL;DR

- The first three closures are the three stations AEMO classes as Announced Withdrawal: Yallourn W in 2028, then Eraring and Gladstone in 2029. Together they hold 6,010 MW, 28.2 per cent of NEM coal capacity. [1]
- On the owners' submitted years, stations holding 12,955 MW, 60.7 per cent of the fleet, close their last unit by 2035. [1]
- New South Wales holds the most coal capacity, 8,345 MW across four stations. Queensland has the most stations, eight, and four of the six stations with a closure year after 2037. [1]
- Two submitted years fall after 2050: Millmerran at 2051 and Callide C at 2200. [1] The 2200 entry is a recorded value, not a closure plan.
- Other lists print different megawatts and dates because they use a different capacity measure, an older owner announcement or a wider map that includes Western Australia.

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked every coal station in AEMO's NEM Generation Information release of 31 July 2026 on one field: reported nameplate capacity, **Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC)**, from the Generator Information sheet of the release file. [1] Rows with Technology Type set to Coal are in, and rows with the status Withdrawn are out. [1] Generating-unit rows that share a site name and region were summed into one site, which leaves 15 stations. [1]

Closure dates come from the release's unit-level **Expected Closure Year** field, which AEMO also publishes as a standalone file. [1] Where a station's units carry different years, the table shows the earliest and latest, so Stanwell reads 2043-2046. [1] The years are those submitted by owners. [1]

The extract records the station count after the merge. [1] It doesn't record the raw coal row count or how many withdrawn rows were removed, so those steps carry no figure here. How Glamdring handles registry data is set out in our [methodology](/methodology).

## Which coal power stations are the largest?

Eraring is the largest coal-fired power station in the NEM, at 2,880 MW, followed by Bayswater at 2,715 MW and Loy Yang A at 2,210 MW, in AEMO's July 2026 release. [1] Bayswater is the largest station in AEMO's In Service class, because Eraring carries an announced withdrawal. [1] Every figure is a registry value, reported rather than measured.

| # | Station | State | Coal type | Status | Nameplate MW (AC) | Expected closure year |
|---:|---|---|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | Eraring | New South Wales | Black Coal | Announced Withdrawal | 2,880 | 2029 |
| 2 | Bayswater | New South Wales | Black Coal | In Service | 2,715 | 2033 |
| 3 | Loy Yang A Power Station | Victoria | Brown Coal | In Service | 2,210 | 2035 |
| 4 | Gladstone | Queensland | Black Coal | Announced Withdrawal | 1,680 | 2029 |
| 5 | Stanwell | Queensland | Black Coal | In Service | 1,460 | 2043-2046 |
| 6 | Yallourn W | Victoria | Brown Coal | Announced Withdrawal | 1,450 | 2028 |
| 7 | Mt Piper | New South Wales | Black Coal | In Service | 1,430 | 2040 |
| 8 | Tarong | Queensland | Black Coal | In Service | 1,400 | 2036-2037 |
| 9 | Vales Point B | New South Wales | Black Coal | In Service | 1,320 | 2033 |
| 10 | Loy Yang B | Victoria | Brown Coal | In Service | 1,200 | 2047 |
| 11 | Millmerran Power Plant | Queensland | Black Coal | In Service | 852 | 2051 |
| 12 | Callide C | Queensland | Black Coal | In Service | 844 | 2200 |
| 13 | Kogan Creek | Queensland | Black Coal | In Service | 744 | 2042 |
| 14 | Callide B | Queensland | Black Coal | In Service | 700 | 2031 |
| 15 | Tarong North | Queensland | Black Coal | In Service | 450 | 2037 |

Every row comes from the same release and the same two fields. [1]

The three brown-coal stations are all in Victoria and hold 4,860 MW; the other 12 burn black coal and hold 16,475 MW. [1] The owner field names Stanwell Corporation Limited on three stations, Stanwell, Tarong and Tarong North, for 3,310 MW, more than any other single owner name in the list. [1] Two AGL-named companies are registered against Bayswater and Loy Yang A, which together hold 4,925 MW. [1]

Size and closure date don't track each other. All four of the largest stations close by 2035, while Millmerran and Callide C, 11th and 12th by size, carry the latest years in the list. [1]

## When do owners expect each coal station to close?

Yallourn W is first, in 2028, followed by Eraring and Gladstone in 2029, Callide B in 2031, and Bayswater and Vales Point B in 2033, on the expected closure years owners submitted to AEMO for its July 2026 release. [1] The closure years are owner submissions, reported not guaranteed. The owner decides when a coal station closes, and NEM owners must notify AEMO at least 3.5 years before the intended closure date. [2]

| Order | Station | State | Owner (as registered) | Nameplate MW (AC) | Expected closure year |
|---:|---|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | Yallourn W | Victoria | EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd | 1,450 | 2028 |
| 2 | Eraring | New South Wales | Origin Energy Eraring Pty Ltd | 2,880 | 2029 |
| 3 | Gladstone | Queensland | Gladstone Power Station Participants | 1,680 | 2029 |
| 4 | Callide B | Queensland | CS Energy | 700 | 2031 |
| 5 | Bayswater | New South Wales | AGL Macquarie Pty Limited | 2,715 | 2033 |
| 6 | Vales Point B | New South Wales | Delta Electricity | 1,320 | 2033 |
| 7 | Loy Yang A Power Station | Victoria | AGL Loy Yang Marketing Pty Ltd | 2,210 | 2035 |
| 8 | Tarong | Queensland | Stanwell Corporation Limited | 1,400 | 2036-2037 |
| 9 | Tarong North | Queensland | Stanwell Corporation Limited | 450 | 2037 |
| 10 | Mt Piper | New South Wales | EnergyAustralia NSW Pty Ltd | 1,430 | 2040 |
| 11 | Kogan Creek | Queensland | Kogan Creek Power Station Pty Ltd | 744 | 2042 |
| 12 | Stanwell | Queensland | Stanwell Corporation Limited | 1,460 | 2043-2046 |
| 13 | Loy Yang B | Victoria | Five registered companies, including LYB Ventures Australia Pty Ltd and Gippsland Power Pty Ltd | 1,200 | 2047 |
| 14 | Millmerran Power Plant | Queensland | Millmerran Power Partners | 852 | 2051 |
| 15 | Callide C | Queensland | Joint Venture; Callide Energy Pty Ltd and IG Power (Callide) Ltd. | 844 | 2200 |

The order is the release's; the owner of Loy Yang B is shortened from five registered company names. [1]

The early years carry the weight. Stations holding 6,010 MW close by 2029, and stations holding 12,955 MW, 60.7 per cent of the fleet, have closed their last unit by 2035 on the submitted years. [1] Add Tarong and Tarong North and the figure reaches 14,805 MW by 2037. [1] The remaining 6,530 MW sits in six stations with years from 2040 onward. [1]

The same years also reorder the top of the list. If each station closes in its recorded year, Bayswater becomes the largest coal station after Eraring's 2029, Loy Yang A after Bayswater's 2033, and Stanwell after Loy Yang A's 2035. [1]

Callide C's 2200 is the value the file holds. Wikipedia's list, citing AEMO, shows Callide C's closure as "Not Announced", which is the safer reading: no closure year has been set. [3]

Submitted years move. Wikipedia's list cites a 2022 ABC report that Origin would shut Eraring by 2025. [3] The Guardian reported in January 2026 that Eraring would stay open for an additional two years until 2029. [4] The Net Zero Economy Authority says owners extend stations for their own commercial or operational reasons, including when not enough renewable supply is connected. [2] Confirm a station's date against the owner's latest notice before relying on it.

## What does Announced Withdrawal mean?

Announced Withdrawal means an operating plant with a closure announced. [1] In the release's status classes, In Service and Announced Withdrawal are operating capacity; every other class is not yet built. [1] All 15 coal stations sit in one of those two classes, so all 21,335 MW is operating capacity. [1]

Three stations carry the status in the July 2026 release: Eraring at 2,880 MW, Gladstone at 1,680 MW and Yallourn W at 1,450 MW. [1] They're also the three earliest closures in the list, 2028 and 2029. [1] Callide B, at 2031, has the earliest year of any In Service station but doesn't carry the status in this release. [1]

A reader totting up "in service" coal from AEMO's status column will get 15,325 MW, because that column leaves out the 6,010 MW under announced withdrawal. [1] Both figures are correct for their own definition. For the question "how much coal is running today", the answer is the full 21,335 MW.

## Which states have the most coal power capacity?

New South Wales holds the most coal capacity in AEMO's July 2026 release, 8,345 MW across four stations, 39.1 per cent of the NEM total. [1] Queensland follows at 8,130 MW across eight stations and Victoria at 4,860 MW across three. [1]

| State | Stations | Nameplate MW (AC) | In Service class MW | Announced Withdrawal MW | Share of NEM coal |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| New South Wales | 4 | 8,345 | 5,465 | 2,880 | 39.1% |
| Queensland | 8 | 8,130 | 6,450 | 1,680 | 38.1% |
| Victoria | 3 | 4,860 | 3,410 | 1,450 | 22.8% |
| NEM total | 15 | 21,335 | 15,325 | 6,010 | 100% |

The first three figure columns are the release's; the withdrawal column and the shares are Glamdring's arithmetic on them. [1]

The states run on different clocks. New South Wales has submitted years for all four stations by 2040, and three of them, 6,915 MW, by 2033. [1] Victoria's brown-coal fleet loses Yallourn W in 2028 and Loy Yang A in 2035, leaving Loy Yang B to 2047. [1] Queensland holds most of the long tail: Kogan Creek, Stanwell, Millmerran and Callide C all carry years after 2040. [1]

South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have no operating coal stations, according to Wikipedia's list. [3] Western Australia's coal stations sit outside the NEM and outside this release. [3]

## Why do other published figures disagree?

Other coal station lists disagree with AEMO's release because they use a different capacity measure, an older closure announcement or a wider geography. Wikipedia's list shows all three. [3]

On capacity, Wikipedia's "Max. capacity" column gives Bayswater 2,640 MW, Loy Yang B 1,050 MW and Callide C 810 MW, against AEMO's nameplate figures of 2,715 MW, 1,200 MW and 844 MW. [3] [1] Stanwell Corporation describes Tarong North as a single 443 MW unit; the release records 450 MW. [5] [1] A different field produces a different number, and neither is a measured output.

On dates, Wikipedia gives Callide B a 2028 closure, citing a 2019 report, while AEMO's July 2026 release records 2031. [3] [1] Wikipedia gives Gladstone "2035, potential early closure in 2029"; the release records 2029 and the Announced Withdrawal status. [3] [1] Where Wikipedia shows one year, AEMO's unit-level field can show a range, as with Stanwell's 2043-2046 against Wikipedia's 2046. [3] [1]

On scope, Australia Beyond Coal's map says Australia has 19 coal-burning power stations, but that page was last updated in October 2020 and covers the whole country. [6] Wikipedia lists Collie, Muja and Bluewaters in Western Australia, none of which is in the NEM release. [3] Any national count that includes Western Australia runs higher than AEMO's 15.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The release covers the National Electricity Market only, so Western Australia's coal stations are out of scope. [1] It doesn't say when a unit will close within its year, how often a station runs, or what it emits. The capacity figure is a registered rating, not a measure of output.

Expected closure years are owner submissions, and owners have moved them before. [2] The ranking can't say whether a year will hold. It also can't show what changed since AEMO's previous release, because the extract used here covers July 2026 alone.

Every figure is dated to the 31 July 2026 release, and the ranking changes when AEMO publishes the next one. The revision will carry a change note and its sources: subscribe to the [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How many coal-fired power stations are there in Australia?

AEMO's July 2026 release lists 15 coal-fired power stations in the National Electricity Market: four in New South Wales, eight in Queensland and three in Victoria. [1] Western Australia has more outside the NEM; Wikipedia lists Collie, Muja and Bluewaters. [3]

### Are there any coal-fired power stations left?

Yes. All 15 NEM coal stations in AEMO's July 2026 release are operating, with 21,335 MW of nameplate capacity between them. [1] Three of them, Eraring, Gladstone and Yallourn W, have announced their withdrawal. [1]

### Is Australia phasing out coal power stations?

The Net Zero Economy Authority says Australia's coal-fired power stations will gradually close as the country moves to net zero by 2050, with each owner deciding its own closure date. [2] On the years owners submitted for AEMO's July 2026 release, stations holding 60.7 per cent of NEM coal capacity close by 2035, and two, Millmerran and Callide C, carry years after 2050. [1]

### When was the last coal-fired power station built in Australia?

Wikipedia's list names Bluewaters in Western Australia, commissioned in 2009, as the most recent, and Kogan Creek, commissioned in 2007, as the newest in the NEM states. [3] The same list says a new coal-fired station is unlikely ever to be built in Australia, and Stanwell Corporation calls a new plant unlikely too. [3] [5]

## Source notes
1. NEM Generation Information, July 2026 release: https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Australia's energy transition - what happens to power stations?: https://www.nzea.gov.au/australias-energy-transition-what-happens-power-stations (checked September 28, 2026)
3. List of coal-fired power stations in Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stations_in_Australia (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Australia's largest coal power plant to operate for an ...: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/jan/20/eraring-coal-fired-power-station-nsw-extended-2029-national-grid (checked September 28, 2026)
5. What is HELE coal power?: https://www.stanwell.com/info-hub/article/what-is-hele-coal-power (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Australia's Coal Power Stations, Mapped: https://data.beyondcoal.org.au/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# CoreWeave pricing: every GPU node, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/coreweave-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: On CoreWeave's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, the HGX B200 is the dearest self-serve GPU node at $68.80 per node-hour ($8.60 per GPU-hour) and the one-GPU GH200 the cheapest at $6.50.

The NVIDIA HGX B200 is CoreWeave's most expensive GPU node with a published on-demand price: $68.80 per node-hour for eight GPUs, or $8.60 per GPU-hour, on CoreWeave's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The page lists twelve GPU nodes. Nine carry an on-demand price, and the cheapest is a single GH200 at $6.50 an hour. [1] Per GPU, on-demand runs from $1.25 for an L40 to $10.50 for a GB200 NVL72. Spot prices in North America sit 37% to 60% below on-demand where both are listed. [1]

## TL;DR

- You buy CoreWeave GPUs by the node. Nine of the twelve nodes hold eight GPUs, so the per-GPU rate only holds when every GPU in the node is working. CoreWeave sells single-GPU pricing to inference platform customers only. [1]
- Spot is the largest published discount. An HGX H100 node costs $19.71 an hour on spot against $49.24 on demand. Over a 720-hour month that is $14,191.20 against $35,452.80. [1]
- Three nodes have no self-serve on-demand price: GB300 NVL72, HGX B300 and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (Standard Memory). The B300 and the Standard Memory RTX PRO 6000 can still be bought on spot. [1]
- Committed usage earns "up to 60%" off on-demand, with terms set in a sales conversation. Sixty per cent off the H100 node lands within two cents of its North American spot price. [1]
- On-demand prices are the same in North America and Europe. Spot prices differ by up to $0.86 per node-hour, and Europe lists no spot price for the L40 or L40S. [1]
- Egress and data transfer cost nothing. Storage is billed per binary gigabyte per month. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked every GPU node on CoreWeave's pricing page by one field: **On-Demand Price (Per Hour)**, the hourly price of a whole node, from the North America table. [1] The ranking sits in our [model infrastructure category](/categories/model-infrastructure). The page was captured on 28 September 2026 at 15:05 Australian Eastern Standard Time. The page shows no last-updated date. The page lists 12 GPU nodes in North America and the same 12 in Europe. Nine North American nodes carry an on-demand price and are ranked. Three show "Contact sales" and sit unranked at the foot of the table. [1] Prices appear with a $ sign. The captured page names no currency code and states no tax treatment. [1]

Per-GPU-hour figures are Glamdring's arithmetic: node price divided by the page's **GPU Count**, rounded half up to the cent. For the GB200 NVL72 and GB300 NVL72, a footnote sets the count at four. Each instance holds two Superchips, and each Superchip has one Grace CPU and two Blackwell GPUs. [1] Ten quotients run past the cent. Their exact values are $6.155 (H100 on-demand) and $6.305 (H200 on-demand). On spot they are $4.26375 (B200), $2.61625 (H200), $2.46375 (H100), $1.38625 (RTX PRO 6000 High Memory), $1.20625 (A100), $1.195 (RTX PRO 6000 Standard Memory), $0.985 (L40S) and $0.78375 (L40). Spot discounts are one minus spot divided by on-demand. CPU-only nodes, storage and networking sit on the same page and are left out of the ranking. How Glamdring treats company-published prices is set out in our [research methodology](/methodology).

## What does each CoreWeave GPU node cost per hour?

The HGX B200 heads the ranking at $68.80 per node-hour, and the one-GPU GH200 sits last at $6.50. All figures below come from CoreWeave's North America table, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

| Rank | GPU node | GPUs per node | On-demand ($ per node-hour) | On-demand ($ per GPU-hour) | Spot, North America ($ per node-hour) | Spot ($ per GPU-hour) |
|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | NVIDIA HGX B200 | 8 | $68.80 | $8.60 | $34.11 | $4.26 |
| 2 | NVIDIA HGX H200 | 8 | $50.44 | $6.31 | $20.93 | $2.62 |
| 3 | NVIDIA HGX H100 | 8 | $49.24 | $6.16 | $19.71 | $2.46 |
| 4 | NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 | 4 | $42.00 | $10.50 | N/A | N/A |
| 5 | NVIDIA A100 | 8 | $21.60 | $2.70 | $9.65 | $1.21 |
| 6 | NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (High Memory) | 8 | $20.00 | $2.50 | $11.09 | $1.39 |
| 7 | NVIDIA L40S | 8 | $18.00 | $2.25 | $7.88 | $0.99 |
| 8 | NVIDIA L40 | 8 | $10.00 | $1.25 | $6.27 | $0.78 |
| 9 | NVIDIA GH200 | 1 | $6.50 | $6.50 | N/A | N/A |
| Unranked | NVIDIA HGX B300 | 8 | Contact sales | n/a | $35.84 | $4.48 |
| Unranked | NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (Standard Memory) | 8 | Contact sales | n/a | $9.56 | $1.20 |
| Unranked | NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 | 4 | Contact sales | n/a | N/A | n/a |

The node ranking and the per-GPU order disagree. The GB200 NVL72 ranks fourth by node price because its node holds four GPUs. Per GPU it is the most expensive listing on the page. [1] The GH200 is the cheapest node to switch on and the seventh-cheapest of the nine per GPU.

The GB300 NVL72 is the only GPU node with no self-serve price of either kind. CoreWeave lists no spot price for the GB200 NVL72 or the GH200. [1]

## What does a CoreWeave GPU cost per GPU-hour?

Glamdring Research reads CoreWeave's per-GPU-hour rate as a comparison unit. On demand it runs from $1.25 (L40) to $10.50 (GB200 NVL72). Outside CoreWeave's inference platform, the smallest purchase is a whole node. [1]

In ascending order, the on-demand per-GPU rates are L40 $1.25, L40S $2.25 and RTX PRO 6000 High Memory $2.50. A100 follows at $2.70, then H100 $6.16, H200 $6.31, GH200 $6.50, B200 $8.60 and GB200 NVL72 $10.50. [1]

CoreWeave prints these figures itself. The North America table carries a column called **Inference Single GPU Price (Per Hour)**. Each of its nine prices matches node price divided by GPU count at the rounding used here. It lists $6.16 for the H100, $6.31 for the H200 and $10.50 for the GB200 NVL72. [1] A footnote limits that column: "Pricing based on GPUs is exclusively applicable to the CoreWeave inference platform customers." [1] The Europe table has no such column.

The decision changes with utilisation. A team that fills all eight GPUs pays the per-GPU rate. A team that needs two H100s still pays $49.24 an hour for the node, which is $24.62 per working GPU. The lowest self-serve on-demand entry points are the one-GPU GH200 at $6.50 an hour and the eight-GPU L40 node at $10.00. [1] Test the choice against one real workload: the GPU count it keeps busy, its hours per month and the memory it needs per GPU.

## How much cheaper is CoreWeave spot pricing?

Spot cuts CoreWeave's North American node prices by 37.3% to 60.0% on the seven nodes that list both an on-demand and a spot price. [1]

| GPU node | On-demand ($ per node-hour) | Spot ($ per node-hour) | Spot discount |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| NVIDIA HGX H100 | $49.24 | $19.71 | 60.0% |
| NVIDIA HGX H200 | $50.44 | $20.93 | 58.5% |
| NVIDIA L40S | $18.00 | $7.88 | 56.2% |
| NVIDIA A100 | $21.60 | $9.65 | 55.3% |
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | $68.80 | $34.11 | 50.4% |
| NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (High Memory) | $20.00 | $11.09 | 44.6% |
| NVIDIA L40 | $10.00 | $6.27 | 37.3% |

Hopper nodes carry the deepest spot discounts. The Blackwell B200 node sits near half price, and the L40 has the shallowest discount of any GPU node. [1] In cash terms, an HGX H100 node running for a 720-hour month costs $35,452.80 on demand and $14,191.20 on spot. The gap is $21,261.60. The estimate assumes continuous use and no lost spot hours.

The cheapest GPU node on the page at any price is the North American L40 on spot, at $6.27 an hour. [1] The page links to CoreWeave's Spot Terms of Service, which set the conditions on spot capacity. This ranking covers the published prices only. [1]

## What hardware comes with each node?

Every CoreWeave GPU node is a fixed bundle. The page lists GPU count, VRAM, vCPUs, system RAM and local storage beside a single hourly price. [1]

| GPU node | GPUs | VRAM (GB, as listed) | vCPUs | System RAM (GB) | Local storage (TB) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 | 4 | 279 | 144 | 960 | 61.44 |
| NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 | 4 | 186 | 144 | 960 | 30.72 |
| NVIDIA HGX B300 | 8 | 270 | 192 | 4,096 | 61.44 |
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | 8 | 180 | 128 | 2,048 | 61.44 |
| NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (High Memory) | 8 | 96 | 128 | 1,024 | 7.68 |
| NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (Standard Memory) | 8 | 96 | 128 | 512 | 7.68 |
| NVIDIA GH200 | 1 | 96 | 72 | 480 | 7.68 |
| NVIDIA HGX H100 | 8 | 80 | 128 | 2,048 | 61.44 |
| NVIDIA L40 | 8 | 48 | 128 | 1,024 | 7.68 |
| NVIDIA HGX H200 | 8 | 141 | 128 | 2,048 | 61.44 |
| NVIDIA L40S | 8 | 48 | 128 | 1,024 | 7.68 |
| NVIDIA A100 | 8 | 80 | 128 | 2,048 | 7.68 |

The two RTX PRO 6000 rows differ only in system RAM: 1,024 GB against 512 GB. [1] The A100 node carries 7.68 TB of local storage. The H100 and H200 nodes each carry 61.44 TB. The HGX B300 has the most system RAM on the page at 4,096 GB. [1] CoreWeave counts a terabyte as 2⁴⁰ bytes. [1]

## Do CoreWeave prices differ between North America and Europe?

On-demand prices are identical in CoreWeave's North America and Europe tables. Spot prices differ on most nodes, and Europe lists fewer of them. [1]

| GPU node | On-demand, both regions ($ per node-hour) | Spot, North America | Spot, Europe | Europe spot ($ per GPU-hour) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 | Contact sales | N/A | N/A | n/a |
| NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 | $42.00 | N/A | N/A | n/a |
| NVIDIA HGX B300 | Contact sales | $35.84 | $36.70 | $4.59 |
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | $68.80 | $34.11 | $34.87 | $4.36 |
| NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (High Memory) | $20.00 | $11.09 | $11.01 | $1.38 |
| NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition (Standard Memory) | Contact sales | $9.56 | $9.56 | $1.20 |
| NVIDIA GH200 | $6.50 | N/A | N/A | n/a |
| NVIDIA HGX H100 | $49.24 | $19.71 | $19.51 | $2.44 |
| NVIDIA L40 | $10.00 | $6.27 | N/A | n/a |
| NVIDIA HGX H200 | $50.44 | $20.93 | $20.64 | $2.58 |
| NVIDIA L40S | $18.00 | $7.88 | N/A | n/a |
| NVIDIA A100 | $21.60 | $9.65 | $9.51 | $1.19 |

Blackwell spot costs more in Europe. The B300 is $0.86 higher per node-hour and the B200 is $0.76 higher. Hopper and Ampere spot costs less: the H200 by $0.29, the H100 by $0.20 and the A100 by $0.14. [1] Europe's H100 spot price of $19.51 is 60.4% below on-demand, the deepest spot discount on any GPU node on the page. [1] Europe lists no spot price for the L40 or the L40S.

## Why do other published CoreWeave prices disagree?

The third-party CoreWeave figures we checked differ from CoreWeave's page in small, traceable ways. The causes are rounding, one figure that does not match the page and a separate classic pricing page.

Thunder Compute's guide, dated 1 September 2026, lists "8x H100" at $49.28 an hour. [2] CoreWeave's page shows $49.24. [1] The same guide describes total instance cost as a GPU charge plus vCPUs and RAM. [2] The current page prints each GPU node's vCPUs, RAM and storage in the same row as one hourly price. The page shows no separate CPU or RAM charge for GPU nodes. [1]

ComputePrices lists the CoreWeave H200 at $6.30 per GPU-hour and the L40 with 40 GB of memory. [3] The H200 node price of $50.44 divides to $6.305, which CoreWeave's own inference column shows as $6.31. CoreWeave lists the L40 at 48 GB of VRAM. [1] ComputePrices' "from $0.78" headline matches the North American L40 spot price of $6.27 divided by eight. [3]

Spheron read CoreWeave's rate card on 12 August 2026. [4] Every on-demand and North American spot figure in its table matches the 28 September capture. Spheron shows one RTX PRO 6000 row, carrying the High Memory prices. [4] CoreWeave's page lists High Memory and Standard Memory as separate nodes. [1] Spheron also reports that CoreWeave's older "Classic" pricing page lists lower H100 rates. [4] The current page links to that classic page. [1] Glamdring did not capture it, so its figures are left out here.

## What does CoreWeave charge beyond the GPU node?

Storage and public IP addresses carry charges. Data movement does not: CoreWeave lists egress, IOPS and data transfer as free. [1]

| Item | Listed price |
|---|---|
| AI Object Storage, Hot | $0.06 per GB per month |
| AI Object Storage, Warm | $0.03 per GB per month |
| AI Object Storage, Cold | $0.015 per GB per month |
| AI Object Storage, Archive (limited availability) | $0.0125 per GB per month |
| Distributed File Storage | $0.070 per GB per month |
| Egress and IOPS | Free |
| Data transfer to the internet and within CoreWeave | Free |
| NAT Gateway and VPC | Free |
| Public IP address | $4.00 per IP per month |
| Bring Your Own IP | $4.00 one-time setup fee per IP |
| Direct Connect, dedicated 10G / 100G / 400G | $1,250 / $12,500 / $50,000 per month |
| Direct Connect, virtual 10G | $1,500 per month (100G and 400G not available) |
| SUNK (Slurm on Kubernetes) | Free, excluding the CPU usage needed to run it |
| CoreWeave Kubernetes Service control plane | Free |

CoreWeave bills storage in binary gigabytes of 2³⁰ bytes. [1] Holding 10 TB (10,240 GB) in Hot object storage adds $614.40 a month to a node bill. Direct Connect prices exclude cross-connect and third-party port charges. [1] CPU-only nodes start at $3.36 an hour on demand for an Intel Ice Lake (6342) node. [1]

Committed usage is the lever the page does not price. CoreWeave "offers up to 60% discounts over our On-Demand prices for committed usage" and routes buyers to its sales team. [1] Applied to the H100 node, 60% off $49.24 is $19.696 an hour. That is $0.014 below the North American spot price, with a commitment attached. The node rate is one input to a model's serving bill. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the others.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

These are CoreWeave's listed prices on 28 September 2026. They are a company statement. They do not show what committed customers pay, because the page publishes a ceiling on the discount and no rate card for it. [1]

The page shows price. Nor does it show available capacity or delivery times. The ranking does not measure performance per dollar. It covers North America and Europe only, the two regions the page lists. Currency and tax treatment are not stated on the captured page. Confirm them in the current quote.

The ranking will be rebuilt when CoreWeave changes its pricing page. New pricing research goes out in our free [research briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does CoreWeave charge for GPU rental?

CoreWeave's on-demand GPU nodes cost $6.50 to $68.80 an hour on its pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] That is $1.25 to $10.50 per GPU-hour once the node price is divided by its GPU count. Spot nodes in North America start at $6.27 an hour for an eight-GPU L40 node. Three nodes need a sales call for on-demand pricing. [1]

### Can you rent a single GPU on CoreWeave?

The NVIDIA GH200 is the only one-GPU node on CoreWeave's pricing page, at $6.50 an hour on demand. [1] CoreWeave also lists per-GPU prices. A footnote says those apply exclusively to CoreWeave inference platform customers. Every other listed node holds four or eight GPUs and is priced as a whole. [1]

### How much does CoreWeave discount committed usage?

CoreWeave advertises discounts of up to 60% off on-demand prices for committed usage. [1] It does not publish which commitment length or volume earns which discount. At the full 60%, an HGX H100 node would cost $19.696 an hour. CoreWeave's North American spot price for the same node is $19.71. Get the committed rate in writing from CoreWeave's sales team before comparing it with spot.

## Source notes
1. CoreWeave Cloud Pricing: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. CoreWeave Pricing Guide (September 2026): https://www.thundercompute.com/blog/coreweave-gpu-pricing-review (checked September 28, 2026)
3. CoreWeave GPU Pricing: Compare 9+ GPUs: https://computeprices.com/providers/coreweave (checked September 28, 2026)
4. CoreWeave GPU Pricing 2026: Real Costs: https://www.spheron.network/blog/coreweave-gpu-pricing-2026/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Deel competitors by EOR price: September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/deel-competitors
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Multiplier lists the lowest EOR price among Deel's competitors: $459 per person per month, billed annually ($499 on monthly contracts). Deel's $599 is level with G-P and Justworks; Oyster and Remote list $699. Rippling publishes no price.

Multiplier lists the lowest employer-of-record (EOR) price among Deel's competitors: $459 per person per month on its Core plan, billed annually. [1] That's the ranking by lowest listed EOR price per employee per month from each provider's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. Papaya Global comes second at $499. [2] Deel lists $599 per EOR employee per month, [3] level with G-P and Justworks.

## TL;DR

- Seven of the nine providers checked publish an EOR price. Multiplier ($459) and Papaya Global ($499) list less than Deel's $599. G-P and Justworks match it. Oyster and Remote list $699. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
- Multiplier's $459 needs an annual contract. On a monthly contract it lists $499, the same figure as Papaya's starting price. [1]
- Deel sells month-to-month with no long-term commitment, so the fair monthly comparison with Multiplier is $599 against $499. [3] [1]
- Rippling publishes no EOR price and quotes on request. Velocity Global's pricing address returned a 404 page, and the site now trades as Pebl. [8] [9]
- Every figure here is reported by the provider, not measured. "Starting" wording, country price adjustments and add-on fees can move the quote, so confirm it before you sign. [1] [2] [4]

## How this ranking was built

We opened each provider's own pricing page on 28 September 2026 and recorded the lowest EOR price it lists per employee per month. The [research standard behind this ranking](/methodology) explains how figures are captured and dated. The ranked field is that listed price, in US dollars as the pages display it. The pages name the unit in different words: Multiplier says **per person/mo**, Deel says **per EOR employee per month**, and the others say per employee per month. [1] [3]

- **Source:** each provider's public pricing page, captured on 28 September 2026.
- **Field:** the lowest listed EOR price per employee per month. Contractor, payroll and PEO prices are excluded.
- **Inclusion:** a provider is ranked when its pricing page lists an EOR price.
- **Row count:** nine pricing pages checked, eight loaded, seven listed an EOR price, seven ranked.
- **Exclusions:** Rippling (custom quote only) and Velocity Global (pricing page not found).
- **Ties:** equal prices are ordered alphabetically and keep their numbered rank.
- **Tax:** none of the captured pages states whether its price includes tax.
- **Earlier editions:** none. This is the first release of this ranking.

## Which Deel competitors list the lowest EOR price?

Multiplier lists the lowest price, at $459 per person per month billed annually, followed by Papaya Global at $499 per employee per month. [1] [2] The rest of the field sits at $599 or $699.

| Rank | Provider | Listed EOR price (USD per employee per month) | Price wording on the page | Coverage as published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Multiplier | 459 | Core plan, billed annually | 150+ and 160+ countries, both stated [1] |
| 2 | Papaya Global | 499 | starting from | 180+ countries [2] |
| 3 | Deel | 599 | per EOR employee per month | 130+ countries [3] |
| 4 | G-P (Globalization Partners) | 599 | starting at; volume discounts available | 180+ countries [4] |
| 5 | Justworks | 599 | no base fee | not stated on the pricing page [5] |
| 6 | Oyster | 699 | annual discounts available | 120+ countries [6] |
| 7 | Remote | 699 | per employee/month | 90+ countries [7] |
| – | Rippling | not published | custom quote | not stated [8] |
| – | Velocity Global (now Pebl) | not checked | pricing page returned 404 | not checked [9] |

Ranks 3 to 5 share one price, and so do ranks 6 and 7. The spread from first to last is $240 a month.

For a buyer weighing Deel against the cheapest listed option, the gap is $140 per employee per month, or $1,680 per employee a year, on Multiplier's annual terms. [1] [3] On Multiplier's monthly terms the gap narrows to $100.

## How does each provider bill its EOR fee?

Billing terms differ more than the headline prices do, and they can reorder the list. A price tied to an annual contract and a price with no commitment are different purchases.

| Provider | Billing terms as published | Fees and conditions the page states |
|---|---|---|
| Multiplier | $459 billed annually; $499 on monthly contracts. Growth plan $519 annually, $559 monthly [1] | Compliance-mandated add-ons and an implementation fee as applicable [1] |
| Papaya Global | "starting from" $499, with a quote request [2] | Contract term not stated |
| Deel | Month-to-month, with no long-term commitment [3] | Cancel at any time; local labour law sets notice and severance for EOR employees [3] |
| G-P | "Starting at" USD 599 [4] | Volume discounts; no minimum contract length for EOR hires [4] |
| Justworks | $599 per employee per month, no base fee [5] | The add-on list says EOR is "Available in Basic and Plus plans" [5] |
| Oyster | USD 699; annual discounts available [6] | Optional annual seat-based billing; refundable deposit for EOR team members [6] |
| Remote | $699 per employee per month [7] | No platform, onboarding or setup fees for EOR; billing currency chosen at onboarding [7] |

Multiplier's page offers a monthly or yearly toggle marked "save 8%", which is the gap between its $499 and $459 figures. [1] A buyer who won't commit for a year should compare Multiplier at $499, not $459.

Justworks shows EOR two ways. The plan cards list it as a standalone global plan with no base fee, while the add-on list ties it to the Basic and Plus plans. [5] If Justworks requires a PEO plan alongside EOR, its $79 PEO Basic fee would sit on top. [5] The page doesn't settle this, so ask for it in writing.

Oyster's deposit and Multiplier's implementation fee don't appear in the per-month figure. [6] [1] Both change the cash needed in the first month.

## How many countries does each provider cover?

Papaya Global and G-P state the widest EOR coverage, at 180+ countries each. [2] [4] Remote states the narrowest, at 90+. [7] Deel's pricing page puts EOR at 130+ countries, and the same page shows 150+ countries in its company figures. [3] Multiplier's page gives both 150+ and 160+. [1] Justworks doesn't state an EOR country count on its pricing page. [5]

These are the providers' own counts, and they may not count the same thing. Remote says it owns all its legal entities and never relies on third parties to employ workers. [7] The other pages don't say how their count splits between owned entities and partners.

The decision turns on the countries you hire in, not the total. Check each target country on the provider's own country list before comparing prices.

## What does the listed EOR price include?

Deel and Multiplier say the EOR fee covers employment, payroll, tax filings, benefits administration and HR support. Deel lists onboarding and local compliance, payroll processing and tax filings, benefits administration, and ongoing HR and legal support. [3] Multiplier lists compliant employment, local contracts, payroll processing, tax and statutory filings, benefits administration, onboarding and ongoing HR support. [1]

Some pages name what sits outside the fee. Multiplier adds compliance-mandated add-ons and an implementation fee where they apply. [1] Oyster says setup, onboarding, HR expert time and terminations carry no extra charge, but it requires a refundable deposit. [6] Remote says extra charges can apply when a customer requests specific services. [7]

Country cost is a separate line. Multiplier sends buyers to a calculator to "See exactly what a hire costs, country by country", and Oyster offers an employment cost calculator for employment taxes and costs. [1] [6] Multiplier also says about 11% of the countries it supports carry adjusted pricing. [1]

## Why do other Deel competitor lists show different prices?

Published lists quote different dates, plans and currencies, and the captured material can't separate those causes. WorkMotion's guide, dated 24 May 2026, lists Multiplier from $400, Remote from $599 and Pebl from $399 in its summary table. [10] Its own Remote section then gives €645 per employee per month. [10] The pricing pages checked on 28 September 2026 list Multiplier at $459 on annual billing and Remote at $699. [1] [7]

A price without a checked date and a plan name can't be compared with anything. Use the provider's pricing page on the day you buy, and keep the page capture with the quote.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking measures one reported number: the lowest EOR price each provider lists. It doesn't measure the quote you'll receive, service quality, payroll accuracy, support response or compliance record.

- **Your quote.** "Starting from" and "starting at" wording, volume discounts and country adjustments mean the price for a given hire can differ. [2] [4] [1]
- **The whole market.** Rippling quotes on request, and Velocity Global's pricing page wasn't reachable on the checked date. [8] [9] Other lists name more providers; WorkMotion's covers 15. [10]
- **Verified facts.** Prices and country counts are company statements. No regulator or independent dataset stands behind them.
- **Change over time.** This ranking will be refreshed when any of the seven pricing pages changes its listed EOR price.

Other rankings and comparisons are in our [published research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Deel a big company?

By its own account, yes. Deel's pricing page says it's trusted by 40,000+ companies and has compliantly processed $20B+ in global payroll. [3] Those are Deel's figures. No independent source in this ranking verifies them.

### Why is Deel so expensive?

On listed EOR price, Deel sits mid-table. Its $599 per EOR employee per month matches G-P and Justworks and is $100 below Oyster and Remote. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] It's $100 above Papaya Global's starting price and $140 above Multiplier's annual price. [2] [1] Deel's price comes with month-to-month terms, which Multiplier's lowest figure doesn't. [3] [1]

### Which Deel competitor is cheapest without an annual contract?

Multiplier lists $499 per employee per month on monthly contracts, $100 below Deel. [1] Papaya Global also starts at $499, but its page doesn't state a contract term. [2] G-P states no minimum contract length at $599. [4]

### Does Rippling publish an EOR price?

No. Rippling's pricing page lists Employer of Record as a product and asks for company details so it can send a custom quote. [8] It can't be ranked on listed price until it publishes one.

### Is Velocity Global still a Deel competitor?

Velocity Global now trades as Pebl, according to its own site. [9] Its pricing address returned a 404 page on 28 September 2026, so no Velocity Global or Pebl price appears in this ranking. [9]

## Source notes
1. Multiplier: https://www.usemultiplier.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Papaya Global: https://www.papayaglobal.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Deel: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. G-P (Globalization Partners): https://www.globalization-partners.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Justworks: https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Oyster: https://www.oysterhr.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Remote: https://remote.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Rippling: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Velocity Global (Pebl): https://velocityglobal.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
10. WorkMotion (an EOR provider; commercial comparison page): https://workmotion.com/blog/deel-competitors/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Deel pricing: every published price, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/deel-pricing
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Deel lists US$599 per EOR employee a month, tied for third-lowest of seven published EOR prices; budget contractors at US$49 and US PEO at US$125, then get the country quote in writing.

Deel's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, lists US$49 per contractor per month, US$325 per contractor of record, US$125 per US PEO employee and US$599 per employer of record (EOR) employee. [1] The same view prices Find talent at US$14 per worker per month. [1] EOR is the highest rate on the page. Against six other providers' own pricing pages checked the same day, Deel's US$599 ties with G-P and Justworks for third-lowest. [2] [3]

## TL;DR

- Contractor work has two prices. US$49 buys the platform while you classify the worker yourself. US$325 shifts the classification liability to Deel through Contractor of Record, a premium of US$276 a month.
- EOR at US$599 costs almost five times US PEO at US$125. The two aren't substitutes: PEO is US co-employment, EOR is full legal employment in 130+ countries.
- Every Deel price is a service fee. Salary and employer contributions sit on top, and Deel's own UK example carries 13% employment contributions beside the EOR fee.
- Deel's EOR price sits mid-market: US$140 above Multiplier's Core plan and US$100 below Oyster and Remote.
- Third-party pricing guides still carry figures that differ from the page, including a custom-quote US PEO and 150+ EOR countries. Price from the dated page, then get the country quote in writing.

## How these prices were checked

We read Deel's public pricing page on 28 September 2026 and recorded every price printed in its Hire view: five prices across three product groups. [1] The capture follows our [research standard for dated prices](/methodology). The field is the monthly price Deel prints against each product, with the unit Deel writes beside it. The page shows dollar prices with the United States locale selected, and Deel's help centre states the contractor price as US$49, so the figures below are US dollars. [1] [4] The page doesn't say whether sales tax, VAT or GST is added.

The Hire view is one of five tabs on the page, alongside Manage, Pay, Equip and Bundle. Those four tabs weren't part of our capture, so products such as global payroll aren't priced here.

For the competitor comparison, the rule was the lowest EOR price per employee per month listed on each provider's own pricing page, captured the same day, with ties ordered alphabetically. Eight providers were attempted. Seven publish a price. Rippling lists Employer of Record with no price, and Velocity Global's pricing address returned a 404 page on 28 September 2026. [5]

| Deel product | Price, US$ per month | Unit as Deel prints it | What the page says it covers |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Hire employees: EOR | 599 | per EOR employee | Full legal employment in 130+ countries |
| Hire contractors: Contractor of Record | 325 | per contractor of record | Contractor management with classification liability shifted to Deel |
| Hire employees: US PEO | 125 | per US PEO employee | Co-employment across all 50 US states, benefits included |
| Hire contractors | 49 | per contractor | Contractor management, payments in 120+ currencies, automated invoicing, tax form guidance, classification compliance |
| Find talent | 14 | per worker | Job posting, AI screening and scheduling, talent marketplace access, candidate management |

Source for every row: Deel pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. Tax status not stated. [1]

## How much does Deel charge for contractors?

Deel charges US$49 per contractor per month when you classify the contractor yourself, and US$325 per contractor per month when you use Contractor of Record to shift classification liability to Deel. [1] Both prices sit under "Hire contractors" on Deel's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. The difference is US$276 a month, or US$3,312 a year per contractor. That is the price Deel puts on carrying the classification risk.

At US$49, the page lists centralised contractor management, payments in 120+ currencies, automated invoicing, tax form guidance and document collection, multi-currency payments and worker classification compliance. [1] The page doesn't list separate inclusions for Contractor of Record. It describes the tier only as shifting liability to Deel.

The unit that governs the bill is the active contract, and Deel's help centre defines when a contract counts. [4] Fixed contracts cost US$49 per active contract per month. Pay-as-you-go contracts cost US$49 in any month where work is submitted or an adjustment or one-off payment is attached. Milestone contracts cost US$49 for each month with an active milestone, so a milestone running from 15 March to 15 May bills March, April and May. [4]

One fee sits in the help centre rather than on the pricing page. Deel may charge up to US$5 a month as a Contract Platform Fee on any contract that is active but has no recorded payments for two consecutive months. [4] The pricing page's own FAQ says there are no surprise fees. [1] The practical consequence is small but real: close finished contracts rather than leaving them active.

## What does Deel's EOR price include?

Deel's EOR price is US$599 per employee per month, and the pricing page says it buys full legal employment in 130+ countries without the customer opening a local entity. [1] The page's FAQ lists what the fee covers: employee onboarding and local compliance, payroll processing and tax filings, benefits administration, and ongoing HR and legal support. [1] Over twelve months the fee comes to US$7,188. Deel's own EOR-versus-entity cost article uses the same US$7,188 as the annual EOR service fee for one employee. [6]

The shared inclusion list for "Hire employees" adds remote, on-site and field worker arrangements, managed payroll, tax filings and reporting, access to healthcare, dental, vision, mental health, fertility and 401(k) benefits, automated onboarding and on-demand HR, legal and tax expertise. [1]

The fee is not the cost of the employee. In Deel's UK example, employment contributions for insurance, pension and social security run at 13% under the EOR column, listed separately from the US$7,188 service fee. [6] Pin's 2026 Deel pricing guide makes the same point about salaries: the platform fee doesn't include them. [7] Deel's FAQ also says all costs, including local compliance, payroll and benefits administration, are included in "your quoted price". [1] The operative word is quoted: the page's US$599 is a list price, and the country quote sets the bill.

Third-party guides report costs the pricing page doesn't mention. Pin, a recruiting software company, wrote in its 2026 Deel pricing guide that Deel requires a deposit of one month's gross salary per employee, returned 30 days after offboarding. [7] Deel's pricing page is silent on deposits. Treat the deposit as a term to confirm in the order form, not as a published Deel price.

Ending an EOR employment has its own cost. Deel says customers can cancel at any time, but local labour laws apply to EOR employees, including notice periods and severance obligations. [1]

## What does Deel charge for US PEO?

Deel lists US PEO at US$125 per employee per month, for co-employment across all 50 US states with benefits included. [1] That is US$1,500 a year per employee, and less than a quarter of the EOR rate. The two products solve different problems. PEO is co-employment of staff in the US; EOR makes Deel the full legal employer in 130+ countries where the customer has no local entity. [1]

The page runs a PEO promotion alongside the price: three months free. [1] The conditions change the commercial picture. The customer must sign a new PEO order form between 15 July 2026 and 31 December 2026, renewals of existing PEO services are excluded, and Deel credits three months of complimentary Platform Fee only on order forms with a minimum two-year term. [1] Deel also states the terms can change or be withdrawn at any time without notice. [1]

That two-year minimum sits beside an FAQ on the same page saying Deel offers month-to-month pricing with no long-term commitment. [1] If the Platform Fee equals the listed US$125, the credit comes to US$375 per employee against a 24-month commitment of US$3,000, or 12.5% of the term. The page doesn't define Platform Fee, so confirm that assumption in the order form.

"Benefits included" needs the same check. The page doesn't say whether US$125 covers benefit premiums or the administration of benefits the employer pays for separately. [1]

## How does Deel's EOR price compare with other providers?

Deel's US$599 EOR price ties with G-P and Justworks for third-lowest of seven EOR prices published on providers' own pricing pages on 28 September 2026. [2] [3] Multiplier (US$459) and Papaya Global (US$499) list less; Oyster and Remote list US$699. [8] [9] [10] [11] Rippling publishes no EOR price. [5] Deel sits US$140 a month above Multiplier's lowest plan and US$100 below the highest listed rates.

| Rank | Provider | Listed EOR price, US$ per employee per month | Wording as published | EOR coverage as published |
|---:|---|---:|---|---|
| 1 | Multiplier | 459 | Core plan, billed annually, plus compliance-mandated add-ons and implementation fee as applicable; Growth plan US$519 | 150+ and 160+ countries (both stated) |
| 2 | Papaya Global | 499 | Starting from | 180+ countries |
| 3 | Deel | 599 | Per EOR employee | 130+ countries |
| 4 | G-P (Globalization Partners) | 599 | Starting at; volume discounts available | 180+ countries |
| 5 | Justworks | 599 | Per employee, no base fee | Not stated on the pricing page |
| 6 | Oyster | 699 | Per employee | 120+ countries |
| 7 | Remote | 699 | Per employee | 90+ countries |

Sources: each provider's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. Tax status not recorded. [1] [8] [9] [2] [3] [10] [11]

The ranking compares list prices, and the list prices aren't the same unit. Multiplier's US$459 is an annually billed plan with add-ons and an implementation fee possible on top. [8] Papaya Global and G-P publish a floor, "starting from" or "starting at", so a given hire can cost more. [9] [2] Deel prints a flat figure with no "from", and its FAQ describes month-to-month pricing. [1]

Coverage moves the decision more than the US$100 to US$140 gaps. Remote lists 90+ countries and Papaya Global and G-P list 180+. [11] [9] [2] The cheapest listed price is irrelevant if that provider doesn't employ in the country you need. Run the comparison on one real hire: the same country, salary and start date, quoted by each shortlisted provider.

## Why do other published Deel prices disagree?

Other Deel pricing guides disagree with the page because they were written at different dates, cover tabs our capture didn't, or report negotiated and estimated rates rather than list prices.

EOR country coverage is the clearest case. Deel's pricing page states full legal employment in 130+ countries for EOR, while a headline figure lower on the same page reads 150+ countries. [1] People Managing People and Pin both describe Deel EOR as covering 150+ countries. [12] [7] Deel's own EOR cost article repeats 130+ countries for EOR services. [6] For EOR, the 130+ figure is the one Deel attaches to the product.

US PEO is the second. People Managing People lists Deel US PEO as a custom quote, and Pin describes US PEO as quote-based. [12] [7] The page checked on 28 September 2026 prints US$125 per US PEO employee per month. [1] We can't date when the price first appeared, so we don't describe it as a change.

Two figures that third-party guides quote don't appear in the Hire view we captured. Pin and People Managing People both list global payroll at US$29 per employee per month, and Pin lists an Enterprise EOR tier at US$899. [7] [12] Those may sit in the page's other tabs or in sales material; we haven't confirmed them. Pin also publishes a volume-discount table suggesting EOR rates of US$400 to US$500 at 20 to 49 employees, compiled from other third-party estimates. [7] Deel publishes no discount schedule on the page.

## What the prices cannot tell you

The page prices Deel's service. It can't tell you the total cost of an employee in a given country, and it doesn't state whether tax is added to the fee. [1] Employer contributions sit outside the list price in Deel's own UK example, and third-party guides report salaries and a salary deposit on top. [6] [7] Only a country quote brings those numbers together.

It also can't tell you what a larger team pays. Deel's FAQ refers to "your quoted price", which leaves room for the signed price to differ from the list price. [1] And it can't tell you how long any figure will hold: the PEO promotion on the page carries a note that Deel can change or withdraw its terms without notice. [1] These prices were checked on 28 September 2026 and will be refreshed when the page changes. More of our enterprise software pricing work sits in the [published research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Deel free to use?

Deel doesn't charge contractors or employees a monthly subscription fee; it charges the client company per active contract each month. [4] The lowest price on the Hire view of Deel's pricing page is US$14 per worker per month for Find talent, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Deel offers a free demo before a customer commits. [1]

### How does Deel pay contractors?

Deel pays contractors through its platform in the contractor's preferred currency, with payments in 120+ currencies listed under the US$49 contractor price. [1] Deel says it provides competitive exchange rates, multiple payment methods and minimal fees. [1] The pricing page doesn't publish the exchange margin, so ask for it in writing if cross-currency volume is material.

### Does Deel require a long-term contract?

Deel's pricing page says it offers month-to-month pricing with no long-term commitment required. [1] The exception on the same page is the US PEO promotion, which needs a PEO order form with a minimum two-year term to earn three months of complimentary Platform Fee. [1]

## Source notes
1. Deel pricing: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. G-P pricing: https://www.globalization-partners.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Justworks pricing: https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. How Much Does Deel Cost?: https://help.letsdeel.com/hc/en-gb/articles/4407737725201-How-Much-Does-Deel-Cost (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Rippling pricing: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. EOR vs. Entity Costs: What's More Affordable?: https://www.deel.com/blog/how-much-does-an-eor-cost/ (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Deel Pricing 2026: EOR, Contractor, and HR Costs Explained: https://www.pin.com/blog/deel-pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Multiplier pricing: https://www.usemultiplier.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Papaya Global pricing: https://www.papayaglobal.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Oyster pricing: https://www.oysterhr.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Remote pricing: https://remote.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
12. Deel Pricing Guide 2026: Tiers, Costs, & Value: https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/tools/deel-pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Deel vs Rippling: prices and coverage, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/deel-vs-rippling
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Deel is the only one of the two that publishes prices: EOR $599 per employee per month in 130+ countries and US PEO $125 per employee per month, checked 28 September 2026.

Deel publishes its prices; Rippling doesn't. On the pricing pages checked 28 September 2026, Deel lists employer of record (EOR) at $599 per employee per month in 130+ countries, and its US PEO at $125 per employee per month. [1] Rippling's pricing page is a quote form. It names EOR and PEO as products but prices neither and gives no EOR country count. [2] Deel's list price is the benchmark, and a Rippling quote has to be read against it.

## TL;DR

- Deel is the only one of the two you can price before a sales call: EOR $599, US PEO $125, contractors $49 and contractor of record $325, each per person per month in US dollars. [1]
- Rippling withholds every price, EOR and PEO included. Its FAQ says most products bill per employee per month, some add a monthly base fee, and each product is bought alongside a required core platform. [2]
- Comparison sites that put Deel's EOR at $499 in 150+ countries don't match Deel's page on the checked date. The page says $599 and 130+; 150+ is Deel's company-wide country figure. [1] [3] [4]
- Deel's $599 ties for third among seven EOR providers with a listed price. Multiplier ($459, billed annually) and Papaya Global ($499) list lower. [5] [6] [7] [8]
- For 10 US PEO employees, Deel's list price comes to $1,250 a month. Justworks PEO Basic comes to $790. [8]
- The decision turns on Rippling's quote. Get its EOR fee, platform fee and country list in writing, then compare them with $599 and 130+.

## How we checked the two pricing pages

We captured deel.com/pricing and rippling.com/pricing on 28 September 2026 and took every price exactly as listed, in US dollars. [1] [2] Deel's page doesn't say whether its prices include tax.

Deel's pricing page is split into Hire, Manage, Pay, Equip and Bundle tabs. [1] Our capture holds the Hire prices, which cover EOR, US PEO, contractors and recruiting. Deel's standalone payroll and HR prices weren't in the capture, so any figure for them below comes from a third party and is labelled that way.

The wider EOR table uses one rule: the lowest listed EOR price per employee per month on each provider's own pricing page, on the same date. Velocity Global wasn't included because its pricing URL returned a 404 page that day. Review and comparison sites (Outsail, SoftwareFinder, SourceForge) appear only where they report a figure a company page withholds, or where their figure disagrees with one. [How Glamdring sources and checks prices](/methodology) sets out the full standard.

## What each company publishes and withholds

Deel publishes a price for every product on its Hire tab. Rippling publishes none, for any product. [1] [2]

| Item, checked 28 September 2026 | Deel (deel.com/pricing) | Rippling (rippling.com/pricing) |
|---|---|---|
| EOR price | $599 per EOR employee per month | Not published; custom quote |
| EOR coverage | Full legal employment in 130+ countries | Not stated on the captured pages |
| US PEO price | $125 per US PEO employee per month | Not published; PEO listed as a product |
| US PEO coverage | Co-employment across all 50 US states, benefits included | Not stated |
| Contractors | $49 per contractor per month; $325 per contractor of record per month | Not published; Contractors and Contractor of Record listed |
| Recruiting | $14 per worker per month (Find talent) | Not published; Recruiting listed |
| Billing terms stated | Month-to-month, no long-term commitment | Mostly per employee per month; some products add a monthly base fee; core Rippling Platform required |
| How to buy | Book a demo; contractor hiring can start online | Quote form or demo |

The Deel column comes from Deel's pricing page [1] and the Rippling column from Rippling's. [2]

Deel's page still leaves gaps. It shows one EOR figure rather than a per-country schedule, and its own FAQ says local compliance, payroll and benefits administration are included in "your quoted price". [1] The $599 is a list price. The contract figure comes from the quote.

Rippling's gap is total. Its page asks for work email, company size and headquarters country, then promises a custom quote. [2] Asked how its pricing compares with similar services, its FAQ answers "Trick question" and says "there's no service like Rippling!" [2]

## What does Deel charge for an employer of record, and where?

Deel lists its EOR at $599 per employee per month and says it provides full legal employment in 130+ countries. [1] At list price, 10 EOR employees cost $5,990 a month before salaries.

Deel says the EOR fee covers onboarding and local compliance, payroll processing and tax filings, benefits administration, and ongoing HR and legal support. [1] That list is administration. It doesn't name the employee's salary, employer contributions or benefit premiums, so confirm how those are billed in the quote.

Deel's FAQ says pricing is month-to-month with no long-term commitment, and that you can cancel at any time. For EOR employees, it adds, local labour law still governs notice periods and severance. [1] So the cost of leaving an EOR arrangement is set by employment law in each country.

## Does Rippling publish an EOR price or country count?

No. Rippling lists Employer of Record under both its Payroll and Global product menus but shows no price, and neither captured Rippling page states how many countries its EOR covers. [2] [9]

Third parties fill the gap, and they don't agree. SoftwareFinder, updated 15 July 2026, says Rippling's EOR offers services in 30+ countries. [10] Outsail describes Rippling's EOR coverage as "Growing; strong in major markets" and puts its custom pricing at "typically $500–$700/employee/month". [3] Neither is a Rippling statement. Treat the range as something to test in the quote, not as a price.

Rippling's FAQ explains the structure any quote will follow. Each product can be bought separately, but always alongside the core, required Rippling Platform, and while most products bill per employee per month, some add a monthly base fee. [2] Ask for the EOR fee, the platform fee and any base fee as separate lines. Without that split, a Rippling EOR quote can't be set against Deel's $599.

## Why do other sites quote $499 and 150+ countries for Deel?

Those figures don't match Deel's own page on 28 September 2026, which listed EOR at $599 in 130+ countries. [1] SourceForge says Deel's employee hiring starts "from $499 USD per month". [4] Outsail's pricing table lists Deel's EOR "From $499/employee/month" and describes Deel's EOR as covering 150+ countries. [3]

The 150+ figure does appear on Deel's pricing page, but as the company's overall country count, beside its customer and payroll totals. [1] Deel's own company text on Trustpilot splits the two: 150+ countries overall, EOR in 130+ countries, contractors across 200+ jurisdictions. [11] SoftwareFinder gets the price right at $599 but still gives 150+ countries for EOR. [10]

The drift isn't limited to Deel. Outsail's table puts Remote's EOR at $599. [3] Remote's own pricing page listed $699 on the checked date. [12] Take EOR prices and country counts from the provider's page, with the date you checked it.

## How do the US PEO prices compare?

Deel lists its US PEO at $125 per employee per month, with co-employment across all 50 US states and benefits included. [1] Rippling lists a PEO product and gives no price. [2] For 10 employees, Deel's list price comes to $1,250 a month.

Justworks, which does publish, lists PEO Basic at $79 and PEO Plus at $124 per employee per month. [8] Ten employees on PEO Basic come to $790 a month. Deel's list price sits one dollar above Justworks's higher tier.

Deel is running a PEO promotion. New PEO Order Forms executed between 15 July and 31 December 2026, on terms of at least two years, get three months of complimentary Platform Fee as a credit. [1] That sits beside Deel's month-to-month FAQ: the credit needs a two-year term. The terms don't say whether the Platform Fee is the full $125.

Rippling's pricing page footer lists a licence for its PEO entity: Rippling PEO 1, Inc., Florida licence GL250, as shown on 28 September 2026. [2] It says nothing about price.

## What about US payroll without a PEO?

Neither company's captured pricing page shows a standalone US payroll price. Deel's payroll prices sit on the Pay tab, which our capture didn't hold. SoftwareFinder reports Deel's US payroll from $24 per employee per month and global payroll from $29. [10]

For Rippling, SourceForge reports $8 per employee per month [4], and SoftwareFinder adds a $40 base fee for the HCM module. [10] Rippling's own FAQ confirms the structure (per employee per month, with a monthly base fee on some products) but not the numbers. [2] These are third-party figures. Confirm them in the quote.

For scale, two payroll-software companies that publish entry prices: Gusto's Simple plan lists $49 a month plus $6 per person, or $109 a month for 10 employees. [13] Justworks Payroll lists $50 plus $8 per person, or $130 for 10. [8] A PEO list price covers co-employment and benefits, so it runs far higher per head than payroll software. [1] Compare payroll with payroll and PEO with PEO.

## Who else lists an EOR price, and how does Deel's $599 compare?

Deel's $599 ties with G-P and Justworks for third-lowest of seven listed EOR prices checked 28 September 2026. Rippling isn't in the table because it publishes no EOR price. [2]

| Rank | Provider | Listed EOR price, US$ per employee per month | Billing wording as published | Coverage as published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Multiplier | 459 | Core plan, billed annually; plus compliance-mandated add-ons and implementation fee as applicable; Growth plan $519 | Page states both 150+ and 160+ countries |
| 2 | Papaya Global | 499 | Starting from | 180+ countries |
| 3 | Deel | 599 | Per EOR employee per month | 130+ countries |
| 4 | G-P (Globalization Partners) | 599 | Starting at; volume discounts available | 180+ countries |
| 5 | Justworks | 599 | No base fee | Not stated on the pricing page |
| 6 | Oyster | 699 | Per employee per month | 120+ countries |
| 7 | Remote | 699 | Per employee per month | 90+ countries |

Row sources: Multiplier [5], Papaya Global [6], Deel [1], G-P [7], Justworks [8], Oyster [14], Remote [12]. Ties are listed alphabetically.

The wording column matters as much as the price. Multiplier's $459 is billed annually and adds compliance add-ons and an implementation fee "as applicable"; Papaya Global and G-P give "starting" prices. [5] [6] [7] Deel's $599 carries no "from" qualifier on its page. [1] On listed coverage, Deel's 130+ countries sits behind Papaya Global and G-P at 180+ each. [6] [7]

## What the published prices cannot tell you

A list price isn't a contract price. Deel's own FAQ refers to "your quoted price", and Rippling offers nothing but a quote. [1] [2]

Four limits apply to everything above:

1. **Country mix.** Deel shows one EOR figure for 130+ countries. Whether a given country costs more isn't on the page.
2. **Employment costs.** Salaries, employer taxes and benefit premiums sit outside these fees.
3. **Rippling's total.** The required platform and any base fee can only be priced by quote. [2]
4. **Coverage counts.** "130+ countries" and "150+ countries" are company statements. Neither page shows which countries run on the company's own entities.

Two events would change this comparison: Rippling publishing an EOR price or country list, or Deel moving its $599. Other enterprise-software comparisons built the same way are in [our published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Can I trust Deel?

Deel's reported review ratings are high, but ratings measure reviewer sentiment, not EOR compliance. On Trustpilot, Deel shows 4.6 from 9,497 reviews; the profile is claimed, on a paid Trustpilot subscription, and Deel invites customers to review. [11] Trustpilot's AI summary of recent reviews notes complaints about payment withdrawal delays and slow chat support. [11] Rippling's Trustpilot profile shows 4.5 from 2,469 reviews, under the same paid, invited model. [15] For an EOR decision, ask each provider whether it employs staff through its own entity or a local partner in each country you'll hire in. Outsail reports that Deel uses a mix of owned entities and in-country partners. [3]

### Who competes with Rippling?

On EOR pricing, the providers with a listed price on 28 September 2026 were Multiplier, Papaya Global, Deel, G-P, Justworks, Oyster and Remote. [5] [6] [1] [7] [8] [14] [12] Trustpilot's "People also looked at" panel on Rippling's profile lists Deel, Remote, Gusto, Oyster, ADP and Multiplier. [15] Rippling positions itself as global HR, payroll, IT and finance in one place, which puts it against payroll, HR and IT software as well as EOR providers. [9]

### Can I buy one Rippling product on its own?

Only with the platform. Rippling's FAQ says each HR, Finance and IT product can be bought separately, alongside the core, required Rippling Platform. [2] Ask for the platform fee as its own line in the quote.

### Does Deel require a long-term contract?

Not by default. Deel's FAQ describes month-to-month pricing with no long-term commitment. [1] The exception on the checked date was the PEO promotion, which applies only to Order Forms with a minimum two-year term. [1]

## Source notes
1. Deel: https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Rippling: https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. OutSail: https://www.outsail.co/post/rippling-vs-deel-vs-remote-in-2026 (checked September 28, 2026)
4. SourceForge: https://sourceforge.net/software/compare/Deel-vs-Rippling/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Multiplier (via parent-computed table): https://www.usemultiplier.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Papaya Global (via parent-computed table): https://www.papayaglobal.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
7. G-P (via parent-computed table): https://www.globalization-partners.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Justworks (via parent-computed EOR table): https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Rippling: https://www.rippling.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Software Finder: https://softwarefinder.com/resources/deel-vs-rippling (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/deel.com (checked September 28, 2026)
12. Remote (via parent-computed table): https://remote.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
13. Gusto (via parent-computed US payroll table): https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
14. Oyster (via parent-computed table): https://www.oysterhr.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
15. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/rippling.com (checked September 28, 2026)

# Drata price: plans listed, no price published (Sep 2026)

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/drata-pricing
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Drata publishes no price. Its plans page, checked 28 September 2026, lists three GRC plans, three Assurance plans and a separate Third-Party Risk Management product and sends every price to sales.

Drata publishes no price. Its plans page, checked 28 September 2026, lists three GRC plans (Foundation, Advanced and Enterprise), three Assurance plans with the same names and a separate Third-Party Risk Management product, with no figure against any of them. The page's only pricing route is a "Get Personalized Pricing" link to Drata's sales team. [1] What the page does publish is the shape of a quote: a 50-employee cap and one framework on the entry GRC plan, domain and questionnaire limits on the Assurance plans, and add-ons on every tier. [1]

## TL;DR

- Drata's cost is set by quote. Neither drata.com/plans nor drata.com/pricing showed a list price for any plan, product or add-on on 28 September 2026. [1] [2]
- The entry GRC plan, Foundation, covers up to 50 full-time employees and one pre-mapped framework chosen from five: SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA and GDPR. [1] Drata advertises 30+ pre-built frameworks, so a buyer who needs one outside those five is negotiating Advanced or an add-on. [3]
- Assurance is a separate plan line for Trust Center and AI questionnaire work. Its approved-domain limit steps from 100 to 300 to unlimited across the three tiers. [1]
- Published third-party Drata prices are estimates, and some are pinned to plan descriptions that no longer match Drata's page. None of them is Drata's price. [4] [5]
- The quote to ask for names the plan, headcount band, framework count, add-ons, domain limit and questionnaire limit in writing.

## Which plans does Drata publish?

Drata's plans page lists seven offerings in three groups: three GRC plans, three Assurance plans and one Third-Party Risk Management product. [1] The page's section links split the tiers into a GRC Platform and an Assurance Platform. The entry GRC card carries a Compliance Automation label, the two higher cards carry a GRC label, and Third-Party Risk Management has its own card with no tiers. [1] Drata sits in our [compliance-automation category](/categories/compliance-automation).

| Plan line | Tier | Published limits | Adds over the tier below | Price published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRC | Foundation | Up to 50 FTEs; 1 pre-mapped framework from SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA or GDPR | Entry tier: pre-built integrations, Trust Center Standard, AI Questionnaire Assistance Standard, risk management, custom controls, compliance as code, Open API access | No |
| GRC | Advanced | "Any Available Framework" | Custom connections and tests; custom fields and formulas | No |
| GRC | Enterprise | None stated | Risk Management Pro, Compliance as Code Pro, User Access Review | No |
| Assurance | Foundation | Up to 100 approved domains; AI assistance for 10 questionnaires | Entry tier: branded Trust Center, knowledge base, clickwrap NDA support, SAML/SSO (JIT), AI Questionnaire Assistance | No |
| Assurance | Advanced | Up to 300 approved domains; 1 Open API access and 1 webhook access | SCIM, Docusign/Ironclad NDA integration, standard Salesforce and HubSpot integrations, Google Drive document sync | No |
| Assurance | Enterprise | Unlimited approved domains, Open API access and webhook access | Enterprise dashboards, Pro Salesforce and HubSpot integrations, Microsoft Dynamics, data warehouse sync, Microsoft Purview | No |
| Third-Party Risk Management | Single listing | None stated | Vendor inventory sync, vendor questionnaire automation, inherent and residual risk tiering, automated assessment reports | No |

Source: drata.com/plans, checked 28 September 2026. Drata states that its feature list "is not a comprehensive list of all solutions available" and directs buyers to a sales representative for an exact breakdown. [1]

## What do Drata's GRC plans include?

Foundation covers one pre-mapped framework for an organisation of up to 50 full-time employees, Advanced opens the framework choice, and Enterprise adds the Pro risk and compliance-as-code modules plus user access review. [1]

Foundation's inclusion list is broader than its limits suggest: pre-built integrations, Trust Center Standard, AI Questionnaire Assistance Standard, risk management, custom controls, compliance as code and Open API access. [1] The constraint is the framework. Foundation's single framework must be SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA or GDPR. [1]

Drata's catalogue is much wider. It advertises 30+ pre-built frameworks, including DORA, FedRAMP, CMMC, NIS 2, Essential Eight and CPS 230. [3] An organisation whose first obligation sits outside Foundation's five needs either Advanced, which lists "Any Available Framework", or Foundation's Additional Frameworks add-on. [1] The page doesn't say whether that add-on lifts the five-framework restriction.

Advanced adds custom connections and tests, and custom fields and formulas. [1] Its framework line gives no count, and Additional Frameworks stays on the add-on list for Advanced and Enterprise. [1] The number of frameworks either tier includes is a term to settle in the quote.

Enterprise adds Risk Management Pro, Compliance as Code Pro and User Access Review. [1] Two of those move from the add-on list to the inclusion list as a buyer steps up. User Access Review is an add-on on Foundation and Advanced, and Risk Management Pro is an add-on on Advanced. [1] Custom Frameworks and Workspaces remain add-ons on both Advanced and Enterprise, and Enterprise's add-on list also carries Additional Custom Tests and Agentic TPRM Assessment. [1]

The decision changes at the add-ons. A Foundation or Advanced quote that already carries User Access Review and Risk Management Pro belongs beside an Enterprise quote, because Enterprise includes both.

## What do Drata's Assurance plans include?

The Assurance plans combine Drata's Trust Center with AI Questionnaire Assistance, and the tiers differ mainly on access limits and integrations with sales and identity systems. [1]

Assurance Foundation includes a branded Trust Center that hosts security reports, documents and policies, up to 100 approved domains, a knowledge base, clickwrap NDA support, automated access approvals, a custom URL, SAML/SSO (JIT), Slack and Teams integration, and document sync from Drata only. [1] Its questionnaire allowance is AI assistance for 10 questionnaires, with upload through the app, multi-language support, a Chrome extension and responses through Slack. Additional approved domains and additional questionnaires are add-ons. [1]

Advanced adds configurable access expiration dates, Docusign and Ironclad NDA integration, SCIM, one Open API access and one webhook access, standard Salesforce and HubSpot integrations, document sync from Drata and Google Drive, internal product portals for questionnaire assistance, and support for Word, PDF and TXT files. [1]

Enterprise adds enterprise dashboards, unlimited Open API and webhook access, Pro Salesforce and HubSpot integrations, a Microsoft Dynamics integration, custom permission profiles, data warehouse sync and Microsoft Purview. [1] On the questionnaire side it adds upload in Salesforce, upload through the API, status webhooks and what Drata calls questionnaire-driven revenue through the Salesforce integration. [1]

The page's comparison table sets approved domains at up to 100, up to 300 and unlimited across the three tiers. [1] It gives a different questionnaire figure from the Foundation card, though. The table's row for questionnaire upload via app reads "Standard Up to 100" for Foundation, against the card's 10 questionnaires. [1] Confirm which limit governs before signing.

One overlap also needs settling. GRC Foundation already lists Trust Center Standard and AI Questionnaire Assistance Standard. [1] The page doesn't say how those compare with Assurance Foundation, so a buyer taking both lines should ask whether the quote counts the same Trust Center twice.

## Where does Third-Party Risk Management fit?

Third-Party Risk Management is a separate listing with a capability list and no tiers. Drata's line for it reads "Defensible, evidence-based vendor decisions powered by agentic AI". [1]

Its listed capabilities include vendor inventory sync and enrichment, vendor questionnaire automation, custom risk rules and criteria, inherent and residual risk tiering, automated assessment reports, agentic evidence collection from Trust Centers, agentic follow-up and re-assessment, and a third-party risk register. [1] GRC Enterprise separately lists Agentic TPRM Assessment as an add-on. [1] The page doesn't explain how that add-on relates to the standalone product, so a buyer who needs vendor risk should price both routes.

## What does Drata publish instead of a price?

Drata publishes plan limits, inclusion lists and a route to its sales team. The page carries the label "Plans and Pricing", its pricing call to action is "Get Personalized Pricing", which links to Drata's contact-sales page, and the Enterprise column of its comparison table carries a Contact Sales button. [1]

The drata.com/pricing address, captured the same day, carried Drata's agentic trust platform material, product descriptions and three customer stages (Startup, Growth and Enterprise). It showed no plan list and no price. [2]

Drata's own SOC 2 cost guide follows the same pattern. It lists compliance platform subscriptions among the recurring costs of SOC 2, and treats security tools, internal team time, readiness and remediation as costs beyond the audit fee. It puts no figure on Drata's own subscription. [6]

A vendor page establishes what the vendor says, and our [research standard](/methodology) treats it that way. Here that cuts in the buyer's favour. The plan limits above are Drata's own statements, which is why they can be written into a quote and held to.

## Why do other published figures for Drata disagree?

Other pages publish Drata figures because Drata doesn't. Those figures are third-party estimates on different bases, and some are tied to plan descriptions that no longer match Drata's page. [4] [5]

Bright Defense, which describes itself as a Drata Gold Partner, prints Drata starting figures and labels them user-reported. The same page states that neither Vanta nor Drata publicly shares pricing on its website. [5]

SmartSuite, which presents its own GRC platform as a Drata alternative, attributes its Drata tier estimates to TrustRadius and its median to Vendr. [4] Its page carries a review date of 11 December 2025 and describes six plans, including SafeBase-branded Trust Center plans and a Drata Foundation plan with standard Risk Management and Vendor Risk Management modules. It gives the entry SafeBase plan up to 25 approved domains. [4]

Drata's page on 28 September 2026 reads differently. Assurance Foundation allows up to 100 approved domains, GRC Foundation lists risk management with no vendor risk module, and third-party risk has its own listing. [1]

An estimate pinned to a plan name inherits whatever that plan contained on the day the estimate was collected. Read a published Drata figure as a report about a scope that may not match the current plan. Compare scope before comparing numbers.

## What will a Drata quote turn on?

The published limits name the variables: headcount, framework count, tier, add-ons, approved domains and questionnaire volume. [1] Bright Defense states that Drata's pricing is based on the number of frameworks and the employee count. [5] SmartSuite reports that Drata's website describes each plan as offering a fixed number of frameworks and features, with flexible add-ons. [4]

Ask for a quote that states, in writing:

1. The plan line and tier for GRC, Assurance and Third-Party Risk Management, each priced separately.
2. The employee band, and what happens on Foundation when headcount passes 50.
3. The frameworks included, by name.
4. Each add-on by name, including Additional Frameworks and User Access Review.
5. The approved-domain limit and the questionnaire limit, with the 10-versus-100 discrepancy resolved.
6. Term length and renewal terms, which the plans page doesn't state.

Then budget the rest. Drata's SOC 2 cost guide lists audit fees, readiness work, security tools and internal team time alongside the platform subscription, so the Drata quote is one line of the compliance budget. [6]

Drata's structure is one way to package this work. Our [Laika and Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide) sets two other compliance-automation systems side by side.

## What Drata's plans page cannot tell you

- A price for any plan, product or add-on.
- How many frameworks Advanced and Enterprise include.
- Which questionnaire limit governs Assurance Foundation: 10 on the plan card or up to 100 in the comparison table.
- What the note "First 25 Free" beside the approved-domains row means for billing.
- How GRC Foundation's Trust Center Standard relates to the Assurance Foundation plan.
- Contract length, renewal terms or discounts.
- Which features the comparison table marks against each tier. The table shows inclusion with marks that don't survive as text, so this article reports only the plan cards and the table's written values.

The verdict changes if Drata publishes a list price or a per-employee rate. Until then, Drata costs whatever the written quote says. Glamdring's [email briefing](/subscribe) carries new research as it's published.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does Drata have a free plan or free trial?

Drata's plans page lists no free plan, and every listing leads to a demo request or sales. [1] SmartSuite reports that Drata offers a limited free trial on request to its sales team, citing TrustRadius. [4] The Drata pages checked for this article don't mention a trial.

### How do you judge whether Drata is good value?

Judge it quote against quote, on the same scope. Price the same frameworks, headcount band, add-ons and Trust Center limits from each shortlisted vendor. Then add the audit fees, tools and internal time that Drata's own SOC 2 cost guide lists outside the subscription. [6] Without a published price, there's no public figure to judge value against.

### What is Drata valued at?

The most recent figure in the sources checked here is $2 billion, the valuation reported for Drata's $200 million Series C, announced in December 2022. [5] That figure comes from Bright Defense, a Drata partner. It's a funding-round valuation from 2022, not a current market value.

### Is Drata cheaper than Vanta?

The published evidence can't settle it. Bright Defense states that neither Vanta nor Drata publicly shares pricing on its website, and this article checked only Drata's own pages. [5] Request both quotes on the same frameworks, headcount and Trust Center needs, then compare them line by line.

## Source notes
1. Plans That Scale with Your Mission (Plans and Pricing): https://drata.com/plans (checked September 28, 2026)
2. drata.com/pricing (captured content: Explore the World of Agentic Trust): https://drata.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Take Advantage of 30+ Pre-Built Frameworks: https://drata.com/frameworks (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Drata Pricing: Is It Worth It In 2026? [Reviewed]: https://www.smartsuite.com/blog/drata-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Drata vs Vanta: A Comprehensive Comparison (updated September 27, 2026): https://www.brightdefense.com/resources/drata-vs-vanta-a-comparison/ (checked September 28, 2026)
6. How Much Does a SOC 2 Audit Cost?: https://drata.com/learn/soc-2/cost (checked September 28, 2026)

# Expensify pricing: Collect and Control, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/expensify-pricing
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Collect at $5 per member per month is the only fixed paid price Expensify publishes; Control is quoted, with $9 per active member per month as its stated floor. A 10-person team pays $50 a month on Collect at the listed rate.

Expensify's Collect plan costs $5 per member per month. Control has custom pricing, listed as low as $9 per active member per month, and Submit is free for all members. [1] Those are the figures on Expensify's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. A 10-person team on Collect pays $50 a month at the listed rate. The page doesn't say whether that rate assumes an annual commitment or card use.

## TL;DR

- Collect is the only fixed paid price Expensify publishes. Control is quoted; $9 per active member per month is its floor, not its price. [1]
- The billing unit differs by plan. Collect charges per member; Control charges per active member. The pricing page defines neither term. [1]
- Ten people cost $0 on Submit, $50 a month on Collect and at least $90 a month on Control, before discounts and tax. [1]
- Discounts exist for annual commitments and Expensify Card use, with card savings of up to 50%. The page gives no discount rate for annual terms. [1]
- Third-party pages still quote older flat or pay-per-use rates. [2] Use the vendor page and a written quote, not a review site, to set a budget.

## How these prices were checked

Every price here comes from one source: Expensify's public pricing page at use.expensify.com/pricing, captured on 28 September 2026 and recorded under our [research methodology](/methodology). [1] The page carries a currency selector for USD, GBP, AUD, NZD and EUR, and the capture recorded the dollar display. [1] The page states no tax treatment, so every figure below is shown as listed, with tax status unknown.

The team-cost figures are our own arithmetic: the listed rate multiplied by 10 people and by 12 months, with the inputs shown in the table. Expensify sits in our [spend management category](/categories/spend-management) alongside other expense and card systems.

## What does each Expensify plan cost?

Expensify lists three plans: Submit at no charge, Collect at $5 per member per month, and Control at a custom price starting as low as $9 per active member per month. [1]

| Plan | Listed price (checked 28 September 2026) | Billing unit | Expensify's description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Submit | Free | All members | The free plan for employees, no company approval needed |
| Collect | $5 per member per month | Member | The small business plan for expense, travel and chat |
| Control | Custom pricing, as low as $9 per active member per month | Active member | Expense, travel and chat for larger businesses | [1]

Expensify's own answer to "how much does Expensify cost?" is that most businesses start on Collect, and that Control is available at a custom price. [1] The $9 figure is therefore a floor. A Control buyer should expect a quote, and the quote is the number to budget against.

The free tier is broader than the plan table suggests. Expensify says SmartScanning receipts, sending and receiving money and chatting with coworkers through New Expensify are always free. [1]

## What counts as a member?

The pricing page doesn't define a member. It bills Collect "per member" and Control "per active member", and it never says what makes a member active. [1]

The difference in wording matters to the bill. Read plainly, Control's unit excludes members who are not active in a month, while Collect's unit carries no such qualifier. That reading comes from the wording alone. The page gives no rule for either unit: whether an approver who submits nothing counts, whether an admin counts, or over what period activity is measured.

Expensify's help centre lists a separate article, "Learn About Billing Terms and Definitions", under Billing & Subscriptions. [3] That article, not the pricing page, is where the definition should sit. Confirm the definition in writing before counting heads for a budget.

The one member count the pricing page does attach to a term is the account manager. Its footnote says that feature is "Available on accounts of 100+ members." [1]

## What does Expensify cost for a 10-person team?

At the listed rates, 10 people cost $50 a month on Collect and at least $90 a month on Control, assuming all 10 count as billable members. [1]

| Plan | Listed rate | Monthly cost, 10 people | Annual cost, 10 people |
|---|---|---|---|
| Submit | Free | $0 | $0 |
| Collect | $5 per member per month | $50 | $600 |
| Control | As low as $9 per active member per month | From $90 (quoted) | From $1,080 (quoted) |

The estimate assumes every person is a billable member in every month, the listed dollar rate, no discount and no tax. Control's figures are floors, because the price is custom.

Ten people is also a boundary on Expensify's own sign-up path. The homepage splits new companies into "Manage expenses for 1-9 employees" and "Manage expenses for 10+ employees". [4] The pricing page ties neither Collect nor Control to a headcount; it only calls Collect the small business plan and Control the plan for larger businesses. [1] A 10-person team can buy either plan on the published terms. The decision changes on features, not headcount: Control is the plan with multiple approval flows, ERP integration with NetSuite or Sage Intacct, SAML/SSO and budgeting. [1]

## What changes the price: annual terms and the Expensify Card

Two levers move the bill: an annual commitment and the Expensify Card. The pricing page says "Discounts are available for annual commitments and when using the Expensify Card." [1]

The card lever has a stated ceiling. The plan comparison lists "Save up to 50% on Expensify" under the Expensify Card. [1] The homepage says the card "lowers your Expensify bill". [4] Neither page says what spend or share of members on the card earns the full 50%.

The annual lever has no stated size. The page names the discount and gives no percentage.

That leaves one open question for any budget: are $5 and $9 the rates before these discounts, or after them? The page doesn't say. We have not applied the 50% figure to the team-cost table for that reason. Applying it to a rate that may already include it would halve the bill twice.

The card also pays cash back, which offsets the subscription separately. The footnote reads: "The Expensify Card offers 1% cash back on all US purchases (no minimums) and 2% cash back for monthly spend over $250K." [1] Outside the US, the page states no cash-back rate.

## What do Collect and Control include?

Collect covers the core expense cycle plus travel; Control adds approval depth, ERP and HR integrations, single sign-on and budgeting. [1]

| Plan | Features listed on the plan card |
|---|---|
| Submit | Receipt scanning, mileage tracking, expense reports, categories and tags, custom distance and tax rates, personal card import, chat on every expense, AI and human support |
| Collect | Receipt scanning, reimbursements, corporate card management, expense and travel approvals, travel booking and rules, QuickBooks/Xero integrations, chat on expenses, reports and rooms, AI and human support |
| Control | Everything in Collect, plus multiple approval flows, custom expense rules, ERP integration (NetSuite, Sage Intacct), HR integrations with Workday/Certinia, SAML/SSO, custom insights and reporting, budgeting | [1]

On the plan cards, Collect connects to QuickBooks and Xero, while NetSuite and Sage Intacct appear only under Control. [1] A finance team on either of those ERPs should price Control, not Collect.

The page's larger comparison grid also lists travel, chat, bills and invoicing features. [1] The captured page does not show which plan column each of those rows belongs to, so this article does not assign them to a plan.

## Why do other published Expensify prices disagree?

Other pages describe earlier billing, or treat the Control floor as a fixed price. The current pricing page lists Control as custom pricing. [1]

TrustRadius lists Control at "$9 per month / per user" as a flat plan price. [2] Its explanatory text describes a monthly fee with an annual commitment, and a table of pay-per-use rates of $10 and $18 per active user per month for Collect and Control. [2] Its plan table also names Track and Submit plans limited to 25 SmartScans a month. [2] Expensify's current page shows none of those rates or scan limits. [1] Treat those figures as a record of an older billing model, not a current rate.

A Hoppier review updated 29 August 2025 describes Collect as "Ideal for small businesses with up to nine employees". [5] That headcount comes from the review. The current pricing page sets no such limit. [1]

## What the pricing page cannot tell you

The pricing page publishes a unit and a starting rate. It leaves out the terms that decide the final invoice:

- The definition of a member and of an active member.
- Whether $5 and $9 are monthly, annual-commitment or card-discounted rates.
- The size of the annual discount, and the conditions for the full 50% card saving.
- Tax treatment and the exact currency of the dollar figures.
- Control's actual price for a given team.

Expensify's pricing FAQ directs custom pricing questions to Concierge in the account or to concierge@expensify.com. [1] Confirm these five points in the current quote before a budget is set. More source-dated work sits in our [research archive](/research).

For a team weighing other spend systems, our [Center and Ramp comparison](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) sets two of them side by side.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Expensify still free?

Yes, for part of the product. The Submit plan is listed as free for all members, and individuals can use New Expensify with unlimited SmartScans at no charge. [1] The page is inconsistent on one point: Submit's plan card lists categories and tags, while the FAQ says "additional functionality such as expense categorization requires a paid plan". [1] Test categorisation in a free account before relying on it.

### Who gets an Expensify account manager?

Accounts of 100 or more members. The pricing page lists an account manager among support features and footnotes it as "Available on accounts of 100+ members." [1] A 10-person team does not qualify on the published terms.

### How do you get a Control price?

Ask Expensify for a quote. Control is listed as custom pricing, and the FAQ directs pricing questions to Concierge or concierge@expensify.com. [1] Ask for the per-member rate with and without the annual commitment and the Expensify Card, so the discounts can be seen separately.

New research goes out in a free email briefing. [Subscribe to our research](/subscribe).

## Source notes
1. Expensify pricing and plans: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Expensify Pricing 2026: https://www.trustradius.com/products/expensify/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Billing & Subscriptions (help centre hub): https://help.expensify.com/new-expensify/hubs/billing-and-subscriptions/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Expensify homepage: https://www.expensify.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Expensify Review: Pricing, Features, and More: https://www.hoppier.com/blog/expensify-review (checked September 28, 2026)

# Gemini API free tier limits: Google docs, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/gemini-api-free-tier-limits
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Google's free tier covers 23 of 35 Gemini API model entries, checked 28 September 2026, but Google publishes no free-tier RPM, TPM or RPD figures; they appear per project in AI Studio and aren't guaranteed.

The Gemini API free tier covers 23 of the 35 model entries on Google's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, with input and output tokens free of charge on models including Gemini 3.8 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Flash. [1] Google doesn't print the free tier's per-minute or per-day limits in its documentation. It shows them per project in Google AI Studio. [2] Those limits count requests per minute, input tokens per minute and requests per day, and the daily quota resets at midnight Pacific time. [2]

The page that holds your project's numbers asks for a Google sign-in. [3]

## TL;DR

- **Free models:** 23 of 35 pricing-page entries are free of charge on the free tier. They're mostly Flash, Flash-Lite, Live, speech, transcription and embedding models, plus Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemma 4. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, every image-output model, Veo 3.1 and Lyria are paid only.
- **Rate limits:** Google defines the limits (RPM, input TPM, RPD) but publishes no free-tier figures for them. Read your own project's numbers in AI Studio and treat them as capacity Google doesn't guarantee.
- **Fixed daily numbers:** the only ones Google prints for the free tier are grounding allowances, 500 requests a day for Google Search and for Google Maps on Gemini 2.5 Flash and Flash-Lite.
- **Paid tier:** Tier 1 starts when you link an active billing account. It adds higher rate limits, the Batch API at 50% lower cost, context caching, Google's most advanced models, and it stops Google using your content to improve its products.
- **Verdict:** the free tier suits prototyping and model evaluation. Private data and production volume belong on a paid tier.

## How these limits were checked

This page reads Google's two governing documents on 28 September 2026, and it sits inside our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure). The first is the Gemini API rate limits page, last updated 2026-09-02 UTC. [2] The second is the Gemini Developer API pricing page, last updated 2026-09-24 UTC. [1]

The field used is the **Free Tier** column of each model's first pricing table. A model counts as free when its input price there reads "Free of charge". The pricing page lists 35 model entries. Twenty-three pass that test and 12 read "Not available". Grouped entries, such as the one covering Gemini 3.8 Live and Gemini 3.1 Flash Live Preview, count once.

The AI Studio rate limit page, where per-project numbers live, returned a sign-in screen and no figures. [3] Everything below is Google's own statement of its terms, exactly as Google publishes them, checked 28 September 2026. A project's working capacity appears only in AI Studio, and Google says it may vary. [2] The [research standard behind this page](/methodology) explains how dated vendor figures are handled.

## Which Gemini models are free on the Gemini API?

Twenty-three Gemini API model entries are free of charge on the free tier, checked 28 September 2026. They include Gemini 3.8, 3.7, 3.6 and 3.5 Flash, Gemini 3 Flash Preview, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Flash and Flash-Lite, the Live and transcription models, every text-to-speech model except Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS, Gemini Embedding 2 and Gemma 4. [1] The 12 paid-only entries are Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, the four image models, Veo 3.1, both Lyria entries, Gemini Omni Flash and its preview, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS and Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview. [1]

| Model entry on Google's pricing page | API model code | Free tier |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | `gemini-3.8-flash` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.7 Flash | `gemini-3.7-flash` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | `gemini-3.6-flash` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | `gemini-3.5-flash` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.8 Live, 3.8 Live Extended Thinking, 3.1 Flash Live Preview | `gemini-3.8-live` and two others | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.5 Live Translate | `gemini-3.5-live-translate-preview` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.5 Transcribe Live | `gemini-3.5-transcribe-live` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.5 Transcribe | `gemini-3.5-transcribe` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | `gemini-3.5-flash-lite` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | `gemini-3.1-flash-lite` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash TTS | `gemini-3.8-flash-tts` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash-Lite TTS | `gemini-3.8-flash-lite-tts` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS Preview | `gemini-3.1-flash-tts-preview` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | `gemini-3-flash-preview` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | `gemini-2.5-pro` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | `gemini-2.5-flash` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | `gemini-2.5-flash-lite` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash Native Audio (Live API) | `gemini-2.5-flash-native-audio-preview-12-2025` | Free of charge |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview TTS | `gemini-2.5-flash-preview-tts` | Free of charge |
| Gemini Embedding 2 | `gemini-embedding-2` | Free of charge |
| Gemini Robotics ER 2 Preview | `gemini-robotics-er-2-preview` | Free of charge |
| Gemini Robotics ER 2 Streaming Preview | `gemini-robotics-er-2-streaming-preview` | Free of charge |
| Gemma 4 | not listed | Free of charge |
| Gemini Omni Flash | `gemini-omni-1.1-flash` | Not available |
| Gemini Omni Flash Preview | `gemini-omni-flash-preview` | Not available |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | `gemini-3.1-pro-preview` | Not available |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash Image (Nano Banana 2) | `gemini-3.1-flash-image` | Not available |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image (Nano Banana 2 Lite) | `gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image` | Not available |
| Gemini 3 Pro Image (Nano Banana Pro) | `gemini-3-pro-image` | Not available |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) | `gemini-2.5-flash-image` | Not available |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS | `gemini-2.5-pro-preview-tts` | Not available |
| Veo 3.1 | `veo-3.1-generate-preview` and two others | Not available |
| Lyria 3.5 | `lyria-3.5` | Not available |
| Lyria 3 | `lyria-3-clip-preview`, `lyria-3-pro-preview` | Not available |
| Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview | `gemini-2.5-computer-use-preview-10-2025` | Not available |

Text, speech and embedding work is free across the Flash line, while image, video and music generation is paid only. The one Pro-class model on the free tier is the older Gemini 2.5 Pro. The current Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview reads "Not available". [1]

Gemma 4 runs the other way. Its free column reads "Free of charge" and its paid column reads "Not available", so it's a free-tier-only entry on this API. [1]

"Free" also has a narrow meaning here. It applies to standard interactive calls. For Gemini 3.8 Flash, the alternative pricing tables on the same page show "Not available" in the free column, and Google lists the Batch API as a paid feature. [1]

## What are the Gemini API free tier's requests and tokens per minute and per day?

Google doesn't publish the free tier's requests per minute, tokens per minute or requests per day as numbers in its Gemini API documentation, checked 28 September 2026. Its rate limits page says limits depend on factors such as usage tier and "can be viewed in Google AI Studio", and that specified limits aren't guaranteed. [2] What Google does publish is how each limit is counted.

| Limit | What Google counts | Window | Free-tier figure in Google's docs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **RPM** | Requests per minute | One minute | Not published; shown in AI Studio |
| **TPM** | Tokens per minute (input) | One minute | Not published; shown in AI Studio |
| **RPD** | Requests per day | Resets at midnight Pacific time | Not published; shown in AI Studio |
| **IPM** | Images per minute, image-generating models only | One minute | Not published |
| **TPD** | Tokens per day, on some models | One day | Not published |

The first three dimensions are the standard set. [2] IPM applies only to models that generate images, and some other models carry a tokens-per-day limit. [2]

Three details change how a free project behaves. Each limit is enforced on its own, so exceeding any one of them triggers a rate limit error even when the others have headroom. Google's example uses an RPM limit of 20, where a 21st request inside a minute fails. [2] Google offers the 20-request figure as an illustration; its documentation attaches it to no tier.

Limits apply per project, not per API key. [2] A second key in the same project draws on the same quota.

Preview and experimental models carry tighter limits than stable ones. [2] Several free entries in the table above are previews, so the model choice alone can shrink a free project's headroom.

The practical step is to open the AI Studio rate limit page for the project and record the RPM, TPM and RPD it shows, with the date. Google says those numbers update automatically as tier and account status change. [2]

## Which free-tier limits does Google publish as fixed numbers?

Google publishes two fixed daily free-tier limits: 500 grounded requests a day with Google Search and 500 a day with Google Maps, on Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite. [1] The Google Search allowance is shared between those two models, and neither grounding tool is available on the free tier for Pro. [1]

The Gemini 3.x models work differently. Gemini 3.8 Flash shows grounding with Google Search as "Not available" on the free tier. [1] Other Gemini 3.x tables, such as Gemini 3.6 Flash, add a footnote saying the feature "Can be tested in Google AI Studio", which is a different surface from the API. [1]

Some tools cost nothing on the free tier. Code execution and URL context both read "Free of charge". [1] Google AI Studio itself is free of charge in all available regions. [1]

Spend-based rate limits don't apply to the free tier. Google lists them as "N/A" for Free. [2]

## What changes on the Gemini API paid tier?

The Gemini API paid tier begins at Tier 1, which a project reaches by setting up and linking an active billing account. [2] Google lists five changes: higher rate limits for production deployments, access to context caching, the Batch API at a 50% cost reduction, access to its most advanced models, and content **not** used to improve Google's products. [1] The free tier's own card says content is used to improve Google's products. [1]

Paid tiers also bring a spend-based rate limit, evaluated per 10 minutes, and a billing tier cap.

| Usage tier | How a project qualifies | Billing tier cap | Spend rate limit per 10 minutes |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Free | Active project or free trial | N/A | N/A |
| Tier 1 | Set up and link an active billing account | $250 | $10 |
| Tier 2 | Paid $100 + 3 days from first successful payment | $2,000 | $50 |
| Tier 3 | Paid $1,000 + 30 days from first successful payment | $20,000 - $100,000+ | $200 |

Figures are as Google gives them on its rate limits page, which doesn't state a currency. [2] Hitting the spend limit returns a `429 RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED` error. [2]

Tier 2 and Tier 3 count cumulative spending on all Google Cloud services on the linked billing account, including the Gemini API. Google also says an upgrade request can, in rare cases, be denied even when the criteria are met. [2] The move from Free to Tier 1 typically takes effect instantly, and later upgrades within 10 minutes. [2]

One line on Google's pricing page needs care. The paid card lists context caching as a paid feature. [1] Yet the Gemini 3.8 Flash table shows context caching as "Free of charge" in the free column, while the Gemini 2.5 Flash, 2.5 Flash-Lite and 2.5 Pro tables show it as "Not available". [1] Confirm caching on the model you plan to use before designing around it.

## What does the Gemini API paid tier cost per million tokens?

Among the seven free-tier models below, paid input prices run from $0.10 per million tokens on Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite to $2.50 on Gemini 2.5 Pro prompts above 200k tokens, in US dollars, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Google's pricing page doesn't state tax treatment. Output prices include thinking tokens.

| Model | Input, USD per 1M tokens | Output, USD per 1M tokens |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | $0.75 through 31 December 2026; $1.50 from 1 January 2027 | $3.75 through 31 December 2026; $7.50 from 1 January 2027 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | $1.50 | $9.00 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | $0.30 | $2.50 |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | $0.25 text, image, video; $0.50 audio | $1.50 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | $1.25 up to 200k-token prompts; $2.50 above | $10.00 up to 200k-token prompts; $15.00 above |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | $0.30 text, image, video; $1.00 audio | $2.50 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | $0.10 text, image, video; $0.30 audio | $0.40 |

Sources for each row: Gemini 3.8 Flash [1], Gemini 3.5 Flash [1], Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite [1], Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite [1], Gemini 2.5 Pro [1], Gemini 2.5 Flash [1] and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite [1].

The dated Gemini 3.8 Flash prices change the comparison. Until 31 December 2026 its input price is half that of Gemini 3.5 Flash. From 1 January 2027 both list $1.50 for input, and Gemini 3.8 Flash stays lower on output at $7.50 against $9.00. [1]

On paid tiers, grounding also changes shape. Gemini 2.5 Flash and Flash-Lite share 1,500 free grounded Google Search requests a day, then pay $35 per 1,000 grounded prompts. Gemini 3.x models get 5,000 free search requests a month, then $14 per 1,000 requests. [1] Per-token price is only one input to a model bill; our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the rest of that model.

## Why do published Gemini free tier numbers disagree?

Published Gemini free tier numbers disagree because Google's documentation carries no fixed free-tier rate limit table to agree with. Limits are set per project, change automatically with tier and account status, and "are subject to change". [2] [1] Any fixed per-model RPM table found elsewhere reflects a moment and a source outside Google's current documentation.

A listed price and a working quota are also separate things. The pricing page says a model is "Free of charge" on the free tier. It doesn't say what quota a given project receives, and Google states that specified limits aren't guaranteed. [2] A thread on Google's own developer forum is titled "Gemini API - Free tier limit is 0, cannot use API despite valid key". [4]

Google's two pages also differ in detail. The pricing page's model tables describe the Gemini 3 search allowance as shared across all Gemini 3.x models. [1] The tools table on the same page says "shared across all Gemini models". [1] The context caching line noted above is a second example.

## What Google's pages cannot tell you

- **Your project's RPM, TPM and RPD.** Only the signed-in AI Studio page shows them. [2]
- **Whether that capacity holds.** Google says actual capacity may vary. [2]
- **The currency of the tier thresholds.** The rate limits page prints dollar signs without naming a currency. The pricing page is in US dollars and states no tax treatment. [2] [1]
- **When the terms move next.** The pricing page already schedules Gemini 3.8 Flash price rises for 1 January 2027. [1] This page should be re-checked when either Google page shows a new last-updated date.

New Glamdring research on model economics arrives through [the free email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is the Gemini API free to use?

Yes, within limits. Google's free tier offers free input and output tokens, Google AI Studio access and limited access to certain models, and content sent on the free tier is used to improve Google's products. [1] Checked 28 September 2026, 23 of the 35 model entries on the pricing page are free of charge on that tier.

### Is there a free tier for a Gemini API key?

Yes. The free tier applies to any active project or free trial, and its limits attach to the project. [2] Creating more keys in one project doesn't add quota.

### Does the Gemini API free tier have a daily limit?

Yes. Requests per day is one of the three standard limits, and it resets at midnight Pacific time. [2] Google doesn't publish the free-tier RPD figure in its documentation; AI Studio shows it per project. [2] The only fixed daily free-tier figures Google prints are the 500-request grounding allowances on Gemini 2.5 Flash and Flash-Lite. [1]

### Why can a free-tier model still refuse requests?

A model's "Free of charge" label on the pricing page says nothing about the quota your project receives for it. Google ties limits to the project's tier and account status, restricts preview models more tightly and doesn't guarantee specified limits. [2] Check the model's limit in AI Studio before building on it.

### How do you get past Gemini API free tier limits?

Move the project to a paid tier. Linking an active billing account puts it on Tier 1 with higher rate limits, typically at once. [2] Paid projects that still hit limits can request an increase, though Google offers no guarantee it will grant one. [2] Adding API keys doesn't help, because limits apply per project. [2]

## Source notes
1. Gemini Developer API pricing (Gemini 3.8 Flash, standard table): https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Rate limits | Gemini API: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/rate-limits (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Google AI Studio Rate Limits Dashboard: https://aistudio.google.com/rate-limit (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Gemini API - Free tier limit is 0, cannot use API despite valid key: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/gemini-api-free-tier-limit-is-0-cannot-use-api-despite-valid-key/114215 (checked September 28, 2026)

# Gemini API pricing for every model: Google, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/gemini-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the cheapest Gemini API language model at $0.10 input and $0.40 output per million tokens; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the dearest at $2.00 and $12.00, rising to $4.00 and $18.00 for prompts over 200,000 tokens.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the cheapest language model on the Gemini API, at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens on Google's published Gemini API pricing, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the most expensive, at $2.00 input and $12.00 output. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's rates rise to $4.00 and $18.00 for prompts over 200,000 tokens. [1] Gemini 3.8 Flash costs $0.75 and $3.75 until 31 December 2026, then doubles. [1]

## TL;DR

- Fourteen Gemini language models carry a per-token price. Standard paid-tier input runs from $0.10 per million tokens on Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite to $2.00 on Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. Output runs from $0.40 to $12.00. [1]
- In our 300,000-request worked example, Gemini 3.8 Flash costs $1,237.50 a month at Standard rates now and $2,475.00 from January. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite runs the same load for $150.00. [1] The list rate is one input to the bill; our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the others.
- Three models price by prompt length: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview. Past 200,000 tokens their input rate doubles and their output rate rises by half. [1] Google's Agent Platform page says the long-context rate then applies to every token in the request, so one token over the line nearly doubles the bill. [2]
- Gemini 3.8, 3.7 and 3.6 Flash sit on introductory pricing of $0.75 and $3.75 through 31 December 2026. From 1 January 2027 they cost $1.50 and $7.50. [1] Until then the newest Flash costs half the input rate of the older Gemini 3.5 Flash. [1]
- The free tier covers most Flash, Flash-Lite and 2.5 Pro models. The ranking excludes Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and every image and video model, and Google may use free-tier content to improve its products. [1]
- On Google's rate tables, Batch and Flex cost half of Standard and Priority costs 1.8 times Standard. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked every Gemini language model on Google's Gemini Developer API pricing page by one field: the paid-tier **Input price**, in US dollars per million tokens, at Standard rates. [1] Where a model prices by prompt length, the rank uses the rate for prompts of 200,000 tokens or fewer. Where a model prices text and audio separately, it uses the text rate. Where a price changes on 1 January 2027, it uses the rate in force on the checked date. [1] Equal input prices share a rank, and the order inside a tie follows the page.

The page was captured on 28 September 2026 and shows a last-updated date of 24 September 2026. [1] It holds 35 model pricing sections. Fourteen price a language model per token with both an input and an output rate, and those fourteen are ranked. Seventeen audio, speech, image, video and embedding sections sit in a separate table below. Veo 3.1 and the two Lyria sections price per second or per song, and Gemma 4 has no paid tier. [1] Prices are in US dollars. The page doesn't state whether tax is included. [1]

Each model's rates sit under tabs labelled Standard, Batch, Flex and Priority. The captured page shows the tables in that order without their labels. [1] Google's Agent Platform pricing page lists the same Priority and Flex/Batch rates for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Gemini 3.8 Flash, which confirms the order. [2] Ratios and workload costs in this article are Glamdring's arithmetic on the listed rates. How we treat company-published figures is set out in our [research methodology](/methodology).

## What does each Gemini language model cost per million tokens?

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the cheapest Gemini language model at $0.10 input and $0.40 output per million tokens. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the dearest at $2.00 and $12.00. Both figures are Standard paid-tier rates from Google's Gemini API pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

| Rank | Model | Model ID | Input (USD per 1M tokens) | Output incl. thinking (USD per 1M tokens) | Cached input (USD per 1M tokens) | Free tier |
|---|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| 1 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | gemini-2.5-flash-lite | $0.10 | $0.40 | $0.01 | Yes |
| 2 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | gemini-3.1-flash-lite | $0.25 | $1.50 | $0.025 | Yes |
| 3= | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | gemini-3.5-flash-lite | $0.30 | $2.50 | $0.03 | Yes |
| 3= | Gemini 2.5 Flash | gemini-2.5-flash | $0.30 | $2.50 | $0.03 | Yes |
| 5 | Gemini 3 Flash Preview | gemini-3-flash-preview | $0.50 | $3.00 | $0.05 | Yes |
| 6= | Gemini 3.8 Flash | gemini-3.8-flash | $0.75* | $3.75* | $0.075* | Yes |
| 6= | Gemini 3.7 Flash | gemini-3.7-flash | $0.75* | $3.75* | $0.075* | Yes |
| 6= | Gemini 3.6 Flash | gemini-3.6-flash | $0.75* | $3.75* | $0.075* | Yes |
| 9= | Gemini Robotics ER 2 Preview | gemini-robotics-er-2-preview | $1.00* | $5.00* | $0.10* | Yes |
| 9= | Gemini Robotics ER 2 Streaming Preview | gemini-robotics-er-2-streaming-preview | $1.00* | $5.00* | Not listed | Yes |
| 11= | Gemini 2.5 Pro | gemini-2.5-pro | $1.25 | $10.00 | $0.125 | Yes |
| 11= | Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview | gemini-2.5-computer-use-preview-10-2025 | $1.25 | $10.00 | Not listed | No |
| 13 | Gemini 3.5 Flash | gemini-3.5-flash | $1.50 | $9.00 | $0.15 | Yes |
| 14 | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | $2.00 | $12.00 | $0.20 | No |

\* Rate through 31 December 2026. Every figure is Google's listed Standard paid-tier rate as the page gives it; the three Pro-class rows show the rate for prompts of 200,000 tokens or fewer. [1]

Price doesn't follow version number. Gemini 3.5 Flash, which Google calls "Our earlier Flash model", is the dearest Flash on the page. [1] Its input rate is twice Gemini 3.8 Flash's and its output rate is 2.4 times higher. [1] Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite also costs more than the older Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite on both lines. [1]

The ranked field is the text input rate, and some models charge more for audio. Audio input costs $0.30 on Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, $0.50 on Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and $1.00 on both Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3 Flash Preview. [1] Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and the two Robotics models list one input rate across text, image, video and audio. [1] PDFs and other `DOCUMENT` tokens bill at the image token rate. [1]

Google's output rates include thinking tokens. [1] A model that reasons at length bills that reasoning at its output rate, which runs at 4 times the input rate on Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and about 8.3 times on Gemini 2.5 Flash. [1] Every model in this table with a caching price charges one-tenth of its input rate for cached tokens. Storage then costs $1.00 per million tokens per hour on most of them and $4.50 on the two Pro models. [1] The three current Flash models and the Robotics ER 2 Preview charge $0.50 per million tokens per hour for storage until the end of 2026. [1]

## Which Gemini models charge more for prompts over 200,000 tokens?

Glamdring Research found three Gemini models with prompt-length price tiers on Google's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview. [1] Each doubles its input rate and raises its output rate by half once a prompt exceeds 200,000 tokens. [1] Every other model on the page lists one rate at any prompt length. [1]

| Model | Input, prompts ≤200k | Input, prompts >200k | Output, prompts ≤200k | Output, prompts >200k | Cached input, ≤200k / >200k |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | $2.00 | $4.00 | $12.00 | $18.00 | $0.20 / $0.40 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | $1.25 | $2.50 | $10.00 | $15.00 | $0.125 / $0.25 |
| Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview | $1.25 | $2.50 | $10.00 | $15.00 | Not listed |

All prices are USD per million tokens at Standard paid-tier rates. [1]

The tier is set by the prompt. Google's Developer API tables label both the input and the output line by prompt size, as "prompts <= 200k tokens" and "prompts > 200k". [1] Google's Agent Platform page states the rule in full: "If a query input context is longer than 200K tokens, all tokens (input and output) are charged at long context rates." [2] The Developer API page doesn't repeat that sentence, so confirm the behaviour on your first long-context invoice.

Read that way, the threshold works as a cliff. One request with a 5,000-token answer costs:

| Prompt size | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---:|---:|
| 200,000 tokens | $0.46 | $0.30 |
| 200,001 tokens | $0.89 | $0.58 |
| 500,000 tokens | $2.09 | $1.33 |

Figures are Glamdring's arithmetic on the listed Standard rates, rounded to the cent. They assume every token bills at the long-context rate once the prompt passes 200,000 tokens. [1]

The decision changes at the line. On Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview a 210,000-token prompt costs $0.93 with the same answer, and a 199,000-token prompt costs $0.46. [1] Trimming 11,000 tokens of retrieved context halves that request's cost. A retrieval system that packs context to the model's limit should cap its prompts at 200,000 tokens unless the extra material changes the answer.

Batch and Flex keep the same two tiers at half price. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview costs $1.00 and $2.00 for input and $6.00 and $9.00 for output under Batch. [1]

## What do Gemini's audio, image, video and embedding models cost?

Gemini's audio, speech, image, video and embedding models are priced per million tokens like the language models. Google also gives a per-minute, per-image or per-second equivalent for most of them, and that is the unit to budget in. [1]

| Model | Input (USD per 1M tokens) | Output (USD per 1M tokens) | Google's stated equivalent | Free tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 3.8 Live, 3.8 Live Extended Thinking and 3.1 Flash Live Preview | $0.75 text; $3.00 audio; $1.00 image/video | $4.50 text; $12.00 audio | $0.005/min audio in; $0.002/min image/video in; $0.018/min audio out | Yes |
| Gemini 3.5 Live Translate | $3.50 audio | $21.00 audio | About $0.0368 per minute | Yes |
| Gemini 3.5 Transcribe Live | $3.50 audio | $21.00 text | About $0.009 per minute, blended | Yes |
| Gemini 3.5 Transcribe | $2.00 audio | $12.00 text | About $0.005 per minute, blended | Yes |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash Native Audio (Live API) | $0.50 text; $3.00 audio/video | $2.00 text; $12.00 audio | Not given | Yes |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash TTS | $0.50 text* | $9.00 audio* | $0.00225 per 10s of audio* | Yes |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash-Lite TTS | $0.50 text* | $6.00 audio* | $0.0015 per 10s of audio* | Yes |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS Preview | $1.00 text | $20.00 audio | Not given | Yes |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview TTS | $0.50 text | $10.00 audio | Not given | Yes |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS | $1.00 text | $20.00 audio | Not given | No |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash Image (Nano Banana 2) | $0.50 text/image | $3 text and thinking; $60.00 images | $0.067 per 1K image; $0.151 per 4K image | No |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image (Nano Banana 2 Lite) | $0.25 | $1.50 text and thinking; $30.00 images | $0.0336 per 1K image | No |
| Gemini 3 Pro Image (Nano Banana Pro) | $2.00 text/image | $12.00 text and thinking; $120.00 images | $0.134 per 1K or 2K image; $0.24 per 4K image | No |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) | $0.30 text/image | $30 per 1M image tokens | $0.039 per image | No |
| Gemini Omni Flash | $1.50 | $9.00 text; $17.50 video | About $0.10 per second of 720p video | No |
| Gemini Omni Flash Preview | $1.50 | $9.00 text; $17.50 video | About $0.10 per second of 720p video | No |
| Gemini Embedding 2 | $0.20 text; $0.45 image; $6.50 audio; $12.00 video | Not applicable | $0.00012 per image; $0.00016 per second of audio; $0.00079 per frame | Yes |

\* Rate through 31 December 2026. All figures are Standard paid-tier rates as the page gives them. [1]

Three sections price outside tokens. Veo 3.1 Standard costs $0.40 a second at 720p and 1080p and $0.60 at 4k. Veo 3.1 Fast costs $0.10, $0.12 and $0.30 at those resolutions. Veo 3.1 Lite costs $0.05 at 720p and $0.08 at 1080p, with no 4k output. [1] Lyria 3.5 costs $0.08 per full song. Lyria 3 Clip Preview costs $0.04 per 30-second clip and Lyria 3 Pro Preview $0.08 per song. [1] None of the Veo or Lyria models has a free tier. [1] Gemma 4 runs the other way: it is free of charge on the free tier and has no paid tier. [1]

The per-second units make video comparable. Gemini Omni Flash bills 5,792 output tokens per second of 720p video, so a 10-second clip costs about $1.01 at $17.50 per million tokens. [1] The same 10 seconds cost $1.00 on Veo 3.1 Fast, $0.50 on Veo 3.1 Lite and $4.00 on Veo 3.1 Standard. [1] Google describes Omni Flash as a video generation and editing model, so the price gap buys a different capability. [1]

## What changes on 1 January 2027?

Seven Gemini models double their token prices on 1 January 2027 on Google's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. They are Gemini 3.8, 3.7 and 3.6 Flash, Gemini 3.8 Flash TTS, Gemini 3.8 Flash-Lite TTS, and the two Gemini Robotics ER 2 previews. [1] Google's Agent Platform page calls the current Flash rate "introductory pricing". [2]

| Model | Input now | Input from 1 Jan 2027 | Output now | Output from 1 Jan 2027 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Gemini 3.8, 3.7 and 3.6 Flash | $0.75 | $1.50 | $3.75 | $7.50 |
| Gemini Robotics ER 2 Preview and Streaming Preview | $1.00 | $2.00 | $5.00 | $10.00 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash TTS | $0.50 | $1.00 | $9.00 | $18.00 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash-Lite TTS | $0.50 | $1.00 | $6.00 | $12.00 |

All prices are USD per million tokens at Standard paid-tier rates. [1]

Cached input and storage double with them. Gemini 3.8 Flash moves from $0.075 to $0.15 per million cached tokens and from $0.50 to $1.00 per million tokens per hour of storage. [1]

The change reorders the ranking. If no other price moves, the three current Flash models fall from a tie at sixth to a four-way tie with Gemini 3.5 Flash at $1.50 input. [1] The Robotics previews reach $2.00, level with Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. [1] Gemini 3.8 Flash keeps a lower output rate than Gemini 3.5 Flash, at $7.50 against $9.00. [1] Any 2027 budget built on September rates for these seven models is half the true figure.

## How do Batch, Flex and Priority change the price?

Batch and Flex cost half of Standard on every Gemini language model that lists them, and Priority costs 1.8 times Standard, on Google's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] Google lists "Batch API (50% cost reduction)" among paid-tier features. [1]

| Model | Standard input / output | Batch and Flex input / output | Priority input / output |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | $0.10 / $0.40 | $0.05 / $0.20 | $0.18 / $0.72 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | $0.30 / $2.50 | $0.15 / $1.25 | $0.54 / $4.50 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash* | $0.75 / $3.75 | $0.375 / $1.875 | $1.35 / $6.75 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro (≤200k) | $1.25 / $10.00 | $0.625 / $5.00 | $2.25 / $18.00 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (≤200k) | $2.00 / $12.00 | $1.00 / $6.00 | $3.60 / $21.60 |

\* Rate through 31 December 2026. All prices are USD per million tokens as the page lists them. [1]

Cached-token rates follow no single rule under Batch and Flex. Gemini 3.8, 3.7 and 3.6 Flash and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite halve them. [1] Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, Gemini 3 Flash Preview and the 2.5 models keep the Standard cache rate. [1] Google Search grounding costs the same on every tier. Google Maps grounding is unavailable under Batch and Flex on the 2.5 models. [1]

Each tier has its own capacity. Priority traffic defaults to 0.3 times the standard rate limit for each model and tier. [3] Batch requests run under separate limits: 100 concurrent batch requests, a 2GB input file limit and a per-model cap on enqueued tokens. [3] The captured pricing page gives Flex's rates without its service terms. Confirm Flex latency and availability in Google's documentation before routing production traffic to it.

## What does the free tier include, and what does paid add?

The Gemini API free tier gives free input and output tokens on a limited set of models, and Google may use that content to improve its products. [1] The paid tier adds higher rate limits, context caching, the Batch API and Google's most advanced models, and paid content is excluded from product improvement. [1]

The free list covers Gemini 3.8, 3.7, 3.6 and 3.5 Flash, 3.5 and 3.1 Flash-Lite, 3 Flash Preview, 2.5 Pro, 2.5 Flash and 2.5 Flash-Lite. [1] It also covers the Live, Transcribe, most TTS and Robotics models, Gemini Embedding 2 and Gemma 4. [1] Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, Gemini 2.5 Computer Use Preview, Omni Flash, all four image models, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview TTS, Veo and Lyria are paid-only. [1] Google AI Studio usage is free of charge in all available regions. [1] It stays free until you link a paid API key. [4]

Moving to paid means linking a billing account and prepaying at least $5 in credits. [4] The maximum prepaid balance is $5,000, and unused credits expire after 12 months. [4] When the balance reaches $0, every API key on that billing account stops working and requests fail with an HTTP 402 error. [4]

Paid accounts climb three usage tiers:

| Usage tier | Qualification | Billing tier cap | Spend rate limit per 10 minutes |
|---|---|---:|---:|
| Free | Active project or free trial | N/A | N/A |
| Tier 1 | Linked active billing account | $250 | $10 |
| Tier 2 | $100 paid and 3 days from first successful payment | $2,000 | $50 |
| Tier 3 | $1,000 paid and 30 days from first successful payment | $20,000 - $100,000+ | $200 |

Qualifications and caps as Google's rate-limits page lists them. [3]

The documentation doesn't print free-tier request limits. Google shows active limits in AI Studio, and states that "Specified rate limits are not guaranteed and actual capacity may vary." [3] Limits are tighter on experimental and preview models. [3]

## What does a real workload cost on the Gemini API?

In Glamdring Research's worked example, a month of 300,000 text requests costs $150.00 on Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, $1,237.50 on Gemini 3.8 Flash and $3,600.00 on Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview. All three use Standard rates from Google's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] The workload is Glamdring's illustration; no requests were run.

The estimate assumes:

- 10,000 requests a day for 30 days.
- 3,000 input tokens and 500 output tokens per request, thinking tokens included.
- Text only, with no grounding and no caching, and every prompt under 200,000 tokens.

The month totals 900 million input tokens and 150 million output tokens.

| Model | Input cost | Output cost | Standard total | Batch total |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite | $90.00 | $60.00 | $150.00 | $75.00 |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | $225.00 | $225.00 | $450.00 | $225.00 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | $270.00 | $375.00 | $645.00 | $322.50 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash | $270.00 | $375.00 | $645.00 | $322.50 |
| Gemini 3 Flash Preview | $450.00 | $450.00 | $900.00 | $450.00 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash, to 31 Dec 2026 | $675.00 | $562.50 | $1,237.50 | $618.75 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash, from 1 Jan 2027 | $1,350.00 | $1,125.00 | $2,475.00 | $1,237.50 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | $1,125.00 | $1,500.00 | $2,625.00 | $1,312.50 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | $1,350.00 | $1,350.00 | $2,700.00 | $1,350.00 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | $1,800.00 | $1,800.00 | $3,600.00 | $1,800.00 |

Figures are Glamdring's arithmetic on the listed rates. [1]

Output is one token in seven here, yet it makes up between 40 and 58 per cent of each bill. The output share is 45 per cent on Gemini 3.8 Flash. [1] Cutting answer length or thinking effort moves the bill further than the same cut to the prompt.

Caching changes the input side. Suppose 2,000 of each prompt's 3,000 tokens are a shared instruction block held in one cache all month. Gemini 3.8 Flash then costs $833.22, 32.7 per cent less. [1] That total is $45.00 for 600 million cached tokens and $225.00 for 300 million uncached tokens. Output adds $562.50 for output and $0.72 to store 2,000 tokens for 720 hours at $0.50 per million per hour. [1] The captured pricing page gives no minimum cache size or expiry rule, so confirm both before counting on the saving.

Grounding changes the other side. If one request in ten used Google Search grounding on Gemini 3.8 Flash, the first 5,000 searches a month would be free. The other 25,000 would cost at least $350.00 at $14 per 1,000. [1] The floor is "at least" because Google charges for each search query, and one request "may result in one or more queries to Google Search". [1] Gemini 2.5 models price grounding differently: 1,500 free requests a day, then $35 per 1,000 grounded prompts. [1]

## Why do other published Gemini prices disagree?

Other Gemini price lists differ from Google's Developer API page for four reasons. They quote Google Cloud's Agent Platform, the 2027 rate, a discounted tier or a model the pricing page no longer lists.

Google Cloud's Agent Platform is a separate price list. The Developer API page says its prices "may differ" from Agent Platform prices. [1] Agent Platform lists Gemini 3.8 Flash at the same $0.75 and $3.75 in its Global region, and at $0.825 and $4.125 in non-global regions, 1.1 times higher. [2] Some Agent Platform tables already show Gemini 3.8 Flash at $1.50 and $7.50, the standard rate Google says applies from 1 January 2027. [2]

Discounted rates get quoted as headlines. Some price lists give $0.05 per million input tokens as the cheapest Gemini rate. The same figure matches Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite's Batch and Flex input rate, and its Standard rate is $0.10. [1]

Older model names linger. Google's rate-limits page still lists Gemini 2.0 Flash, 2.0 Flash Lite and 2.0 Flash Image in its Batch tables. [3] The pricing page carries no price for any of them. [1]

Google's own page carries two embedding prices. File search is charged for embeddings at $0.15 per million tokens. Gemini Embedding 2 lists text input at $0.20. [1] The page doesn't explain the gap, so price a file-search workload from the file-search line.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking lists price per token. A finished task's cost also depends on how many tokens the model spends, and output rates include thinking tokens. [1] Two models at the same rate can bill very differently for the same job. Run one real workload on two models and compare the usage lines before choosing on list price.

The ranking covers only the Gemini Developer API page as captured on 28 September 2026. [1] It doesn't show Enterprise-tier volume discounts or provisioned throughput, which Google offers through its Enterprise plan. [1] It doesn't show tax, currency conversion or the free-tier rate limits, which live in AI Studio. [3] Tool use adds its own charges. Code execution bills as tokens, URL context bills as input tokens and grounding bills per search. [1]

Confirm the rates on Google's live page before committing a budget. More of our work on model serving and compute sits in the [model infrastructure category](/categories/model-infrastructure). The ranking changes when Google next revises its price list, and on 1 January 2027 at the latest; the revision will carry a change note. [Subscribe to our research](/subscribe) to receive it.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is the Gemini API still free?

Yes, for a limited set of models. The free tier includes free input and output tokens on models such as Gemini 3.8 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Gemini 2.5 Pro, within free-tier rate limits, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, the image models, Omni Flash, Veo and Lyria have no free tier. [1] Google may use free-tier content to improve its products. [1]

### How do you use the Gemini API for free?

Use the project and API key that Google AI Studio creates for new users, and leave billing unlinked. New accounts begin on the Free Tier, with access to certain models up to their free-tier rate limits. [4] A paid project returns to the free tier when you disable billing on it. [4] AI Studio shows the active limits for each project. [3]

### Does the Google Cloud free trial cover Gemini API usage?

No. From March 2026, Google excludes Gemini API usage costs from the $300 Google Cloud Free Trial. [4] Welcome and free-trial credits can't pay for the Gemini API or AI Studio. [4] Free use comes from the Gemini API free tier and from AI Studio, which is free of charge in available regions. [1]

## Source notes
1. Gemini Developer API pricing: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Agent Platform Pricing: https://cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platform/generative-ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Rate limits | Gemini API: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/rate-limits (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Billing | Gemini API | Google AI for Developers: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/billing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Groq API pricing: Groq model list, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/groq-api-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: For production text work at a public price, Groq offers two models: GPT OSS 20B at $0.075 input and $0.30 output per 1M tokens, and GPT OSS 120B at $0.15 and $0.60.

Groq's cheapest token-priced model is Llama Prompt Guard 2 22M, at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.03 per million output tokens, on Groq's Supported Models list checked 28 September 2026. [1] The dearest is Qwen3.8 27B, at $0.80 input and $4.00 output. [1] For production text work, only GPT OSS 20B ($0.075 input, $0.30 output) and GPT OSS 120B ($0.15 input, $0.60 output) carry a public price. [1]

## TL;DR

- Groq lists 13 models. Six are priced per million tokens, two per hour of audio, two per million characters, and three show "Contact Sales" instead of a price. [1]
- GPT OSS 120B costs exactly twice GPT OSS 20B, on input and on output. [1]
- Qwen3.8 27B is the only token-priced model above $1 per million output tokens, and it's a preview model Groq says may be discontinued at short notice. [1]
- Llama 3.3 70B shows no self-serve price on the checked list, while a third-party comparison still quotes $0.59 input and $0.79 output for it on Groq. [1] [2]
- Requesty lists Groq's GPT OSS 20B at $0.10 input and $0.50 output, 33% and 67% above Groq's own list, before its 5% pay-as-you-go fee. [1] [3]
- Groq's free tier is capped by rate limits, not a bill. The captured evidence gives exact free limits for the Whisper models only. [4]

## How this ranking was built

Every model's input and output price from Groq's published model list, checked 28 September 2026, is in the two tables below. The evidence rules behind that check are set out in our [research methodology](/methodology). The source is Groq's **Supported Models** page in its GroqCloud documentation, captured at 15:06 AEST on 28 September 2026. [1]

The ranked field is Groq's **Price per 1M tokens** column. Models are ordered by their output rate, cheapest first, and the input rate breaks ties. [1]

Row counts at each step:

- Listed: 13 models, 6 in Groq's production section and 7 in its preview section. The deprecated section names no models and points to a separate deprecations page. [1]
- Ranked: the 6 models with a per-token price.
- Listed separately: the 7 models priced per hour of audio, per million characters, or by quote. Those units can't sit on the same scale as tokens.
- Merged or excluded: none.

Prices appear as Groq prints them, with a dollar sign. The page doesn't name the currency or say whether tax is included. [1] These are Groq's own list prices: a company statement of what it charges, not a measured market price. More pricing and serving research sits in the [model infrastructure category](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## What does each Groq model cost per million tokens?

GPT OSS 20B is the cheapest model on Groq's list with a 131,072-token context window, at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens. [1] Only the two Prompt Guard models cost less, and each accepts just 512 tokens of context. [1]

| Rank | Model | Model ID | Status | Input ($ per 1M tokens) | Output ($ per 1M tokens) | Context window (tokens) | Developer-plan limits |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Llama Prompt Guard 2 22M | meta-llama/llama-prompt-guard-2-22m | Preview | $0.03 | $0.03 | 512 | 30K TPM, 100 RPM |
| 2 | Prompt Guard 2 86M | meta-llama/llama-prompt-guard-2-86m | Preview | $0.04 | $0.04 | 512 | 30K TPM, 100 RPM |
| 3= | GPT OSS 20B | openai/gpt-oss-20b | Production | $0.075 | $0.30 | 131,072 | 250K TPM, 1K RPM |
| 3= | Safety GPT OSS 20B | openai/gpt-oss-safeguard-20b | Preview | $0.075 | $0.30 | 131,072 | 150K TPM, 1K RPM |
| 5 | GPT OSS 120B | openai/gpt-oss-120b | Production | $0.15 | $0.60 | 131,072 | 250K TPM, 1K RPM |
| 6 | Qwen3.8 27B | qwen/qwen3.8-27b | Preview | $0.80 | $4.00 | 131,072 | 250K TPM, 1K RPM |

Source: Groq, Supported Models, checked 28 September 2026. TPM is tokens per minute and RPM is requests per minute, as Groq abbreviates them. [1]

Three readings change a budget.

The GPT OSS pair scales cleanly. GPT OSS 120B costs twice GPT OSS 20B on both rates, and on both models output costs four times input. [1] A workload that tolerates the smaller model halves its token bill.

Qwen3.8 27B sits in a different price band. Its output rate is 6.67 times GPT OSS 120B's, its input rate 5.33 times, and its output costs five times its input. [1] It also caps a single completion at 16,384 tokens, against 65,536 for both GPT OSS models. [1]

Safety GPT OSS 20B costs the same as GPT OSS 20B but carries a lower developer-plan limit: 150K tokens per minute against 250K. [1]

A worked example makes the spread concrete. One million input tokens plus 100,000 output tokens costs $0.105 on GPT OSS 20B, $0.21 on GPT OSS 120B and $1.20 on Qwen3.8 27B at list rates. [1] The estimate assumes no caching, batch or flex discount, because none appears on the model list. Token rates are one input to the bill; our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the drivers that sit behind a per-token price.

## Which Groq models are priced per hour, per character or by quote?

Seven of Groq's 13 models have no per-token price. The two Whisper models are billed per hour of audio, the two Orpheus models per million characters, and three models show "Contact Sales". [1]

| Model | Model ID | Status | Listed price | Unit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Whisper Large V3 Turbo | whisper-large-v3-turbo | Production | $0.04 | per hour |
| Whisper | whisper-large-v3 | Production | $0.111 | per hour |
| Canopy Labs Orpheus V1 English | canopylabs/orpheus-v1-english | Preview | $22.00 | per 1M characters |
| Canopy Labs Orpheus Arabic Saudi | canopylabs/orpheus-arabic-saudi | Preview | $40.00 | per 1M characters |
| Llama 3.1 8B | llama-3.1-8b-instant | Production, Enterprise | Contact Sales | none listed |
| Llama 3.3 70B | llama-3.3-70b-versatile | Production, Enterprise | Contact Sales | none listed |
| MiniMax M2.7 | minimaxai/minimax-m2.7 | Preview, Enterprise | Contact Sales | none listed |

Source: Groq, Supported Models, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

Whisper large-v3 costs 2.78 times the turbo model per hour. [1] By Groq's own figures, as reported by VoiceBoard, the dearer model buys a lower word error rate, 10.3% against 12%, and translation, which turbo doesn't offer. [4] VoiceBoard also reports that a request shorter than 10 seconds is billed as 10 seconds, so short clips cost more per second than the hourly rate implies. [4]

The Arabic Saudi Orpheus voice costs 1.82 times the English one per million characters. [1]

The quote-only rows matter most. Both Llama models sit in Groq's production section, yet neither shows a price or a rate limit. [1] A team that wants Llama on Groq starts with a sales conversation, not a price sheet.

## Is there a free tier on Groq's API?

Yes. Groq's free tier applies from the first request and is capped by rate limits rather than by a bill: past the limit, requests stop until the window resets. [4] Moving to the paid tier is a deliberate step. [4]

The exact free limits in the captured evidence cover the Whisper models only. VoiceBoard read them from Groq's rate-limits page on 10 September 2026: [4]

- Requests: 20 a minute, 2,000 a day. [4]
- Audio: 7,200 seconds an hour, 28,800 seconds a day. [4]
- File size: 25 MB on the free tier, 100 MB on the paid Dev tier. [4]

The 100 MB figure matches the maximum file size on Groq's own model list, where the rate-limit column is labelled "Developer plan". [1] That column shows paid-plan limits, not free ones.

Free-tier limits for the text models weren't in the evidence captured for this page. Groq publishes its free limits on its rate-limits page, which its model list links to. [1] [4] Confirm the current free limit there before sizing a prototype on it.

## How do Groq's prices compare with the same model elsewhere?

Where the captured evidence covers the same model elsewhere, Groq's own list is cheaper. GPT OSS 20B costs $0.075 input and $0.30 output on Groq's list, against $0.10 and $0.50 in Requesty's catalogue listing for Groq's deployment of the same model. [1] [3]

Requesty sells access to many providers' models through one key, and its id for this listing calls Groq's own deployment directly. [3] It describes $0.10 and $0.50 as "the upstream provider rates", updated 27 September 2026, and adds 5% on pay-as-you-go. [3] Those rates sit 33% above Groq's list on input and 67% above on output. Requesty prices one million input tokens plus 100,000 output tokens at $0.15. [3] Groq's list rates give $0.105 for the same workload, so Requesty's figure is 43% higher, or 50% higher once the 5% fee is added. [1] Neither page explains the gap.

For GPT OSS 120B, Requesty's listing shows $0.15 per million tokens, which matches Groq's input rate. [3] Its output rate for that model wasn't captured.

Speech-to-text shows the widest spread. OpenAI's whisper-1 endpoint costs $0.006 a minute, or $0.36 an hour, as VoiceBoard read it from OpenAI's pricing page on 10 September 2026. [4] That's 3.24 times Groq's whisper-large-v3 rate and 9 times its turbo rate. [1] The captured evidence doesn't show that whisper-1 runs the same weights as whisper-large-v3, so treat this as the same model family, not an identical deployment.

For Qwen3.8 27B, Safety GPT OSS 20B, both Prompt Guard models and both Orpheus voices, no price from another host was captured. This page makes no claim about them.

One boundary applies to any cross-provider comparison. Groq serves open-weight models on its own chips, while OpenAI and Anthropic sell their own proprietary models, so a price gap against those models is a gap between different products. [2]

## Why do other published Groq prices disagree with the list?

Third-party pages quote Groq prices that don't match the list checked on 28 September 2026, and none of the captured pages says why. [1]

Flowagenz's cost-per-conversation comparison prices Llama 3.3 70B on Groq at $0.59 input and $0.79 output per million tokens. [2] On the checked list, that model shows "Contact Sales" and an Enterprise tag. [1] The same comparison gives Groq's typical range as $0.05 to $1.00 input and $0.08 to $3.00 output. [2] Qwen3.8 27B's $4.00 output rate sits outside that range. [1]

Requesty's GPT OSS 20B rates, covered above, are the second mismatch. [3]

The decision changes when a budget rests on a quoted figure. Price against Groq's own page on the day, and confirm it again in the current quote before committing spend.

## Which priced Groq models are cleared for production?

Four models have both a public price and production status: GPT OSS 20B, GPT OSS 120B and the two Whisper models. [1] Every other priced model is in Groq's preview section.

Groq says preview models are intended for evaluation only, should not be used in production, and may be discontinued at short notice. [1] That covers Qwen3.8 27B, Safety GPT OSS 20B, both Prompt Guard models and both Orpheus voices. [1]

The constraint is status, not price. A production text workload that needs a public rate on Groq has two choices, GPT OSS 20B and GPT OSS 120B. Everything else is either preview or quote-only.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

- **Other service tiers and caching.** Groq's documentation has pages for Prompt Caching, Flex Processing, Batch Processing and a Performance Tier. [1] The model list prints one price per model, and those tiers' rates weren't captured, so the tables don't show them.
- **Enterprise prices.** Three models are quote-only. Their terms aren't public.
- **Currency and tax.** The page prints a dollar sign without naming the currency or tax treatment. [1]
- **Speed and quality.** The speed column, such as 1,000 tokens a second for GPT OSS 20B and 500 for GPT OSS 120B, is Groq's own figure. [1] We haven't measured it, and the list says nothing about output quality.
- **Cost per task.** Cost per conversation depends on turn count, context growth and caching at least as much as on the per-token rate, as Flowagenz's analysis sets out. [2] Use one real workflow to test the claim.
- **What changed.** This is the first capture of the list for this page, so it can't show which prices moved or when.

The ranking refreshes when Groq changes its Supported Models page. New price checks go out in our [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is the Groq API key free to use?

Yes. A Groq key starts working immediately, and the free tier applies from the first request. [4] Use is capped by rate limits: past a limit, requests stop until the window resets rather than running up a bill. [4] Paid list prices apply once you move to a paid plan on purpose. [4]

### How much does GPT cost on Groq's API?

Groq serves OpenAI's open-weight GPT OSS models, not OpenAI's proprietary GPT models. [2] On the list checked 28 September 2026, GPT OSS 20B costs $0.075 input and $0.30 output per million tokens, and GPT OSS 120B costs $0.15 and $0.60. [1] For OpenAI's own frontier models, Flowagenz puts typical rates at $2.50 to $5.00 input and $15 to $30 output per million tokens. [2] Confirm OpenAI's figure on OpenAI's pricing page.

### Does a router add a fee on top of Groq's price?

Requesty adds 5% to its listed rates on pay-as-you-go, or 0% if you bring your own provider keys, with no per-request fee. [3] Its listed rate for GPT OSS 20B on Groq is already above Groq's own list, so compare the router's base rate as well as its fee. [1] [3]

## Source notes
1. Supported Models: https://console.groq.com/docs/models (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Groq vs OpenAI vs Claude API: cost per conversation for agents: https://flowagenz.com/blog/groq-vs-openai-vs-claude-cost-per-conversation (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Groq Inc. gpt-oss-20b API Pricing & Cost: https://www.requesty.ai/models/groq/openai-gpt-oss-20b (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Whisper API Pricing in 2026: Where to Get a Key and What an Hour of Speech Costs: https://voiceboard.online/voiceboard/api-key/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Gusto pricing by plan: Gusto's price page, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/gusto-pricing
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Simple, at $109 a month for 10 people, is the cheapest Gusto plan for a single-state W-2 team. Plus, at $200, is the entry price for multi-state payroll.

Gusto's published pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, lists four plans for paying a team. For 10 people, the monthly bill runs from $60 on Contractor Only during its promotion to $400 on Premium. [1] Simple costs $49 a month plus $6 per person, or $109 for 10. Plus costs $80 plus $12 per person, or $200. Premium costs $180 plus $22 per person, or $400. [1] All figures are US dollars as Gusto lists them.

The per-person fee does most of the work. At 10 people it's more than half of every plan's monthly bill.

## TL;DR

- A 10-employee business in one state pays $109 a month on Simple, the cheapest Gusto plan that runs W-2 payroll.
- Staff in a second state rule Simple out. Plus, at $200 for 10, is the entry price for multi-state payroll.
- Premium's extra $200 over Plus pays for itself when a 10-person team would otherwise buy priority support, broker integration and at least one same-day payroll a month.
- Contractor Only drops its $35 base fee to $0 for the first six months. The $6 per-contractor fee stays, so 10 contractors cost $60, then $95.
- Buying Plus-level features as add-ons on Simple costs more than Plus: $214 against $200 for 10.

## How this ranking was built

The ranking uses one source: the **Pay My Team** tab of Gusto's pricing page at gusto.com/product/pricing, captured on 28 September 2026 at 15:21 AEST. The method follows our [published research standard](/methodology).

- **Fields:** each plan's listed base fee ("/mo") and per-person fee ("per person"), in US dollars per month, exactly as shown.
- **Ranked value:** monthly cost for 10 people, calculated as base fee plus 10 times the per-person fee.
- **Inclusion:** every plan on the Pay My Team tab. That gives four plans: Contractor Only, Simple, Plus and Premium.
- **Split:** Contractor Only appears twice, once at its promotional base fee and once at its standard base fee. Four plans become five rows.
- **Exclusions:** add-ons, which the page prices separately, and the Gusto Solo plan on the separate Pay Myself tab, which the capture didn't price.
- **Tax:** the page shows no tax line. The figures are list prices, not quotes.

| Rank | Plan | Base fee (USD/mo) | Per-person fee (USD/mo) | Monthly cost for 10 people (USD) | Who it covers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contractor Only, first 6 months | 0 | 6 | 60 | Businesses with no W-2 employees |
| 2 | Contractor Only, standard | 35 | 6 | 95 | Businesses with no W-2 employees |
| 3 | Simple | 49 | 6 | 109 | Single-state payroll |
| 4 | Plus | 80 | 12 | 200 | Multi-state payroll |
| 5 | Premium | 180 | 22 | 400 | Multi-state payroll with dedicated support | [1]

## What does each Gusto plan add?

Each Gusto plan adds a layer to the one below it: Simple adds W-2 payroll to contractor payments, Plus adds multi-state payroll and faster pay, and Premium adds dedicated human support and same-day pay. [1] The base fee rises from $0 or $35 to $180, and the per-person fee from $6 to $22. [1]

**Contractor Only** is "for contractor-only businesses who haven't hired W-2 employees yet." Its listed features are domestic contractor payments, 4 day pay and Form 1099 creation and filings. [1]

**Simple** is for "single-state payroll, reports and basic support." It includes unlimited payrolls per month, tax filings and payments, basic PTO policies and holiday pay, payroll approvals, Payroll on AutoPilot®, multiple pay rates and schedules, and domestic contractor payments. Expenses and reimbursements come as an add-on. [1]

**Plus** adds multi-state payroll, next-day pay and time tracking. The comparison table also gives it expenses and reimbursements, workforce cost reports and unlimited custom earning types. [1]

**Premium** adds a Dedicated Service Advisor, access to certified HR experts, performance and compensation management, custom reports, priority support, and payroll migration and account setup. The comparison table adds unlimited custom admin roles, same-day pay and instant pay. [1]

Support is where the plans split most sharply. Simple and Plus get Basic Support: 24/7 access to the online Help Center, plus phone or chat during business hours. Premium gets Priority Support and a Dedicated Service Advisor. [1]

## What does Gusto cost for a team of 10?

A 10-person team pays $109 a month on Simple, $200 on Plus and $400 on Premium at Gusto's listed prices. [1] Over 12 months that's $1,308, $2,400 and $4,800. Spread across the team, it works out at $10.90, $20 and $40 per person per month.

The per-person fee sets the slope. Each extra person adds $6 on Simple, $12 on Plus and $22 on Premium. [1] Because Plus carries both the higher base and the higher per-person fee, Simple never becomes the dearer plan as a team grows. The gap between them widens by $6 with every hire.

Gusto charges only for active employees, and the monthly price rises as people are added. [1] US contractors are billed at the plan's per-person fee, but only in months when they're paid. [1] A team of eight employees and two contractors paid in the same month therefore costs the same as a team of 10 employees. In a month when the contractors aren't paid, it costs the eight-person price: $97 on Simple.

## How does the contractor-only promotion work?

Gusto's contractor-only promotion cuts the Contractor Only base fee from $35 a month to $0 for the first six months, while the $6 per-person fee stays in place. [1] The pricing page marks it "LIMITED TIME OFFER" and its footnote reads: "Get a discounted base price of $0/mo for the first 6 months." [1]

For 10 contractors, that's $60 a month for six months and $95 a month after. The first year costs $930, against $1,140 at the standard price. The whole saving is the waived base fee: six months at $35, or $210.

The plan's limits matter more than the discount. The page says Contractor Only doesn't include "Back-up withholding or other contractor withholding required by state agencies". It also excludes plan add-ons, apart from global contractor payments. [1] It suits businesses that haven't hired W-2 employees yet, so the first W-2 hire means moving to Simple or above.

The footnote links to separate promotional terms that set the offer's conditions. Confirm the current terms before signing up.

## Which add-ons change the monthly bill?

Most Gusto add-ons are priced per person or per payroll, so they scale with the team the way the plans do. [1] For a 10-person team on the plans where each is offered:

| Add-on | Listed price | Cost for 10 people | Offered on |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next-day pay | $15/mo + 3/mo per person | $45/mo | Simple (included in Plus and Premium) |
| Time & Attendance Plus | $6/mo per person after a free trial | $60/mo | Simple |
| Priority Support | $30/mo + $3/mo per person | $60/mo | Simple and Plus |
| Performance | $3/mo per person | $30/mo | Simple |
| Health insurance broker integration | $6/mo per eligible employee | $60/mo if all 10 are eligible | Free on Premium |
| Same-day pay | $90 per payroll | $90 per run | Simple and Plus (included in Premium) |
| Instant pay | $100 per payroll | $100 per run | Simple and Plus (included in Premium) | [1]

The next-day pay line reads "$15/mo + 3/mo per person" on the page; the $45 figure reads the 3 as dollars.

Other charges don't depend on headcount. Gusto Money Plus costs $19 a month on all plans. Workers' compensation starts at $14 a month. One $200 annual service charge covers HSAs, FSAs, dependent care FSAs and commuter benefits, with per-participant fees on top. [1] R&D tax credits cost 15% of the credits identified. State tax registration is priced by state on every plan. [1] Health insurance through Gusto as broker carries no administration fee; the business pays only the premiums. [1]

## When does upgrading beat buying add-ons?

Glamdring Research's arithmetic from Gusto's listed prices shows that, for a 10-person team, upgrading is cheaper than rebuilding the next plan from add-ons in two common cases. [1] Simple plus next-day pay and Time & Attendance Plus costs $214 a month, against $200 for Plus. Plus with priority support, broker integration for 10 eligible employees and one same-day payroll a month costs $410, against $400 for Premium.

**Simple to Plus.** $109 plus $45 for next-day pay plus $60 for Time & Attendance Plus gives $214. Plus includes next-day pay and lists time tracking, and adds multi-state payroll on top. [1] The page doesn't say that Time & Attendance Plus and the time tracking in Plus are the same feature set, so compare the two feature lists before relying on the $14 difference. Without time tracking, Simple with next-day pay costs $154, and Simple stays cheaper.

**Plus to Premium.** $200 plus $60 for priority support plus $60 for broker integration gives $320. One same-day payroll at $90 takes it to $410. [1] Premium includes all three, along with instant pay, the Dedicated Service Advisor and certified HR experts. [1] A team that needs priority support and broker integration but never runs same-day payroll pays $80 less on Plus.

The decision changes with headcount. Broker integration and priority support both carry per-person fees, so the add-on route gets dearer as the team grows. Premium's per-person fee grows faster too, by $10 a head over Plus. Use the team's real headcount and payroll calendar to test it.

## Why do other published Gusto prices differ?

Other published Gusto prices differ mainly because they drop the per-person fee or ignore the contractor promotion. The base and per-person fees themselves match across the sources checked here. [1]

G2's listing, supplied by Gusto, shows Simple "Starting at $49.00 Per Month", Plus at $80.00 and Premium at $180.00. [2] Those are base fees only. For 10 people the real Simple bill is more than double the headline figure.

Gusto's own buying guide, dated 10 March 2026, lists the same three plans at the same base and per-person fees as the pricing page. It adds that Gusto is "Free until you run your first payroll". [3]

The pricing page contradicts itself on Contractor Only. Its plan card shows the $0 promotional base fee, while its own FAQ still quotes the plan "for $35/mo + $6/mo per contractor." [1] Both are correct: one is the promotional price and the other is the standard one.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking shows list prices for plan fees. It doesn't show the full bill for a real business.

- **Add-ons:** state tax registration, 401(k) integrations and the expenses add-on on Simple have no fixed listed price. [1]
- **Gusto Solo:** the plan for owners paying themselves as an S corp sits on a separate tab and isn't priced here. [1]
- **Promotion terms:** the eligibility rules and end date sit in separate promotional terms that this ranking doesn't reproduce.
- **Tax:** the page shows no tax line, so tax treatment isn't included.
- **Negotiated prices:** these are list prices. Accountant partners, for example, get separate Gusto pricing. [1]

Confirm the current price on Gusto's page before committing. A change to that page, or the end of the contractor-only promotion, is the trigger for this ranking's next update.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Gusto cheaper than ADP?

ADP's RUN pricing page published no price when captured on 28 September 2026, so there's no listed ADP figure to compare against Gusto's $109 for 10 people on Simple. [4] Gusto's own buying guide puts ADP RUN at "around $79/month + $4 per employee", with custom quotes required. That's Gusto's figure for a competitor, not ADP's published price. [3]

### What is the cheapest payroll software to use?

Among payroll software prices published on vendor pricing pages captured on 28 September 2026, Gusto Simple was the cheapest for 10 US employees at $109 a month. [1] Justworks Payroll came next at $50 a month plus $8 per person, or $130. [5] PEO plans listed higher per-head prices: Justworks PEO Basic at $79 per employee per month and Deel's US PEO at $125, or $790 and $1,250 for 10. [5] [6] Rippling sells on custom quote, and ADP, Paylocity, TriNet and HiBob showed no price on their captured pages. [7] [4] [8] [9] [10] That comparison covers only those vendors; more comparisons sit in our [published research library](/research).

### What are the downsides of Gusto payroll?

The main cost-side limits sit in the plan rules. Simple handles payroll in a single state. Simple and Plus include only Basic Support, with phone and chat during business hours. Same-day and instant pay cost $90 and $100 per payroll below Premium. [1] Contractor Only excludes back-up withholding required by state agencies. [1]

### Do I have to sign a contract with Gusto?

No. Gusto is month-to-month, account setup is free and a plan can be cancelled at any time. [1] Upgrades take effect immediately. Downgrades start at the next billing period, on the first of the month. [1]

### How does Gusto bill for contractors on an employee plan?

US contractors on Simple, Plus or Premium are billed at that plan's per-person fee, and only in months when they're paid. [1] On Simple, a contractor paid in a given month adds $6 to that month's bill. Global contractor payments carry no monthly per-contractor fee; Gusto charges a service and foreign exchange fee per payment. [1]

## Source notes
1. Gusto: https://gusto.com/product/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/gusto/reviews?page=3 (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Gusto (Gusto Editors): https://gusto.com/resources/guides/best-payroll-for-growing-teams (checked September 28, 2026)
4. ADP (via parent's computed table): https://www.adp.com/what-we-offer/products/run-powered-by-adp/pricing.aspx (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Justworks (via parent's computed table): https://www.justworks.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Deel (via parent's computed table): https://www.deel.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Rippling (via parent's computed table): https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Paylocity (via parent's computed table): https://www.paylocity.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
9. TriNet (via parent's computed table): https://www.trinet.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
10. HiBob (via parent's computed table): https://www.hibob.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# H100 GPU price per hour: 8 clouds ranked, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/h100-rental-price-by-provider
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Ranked by lowest listed on-demand H100 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026, RunPod leads at $2.89 (H100 PCIe) and CoreWeave is last at $6.16 ($49.24 per 8-GPU node, divided by eight).

RunPod lists the lowest on-demand H100 price of the eight GPU clouds we ranked: $2.89 per GPU-hour for an 80 GB H100 PCIe, on its pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] CoreWeave sits at the other end. Its 8-GPU HGX H100 node lists at $49.24 an hour, or $6.16 per GPU-hour. [2] That's a gap of about 2.1 times for one chip family, and the variant, billing unit and host bundle explain much of it.

## TL;DR

- Ranked by the lowest listed on-demand H100 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026, RunPod ($2.89) and Lambda ($3.29) lead. Both prices are for H100 PCIe. [1] [3]
- On SXM-class H100s, RunPod still leads at $3.49, ahead of Nebius at $3.85 and Crusoe at $3.90. [1] [4] [5]
- The middle of the market is tight. Five of the eight list between $3.85 and $4.41, and the median of all eight is $3.925.
- Interruption and commitment cut the price further. Nebius lists preemptible H100s from $0.79 per GPU-hour, Together AI lists $1.99, and DigitalOcean lists a 12-month reserved rate of $3.26. [4] [6] [7]
- Vast.ai's marketplace median for H100 SXM was $2.16 an hour, below every fixed on-demand SXM price in the ranking. [8]
- Nebius lists $4.50 from 1 October 2026. At that rate it falls from third to seventh. [4]
- The hourly rate is one input to cost per task. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers what sits beyond the GPU line.

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research selected eight GPU clouds that rent H100 capacity by the hour: RunPod, Lambda, Nebius, Crusoe, Modal, Together AI, DigitalOcean and CoreWeave. We captured each company's own pricing page on 28 September 2026, plus the Vast.ai pricing page as a marketplace reference.

- **Source:** each provider's public pricing page, captured 28 September 2026.
- **Field:** the lowest listed **on-demand** H100 price per GPU-hour. Any H100 variant counts: PCIe, SXM, HGX or NVL.
- **Unit:** US dollars per GPU per hour, as each page prints it. Lambda lists its prices "plus applicable sales tax/VAT/GST". [3] DigitalOcean says it applies tax in some countries. [7]
- **Conversions:** CoreWeave prices a whole 8-GPU node, so its node price is divided by eight. Modal prices per second, so its rate is multiplied by 3,600. No other figure is changed.
- **Row count:** nine pages captured, eight providers listing an on-demand H100, eight ranked. Vast.ai is shown beside the ranking, not in it, because hosts set its prices on a marketplace. [8]
- **Not ranked:** spot, preemptible and reserved rates. They have their own table below.

These are company statements about company prices, which is how our [research methodology](/methodology) treats them. The ranking belongs to our [model infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) coverage.

## Which cloud rents the H100 cheapest on demand?

RunPod does, at $2.89 per GPU-hour for H100 PCIe, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Lambda is second at $3.29 for a 1-GPU H100 PCIe instance. [3] CoreWeave is last at $6.16, the per-GPU share of its $49.24 8-GPU node. [2]

| Rank | Provider | H100 variant priced | On-demand (US$ per GPU-hour) | How the page lists it |
|---:|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | RunPod | H100 PCIe, 80 GB | 2.89 | $2.89/hr per GPU |
| 2 | Lambda | H100 PCIe, 80 GB, 1-GPU instance | 3.29 | $3.29 per GPU-hour, plus tax |
| 3 | Nebius | HGX H100 | 3.85 | $3.85 per GPU-hour; $4.50 from 1 October 2026 |
| 4 | Crusoe | HGX H100, 80 GB | 3.90 | $3.90/GPU-hr |
| 5 | Modal | H100 SXM5 | 3.95 | $0.001097 per second, × 3,600 |
| 6 | Together AI | HGX H100, GPU Clusters | 3.99 | $3.99 per GPU-hour |
| 7 | DigitalOcean | HGX H100 | 4.41 | $4.41/GPU/hour |
| 8 | CoreWeave | HGX H100, 8-GPU node | 6.16 | $49.24 per node-hour, ÷ 8 |

Each row comes from that provider's own pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [3] [4] [5] [9] [6] [7] [2]

The hourly figure buys a different host at each provider. RunPod's H100 PCIe comes with 16 vCPUs and 188 GB of RAM. [1] Lambda's 1-GPU H100 PCIe instance carries 26 vCPUs, 225 GiB of RAM and a 1 TiB SSD. [3] DigitalOcean's H100 Droplet lists 20 vCPUs, 240 GiB of memory and a 5 TiB NVMe scratch disk, in 1-GPU or 8-GPU sizes. [7] CoreWeave's node price covers eight GPUs, 128 vCPUs, 2,048 GB of RAM and 61.44 TB of local storage. [2] So the lower rows aren't simply dearer copies of the top row.

Over a 30-day month of 720 hours, RunPod's rate comes to $2,080.80 per GPU and CoreWeave's to $4,435.20.

## What is the cheapest H100 SXM or HGX price?

RunPod's H100 SXM, at $3.49 per GPU-hour, is the cheapest SXM-class listing among the eight, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Nebius's HGX H100 follows at $3.85, then Crusoe's HGX H100 at $3.90 and Modal's H100 SXM5 at $3.95. [4] [5] [9] The distinction matters because the top two ranked prices are both PCIe cards.

| Provider | SXM-class H100 listing | On-demand (US$ per GPU-hour) |
|---|---|---:|
| RunPod | H100 SXM, 80 GB | 3.49 |
| Nebius | HGX H100 | 3.85 |
| Crusoe | HGX H100, 80 GB | 3.90 |
| Modal | H100 SXM5 | 3.95 |
| Lambda | H100 SXM, 8-GPU instance | 3.99 |
| Together AI | HGX H100, GPU Clusters | 3.99 |
| DigitalOcean | HGX H100 | 4.41 |
| CoreWeave | HGX H100, 8-GPU node | 6.16 |

NVIDIA's specification separates the parts. The H100 SXM carries 80 GB of memory at 3.35 TB/s, draws up to 700 W and links GPUs over 900 GB/s NVLink. The PCIe-based H100 NVL carries 94 GB at 3.9 TB/s, draws 350 to 400 W and uses 600 GB/s NVLink. [10] NVIDIA lists HGX H100 systems with 4 or 8 GPUs as the server option for the SXM part, so an HGX listing is an SXM listing. [10] Its specification table has no column for the 80 GB H100 PCIe that RunPod and Lambda price lowest.

Lambda's SXM price rises as the instance shrinks: $3.99 per GPU on the 8-GPU instance, $4.09 on four GPUs, $4.19 on two and $4.29 on one. [3] RunPod also lists the 94 GB H100 NVL at $3.19. [1]

## How were node and per-second prices converted?

Two of the eight don't print a per-GPU-hour figure, so we converted them. CoreWeave lists its HGX H100 as an 8-GPU node at $49.24 an hour, and $49.24 ÷ 8 = $6.155, shown as $6.16. [2] Modal lists the H100 SXM5 at $0.001097 per second, and $0.001097 × 3,600 = $3.9492, shown as $3.95. [9]

Both conversions agree with the companies' own figures. CoreWeave's table also carries an inference single-GPU price for the HGX H100 of $6.16 an hour. [2] Modal's serverless worked example on the same page uses $3.95 per GPU-hour. [9]

Billing granularity is a separate question from price. Modal says customers pay only for the compute time they use. [9] DigitalOcean bills GPU Droplets per second with a 5-minute minimum, and it keeps billing a powered-off Droplet until it is destroyed. [7] RunPod's pricing page offers per-hour and per-second views. [1] A per-second bill saves money only when the workload releases the GPU.

## What do spot and reserved H100 prices cost?

Five of the eight publish a spot, preemptible or reserved H100 figure. The rest send those terms to sales or don't list them. Checked 28 September 2026:

| Provider | Spot or preemptible (US$ per GPU-hour) | Reserved or committed (US$ per GPU-hour) | On-demand (US$ per GPU-hour) |
|---|---|---|---:|
| Nebius | from 0.79 | Up to 35% below on-demand for multi-month clusters; no H100 figure | 3.85 |
| Together AI | 1.99 | 3.69 (7–30 days), 3.45 (31–90), 3.19 (91–180); 181+ days on request | 3.99 |
| CoreWeave | 2.46 in North America ($19.71 node ÷ 8); 2.44 in Europe ($19.51 ÷ 8) | No H100 figure listed | 6.16 |
| DigitalOcean | No H100 spot plan listed | 3.26 on a 12-month contract | 4.41 |
| Lambda | Not listed | 1-Click Clusters, 2 weeks to 1 year: 6.16 (16 GPUs), 5.85 (64), 5.54 (256) | 3.29 |
| Crusoe | Contact sales | Contact sales | 3.90 |
| RunPod | Not listed for H100 | Contact sales | 2.89 |
| Modal | Not listed | Volume-based discounts on Enterprise | 3.95 |

Sources: each provider's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [4] [6] [2] [7] [3] [5] [1] [9]

Spot carries the deepest discount and the least certainty. Nebius says its spot prices are dynamic, can change as often as every 15 minutes, and top out one cent below the on-demand rate. [4] Together AI's $1.99 preemptible H100 is about half its $3.99 on-demand rate. [6] CoreWeave's spot node costs about 40% of its on-demand node. [2]

Commitment discounts are smaller. DigitalOcean's 12-month rate is $1.15, or 26%, below its on-demand price. [7] Together AI's 91–180 day rate is 20% below on-demand. [6] Lambda runs the other way. Its 1-Click Cluster rates, for 16 to 256 H100s, sit above its $3.99 8-GPU SXM instance, and the pricing page doesn't state what the premium covers. [3]

## How does the Vast.ai marketplace median compare?

Vast.ai's median H100 SXM listing was $2.16 an hour on 28 September 2026. That's $1.33 below RunPod's $3.49, the cheapest fixed on-demand SXM price in the ranking. [8] [1] Vast.ai's medians for H100 PCIe ($2.53) and H100 NVL ($2.76) also sit below RunPod's matching listings of $2.89 and $3.19. [8]

Vast.ai says its prices are "set by supply and demand across 40+ data centers", and it offers on-demand, interruptible and reserved rental. [8] Its lowest H100 SXM offer was $1.73 an hour. [8] A median of host-set offers is a different figure from a list price. Hosts differ in hardware, reliability and location. The page also offers 30-day and 90-day views, and the page text we checked doesn't say which window the median uses. [8] That is why Vast.ai sits beside the ranking rather than inside it.

## Why do other published H100 prices disagree?

Most disagreement comes from the variant, the date and the unit. Jarvislabs, which isn't among the eight, published $2.69 per GPU-hour for H100 SXM, checked 8 September 2026. [11] The same guide quotes Lambda at $4.29, the price of Lambda's 1-GPU H100 SXM instance. [11] This ranking uses Lambda's $3.29 1-GPU H100 PCIe instance, and Lambda's page lists both. [3] Jarvislabs also announces new H100 rates from 5 October 2026. [11]

Purchase prices answer a different question. One new H100 80 GB PCIe card was listed on eBay at US$47,520 or best offer, shipping from Shenzhen, with the listing last updated 27 September 2026. [12] One seller's asking price is a company statement, not a market price. Jarvislabs's buy-versus-rent example uses $30,000 per GPU of installed cost and calls it "a budgeting assumption, not a current market quote." [11]

## What changes in October 2026?

Nebius has published its next H100 rate: $4.50 per GPU-hour from 1 October 2026, up $0.65, or 17%, from $3.85. [4] At $4.50, Nebius moves from third to seventh, just above CoreWeave. The rest of the order holds unless another page changes.

Together AI's Dedicated Inference H100 lists at $5.49, with a $3.99 promotion valid until 30 September 2026. [6] The $3.99 ranked here is a different line: the GPU Clusters on-demand rate, which the page doesn't mark as a promotion. [6]

Two other pages were repriced recently. DigitalOcean's new GPU pricing took effect on 1 August 2026, and RunPod dates its page 27 September 2026. [7] [1] This is Glamdring's first H100 price ranking, so there's no earlier release to compare.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking covers eight selected clouds, not the whole market. Jarvislabs's $2.69 SXM price from 8 September would rank first if it still held on 28 September. [11] We didn't check its pricing page for this ranking.

It doesn't measure availability. A listed price states what a provider charges, not whether an H100 is free to launch in your region today. Jarvislabs makes the same point about its own comparison: a snapshot of listed rates is "not a guarantee of available capacity". [11]

It doesn't measure cost per task. Host CPU, memory and storage differ by provider, and the variant changes memory bandwidth and interconnect. [10] Storage, network and idle time add to the GPU line. Run one representative job on the two or three cheapest options that fit it, and compare the cost of the finished job. Confirm the variant, region and tax in the current quote.

One ranked figure carries a label question. RunPod's page has Community Cloud and Secure Cloud views, and the page text we checked doesn't label which view carries the $2.89. [1]

New price rankings in this field go out in our [free email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does an H100 GPU cluster cost?

Among pages that price a full 8-GPU H100 configuration on demand, an 8-GPU node runs from $31.92 an hour at Lambda to $49.24 at CoreWeave, checked 28 September 2026. Lambda's figure is eight GPUs at its $3.99 SXM rate. [3] DigitalOcean's 8-GPU Droplet works out to $35.28 an hour at $4.41 per GPU. [7] CoreWeave lists its HGX H100 node at $49.24. [2] Larger clusters cost more per GPU at Lambda: its 1-Click Clusters list $6.16 per GPU-hour for 16 GPUs, or $98.56 an hour. [3] Together AI lists H100 GPU Clusters at $3.99 per GPU-hour on demand, and RunPod sends H100 cluster buyers to sales. [6] [1]

### How much does it cost to rent an H100 for a month?

One H100 running for 720 hours, a 30-day month, costs $2,080.80 at RunPod's $2.89 on-demand rate and $4,435.20 at CoreWeave's $6.16, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Mid-table rates land near $2,800: $2,808 at Crusoe's $3.90 and $2,844 at Modal's $3.95. [5] [9] DigitalOcean's 12-month reserved rate of $3.26 comes to $2,347.20 for the same hours. [7] These figures cover the GPU line only, before storage, network and tax.

### Does the hourly H100 price include tax?

Not always. Lambda lists its prices "plus applicable sales tax/VAT/GST". [3] DigitalOcean says it is required by law to apply taxes in some countries. [7] All eight pages price in US dollars, and a US-dollar price doesn't mean the GPU sits in the United States, as Jarvislabs notes in its own guide. [11] Confirm the tax line and the deployment region in the quote.

## Source notes
1. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
10. NVIDIA: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/h100/ (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Jarvislabs: https://jarvislabs.ai/blog/h100-price (checked September 28, 2026)
12. eBay (seller: squaredseller): https://www.ebay.com/itm/295989873400 (checked September 28, 2026)

# H200 GPU price per hour by provider, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/h200-rental-price-by-provider
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Crusoe lists the cheapest on-demand Nvidia H200 at $4.29 per GPU-hour (US dollars, before tax) on 28 September 2026, with DigitalOcean, Nebius, Modal and RunPod within 30 cents and Together AI ($5.99) and CoreWeave ($6.30 per GPU from an eight-GPU node) a tier higher.

Crusoe rents the cheapest on-demand Nvidia H200 of seven GPU clouds that publish an on-demand H200 price, at $4.29 per GPU-hour on its own pricing page. [1] The ranking uses each cloud's lowest listed on-demand H200 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026, in US dollars before tax. CoreWeave comes last at $6.30, derived from its $50.44 hourly price for an eight-GPU node. [2] Five of the seven span 30 cents, from $4.29 to $4.59. [3] Nebius moves first: it lists $5.40 from 1 October 2026, up from $4.50 today. [4]

## TL;DR

- Crusoe lists the lowest on-demand H200 at $4.29 per GPU-hour. DigitalOcean ($4.47), Nebius ($4.50), Modal ($4.54) and RunPod ($4.59) follow within 30 cents. [1] [5] [4] [6] [3]
- Together AI ($5.99) and CoreWeave ($6.30) form a higher tier. An eight-GPU node run for 720 hours costs $36,316.80 at CoreWeave's list price and $24,710.40 at Crusoe's. [7] [2] [1]
- Nebius raises its listed H200 price by 20.0% to $5.40 on 1 October 2026. The rise drops it from third to fifth. [4]
- At the same provider, the H200 costs 6 cents to $2.00 more per GPU-hour than the H100. The median premium across the seven is 59 cents, or 14.9%. [5] [7] [6]
- Per gigabyte of GPU memory, the H200 is cheaper than the H100 at all seven providers. The premium pays back only when a workload uses the extra memory. [8]
- Spot and reserved H200s cost far less but carry different terms at each provider. Nebius lists preemptible H200s from $0.79 and DigitalOcean a 12-month reserved rate of $3.40. [4] [5]

## How this ranking was built

The ranking belongs to our [model infrastructure research](/categories/model-infrastructure) and follows the [Glamdring research method](/methodology). The source is each GPU cloud's own public pricing page, captured on 28 September 2026. The ranked field is the lowest listed on-demand price for one Nvidia H200 with 141 GB of memory, per GPU per hour. Where a page shows an on-demand GPU-hour figure (Nebius labels it **On-demand, GPU-hour**), the figure is used unchanged. [4]

Two prices needed arithmetic. Modal lists the H200 SXM at $0.001261 per second, which is $4.54 per hour at 3,600 seconds. [6] CoreWeave's North America table prices the HGX H200 as an eight-GPU node at $50.44 an hour. Divided by eight, that is $6.305 per GPU-hour, shown as $6.30 in the table. [2]

Nine GPU clouds were checked. Lambda lists B200, H100, A100 and GH200 instances but no H200, so it drops out. [9] Vast.ai publishes prices that hosts set through supply and demand, so its median stays outside the ranking as a reference point. [10] Seven providers remain. Spot, preemptible and reserved prices sit in their own section because each provider attaches different terms to them.

## What does each GPU cloud charge for an H200?

Crusoe charges the least at $4.29 per GPU-hour and CoreWeave the most at $6.30, a difference of $2.01. [1] [2]

| Rank | GPU cloud | H200 as listed | On-demand price (US$ per GPU-hour, before tax) | Basis |
|---:|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | Crusoe | HGX H200, 141 GB | 4.29 | Listed per GPU-hour |
| 2 | DigitalOcean | HGX H200, 141 GB | 4.47 | Listed per GPU-hour; 1 or 8 GPUs per Droplet |
| 3 | Nebius | HGX H200 | 4.50 | Listed per GPU-hour; $5.40 from 1 October 2026 |
| 4 | Modal | H200 SXM | 4.54 | $0.001261 per second x 3,600 |
| 5 | RunPod | H200 SXM, 141 GB | 4.59 | Listed per hour (Pods) |
| 6 | Together AI | HGX H200, GPU Clusters | 5.99 | Listed per GPU-hour |
| 7 | CoreWeave | HGX H200, 8-GPU node, 141 GB | 6.30 | $50.44 per node-hour / 8 = $6.305 |

Sources for each row: Crusoe [1], DigitalOcean [5], Nebius [4], Modal [6], RunPod [3], Together AI [7] and CoreWeave [2].

The top five sit so close that the hourly price rarely decides between them. The package around the GPU does. DigitalOcean lets a Droplet hold one or eight GPUs and bills per second with a five-minute minimum. [5] RunPod's H200 Pod comes with 24 vCPUs and 276 GB of system memory. [3] Modal bills CPU cores and memory on top of the GPU, at $0.0000131 per core-second and $0.00000222 per GiB-second. [6]

The higher tier sells a different unit. CoreWeave's main table prices whole eight-GPU nodes. It also shows a single-GPU inference price of $6.31 an hour for the H200. [2] Together AI's $5.99 is its GPU Clusters rate. Its Dedicated Inference table gives no H200 price and asks buyers to contact the company. [7]

The gap compounds at node scale. Eight GPUs for 720 hours is 5,760 GPU-hours. At Crusoe that costs $24,710.40. At CoreWeave the same node-month costs $36,316.80, or $11,606.40 more, before storage, networking and tax. [1] [2]

## Which H200 prices are changing?

Nebius is the only ranked provider with a dated H200 price change on its page. It lists $4.50 per GPU-hour today and $5.40 under the column **GPU-hour (Effective October 1, 2026)**. [4] The rise is 20.0%. For an eight-GPU node at 720 hours, it adds $5,184 a month at list price. After the change, Nebius ranks fifth, behind RunPod and ahead of Together AI.

The same Nebius column raises other GPUs too. The H100 goes from $3.85 to $4.50, up 16.9%. The HGX B200 goes from $7.15 to $8.50 and the HGX B300 from $7.85 to $9.50. [4]

DigitalOcean's page states that new GPU pricing took effect on 1 August 2026 and that listed prices are subject to change. The captured page does not show the earlier rates. [5] RunPod's pricing page carries an "Updated September 27, 2026" stamp without naming a change. [3]

Together AI's H100 promotion ends on 30 September 2026. Its Dedicated Inference table shows the HGX H100 at $3.99 against a standard $5.49 until that date. [7] Its GPU Clusters H100 rate of $3.99, used in the H100 comparison below, carries no end date.

Thunder Compute published an H200 price table last reviewed on 18 September 2026. It lists the same prices as this ranking for Crusoe, DigitalOcean, Nebius, Modal and RunPod. [11] Its CoreWeave figure is $6.31, normalised from an eight-GPU node, which matches CoreWeave's $50.44 node price rounded up. The six listed prices were the same on both dates.

## How much more does an H200 cost than an H100?

At the same provider, the H200 costs between 6 cents and $2.00 more per GPU-hour than the H100. The median premium is 59 cents, or 14.9%. [5] [7] [6]

| GPU cloud | H200 (US$/GPU-hour) | H100 (US$/GPU-hour) | Premium (US$) | Premium (%) | H200 per GB-hour (US$) | H100 per GB-hour (US$) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| DigitalOcean | 4.47 | 4.41 | 0.06 | 1.4 | 0.0317 | 0.0551 |
| CoreWeave | 6.305 | 6.155 | 0.15 | 2.4 | 0.0447 | 0.0769 |
| Crusoe | 4.29 | 3.90 | 0.39 | 10.0 | 0.0304 | 0.0488 |
| Modal | 4.54 | 3.95 | 0.59 | 14.9 | 0.0322 | 0.0494 |
| Nebius | 4.50 | 3.85 | 0.65 | 16.9 | 0.0319 | 0.0481 |
| RunPod | 4.59 | 3.49 | 1.10 | 31.5 | 0.0326 | 0.0436 |
| Together AI | 5.99 | 3.99 | 2.00 | 50.1 | 0.0425 | 0.0499 |

H100 prices come from the same pages: Crusoe [1], DigitalOcean [5], Nebius [4], Modal's H100 SXM5 at $0.001097 per second [6], RunPod's H100 SXM [3], Together AI's GPU Clusters [7] and CoreWeave's eight-GPU node at $49.24 an hour [2].

The premium depends on the provider far more than on the chip. DigitalOcean and CoreWeave charge almost the same for either GPU. RunPod and Together AI charge 31.5% and 50.1% more for the H200. Across providers, the cheapest H200 (Crusoe, $4.29) costs 80 cents or 22.9% more than the cheapest H100 SXM (RunPod, $3.49). [1] [3]

Memory explains the price. NVIDIA lists the H200 with 141 GB of HBM3e at 4.8 TB/s, which it describes as nearly double the H100's capacity with 1.4 times the memory bandwidth. [8] Crusoe, DigitalOcean, RunPod and CoreWeave list their H100s at 80 GB. [1] [5] [3] [2] Divided by memory, the H200 is the cheaper chip at every provider. At Crusoe it costs $0.0304 per GB-hour against $0.0488 for the H100. The per-GB figures assume 80 GB for the H100 at Nebius, Modal and Together AI, whose pages don't state it.

The decision changes when the model fits in 80 GB. Thunder Compute notes that the two chips share the same GH100 die, so the H200's advantage appears where memory is the limit. [11] NVIDIA claims up to twice the H100's inference speed on Llama 2, a company figure tied to its own test settings. [8] For how the hourly GPU price flows into a serving budget, read our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## How much cheaper are spot and reserved H200s?

Interruptible and committed H200s cost well below on-demand, but each provider sets its own terms, so these prices stay out of the ranking.

- Nebius lists preemptible H200s from $0.79 per GPU-hour. It also offers up to 35% off on-demand rates for large clusters reserved for several months. [4]
- Together AI lists a preemptible H200 at $2.99. Its reserved H200 falls from $4.99 for 7 to 30 days to $3.99 for 91 to 180 days. [7]
- CoreWeave lists H200 spot capacity at $20.93 per eight-GPU node-hour in North America, which works out to $2.62 per GPU-hour. [2]
- DigitalOcean lists a 12-month reserved H200 at $3.40 per GPU-hour. Its spot plans on the captured page cover the B300 and AMD Instinct GPUs only. [5]
- Crusoe routes H200 spot pricing through its sales team. [1]

The reserved prices put a floor under negotiation. DigitalOcean's $3.40 for a year is 23.9% below its own on-demand rate of $4.47. [5]

## Why do other published H200 prices disagree?

Other trackers measure different things: marketplace medians, the single lowest offer or node prices rounded to one GPU.

Vast.ai's own page shows H200 offers from $2.63 an hour with a median of $4.30, set by hosts across its marketplace. [10] Thunder Compute reports Vast.ai at $3.96, the median of six verified US and Canadian hosts priced with 100 GB of storage. [11] gpus.io's search listing reports H200s from $2.63 per GPU-hour with a median of $4.40 across 21 configurations. [12] The $2.63 floor matches Vast.ai's lowest offer on the same day.

Variant matters. Vast.ai lists the H200 NVL separately at a median of $4.00 an hour. [10] The NVL is NVIDIA's PCIe card, rated up to 600 W against up to 700 W for the SXM version. [8] Check which variant a quoted price covers.

The hyperscalers sit far higher. Thunder Compute's 18 September table lists AWS at $7.91 per GPU-hour, normalised from an eight-GPU node in its cheapest US region. [11] It lists Oracle Cloud at $10.00, Azure at $10.60 and Google Cloud at $10.85. [11] Those figures are Thunder Compute's. This ranking did not check the hyperscalers' own pages.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

A list price is a statement from the company that sets it. It does not show whether capacity exists at that price on a given day. Crusoe sends buyers to sales for guaranteed capacity, and Together AI for H200 reservations beyond 180 days. [1] [7]

The ranked figure also leaves out most of the bill. DigitalOcean keeps charging for a powered-off GPU Droplet until it is destroyed. [5] Modal charges CPU and memory separately from the GPU. [6] Storage, network egress and local tax vary by provider and by buyer.

Region matters at CoreWeave, whose figure comes from its North America table. [2] Negotiated and committed prices sit outside the ranking, and so does performance per dollar. The AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and Oracle rates above come from a third-party table, not from their own pages.

Confirm the price in the provider's console on the day you commit. Use one real workload to test whether it needs 141 GB before paying the H200 premium.

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does it cost to rent an H200 GPU per hour?

On 28 September 2026, listed on-demand prices for one H200 ran from $4.29 per GPU-hour at Crusoe to $6.30 at CoreWeave, in US dollars before tax. [1] [2] Marketplace offers on Vast.ai started at $2.63 with a median of $4.30. [10] Interruptible capacity went lower, with Nebius listing preemptible H200s from $0.79. [4]

### Why is the H200 so expensive?

The H200 carries 141 GB of HBM3e memory at 4.8 TB/s, which NVIDIA describes as nearly double the H100's capacity. [8] Cloud prices reflect that memory. Measured per gigabyte, an H200 rents for less than an H100 at all seven providers checked. Crusoe charges $0.0304 per GB-hour for the H200 and $0.0488 for the H100. [1]

### Is the H200 the most powerful GPU?

No. Thunder Compute describes the B200 as NVIDIA's Blackwell successor to the H200. [11] GPU clouds price the newer chips higher. RunPod lists the B200 at $6.79 an hour and the B300 at $7.89, against $4.59 for the H200. [3] Nebius lists the HGX B200 at $7.15 and the HGX B300 at $7.85 per GPU-hour. [4]

### Does Lambda rent the H200?

Not on its public price list as of 28 September 2026. Lambda lists B200, H100, A100 and GH200 instances. [9] The GH200 it lists at $2.29 per GPU-hour carries 96 GB of GPU memory and is a different product from the H200. [9]

## Source notes
1. Crusoe: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. CoreWeave: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. RunPod: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Nebius: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
5. DigitalOcean: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Modal: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Together AI: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. NVIDIA: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/h200/ (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Lambda: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Vast.ai: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Thunder Compute (GPU cloud; third-party blog table): https://www.thundercompute.com/blog/nvidia-h200-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
12. gpus.io (search result snippet only; page body not captured): https://gpus.io/en/gpus/h200 (checked September 28, 2026)

# Is Expensify free? Expensify pricing, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/is-expensify-free
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Expensify is free for an individual's own receipt capture and expense reports on the Submit plan. Reimbursement, approvals and accounting sync start on Collect at $5 per member per month, per Expensify's pricing page checked 28 September 2026.

Yes, for an individual's own expenses. Expensify's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, lists its Submit plan as free for all members. [1] Submit covers receipt scanning, mileage tracking, expense reports and personal card import. [1] Reimbursements, approvals and accounting integrations sit on paid plans. [1] The cheapest is Collect at $5 per member per month. [1]

One caution comes from the same page. Its FAQ says expense categorisation needs a paid plan, yet the Submit plan lists categories and tags. [1]

## TL;DR

- Submit is free and built for one person's receipts and reports. It needs no company approval.
- Company money flows are paid. Reimbursements, corporate card management, approvals and QuickBooks or Xero sync first appear on Collect.
- Collect is the entry price for a business. Control is custom-priced with a floor of $9 per active member per month.
- Expensify offers discounts for annual commitments and Expensify Card use. The page quantifies only the card saving, at up to 50%.
- Test categories and tags in a free account before you build a process on them. The page contradicts itself here.
- Third-party listings misstate the free tier or quote $9 as Control's fixed price. Use Expensify's page and a written quote.

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring ranked Expensify's three plans by one field: the entry price Expensify publishes on each plan card. The source is Expensify's pricing page at use.expensify.com/pricing, captured on 28 September 2026. [1]

Each price is read with its stated unit. The page shows dollar prices beside a currency selector that lists USD first, then GBP, AUD, NZD and EUR. [1] We read the prices as US dollars. The page doesn't say whether prices include sales tax, VAT or GST.

Every plan on the page went in. Three plans produced three rows, with no merges or exclusions. Features come from each plan card's list. The page's compare table lost its per-plan marks in our capture, so we don't assign features from it.

These are list prices that Expensify publishes about itself. A quote can differ. Our [research method](/methodology) sets out how prices are checked and dated, and the [spend management category](/categories/spend-management) holds the rest of our coverage of expense and card systems.

| Rank | Plan | Who Expensify says it serves | Entry price (USD per month, tax status not stated) | Pricing type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Submit | "The free plan for employees, no company approval needed." | Free for all members | Published |
| 2 | Collect | "The small business plan that gives you expense, travel, and chat." | $5 per member | Published |
| 3 | Control | "Expense, travel, and chat for larger businesses." | As low as $9 per active member | Custom |

Source: Expensify pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

## What does Expensify's free plan include?

Expensify's free plan is Submit, and its pricing card lists eight inclusions: receipt scanning, mileage tracking, expense reports, categories and tags, custom distance and tax rates, personal card import, chat on every expense, and AI and human support. [1] Expensify describes Submit as "The free plan for employees, no company approval needed." [1] The page header adds that SmartScan receipts, sending and receiving money, and chat with coworkers are always free in New Expensify. [1]

Read as a system, Submit is a submitter's kit. A person photographs a receipt, logs mileage, imports a personal card and builds a report. Nothing on Submit's list moves company money to that person. Reimbursement first appears on the Collect card. [1]

The page makes the boundary explicit. It tells anyone who needs "more functionality to manage expenses for your business" to upgrade to Collect or Control. [1] So Submit fits an employee preparing reports, or a sole operator who wants a scanned receipt archive. It doesn't give a finance team a way to approve or repay spend.

## What does Expensify charge for?

Expensify charges for the steps a business uses to control and repay spend. The Collect card lists reimbursements, corporate card management, expense and travel approvals, travel booking and rules, and QuickBooks/Xero integrations. [1] None of those appear on Submit's list. Control adds multiple approval flows, custom expense rules, NetSuite and Sage Intacct integration, Workday and Certinia HR integrations, SAML/SSO, custom reporting and budgeting. [1]

The line between free and paid follows the money. Capturing an expense costs nothing. Approving it, paying it back and posting it to the ledger cost a per-member fee. For a finance team, the paid steps are the ones the process exists for. The free plan therefore lowers the cost of submitting expenses, and the company still pays for handling them.

Account support scales with size. The page's footnote limits an account manager to accounts of 100+ members. [1]

## What are the limits of free Expensify use?

Glamdring's reading of the pricing page is that free use is limited by function, and the page sets no scan cap. Expensify's FAQ says individuals can use New Expensify "for free with unlimited SmartScans". [1] The same answer says "additional functionality such as expense categorization requires a paid plan." [1] That sentence conflicts with the Submit card, which lists categories and tags as included. [1]

Three limits follow from the page as published:

1. Company money doesn't move on Submit. Reimbursements and corporate card management sit on Collect.
2. Approvals and accounting sync are paid. Expense approvals and QuickBooks/Xero integration sit on Collect, and ERP connections sit on Control.
3. Categorisation is uncertain. Two statements on one page disagree, and the page doesn't say which one governs.

The page states no user cap, report cap or time limit for Submit. The constraint for a business is the workflow, since the free plan stops before approval.

Use one real workflow to test the free plan. Create a category, tag an expense and export a report. If categories fail, the FAQ was right and the plan card was wrong.

## What is the cheapest paid Expensify plan?

Collect is the cheapest paid Expensify plan at $5 per member per month, on Expensify's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] Expensify's FAQ says most businesses start on Collect. [1] Control is the next step, at custom pricing "as low as $9 per active member/month". [1]

The economics run on the member. A 10-member team on Collect's list price pays $50 a month, or $600 a year, before discounts and tax. The same team at Control's floor pays $90 a month.

The two plans use different units. Collect says per member. Control says per active member, and the page doesn't define an active member. Confirm this in the current quote before you compare the two.

The decision changes when you need NetSuite, Sage Intacct, SAML/SSO or multiple approval flows. Those appear only on Control's card. [1] If you are weighing Expensify against other spend systems, our [comparison of Center and Ramp](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) covers two more options in the same category.

## Does the Expensify Card lower the price?

Yes, by Expensify's own statement, but the page gives no plan-level figure. The pricing page lists "Save up to 50% on Expensify" under the Expensify Card. [1] Its FAQ says discounts are available "for annual commitments and when using the Expensify Card." [1] It doesn't say which plan, spend level or term earns the maximum saving.

The card also pays cash back. Expensify's footnote gives 1% on all US purchases with no minimum, and 2% for monthly spend over $250K. [1] The footnote ties the 1% rate to US purchases. A company outside the US should confirm how the discount and cash back apply in its market before counting either in a budget.

## Why do other published Expensify prices disagree?

Third-party listings compress Expensify's page, and two errors recur in the pages captured on 28 September 2026. Softwr's Expensify vs FreeAgent comparison marks Expensify with no free tier and a starting price of "$5/month". [2] Expensify's own page lists a free Submit plan and prices Collect per member. [1] SaasHunter puts the Control plan "at around $9 per user per month". [3] Secret lists Control at a flat $9 per user per month. [4] Expensify describes $9 as the floor of custom pricing. [1]

A third claim stretches the discount. SaasHunter says businesses that adopt the Expensify Card "may also qualify for discounted or free access to paid features." [3] Expensify's page supports a discount of up to 50%. [1] It says nothing about free access to paid features.

The two errors drop part of Expensify's wording: the free plan, the member unit or the word "custom". Take list prices from Expensify's page and the price you'll pay from a written quote.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

- The page can't give your price. Control is custom-priced, and the annual and card discounts aren't quantified by plan.
- It states no tax treatment.
- Our capture of the compare table kept the row names but not the per-plan marks. Features here come from the plan cards only.
- Control bills per active member without defining one.
- Only a test in the product settles which categorisation statement is right.
- No earlier capture of the page is compared here, so changes before or after 28 September 2026 aren't shown.
- A published price says nothing about SmartScan accuracy or support response times.

New Glamdring research goes out in the free [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does Expensify cost?

Expensify publishes three prices. Submit is free, Collect is $5 per member per month, and Control is custom-priced from $9 per active member per month. [1] Annual commitments and Expensify Card use can lower the bill. [1] These figures come from Expensify's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026.

### Can a small business use Expensify for free?

Staff can capture and report expenses on Submit at no cost, but the company's side of the process is paid. Reimbursements, approvals and QuickBooks or Xero integration appear on Collect's list at $5 per member per month. [1]

### Does free Expensify limit receipt scans?

No scan cap appears on Expensify's pricing page. Its FAQ says individuals can use New Expensify free "with unlimited SmartScans". [1]

### Where do I get a custom Expensify quote?

Expensify's pricing FAQ directs questions to Concierge inside an Expensify account, or by email to concierge@expensify.com. [1] Ask for the per-member rate, the definition of an active member and any annual or card discount in writing.

## Source notes
1. Expensify pricing and plans: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Expensify vs FreeAgent: https://www.softwr.com/compare/expensify-vs-freeagent (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Expensify Review (2026): Pricing, Features & Alternatives: https://saashunter.pro/saas/expensify (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Expensify Promo Code: https://www.joinsecret.com/expensify (checked September 28, 2026)

# Lambda Labs pricing: Lambda price list, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/lambda-gpu-cloud-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: For H100 and B200, Lambda's 8-GPU instance is its cheapest published rate ($3.99 and $6.69 per GPU-hour, before tax, checked 28 September 2026). 1-Click Clusters cost 32.6% to 54.4% more per GPU-hour and are priced by GPU count, not term, across 2 weeks to 1 year.

Lambda's cheapest GPU instance is a single NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 at $0.69 per GPU-hour, on Lambda's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The dearest is a single NVIDIA B200 SXM6 at $6.99, and an 8-GPU H100 SXM instance costs $3.99 per GPU-hour. [1] 1-Click Clusters cost $5.54 to $6.16 per H100-hour and $8.87 to $9.86 per B200-hour on terms of 2 weeks to 1 year. [1] Every price is before sales tax, VAT or GST. [1]

## TL;DR

- The 8-GPU instance is the cheapest published way to buy an H100 or B200 hour at Lambda: $3.99 and $6.69 per GPU-hour. Each smaller size adds $0.10, up to $4.29 and $6.99 for one GPU. [1]
- The A100 40 GB costs $1.99 per GPU-hour at every instance size, and the A6000 costs $1.09 at every size it's sold in. [1]
- Cluster prices fall with GPU count, not with term. Across the 2-week-to-1-year band the rate is fixed; 256 GPUs cost 10% less per GPU-hour than 16. [1]
- A 16-GPU H100 cluster costs 54.4% more per GPU-hour than an 8x H100 instance. For the B200 the gap is 47.4%. [1]
- Terms beyond one year and Superclusters carry no public price. Lambda routes its lowest prices, for reserved capacity, through its own team. [1]
- At least one third-party tracker lists an A100 price that Lambda's page doesn't show. Where they differ, use Lambda's page. [2] [1]

## How this ranking was built

This page records Lambda's published instance and cluster prices per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026. It sits in our [model infrastructure category](/categories/model-infrastructure). The source is one page: Lambda's AI cloud pricing page, captured at 15:05 Australian Eastern Standard Time, which shows no last-updated date. [1]

The ranked field is Lambda's **PRICE/GPU/HR** column in its Instances pricing tables. [1] The page shows four instance tables under the tabs 8x, 4x, 2x and 1x. The capture doesn't label each table, so we matched them by order and by their resources, which halve from one table to the next: a B200 instance has 208 vCPUs in the first table and 26 in the fourth. [1] ComputePrices, a price tracker, also labels the $6.69 B200 and $3.99 H100 rows as 8-GPU configurations. [2]

The four tables hold 22 rows. All 22 carry a price and all are ranked, cheapest first; tied prices share a rank. The 1-Click Clusters tables hold 8 rows, 6 of them priced, and sit in their own table below because they are priced by GPU count and term. [1] Hourly totals multiply the per-GPU rate by the GPU count. Percentages are our arithmetic, rounded to one decimal place. Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out how prices are captured and checked.

## What does each Lambda GPU instance cost per GPU-hour?

Lambda's instance prices run from $0.69 per GPU-hour for a single Quadro RTX 6000 to $6.99 for a single B200 SXM6, on the pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The last column is our product of the listed rate and the GPU count.

| Rank | GPU | VRAM per GPU | GPUs | Price per GPU-hour ($, before tax) | Instance per hour ($, computed) |
|---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 | 24 GB | 1 | $0.69 | $0.69 |
| 2 | NVIDIA Tesla V100 | 16 GB | 8 | $0.79 | $6.32 |
| =3 | NVIDIA A6000 | 48 GB | 4 | $1.09 | $4.36 |
| =3 | NVIDIA A6000 | 48 GB | 2 | $1.09 | $2.18 |
| =3 | NVIDIA A6000 | 48 GB | 1 | $1.09 | $1.09 |
| 6 | NVIDIA A10 | 24 GB | 1 | $1.29 | $1.29 |
| =7 | NVIDIA A100 SXM | 40 GB | 8 | $1.99 | $15.92 |
| =7 | NVIDIA A100 PCIe | 40 GB | 4 | $1.99 | $7.96 |
| =7 | NVIDIA A100 PCIe | 40 GB | 2 | $1.99 | $3.98 |
| =7 | NVIDIA A100 SXM | 40 GB | 1 | $1.99 | $1.99 |
| =7 | NVIDIA A100 PCIe | 40 GB | 1 | $1.99 | $1.99 |
| 12 | NVIDIA GH200 | 96 GB | 1 | $2.29 | $2.29 |
| 13 | NVIDIA A100 SXM | 80 GB | 8 | $2.79 | $22.32 |
| 14 | NVIDIA H100 PCIe | 80 GB | 1 | $3.29 | $3.29 |
| 15 | NVIDIA H100 SXM | 80 GB | 8 | $3.99 | $31.92 |
| 16 | NVIDIA H100 SXM | 80 GB | 4 | $4.09 | $16.36 |
| 17 | NVIDIA H100 SXM | 80 GB | 2 | $4.19 | $8.38 |
| 18 | NVIDIA H100 SXM | 80 GB | 1 | $4.29 | $4.29 |
| 19 | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 | 180 GB | 8 | $6.69 | $53.52 |
| 20 | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 | 180 GB | 4 | $6.79 | $27.16 |
| 21 | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 | 180 GB | 2 | $6.89 | $13.78 |
| 22 | NVIDIA B200 SXM6 | 180 GB | 1 | $6.99 | $6.99 |

The ranking sorts by the rate, not by the bill. An 8x B200 instance is the dearest thing to run by the hour at $53.52, yet its per-GPU rate is the cheapest B200 on the page. [1]

Several GPUs appear at one size only. The V100 and the 80 GB A100 come only as 8-GPU instances, and the GH200, A10, H100 PCIe and Quadro RTX 6000 only as single GPUs. [1] That changes the entry cost more than the rate does. The cheapest way onto an 80 GB A100 is $22.32 an hour for eight of them, while an H100 PCIe with the same 80 GB of memory costs $3.29 an hour on its own. [1]

Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the other inputs to a serving bill, from utilisation to the hardware choice itself.

## How does instance size change Lambda's price?

On Lambda's two newest instance GPUs, each halving of instance size adds $0.10 per GPU-hour. The H100 SXM runs $3.99, $4.09, $4.19 and $4.29 from 8 GPUs down to 1. The B200 SXM6 runs $6.69, $6.79, $6.89 and $6.99. [1]

The same $0.30 step from 8 GPUs to 1 weighs differently on each. It is 7.5% of the 8x H100 rate and 4.5% of the 8x B200 rate. [1] Older GPUs carry no size premium at all: the A100 40 GB is $1.99 at every size and the A6000 is $1.09 at 4, 2 and 1 GPUs. [1]

The resources attached to each GPU stay close to constant as the instance shrinks. An 8x B200 instance lists 208 vCPUs, 2,900 GiB of RAM and 22 TiB of SSD; the single B200 lists 26 vCPUs, 360 GiB and 2.75 TiB. [1] Per GPU, that's 26 vCPUs either way and 362.5 GiB against 360 GiB of RAM. So the small-instance premium buys the ability to rent fewer GPUs, not a thinner machine per GPU.

The decision changes at the single-GPU tier. There, the H100 PCIe at $3.29 is $1.00 an hour cheaper than the H100 SXM at $4.29, with the same 80 GB listed and 1 TiB of SSD against 2.75 TiB. [1] A single-GPU job that doesn't need the SXM part saves 23.3% by taking the PCIe card.

## What do Lambda's 1-Click Clusters cost by term?

Lambda's 1-Click Clusters cost $5.54 to $6.16 per H100 GPU-hour and $8.87 to $9.86 per B200 GPU-hour for any term from 2 weeks to 1 year, on the pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The rate falls as the cluster grows; the term inside that band doesn't move it. Clusters of a year or more show no price.

| GPU | Term | GPUs | Price per GPU-hour ($, before tax) | Cluster per hour ($, computed) |
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | 2 weeks – 1 year | 16 | $9.86 | $157.76 |
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | 2 weeks – 1 year | 64 | $9.36 | $599.04 |
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | 2 weeks – 1 year | 256+ | $8.87 | $2,270.72 at 256 |
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | 1 year+ | 16+ | No price; talk to Lambda | Not listed |
| NVIDIA H100 | 2 weeks – 1 year | 16 | $6.16 | $98.56 |
| NVIDIA H100 | 2 weeks – 1 year | 64 | $5.85 | $374.40 |
| NVIDIA H100 | 2 weeks – 1 year | 256 | $5.54 | $1,418.24 |
| NVIDIA H100 | 1 year+ | 16+ | No price; talk to Lambda | Not listed |

Lambda describes these as production-ready clusters of 16 to 2,000+ B200 or H100 GPUs. [1] Every priced row still routes to "Talk to our team"; nothing on the cluster tables is self-serve checkout. [1]

The volume steps are almost identical on both GPUs. Moving from 16 to 64 GPUs cuts the rate by 5.0% on the H100 and 5.1% on the B200. Moving from 16 to 256 cuts it by 10.1% on the H100 and 10.0% on the B200. [1]

In cash terms, the smallest cluster for the shortest term is large. At 336 hours for two weeks of continuous use, 16 H100s cost $33,116.16 and 16 B200s cost $53,007.36 before tax. [1] The estimate assumes the whole term bills at the listed rate. The page doesn't state how a term is invoiced, so confirm it in the current quote.

Above one year, the page stops publishing prices. It says to contact Lambda "for reserved capacity at our lowest prices", which implies the published cluster rates aren't the floor. [1] Superclusters, the third product named at the top of the page, have no price table in the capture. [1]

## How much more does a Lambda cluster cost than an instance?

A 1-Click Cluster costs 32.6% to 54.4% more per GPU-hour than Lambda's 8-GPU instance of the same GPU. The smallest H100 cluster, at $6.16, sits $2.17 above the 8x H100 instance at $3.99. The smallest B200 cluster, at $9.86, sits $3.17 above the 8x B200 at $6.69. [1]

| GPU | 8x instance | 16-GPU cluster | Premium | 256-GPU cluster | Premium |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| H100 | $3.99 | $6.16 | 54.4% | $5.54 | 38.8% |
| B200 | $6.69 | $9.86 | 47.4% | $8.87 | 32.6% |

Take 16 H100s for two weeks. Two 8x instances cost $63.84 an hour, or $21,450.24 over 336 hours. The 16-GPU cluster costs $98.56 an hour, or $33,116.16. [1] The difference is $11,665.92.

The page doesn't itemise what the premium covers. What it does show is the access model. Instances are "self-serve, first-come access"; clusters are production-ready blocks sold for a term through Lambda's team. [1] One tracker describes the clusters as built for distributed workloads. [3] The constraint is availability. On 28 September 2026 another tracker marked Lambda's cheapest listed B200, GH200 and V100 configurations as sold out. [4] A buyer who can't wait for first-come capacity pays the cluster rate for a committed block. A buyer whose job fits on eight GPUs and can wait pays the instance rate.

## Is sales tax included in Lambda's GPU prices?

No. Every price table on Lambda's page carries the footnote "plus applicable sales tax/VAT/GST", including all four instance tables and both cluster tables. [1] The listed rate is the pre-tax rate.

The footnote names three tax types and no rate, so the tax added depends on where the buyer is billed. [1] The page also prints a dollar sign without a currency code. [1] Treat both as open items in any budget: confirm the invoicing currency and the tax Lambda will add for your billing entity in the current quote. Every figure on this page, including our hourly and two-week totals, is before tax.

## Why do other published Lambda prices disagree?

Other published Lambda prices disagree for three traceable reasons: a tracker's row that doesn't match Lambda's page, old reservation figures still ranking in search, and billing details that Lambda's page doesn't state.

ComputePrices lists the A100 SXM 80 GB at $1.99 per hour. [2] Lambda's page lists the A100 SXM 80 GB at $2.79 per GPU-hour, in the 8x table only; $1.99 is its rate for the 40 GB A100. [1] The same tracker's B200, GH200, H100 PCIe, H100 SXM, A10 and A6000 rates match Lambda's page. [2] [1]

The Next Platform's February 2024 report on Lambda's $320 million raise said Lambda and CoreWeave advertised GPU pricing as low as $2.23 per GPU per hour, usually for one-to-three-year reservations. [5] That figure is more than two and a half years old and still appears in search results for Lambda's pricing. Lambda's current page publishes no price for any term over one year. [1]

Billing increments differ by source. Fluence, a GPU marketplace that sells against Lambda, describes Lambda as billing per minute. [6] Lambda's captured pricing page states no billing increment. [1] On a short job the increment decides the bill, so check it on a small first run.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

This ranking shows Lambda's list prices on 28 September 2026. They are a company statement about what Lambda charges. They don't show what reserved or enterprise customers negotiate, and Lambda says its lowest prices are for reserved capacity. [1]

The page shows price, not availability. A GPU on the list may be sold out on the day you need it; one tracker flagged Lambda's cheapest B200, GH200 and V100 configurations as sold out on the check date. [4] The ranking doesn't measure performance per dollar, so a cheaper GPU-hour isn't a cheaper job.

Storage and data transfer sit outside the captured page. Trackers list Lambda block storage at $0.20 per GB per month and state that Lambda charges no egress fees. [4] [3] Confirm both before you model a data-heavy workload. We have no earlier capture of this page, so the tables show no price changes. The ranking will be rebuilt when Lambda changes its pricing page. New pricing research goes out in our free [research briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does an A100 cost per hour on Lambda?

A 40 GB A100 costs $1.99 per GPU-hour on Lambda at every size, from one GPU to eight, on the pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] The 80 GB A100 SXM costs $2.79 per GPU-hour and comes only as an 8-GPU instance, which is $22.32 an hour. [1] Both are before tax.

### What is the cheapest GPU on Lambda?

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 is the cheapest, at $0.69 per GPU-hour for a single-GPU instance with 24 GB of memory. [1] The Tesla V100 is second at $0.79 per GPU-hour, but it's sold only as an 8-GPU instance, so the hourly bill is $6.32. [1] For more memory on one GPU, a single A6000 gives 48 GB for $1.09 an hour. [1]

### Does Lambda publish prices for commitments longer than a year?

No. Both cluster tables list a "1 year+" row for 16 or more GPUs with a dash in the price column and a link to talk to Lambda's team. [1] The page says reserved capacity at Lambda's lowest prices is available by contacting the company. Superclusters also carry no public price. [1]

### Is Lambda Labs legit?

Lambda, formerly Lambda Labs, was founded in 2012. [5] In February 2024 it raised a $320 million Series C round, which The Next Platform reported brought its total raised to $432 million. [5] Lambda states SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 on its trust site, according to a tracker that links to it. [4] Those are company statements and funding records, not an audit of service quality. Check the scope of any attestation before you rely on it.

## Source notes
1. AI cloud pricing: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Lambda Labs vs VoltageGPU: https://computeprices.com/compare/lambda-vs-voltagegpu (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Lambda Labs vs Lambda Labs: GPU Compute Price Comparison: https://computecomparison.com/compare-gpu-cloud-providers/lambda-labs-vs-lambda-labs (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Hyperstack vs Lambda Labs: Pricing & Pros (2026): https://getdeploying.com/hyperstack-vs-lambda-labs (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Lambda Snags $320 Million To Grow Its Rent-A-GPU Cloud: https://www.nextplatform.com/ai/2024/02/16/lambda-snags-320-million-to-grow-its-rent-a-gpu-cloud/1658496 (checked September 28, 2026)
6. A Lambda Labs alternative at 69% lower cost: https://fluence.ai/lambda-labs (checked September 28, 2026)

# Renewable energy companies in Australia: AEMO July 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/largest-renewable-energy-companies-australia
Category: Electricity generation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Snowy Hydro Ltd owns the most in-service renewable capacity in AEMO's 31 July 2026 NEM Generation Information release, 3,821.5 MW of conventional hydro.

Snowy Hydro Ltd owns the most operating renewable generation in Australia's National Electricity Market (NEM): 3,821.5 MW of in-service conventional hydro capacity across 8 sites, according to AEMO's NEM Generation Information release of 31 July 2026. [1] Hydro-Electric Corporation is second with 2,276.6 MW of hydro, and ACEN AUSTRALIA, the largest solar owner, is third with 800 MW. [1]

Each owner appears exactly as AEMO's owner field records it, so one corporate group can show up under more than one name. [1]

## TL;DR

- Conventional hydro decides the top of the list. Snowy Hydro Ltd, Hydro-Electric Corporation and AGL Hydro Partnership own 6,875.1 MW of the top ten's 11,029.4 MW. [1]
- Below the hydro owners, wind is the common holding. Of the 40 largest owners, 20 own wind only, 14 own solar only and 3 own both. [1]
- The owner record is usually a project company, not a parent group: 27 of the 40 largest owners are recorded against a single site. [1]
- Related entities are not merged. Tilt Renewables Australia Pty Ltd (509 MW) and Tilt Renewables (336 MW) rank ninth and fifteenth; summed, they would sit third. [1]
- Pumped hydro is excluded as storage, and batteries aren't counted either. [1] DC-rated solar figures, operator portfolios and project maps measure different things and won't match these numbers.

## How this ranking was built

We ranked site owners on one field from one release: AEMO's NEM Generation Information for July 2026, published on 31 July 2026. [1] The figures come from the release's `Generator Information` sheet, and every value below is a sum of the release's own cells. [1] Our [research standard](/methodology) explains how we source and check figures like these.

1. **Field:** installed capacity, recorded by AEMO as **Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC)**, in megawatts AC. [1]
2. **Inclusion:** Commitment Status = In Service; Technology Type = Solar PV or Wind, or Hydro with Technology Detail Dam or Run of River. [1]
3. **Exclusions:** pumped hydro excluded as storage; rows with status Withdrawn. [1]
4. **Sites:** generating-unit rows sharing a site name and region are summed into one site. [1]
5. **Owners:** owner as recorded, not merged. The ranking uses the **Site Owner** cell exactly as written, and related entities are not merged. [1]
6. **Result:** 184 owners hold in-service solar, wind or conventional hydro capacity. The table shows the top 25. [1]

AEMO records these capacities in its register. They're registry figures, reported rather than measured output. [1]

## Which companies own the most operating renewable capacity in the NEM?

Glamdring Research's count of AEMO's 31 July 2026 release puts Snowy Hydro Ltd first with 3,821.5 MW, followed by Hydro-Electric Corporation with 2,276.6 MW and ACEN AUSTRALIA with 800 MW. [1] The ranked figure is in-service solar, wind and conventional hydro nameplate capacity in MW AC, summed for each site owner as AEMO records it. [1]

| Rank | Site owner (as recorded) | In-service capacity (MW AC) | Solar (MW) | Wind (MW) | Hydro (MW) | Sites |
|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 1 | Snowy Hydro Ltd | 3,821.5 | 0 | 0 | 3,821.5 | 8 |
| 2 | Hydro-Electric Corporation | 2,276.6 | 0 | 0 | 2,276.6 | 22 |
| 3 | ACEN AUSTRALIA | 800 | 800 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 4 | AGL Hydro Partnership | 777 | 0 | 0 | 777 | 10 |
| 5 | Golden Plains WF1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the Golden Plains WF1 Unit Trust | 756.4 | 0 | 756.4 | 0 | 1 |
| 6 | PARF Company 6 Pty Limited | 608.5 | 155.6 | 452.9 | 0 | 3 |
| 7 | Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Pty Ltd | 527.6 | 0 | 527.6 | 0 | 1 |
| 8 | Ratch Australia | 516 | 42.5 | 473.5 | 0 | 6 |
| 9 | Tilt Renewables Australia Pty Ltd | 509 | 0 | 509 | 0 | 2 |
| 10 | Wellington North Solar Farm Pty Ltd | 436.8 | 436.8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 11 | Macarthur Wind Farm Pty Ltd and Meridian Wind Macarthur Pty Ltd | 420 | 0 | 420 | 0 | 1 |
| 12 | Western Downs Green Power Hub Pty Ltd | 400.8 | 400.8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 13 | Acciona Energy Australia Global Pty Ltd | 387.8 | 387.8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 14 | Culcairn Solar Farm Pty Ltd as trustee for Culcairn Solar Farm Trust | 349.6 | 349.6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 15 | Tilt Renewables | 336 | 0 | 336 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | Moorabool Wind Farm Interface Company Pty Ltd | 312 | 0 | 312 | 0 | 1 |
| 17 | FRV Australia (Walla Walla Asset Co Pty Ltd (ACN 634 728 868) as trustee for the Walla Walla Asset Trust) | 304.3 | 304.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | PAREP 1 Pty Ltd | 300 | 99 | 201 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | Berrbank Development Pty ltd | 289.8 | 0 | 289.8 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | Wollar Solar Development Pty Ltd | 280 | 280 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | Lake Bonney Wind Power Pty Ltd | 278.5 | 0 | 278.5 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | Darlington Point Solar Farm Pty Ltd | 275.4 | 275.4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 23 | SWF1 Operations Holdings Pty Ltd as trustee for SWF1 Hold Trust | 270 | 0 | 270 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | Snowtown Wind Farm Stage 2 Pty Ltd | 270 | 0 | 270 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | Limondale Sun Farm Pty Ltd | 259 | 259 | 0 | 0 | 2 |

Source: AEMO, NEM Generation Information, July 2026 (released 31 July 2026), `Generator Information` sheet, summed by Glamdring Research. [1]

Snowy Hydro Ltd's lead is wide. Its 3,821.5 MW is more than the owners ranked third to seventh hold between them, 3,469.5 MW. [1] After the fourth place the gaps close quickly: ranks five to ten run from 756.4 MW down to 436.8 MW, and a single wind or solar farm can move an owner several places. [1]

The names tell you what the owner field records. Most rows are companies or trusts named after one farm, such as Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Pty Ltd or Culcairn Solar Farm Pty Ltd as trustee for Culcairn Solar Farm Trust. [1] Only a handful of records carry a portfolio name, among them Ratch Australia with 6 sites and AGL Hydro Partnership with 10. [1]

## How does the solar, wind and hydro split change the order?

Hydro sets the top of the ranking, while wind and solar set everything below fourth place. [1] Only three of the 40 largest owners hold conventional hydro, and all three sit in the top four. [1] Across the top ten, they account for 6,875.1 MW of hydro, against 2,719.4 MW of wind and 1,434.9 MW of solar. [1] ACEN AUSTRALIA is the largest solar owner at 800 MW, and Golden Plains WF1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the Golden Plains WF1 Unit Trust is the largest wind owner at 756.4 MW. [1]

| Technology | Largest owner (as recorded) | MW AC | Second-largest owner | MW AC |
|---|---|---:|---|---:|
| Hydro (Dam, Run of River) | Snowy Hydro Ltd | 3,821.5 | Hydro-Electric Corporation | 2,276.6 |
| Wind | Golden Plains WF1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the Golden Plains WF1 Unit Trust | 756.4 | Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Pty Ltd | 527.6 |
| Solar PV | ACEN AUSTRALIA | 800 | Wellington North Solar Farm Pty Ltd | 436.8 |

These technology leaders hold across all 184 owners, not just the table. The fortieth-largest owner has 200.8 MW in total, so no owner outside the top 40 can hold more than that in any one technology. [1]

Three owners in the top 40 hold both solar and wind. PARF Company 6 Pty Limited has 155.6 MW of solar and 452.9 MW of wind across 3 sites; Ratch Australia has 42.5 MW of solar and 473.5 MW of wind across 6 sites; PAREP 1 Pty Ltd has 99 MW of solar and 201 MW of wind across 2 sites. [1] Every other owner in the top 40 holds a single technology. [1]

Wind owners outnumber solar owners among the largest holdings, 20 to 14 in the top 40. [1] Big single solar sites still rank high. Wellington North Solar Farm Pty Ltd, Western Downs Green Power Hub Pty Ltd and Acciona Energy Australia Global Pty Ltd each hold one solar site of more than 380 MW, which puts them above 16 of the 20 wind-only owners in the top 40. [1]

## Why are related companies listed separately?

Glamdring Research ranks each owner exactly as AEMO's Site Owner field records it, because that field is the release's own record and any merge would be our judgement laid on top of it. [1] The cost is that one group can appear under several names. The clearest case is Tilt Renewables Australia Pty Ltd, ninth with 509 MW of wind across 2 sites, and Tilt Renewables, fifteenth with 336 MW of wind at 1 site. [1] Summed, those two records come to 845 MW, which would rank third, above ACEN AUSTRALIA's 800 MW. [1]

The names suggest a link. The fields we summed don't establish one, and they don't say which entity holds which share of a site.

Several other records share a project name without the release tying them together. Murra Warra Project Co Pty Ltd (225.7 MW) and Murra Warra II Project Co Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Murra Warra II Project Trust (209 MW) are separate owners. So are Goyder Wind Farm 1A Pty Ltd as trustee for Goyder Wind Farm 1A Trust (209 MW) and Goyder Wind Farm 1B Pty Ltd as trustee for Goyder Wind Farm 1B Trust (203.5 MW). [1] One record, Macarthur Wind Farm Pty Ltd and Meridian Wind Macarthur Pty Ltd, names two companies against a single 420 MW site. [1]

If you need group-level exposure, treat these rows as the starting list. Confirm who controls each entity in the company's current filings before adding records together.

## Why is pumped hydro left out?

This ranking counts pumped hydro as storage, so it's excluded; the only hydro counted is capacity AEMO records with Technology Detail Dam or Run of River. [1] The hydro figures for Snowy Hydro Ltd, Hydro-Electric Corporation and AGL Hydro Partnership are therefore conventional hydro only. [1] Any pumped hydro those owners hold sits outside these totals.

Storage has its own coverage in our [energy storage research](/categories/energy-storage). Keeping it apart stops a storage asset from lifting an owner's generation rank, and it keeps this list to plant that generates from water, wind or sun.

## What does AEMO's capacity figure measure?

The ranked figure is installed capacity in megawatts AC, recorded by AEMO as Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC), for plant with the status In Service. [1] It's a capacity rating, not the electricity a site produced over a year. AEMO records 3,821.5 MW for Snowy Hydro Ltd. That is a registry figure, not a measured output. [1]

Three consequences follow for anyone reading the table:

- **Capacity isn't energy.** A 500 MW wind owner and a 500 MW hydro owner rank level here, whatever their annual generation.
- **Status matters.** Only the In Service class counts. Rows with status Withdrawn are excluded, and projects AEMO classes as not yet built fall outside the In Service filter. [1]
- **AC is the unit.** Solar farms are also described in DC terms, which gives a larger number for the same site. [2]

## Why do other published figures disagree?

Other figures disagree because they count something else: DC panel ratings instead of AC capacity, portfolios a company operates for others instead of sites it owns, or projects at every stage instead of in-service plant.

**DC versus AC.** Solarig's November 2025 press release describes Stubbo Solar as "400 MW / 520 MWp" and names ACEN Australia as its owner. [2] The same site carries two ratings, and the MWp figure is the larger one. The same release puts Darlington Point at 333 MWp. [2] AEMO records Darlington Point Solar Farm Pty Ltd with 275.4 MW AC at one site. [1]

**Operated versus owned.** Solarig says it has reached "2 GW in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) in Australia" and calls itself the country's largest O&M operator by installed capacity. [2] That is a company statement about plant it maintains. No owner recorded as Solarig appears among the 40 largest site owners in AEMO's release. [1]

**Every stage versus in service.** A RenewMap capacity widget on the same RenewEconomy page shows 1,074,239.53 MW of generation capacity, labelled as an overview of utility-scale energy projects in Australia. [2] The widget doesn't state which project statuses it counts, so it can't be set beside an in-service total.

**Retailers versus generators.** Some pages that rank for this search list green energy suppliers and installers by customer review ratings. [3] Those lists rank suppliers on reviews, not on plant owned, so they answer a different question.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

Glamdring Research's ranking shows who is recorded as owning in-service solar, wind and conventional hydro capacity in the NEM on AEMO's 31 July 2026 release; it can't show corporate control, output, earnings or change over time. [1]

- **Parent groups and equity shares.** The ranking reads the Site Owner cell only. Shared ownership and parent companies need company filings.
- **Energy produced.** Capacity isn't generation, and this ranking uses no output data.
- **Change since the previous release.** We haven't compared this release with AEMO's earlier one, so this edition makes no claim about which owners grew.
- **Location.** Sites are built from site name and region, but we haven't published a per-owner split by state. [1]
- **Plant outside the NEM.** The release covers the National Electricity Market only. [1]
- **The long tail.** 184 owners qualify; the table shows 25. Every owner below fortieth place holds less than 200.8 MW. [1]

We'll refresh this ranking when AEMO publishes its next Generation Information release. [Subscribe to our research briefing](/subscribe) to receive the updated ranking.

## Frequently asked questions

### Who is the largest renewable energy developer in Australia?

This ranking counts owners of in-service plant, not developers, so it can't rank developers. On owned in-service capacity, Snowy Hydro Ltd is largest with 3,821.5 MW of conventional hydro. [1] Among solar and wind owners, ACEN AUSTRALIA leads solar with 800 MW and Golden Plains WF1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the Golden Plains WF1 Unit Trust leads wind with 756.4 MW. [1] Projects that are announced, committed or under construction are a different count, and this ranking leaves them out.

### What are the top 5 renewable energy companies in Australia?

By in-service capacity owned in the NEM, as recorded in AEMO's July 2026 release, the top five are Snowy Hydro Ltd (3,821.5 MW), Hydro-Electric Corporation (2,276.6 MW), ACEN AUSTRALIA (800 MW), AGL Hydro Partnership (777 MW) and Golden Plains WF1 Pty Ltd as trustee for the Golden Plains WF1 Unit Trust (756.4 MW). [1] If the two Tilt Renewables records were summed, their 845 MW would place third; this ranking keeps them apart. [1]

### Does the ranking include battery storage?

No. The ranking counts only Solar PV, Wind and conventional Hydro, so grid batteries and pumped hydro are left out. [1] Our ranking of the [largest battery storage sites in Australia](/post/largest-battery-storage-sites-australia) covers grid batteries from AEMO's Generation Information data.

### Is this a list of the best renewable energy stocks?

No. The ranking measures recorded generating capacity, not company value, earnings or share performance, and it isn't investment advice. Of the 40 largest owners, 27 are recorded against a single site, often as a project company or trust named after that site. [1] A capacity ranking can't tell you what that capacity earns.

## Source notes
1. NEM Generation Information, July 2026 (nem-generation-information-july-2026.xlsx, sheet Generator Information): https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Solarig surpasses 2 GW of renewable energy assets: https://reneweconomy.com.au/solarig-surpasses-2-gw-of-renewable-energy-assets/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. The best renewable energy providers in Australia [2026]: https://www.dlook.com.au/find/green-energy-supplier (checked September 28, 2026)

# Largest solar farms in Australia: AEMO July 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/largest-solar-farms-australia
Category: Electricity generation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Wellington North Solar Farm (436.8 MW AC) is the largest solar farm AEMO classes as in service. Greater Geelong Energy Hub - KCI (2,000 MW AC) leads on reported nameplate capacity but is only publicly announced.

Wellington North Solar Farm in New South Wales is the largest solar farm in service on Australia's National Electricity Market. AEMO's 31 July 2026 Generation Information release records 436.8 MW AC of in-service capacity there. [1] The largest entry of any status is Greater Geelong Energy Hub - KCI in Victoria, at 2,000 MW AC. AEMO classes it as Publicly Announced, so none of it is built. [1]

None of the 25 largest entries is in service. The first in-service site sits at rank 34. [1]

## TL;DR

- Four solar sites of 400 MW AC or more are in service: Wellington North (436.8), Western Downs Green Power Hub (400.8), New England (400) and Stubbo (400). [1]
- Most listed solar capacity is still a proposal. Of 74,865.7 MW AC in the release, 11,463 MW (15.3%) is in service and 53,228.7 MW (71.1%) is Publicly Announced. [1]
- New South Wales leads on operating capacity with 5,458.3 MW AC in service. Queensland leads on total reported capacity with 29,994.6 MW AC. [1]
- Western Downs Green Power Hub's claim to be the largest operating solar farm rests on a 460 MWp DC figure. [2] On AEMO's MW AC field it ranks second. [1]
- In-service solar capacity rose 424.6 MW AC between the April and July 2026 releases. [1]
- The release covers the five National Electricity Market states. Solar farms in Western Australia and the Northern Territory sit outside the ranking. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranks one field from one release, under its [published research standard](/methodology).

- Source: AEMO, NEM Generation Information, July 2026, released 31 July 2026. File `nem-generation-information-july-2026.xlsx`, sheet Generator Information. [1]
- Field: **Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC)**, which is the reported nameplate capacity (MW AC) of each generating unit. [1]
- Inclusion: rows with Technology Type Solar PV.
- Merge: generating-unit rows that share a site name and region are summed into one site.
- Exclusion: rows with status Withdrawn.
- Result: 350 solar sites in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. [1]
- Operating capacity: AEMO's In Service and Announced Withdrawal classes. Announced Withdrawal marks an operating plant with a closure announced. Every other class counts as not yet operating.
- Ties: sites with the same figure are listed alphabetically.

AEMO records each figure. That is a registry figure, not a measured output. The tables show the top 25 rows of each ranking, with figures exactly as the release gives them.

## Which are the largest solar farms in Australia?

Greater Geelong Energy Hub - KCI in Victoria is the largest solar site in AEMO's July 2026 release, at a reported 2,000 MW AC. Texas BESS in New South Wales follows at 1,764 MW AC, then Sunshine Energy Solar Farm in Queensland at 1,500 MW AC. All three are Publicly Announced. So are 23 of the 25 largest sites. [1]

| Rank | Site | State | AEMO status | Nameplate capacity (MW AC) |
|---:|---|---|---|---:|
| 1 | Greater Geelong Energy Hub - KCI | Victoria | Publicly Announced | 2,000 |
| 2 | Texas BESS | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 1,764 |
| 3 | Sunshine Energy Solar Farm | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 1,500 |
| 4 | Upper Calliope Solar Farm (side A) | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 1,100 |
| 5 | Glenroy Hybrid Facility - Solar And BESS | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 1,000 |
| 6 | Cobbora Solar Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 818.4 |
| 7 | Bulli Creek Solar Farm | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 774.9 |
| 8 | North Burnett Renewable Hub - Solar | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 700 |
| 9 | Sandy Creek Solar Farm | New South Wales | Anticipated | 700 |
| 10 | Three Rivers Solar Farm | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 700 |
| 11 | Tallawang Solar And BESS | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 672 |
| 12 | Birriwa Hybrid | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 600 |
| 13 | Running Creek Solar and BESS | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 600 |
| 14 | Goulburn River Solar Farm And BESS | New South Wales | Committed | 588 |
| 15 | Eurimbula Solar Farm | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 562.8 |
| 16 | Bulli Creek Solar Farm (Trina) | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 550 |
| 17 | Beebo Solar Farm - KCI | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 528 |
| 18 | TUMMAVILLE Hybrid Facility- Solar And BESS | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 500.5 |
| 19 | Burdekin Solar Farm - KCI | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 500.4 |
| 20 | Robertstown Solar | South Australia | Publicly Announced | 500.4 |
| 21 | Bungaban Solar Farm - KCI | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 500 |
| 22 | Croydon Hybrid Facility - Solar And BESS | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 500 |
| 23 | Mackenzie River Solar Farm | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 500 |
| 24 | Melbourne Solar Farm and BESS - KCI | Victoria | Publicly Announced | 500 |
| 25 | Merriwa Solar Farm and BESS | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 500 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, July 2026, field Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC), solar PV rows summed by site. [1]

Two entries in the top 25 have moved past announcement. Sandy Creek Solar Farm (700 MW AC) is Anticipated. Goulburn River Solar Farm And BESS (588 MW AC) is Committed. [1] Queensland holds 15 of the 25 places. New South Wales holds seven, Victoria two and South Australia one.

Texas BESS carries a battery name, yet the release classes its 1,764 MW AC as solar PV. The ranking reports it as published. Many other names include BESS or Hybrid, and for every one of them the figure counts only the rows AEMO classes as solar PV. [1] Battery capacity is ranked separately in [Australia's largest battery storage sites](/post/largest-battery-storage-sites-australia).

## Which is the largest solar farm operating in Australia?

Wellington North Solar Farm in New South Wales is the largest solar farm AEMO classes as in service, at 436.8 MW AC in the 31 July 2026 release. Western Downs Green Power Hub in Queensland is second at 400.8 MW AC. New England Solar Farm and Stubbo Solar Farm, both in New South Wales, tie for third at 400 MW AC each. [1]

| Rank | Site | State | In-service capacity (MW AC) |
|---:|---|---|---:|
| 1 | Wellington North Solar Farm | New South Wales | 436.8 |
| 2 | Western Downs Green Power Hub P/L | Queensland | 400.8 |
| 3 | New England Solar Farm | New South Wales | 400 |
| 4 | Stubbo Solar Farm | New South Wales | 400 |
| 5 | Aldoga Solar Farm | Queensland | 387.8 |
| 6 | Culcairn Solar Farm | New South Wales | 349.6 |
| 7 | Walla Walla Solar Farm | New South Wales | 304.3 |
| 8 | Wollar Solar Farm | New South Wales | 280 |
| 9 | Darlington Point Solar Farm | New South Wales | 275.4 |
| 10 | Avonlie Solar Farm | New South Wales | 254.1 |
| 11 | Limondale Solar Farm 1 | New South Wales | 230 |
| 12 | Sunraysia Solar Farm | New South Wales | 228.8 |
| 13 | Woolooga Solar Farm | Queensland | 222.5 |
| 14 | Columboola Solar Farm | Queensland | 217.2 |
| 15 | Wellington South Solar Farm | New South Wales | 216.5 |
| 16 | Kiamal Solar Farm - Stage 1 | Victoria | 199.5 |
| 17 | Carwarp Solar Farm (CWSF) | Victoria | 186.2 |
| 18 | Edenvale Solar Park. | Queensland | 180 |
| 19 | Finley Solar Farm | New South Wales | 162.4 |
| 20 | Suntop Solar Farm | New South Wales | 158.4 |
| 21 | Coleambally Solar Farm | New South Wales | 150.3 |
| 22 | Daydream Solar Farm | Queensland | 150.1 |
| 23 | Bluegrass Solar Farm | Queensland | 148 |
| 24 | Sun Metals Corporation Solar Farm | Queensland | 143 |
| 25 | Bungala One Solar Farm | South Australia | 135 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, July 2026, in-service capacity in the Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC) field. [1]

The operating leaders cluster tightly. Five sites sit between 387.8 and 436.8 MW AC. The list then drops to Culcairn Solar Farm at 349.6 MW AC. [1] New South Wales holds 14 of the 25 places, Queensland eight, Victoria two and South Australia one. ACEN Australia is the only owner named twice, for New England and Stubbo. [1]

The largest operating site is about a fifth the size of the largest proposal. Wellington North's 436.8 MW AC is 21.8% of the 2,000 MW AC listed for Greater Geelong Energy Hub - KCI. [1]

The Queensland Government called Western Downs Green Power Hub Australia's largest solar farm on 5 April 2023, at 400MW, as panel installation finished. [3] AEMO's July 2026 release now records a larger site in service.

## How much solar capacity does each state have?

New South Wales has the most operating solar capacity in AEMO's July 2026 release, at 5,458.3 MW AC in service. Queensland has the most once proposals count, at 29,994.6 MW AC across all statuses. Queensland's listed capacity is nearly eight times its in-service capacity. For New South Wales the multiple is just under five. [1]

| State | Sites (all statuses) | Reported capacity, all statuses (MW AC) | In service (MW AC) | Share of state capacity in service |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Queensland | 118 | 29,994.6 | 3,772.7 | 12.6% |
| New South Wales | 135 | 26,714.1 | 5,458.3 | 20.4% |
| Victoria | 54 | 10,982 | 1,512.1 | 13.8% |
| South Australia | 39 | 5,910.8 | 719.9 | 12.2% |
| Tasmania | 4 | 1,264.2 | 0 | 0% |
| NEM total | 350 | 74,865.7 | 11,463 | 15.3% |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, July 2026. Shares computed by Glamdring Research. [1]

New South Wales holds 47.6% of the in-service solar capacity in the release. Queensland holds 32.9%. [1] Site counts include every status, so they count proposals alongside operating farms. Tasmania lists four sites and 1,264.2 MW AC, with nothing in service. [1]

Western Australia and the Northern Territory don't appear, because the release covers the National Electricity Market.

## How does AEMO define the capacity figure?

AEMO's capacity figure for a solar site is its Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC), taken from the Generator Information sheet of the Generation Information release. MW AC is the alternating-current rating. The figure records a site's rated size. It doesn't record the electricity the site generates. [1]

Each site also carries an AEMO status. The July 2026 release splits solar capacity like this:

| AEMO status | Solar capacity (MW AC) |
|---|---:|
| In Service | 11,463 |
| In Commissioning | 1,707.3 |
| Committed | 1,356.1 |
| Committed* | 970.1 |
| Anticipated | 6,140.4 |
| Publicly Announced | 53,228.7 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, July 2026. [1]

The in-service ranking leaves out the 1,707.3 MW AC In Commissioning. A site in that class can already be exporting power. Western Downs Green Power Hub was exporting more than 350MW in April 2023, before its final testing and commissioning phase began. [3] The in-service ranking is therefore conservative. The release separates Committed from Committed*, and the tables use AEMO's labels unchanged.

## Why do other published figures disagree?

Published sizes for the same solar farm disagree because sources mix units and boundaries. Some quote DC panel capacity in MWp where AEMO quotes MW AC. Some quote a whole project where AEMO records separate entries. Glamdring Research ranks on AEMO's MW AC field alone, so every site carries one unit from one registry on one date.

| Site | AEMO July 2026 (MW AC) | Other published figure | Published by |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Western Downs Green Power Hub | 400.8 | 460 MWp [2] | The project's website |
| Western Downs Green Power Hub | 400.8 | 400MW [3] | Queensland Government, 5 April 2023 |
| Darlington Point Solar Farm | 275.4 | 333 MW [4] | Blackridge Research |
| Darlington Point Solar Farm | 275.4 | 275 MWac, 333 MWp [5] | Wikipedia |
| Sunraysia Solar Farm | 228.8 | 255 MWp [4] | Blackridge Research |
| Walla Walla Solar Farm | 304.3 | 300 MWac [6] | FRV Australia, 1 October 2025 |
| Limondale Solar Farm 1 | 230 | 314 MWac [4] | Blackridge Research |
| Bungala One Solar Farm | 135 | 275 MW, two subprojects [4] | Blackridge Research |

AEMO figures: NEM Generation Information, July 2026. [1]

MWp is a DC rating. Wikipedia's list of large Australian solar projects carries separate columns for nameplate capacity in MWac and DC capacity in MWp. [5] At Darlington Point the two figures are 275 and 333. The AC figure matches AEMO's 275.4 MW AC. [1] Blackridge's list gives 333 MW with no AC or DC label. [4] That matches Wikipedia's DC figure for the site. The same Wikipedia table shows how easily the columns cross. It gives New England Solar 520 MWac and 400 MWp, the reverse of every other project in the table that carries both figures. [5] AEMO records New England Solar Farm at 400 MW AC. [1]

Boundaries cause the larger gaps. Blackridge describes Bungala Solar Farm as 275 MW across two subprojects. [4] AEMO's in-service ranking carries Bungala One Solar Farm at 135 MW AC. [1] Limondale follows the same pattern. Blackridge gives 314 MWac, and AEMO's entry is Limondale Solar Farm 1 at 230 MW AC. [4] Both figures are AC, so units don't explain the 84 MW gap. AEMO records the project as two sites. Limondale Solar Farm 2 is also in service, at 28.98 MW AC. [1] The two entries total 258.98 MW AC, still 55 MW short of Blackridge's figure.

Connection limits add a third number. Wikipedia records Tailem Bend Solar Power Farm in South Australia at 108 MWac and notes that AEMO limited it to 95 MW. [5] Smaller gaps come from rounding in company announcements. FRV announced Walla Walla as a 300 MWac solar farm on 1 October 2025. [6] AEMO records 304.3 MW AC. [1]

## What changed since the April 2026 release?

In-service solar capacity rose 424.6 MW AC between AEMO's April 2026 and July 2026 Generation Information releases, from 11,038.4 MW to 11,463 MW. Anticipated capacity fell 883.7 MW AC between the two releases. Committed* capacity rose 600 MW AC. [1]

| AEMO status | April 2026 (MW AC) | July 2026 (MW AC) | Change (MW AC) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| In Service | 11,038.4 | 11,463 | +424.6 |
| In Commissioning | 1,567.5 | 1,707.3 | +139.8 |
| Committed | 1,631 | 1,356.1 | -274.9 |
| Committed* | 370.1 | 970.1 | +600 |
| Anticipated | 7,024.1 | 6,140.4 | -883.7 |
| Publicly Announced | 52,931.8 | 53,228.7 | +296.9 |
| All statuses | 74,562.9 | 74,865.6 | +302.7 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, April 2026 and July 2026. Changes computed by Glamdring Research. [1]

Total listed solar capacity moved by 302.7 MW AC. The larger shifts happened between classes. Status totals can't show which sites moved; that needs the April release's site rows. The July status totals sum to 74,865.6 MW AC, and the state totals sum to 74,865.7 MW AC. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The release covers the National Electricity Market, so Western Australian and Northern Territory solar sits outside it. Wikipedia lists Merredin Solar Farm in Western Australia at 100 MWac. [5] Blackridge lists the Australia-Asia PowerLink near Elliott in the Northern Territory at 6 GW, at the planning and approvals stage. [4] Neither appears in AEMO's NEM release.

AEMO's field records rated capacity. Two sites with equal MW AC can generate different amounts of energy, and the release doesn't rank output.

Entries with different names stay separate. Bulli Creek appears twice in the top 25: Bulli Creek Solar Farm at 774.9 MW AC and Bulli Creek Solar Farm (Trina) at 550 MW AC. [1] The ranking treats them as two sites because AEMO names them as two.

Hybrid sites count only their solar rows. Battery and storage capacity at those sites belongs to [energy storage research](/categories/energy-storage).

Statuses are a snapshot at 31 July 2026, checked on 28 September 2026. The ranking refreshes when AEMO publishes its next Generation Information release. Other Glamdring energy rankings sit in the [research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Which Australian state has the most solar farms?

New South Wales has the most solar sites in AEMO's July 2026 release, with 135 across all statuses against Queensland's 118. It also has the most in service, at 5,458.3 MW AC. Queensland lists more capacity in total, at 29,994.6 MW AC, because its sites are larger on average. [1]

### Who is Australia's largest solar company?

AEMO's release carries an owner for most sites. Glamdring's ranking sums capacity by site, so it doesn't total owners. Among the 25 largest in-service sites, ACEN Australia is the only owner named twice: New England Solar Farm and Stubbo Solar Farm, 800 MW AC combined. [1] Neoen describes itself as Australia's largest 100% renewables company. That is a company statement covering wind, solar and battery assets. [2]

### Is Western Downs Green Power Hub still the largest solar farm in Australia?

On AEMO's figures, Western Downs Green Power Hub is second. Its July 2026 entry is 400.8 MW AC in service, behind Wellington North Solar Farm at 436.8 MW AC. [1] The project's website calls it the largest operating solar farm in Australia and gives its size as 460 MWp, a DC figure. [2] Compared on AEMO's AC field, Wellington North is larger.

### Does the ranking include rooftop solar?

The ranking counts the 350 solar sites listed in AEMO's Generation Information release. [1] Household rooftop systems aren't sites in that release. Australia's total is far larger: over 4.29 million solar PV installations reached a combined 45.1 GW by December 2025, according to Wikipedia. [5]

## Source notes
1. NEM Generation Information, July 2026 (Generator Information sheet): https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Western Downs Green Power Hub: https://westerndownsgreenpowerhub.com.au/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Over one million solar panels powering Australia’s largest solar farm: https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/97526 (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Top 10 Biggest Solar Farms in Australia (2026): https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/top-biggest-largest-solar-farm-projects-australia-oceania (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Solar power in Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Australia (checked September 28, 2026)
6. FRV Australia's Largest Solar Farm is Now Fully Operational: https://frv.com/en/frv-australias-largest-solar-farm-is-now-fully-operational/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Largest wind farms in Australia: AEMO July 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/largest-wind-farms-australia
Category: Electricity generation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm in Victoria is the largest wind entry by reported nameplate capacity (MW AC), at 3,000 MW, and it is publicly announced. Golden Plains Wind Farm East in Victoria is the largest wind farm in service, at 756.4 MW.

Australia's largest wind farm by reported nameplate capacity (MW AC) is Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm in Victoria, at 3,000 MW in AEMO's Generation Information release of 31 July 2026, and AEMO classes it as publicly announced. [1] The largest wind farm in service is Golden Plains Wind Farm East, also in Victoria, at 756.4 MW. [1] Of the 133,691.3 MW reported across the release's 269 wind sites, 12,641.9 MW is in service. [1] The same release sits behind our [ranking of battery storage sites](/post/largest-battery-storage-sites-australia).

## TL;DR

- Offshore projects are reported, not built. Seventeen of the 40 largest entries carry "offshore" in the site or owner name, and all 17 are publicly announced. [1]
- No wind site in service reaches 1,000 MW. The 40 largest reported entries run down to 1,000 MW; 39 are publicly announced and one, Bungaban Wind Farm in Queensland, is anticipated. [1]
- Victoria leads on both counts: 43,950.8 MW reported and 5,480.9 MW in service. South Australia reports the least, 6,071.9 MW, yet has 2,754.9 MW in service, close to New South Wales at 2,826.1 MW. [1]
- Headlines calling Golden Plains Australia's largest wind farm describe a 1.3 GW project. [2] AEMO lists its East row at 756.4 MW in service and its West row at 557.0 MW in commissioning. [1]
- In-service wind capacity was 12,641.9 MW in both the April and July 2026 releases, while anticipated capacity rose 1,783.3 MW and publicly announced capacity fell 4,795.6 MW. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked every wind site in AEMO's NEM Generation Information release of 31 July 2026 on one field: reported nameplate capacity, **Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC)**, from the Generator Information sheet of the release file. [1] Rows with Technology Type set to Wind are in, and rows with the status Withdrawn are out. [1] Generating-unit rows that share a site name and region were summed into one site, which leaves 269 wind sites. [1]

The extract records the count after that merge. [1] It doesn't record the raw wind row count or the number of withdrawn rows removed, so those two steps carry no figure here.

The second ranking keeps in-service capacity only. It counts AEMO's In Service class and its Announced Withdrawal class, an operating plant with a closure announced; every other class is not yet built. [1] The release's wind status table carries no Announced Withdrawal line, so in-service capacity here is the In Service class. [1] Figures appear as the release gives them. How Glamdring handles registry data is set out in our [methodology](/methodology).

## Which wind farms are largest by reported capacity?

Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm leads AEMO's July 2026 wind list at 3,000 MW, followed by Deal 1 (West) Off Shore Wind Farm at 2,970 MW and Deal 2 (East) Off Shore Wind Farm at 2,968 MW. [1] All three are in Victoria and registered to BayWa r.e. Australia Offshore Wind Projects companies, and every one of the 25 largest entries is publicly announced. [1]

| # | Wind farm | State | Status | Offshore in name or owner | Reported MW (AC) |
|---:|---|---|---|---|---:|
| 1 | Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes | 3,000 |
| 2 | Deal 1 (West) Off Shore Wind Farm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,970 |
| 3 | Deal 2 (East) Off Shore Wind Farm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,968 |
| 4 | Collinsville Green Energy Hub | Queensland | Publicly Announced | No | 2,839.2 |
| 5 | Orsted Gippsland 01 Windfarm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes (owner) | 2,820.5 |
| 6 | Great Eastern Offshore Wind - KCI | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,508 |
| 7 | Star of the South Wind Farm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | No | 2,205 |
| 8 | Gippsland Dawn Offshore Wind Project | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,100 |
| 9 | Eden Offshore Wind Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,000 |
| 10 | Illawarra Offshore Wind Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,000 |
| 11 | Novocastrian Offshore Wind Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,000 |
| 12 | Prairie WF and Wongalee WF | Queensland | Publicly Announced | No | 2,000 |
| 13 | Ulladulla Offshore Wind Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | Yes | 2,000 |
| 14 | Blue Mackerel North Off Shore Wind Farm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes | 1,819 |
| 15 | Tara Wind Farm - KCI | Queensland | Publicly Announced | No | 1,800 |
| 16 | Eastern Rise Offshore Wind | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | Yes | 1,725 |
| 17 | Warracknabeal Wind Farm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | No | 1,642.5 |
| 18 | South Pacific Offshore Wind Project | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | Yes | 1,601.2 |
| 19 | Greater Southern Offshore Wind - KCI | Victoria | Publicly Announced | Yes | 1,500 |
| 20 | Meering West Wind Farm | Victoria | Publicly Announced | No | 1,500 |
| 21 | Pikedale Wind Farm (KCI) | Queensland | Publicly Announced | No | 1,500 |
| 22 | Yanco Delta Wind Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | No | 1,497.6 |
| 23 | Hunter Central Coast Offshore Energy (Wind) | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | Yes | 1,400 |
| 24 | Liverpool Range Wind Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | No | 1,332 |
| 25 | Pottinger Energy Park - Wind - KCI | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | No | 1,300 |

Every row comes from the same release and the same field. [1]

The largest entry with no offshore marker is Collinsville Green Energy Hub in Queensland, fourth at 2,839.2 MW. [1] Beyond the table, the list reaches 1,000 MW at 40th with Boort Wind Farm in Victoria. [1] Only one of the 40 carries a class other than publicly announced: Bungaban Wind Farm in Queensland, 33rd at 1,155 MW, classed as anticipated. [1]

Read this ranking as a list of registered proposals by size. It shows where developers have put the most wind capacity on AEMO's books, and the status column shows how little of the top of that list has reached construction or operation.

## Which is the largest wind farm in service?

Golden Plains Wind Farm East in Victoria is the largest wind farm in service in AEMO's July 2026 release, at 756.4 MW. [1] Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, also in Victoria, is second at 527.6 MW, and Coopers Gap Wind Farm in Queensland is third at 452.9 MW. [1]

| # | Wind farm | State | In-service MW (AC) |
|---:|---|---|---:|
| 1 | Golden Plains Wind Farm East | Victoria | 756.4 |
| 2 | Stockyard Hill Wind Farm | Victoria | 527.6 |
| 3 | Coopers Gap Wind Farm | Queensland | 452.9 |
| 4 | Macarthur Wind Farm | Victoria | 420 |
| 5 | Rye Park Wind Farm | New South Wales | 396 |
| 6 | Dundonnell Wind Farm | Victoria | 336 |
| 7 | Moorabool Wind Farm | Victoria | 312 |
| 8 | Berrybank Wind Farm | Victoria | 289.8 |
| 9 | Sapphire Wind Farm | New South Wales | 270 |
| 10 | Snowtown S2 Wind Farm | South Australia | 270 |
| 11 | Ararat Wind Farm | Victoria | 240 |
| 12 | Collector | New South Wales | 226.8 |
| 13 | Murra Warra Wind Farm - stage 1 | Victoria | 225.7 |
| 14 | Ryan Corner Wind Farm | Victoria | 218.4 |
| 15 | Goyder South Wind Farm 1A | South Australia | 209 |
| 16 | Murra Warra Wind Farm - stage 2 | Victoria | 209 |
| 17 | Goyder South Wind Farm 1B | South Australia | 203.5 |
| 18 | Port Augusta Renewable Energy Park - Wind | South Australia | 201 |
| 19 | Bulgana Green Power Hub - Wind Farm | Victoria | 200.8 |
| 20 | Silverton Wind Farm | New South Wales | 198.9 |
| 21 | Waubra | Victoria | 192 |
| 22 | Mount Emerald | Queensland | 180.7 |
| 23 | White Rock Wind Farm - Stage 1 | New South Wales | 175 |
| 24 | Dulacca Wind Farm | Queensland | 172.9 |
| 25 | Musselroe Wind Farm | Tasmania | 168 |

Victoria holds 12 of the 25, New South Wales 5, South Australia 4, Queensland 3 and Tasmania 1. [1] The in-service leader's 756.4 MW is about a quarter of Seaspray's reported 3,000 MW, and it sits outside the 40 largest reported entries, which stop at 1,000 MW. [1]

For anyone asking what the grid can draw on today, this is the table that answers it. The first table answers a different question: what has been proposed.

## How much of the reported capacity is offshore?

At least 26 per cent of the wind capacity reported in AEMO's July 2026 release sits in entries marked offshore. [1] Among the 40 largest entries, 17 carry "offshore" or "off shore" in the site or owner name, and together they report 34,772.7 MW of the release's 133,691.3 MW. [1] All 17 are publicly announced, and none of the 25 largest in-service sites carries the marker: offshore projects are reported, not built. [1]

Ten of the 17 are in Victoria, including the three BayWa r.e. entries and Orsted Gippsland 01 Windfarm, whose owner is Orsted Offshore Australia 1 Pty Ltd. [1] Seven are in New South Wales, four of them OceanEx Energy entries at 2,000 MW each: Eden, Illawarra, Novocastrian and Ulladulla. [1]

The release extract has no offshore field, so this split is a name test applied by Glamdring Research. Two Victorian entries in the top 40, Star of the South Wind Farm at 2,205 MW and High Sea Wind Farm at 1,281 MW, carry no marker in either name or owner, and the test counts them as unmarked. [1] Entries below 1,000 MW weren't tested, which is why the share is a floor. Confirm any offshore classification against the developer's own filings before sizing the offshore pipeline from this release.

## Which states hold the most wind capacity?

Victoria holds the most reported wind capacity in AEMO's July 2026 release, 43,950.8 MW across 79 sites, and the most in service, 5,480.9 MW. [1]

| State | Sites | Reported MW (AC), all statuses | In-service MW (AC) | In service as share of reported |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Victoria | 79 | 43,950.8 | 5,480.9 | 12.5% |
| New South Wales | 83 | 42,734.5 | 2,826.1 | 6.6% |
| Queensland | 53 | 34,408.8 | 1,018.5 | 3.0% |
| Tasmania | 20 | 6,525.3 | 561.6 | 8.6% |
| South Australia | 34 | 6,071.9 | 2,754.9 | 45.4% |
| NEM total | 269 | 133,691.3 | 12,641.9 | 9.5% |

Site counts and megawatt figures are the release's; the share column is Glamdring's arithmetic on them. [1]

New South Wales has the most sites, 83, but trails Victoria on both capacity measures. [1] Queensland shows the widest gap, 34,408.8 MW reported against 1,018.5 MW in service. [1] South Australia runs the other way: it reports the least capacity of the five states and has 45.4 per cent of it in service. [1]

Each state figure is rounded to one decimal place, so the in-service column adds to 12,642.0 MW against the 12,641.9 MW total. [1]

## What does AEMO's nameplate figure measure?

AEMO's nameplate figure is a registered capacity rating in megawatts. AEMO records 3,000 MW for Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm. [1] The field is Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC), and this ranking sums it across each site's generating-unit rows. [1]

A capacity rating says nothing about how much energy a site delivers in a year. The Victorian Government's figure for Golden Plains, more than 4,000 GWh a year once complete, is an energy estimate in a different unit, stated by the government. [2]

Status tells you how far each entry has gone. Of the 133,691.3 MW reported, 112,396.5 MW is publicly announced and 12,641.9 MW is in service. [1] The rest is split across four classes: 2,182.4 MW in commissioning, 1,424.6 MW committed, 204.6 MW committed with an asterisk, and 4,841.4 MW anticipated. [1] About 84 per cent of reported wind capacity is publicly announced and about 9.5 per cent is in service. [1]

## Why do published figures for the same wind farm disagree?

Published wind farm figures disagree with AEMO's release mostly because of scope and date: a project total set against a registered stage, or a construction-era report set against a later release. Golden Plains shows both.

Renew Economy reported in August 2023 that the first 756 MW stage of the up to 1.3 GW Golden Plains wind farm was under construction near Rokewood in Victoria's south west. [3] In October 2024 the Victorian Government said the wind farm had begun feeding into Victoria's grid and that, once complete, it would be a 1.3 GW wind farm. [2] The July 2026 release lists Golden Plains Wind Farm East at 756.4 MW in service. [1] The release also lists Golden Plains Wind Farm West at 557.0 MW, in commissioning. [1] East and West together make 1,313.4 MW, the 1.3 GW of the headlines.

Rye Park shows the figures agreeing. ESD News reported in May 2025 that the 396 MW Rye Park Wind Farm, north of Yass, had opened as the largest operating wind farm in New South Wales. [4] The release lists Rye Park Wind Farm at 396 MW in service, the largest in-service entry in New South Wales. [1]

Stages registered under different names stay apart, because the merge joins rows only when site name and region match. [1] Murra Warra Wind Farm stage 1 at 225.7 MW and stage 2 at 209 MW are two rows; together they make 434.7 MW, which would sit above Macarthur Wind Farm's 420 MW. [1] Goyder South Wind Farm 1A at 209 MW and 1B at 203.5 MW make 412.5 MW, which would sit above Rye Park. [1] A publication that counts stages as one farm will print a different order from this one.

## What changed since the April 2026 release?

In-service wind capacity didn't change between AEMO's April and July 2026 releases: 12,641.9 MW in both. [1] The movement sits in the pipeline classes.

| Status | April 2026 MW (AC) | July 2026 MW (AC) | Change MW |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| In Service | 12,641.9 | 12,641.9 | 0 |
| In Commissioning | 1,625.4 | 2,182.4 | +557.0 |
| Committed | 1,733.6 | 1,424.6 | -309.0 |
| Committed* | no line | 204.6 | +204.6 |
| Anticipated | 3,058.1 | 4,841.4 | +1,783.3 |
| Publicly Announced | 117,192.1 | 112,396.5 | -4,795.6 |

The megawatt figures are the release's; the change column is Glamdring's arithmetic. [1]

Anticipated capacity rose 1,783.3 MW and capacity in commissioning rose 557.0 MW. [1] Publicly announced capacity fell 4,795.6 MW. [1] Summed by status, total reported wind capacity fell from 136,251.1 MW to 133,691.4 MW, a drop of 2,559.7 MW. [1] One move shows in the site rows: Golden Plains Wind Farm West was committed at 557.07 MW in April and is in commissioning at 557.0 MW in July. [1] The status totals don't show the other moves, so it can't say how much of the announced fall came from projects advancing a class and how much from withdrawals.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The release covers the National Electricity Market. Its state table lists Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia only, so Western Australia and the Northern Territory don't appear. [1]

The extract carries no commissioning date, expected completion date or annual generation for any site. [1] A publicly announced row says a project is registered at that size. It doesn't say the project will be built, or when.

Three labels go unexplained in the extract: the asterisk on Committed*, the "KCI" suffix on entries such as Great Eastern Offshore Wind - KCI, and raw owner entries such as "feraaustralia_nr" for Boort Wind Farm. [1] The offshore split is a name test, not an AEMO field.

Every figure is dated to the 31 July 2026 release, and the ranking changes when AEMO publishes the next one. The revision will carry a change note and its sources: subscribe to the [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### What is the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere?

The Victorian Government described Golden Plains Wind Farm as the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere when it began feeding into Victoria's grid in October 2024. [2] AEMO's release covers only the National Electricity Market, so it can't test a hemisphere-wide claim. Within the release, Golden Plains Wind Farm East is the largest wind farm in service, at 756.4 MW. [1]

### What is the biggest wind farm in South Australia?

Snowtown S2 Wind Farm is South Australia's largest in-service entry, at 270 MW. [1] AEMO registers Goyder South as two in-service rows, 1A at 209 MW and 1B at 203.5 MW, which together make 412.5 MW if counted as one farm. [1] By reported capacity, the largest South Australian entry is Nonowie Wind Farm at 1,015 MW, owned by Tilt Renewables Australia Pty Ltd and classed as publicly announced. [1]

### Are any offshore wind farms operating in Australia?

None appears in service in this release's extracts. All 17 offshore-marked entries among the 40 largest are publicly announced, and none of the 25 largest in-service sites carries an offshore marker. [1] The release has no offshore field, so entries below 1,000 MW were not name-tested.

## Source notes
1. NEM Generation Information, July 2026 release: https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Australia's Largest Wind Farm Golden For Victorians: https://www.miragenews.com/australias-largest-wind-farm-golden-for-1335069/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Australia's largest wind project seals energy offtake deal with Snowy Hydro: https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-largest-wind-project-seals-energy-offtake-deal-with-snowy-hydro/ (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Tilt Renewables marks opening of NSW's biggest wind farm: https://esdnews.com.au/tilt-renewables-celebrates-opening-of-nsw-biggest-wind-farm/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Fees, Hosting, Models (Sep 2026)

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/litellm-vs-openrouter
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Choose OpenRouter for one hosted endpoint and one bill at a 5.5% fee on credit purchases; choose LiteLLM when traffic must stay in your own infrastructure or when 5.5% of monthly spend exceeds the cost of hosting and running a gateway.

Pick OpenRouter if you want one hosted endpoint and one bill, and can carry a 5.5% fee on every credit purchase. [1] Pick LiteLLM if the gateway has to run inside your own infrastructure. Its open-source gateway is listed at $0, and its enterprise licence is priced on request. [2] [3] The cost of LiteLLM moves from a percentage of spend to servers and engineering time. All figures were checked 28 September 2026.

## TL;DR

- OpenRouter's fee grows with spend. Standard credit purchases carry 5.5% with a $0.80 minimum, the Business plan lists 8%, and inference itself passes through at provider prices. [4] [1] At $10,000 a month of Standard credits, the fee is $550.
- LiteLLM's price doesn't grow with spend. The MIT-licensed gateway is free, and Enterprise adds SSO, audit logs and support SLAs at an unpublished price. [2]
- LiteLLM is built to self-host, including air-gapped. OpenRouter is a managed service with no self-hosting option. [3] [5]
- The coverage counts aren't like for like. LiteLLM reports 140+ provider integrations that you connect with your own accounts; OpenRouter reports 500+ models from 80+ providers served under one account. [2] [4]
- The two can be stacked: LiteLLM can send traffic to OpenRouter as one of its providers. [6]
- The decision turns on one comparison: 5.5% of your monthly model spend against what it costs you to host and staff a gateway.

## How this comparison was checked

We read five company pages on 28 September 2026, following our [research standard](/methodology): LiteLLM's homepage, its enterprise page and its GitHub repository, plus OpenRouter's pricing page and documentation FAQ. Every fee, count and limit below is quoted from those pages. They're company statements, so provider and model counts are reported by each company, not measured by us.

Prices are in US dollars. OpenRouter states that its credit system uses US dollars as the base currency. [1] Neither pricing table sets out tax treatment, so confirm VAT or GST at checkout. Two third-party comparisons, from the gateway companies TrueFoundry and Merge, were used only for how each product is deployed and billed.

## LiteLLM vs OpenRouter at a glance

| Dimension | LiteLLM | OpenRouter |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Entry price | $0 open-source gateway, "Free forever" [2] | Free plan: no platform fee, 25+ free models, 50 requests a day [4] |
| Paid tier | Enterprise, price on request, 30-day trial key [3] | Standard 5.5% platform fee; Business 8%; Enterprise fee discounts on request [4] |
| What you pay for inference | Model providers, billed directly on your own keys [7] | Provider prices passed through without markup, drawn from OpenRouter credits [1] |
| Own provider keys | The default way it works [7] | No fee on the first $25,000 of list-price inference a month (Standard, Business) or $200,000 (Enterprise), then 5% [4] |
| Where it runs | Your infrastructure: Docker, Helm, Terraform, air-gapped [2] | OpenRouter's managed service [5] |
| Reported coverage | 140+ providers, 1,892 unique models [2] | 500+ models, 80+ providers on paid plans [4] |
| SSO | Enterprise [2] | Enterprise only [4] |
| Contractual SLAs | Enterprise, 24/7 support with SLAs [3] | Enterprise only [4] |
| Licence or terms | MIT for the gateway; enterprise features under the LiteLLM Commercial License [2] [8] | DPA via Terms of Service on Free and Standard; signed copy on request for Business [4] |

## What does each one charge?

OpenRouter charges a percentage on the money you load into it. LiteLLM charges nothing per request and sells an enterprise licence instead.

OpenRouter's FAQ sets the fee at 5.5% of each credit purchase, with a $0.80 minimum, and says it passes provider pricing through without markup. [1] Crypto payments carry 5%. [1] The minimum matters for small top-ups: $0.80 is 5.5% of about $14.55, so any purchase below that pays the flat $0.80. A $1,000 card purchase carries a $55 fee, or $50 in crypto.

The pricing table lists 8% as the Business platform fee. [4] On the same $1,000 basis that would be $80, but the table doesn't spell out what the Business fee is charged on, so confirm it before upgrading. Our [OpenRouter pricing breakdown](/post/openrouter-pricing) goes through the plan tiers in more detail.

Bring-your-own-key traffic is priced separately. Standard and Business accounts get $25,000 of list-price inference a month with no fee, and Enterprise gets $200,000. [4] Above the allowance, OpenRouter charges 5% of what the same model and provider would cost on OpenRouter. [1] A Standard account running $40,000 of list-price inference on its own keys in one month would pay 5% on the $15,000 excess: $750.

Four other terms change the real cost. Platform fees are non-refundable, and unused credits can only be refunded within 24 hours of purchase. [1] OpenRouter reserves the right to expire unused credits after one year. [1] It doesn't currently offer volume discounts. [1] Opting in to prompt and completion logging earns a 1% discount on usage costs. [1]

LiteLLM's open-source plan is listed at $0 and "Free forever", with no credit card. [2] It includes the 140+ provider integrations, virtual keys, budgets and teams, load balancing with RPM and TPM limits, and guardrails. [2] Enterprise has no published price: the page offers a 30-day trial key and "Custom pricing" through a sales form. [3] Enterprise adds SSO with SCIM, audit logs on every request, air-gapped deployment, a multi-region control plane and 24/7 support with SLAs. [3] Its Sev 0 response target, for a full production outage, is one hour. [3] LiteLLM says Enterprise sits on top of the same MIT-licensed core rather than replacing it. [2]

The larger LiteLLM cost is the one no page prices. The gateway runs on your own Postgres and Redis and scales with Kubernetes autoscaling. [2] TrueFoundry's comparison lists deployment, scaling, monitoring, security configuration and proxy management as work the operating team takes on. [5] Put a number on that before comparing it with OpenRouter's percentage.

## Where does each one run?

LiteLLM runs wherever you deploy it. OpenRouter runs only as OpenRouter's managed service.

LiteLLM ships official Docker images, a Helm chart and a Terraform module, and supports one-click deployment into AWS, GCP or Azure. [2] It can run fully air-gapped. [2] LiteLLM says the self-hosted gateway runs with no telemetry. [2] Its GitHub repository also links to a hosted proxy option; the pages we checked don't publish its terms. [8]

OpenRouter describes itself as a proxy that forwards your requests to the model provider. [1] It logs request metadata such as timestamps, model and token counts, and doesn't log prompts or completions unless you opt in. [1] When a provider returns an error, it falls back to the next provider automatically. [1] EU and US in-region routing are available on Business and Enterprise, not Standard. [4]

The practical consequence is the network path. Merge's comparison puts it plainly: with LiteLLM, traffic can stay inside your own network boundary; with OpenRouter, requests pass through OpenRouter-managed infrastructure. [7] If a security review requires the first, OpenRouter is out regardless of price.

## Which covers more models and providers?

Both report broad coverage, but the two counts measure different things.

LiteLLM's homepage reports 140+ LLM providers and 1,892 unique models. [2] Its GitHub README describes the gateway as reaching 100+ LLM providers, so LiteLLM's own pages don't agree on a single figure. [8] Coverage here means an integration. You still hold an account and a key with each provider. The provider list includes self-hosted inference engines such as vLLM, Ollama and Triton, and LiteLLM lets you put your own fine-tuned and self-hosted models behind the same key. [8] [2]

OpenRouter reports 500+ models from 80+ providers on its paid plans, and 25+ free models from 4 providers on the Free plan. [4] Coverage here means access under one account and one credit balance, with no separate provider contracts. Routing suffixes let you sort providers for a model by price (`:floor`) or by throughput (`:nitro`). [1]

The two also stack. LiteLLM supports OpenRouter's text, chat, vision and embedding models through an `openrouter/` model prefix. [6] A team can run LiteLLM for budgets and access control and send some traffic on to OpenRouter's catalogue. That traffic still pays OpenRouter's fee.

## Which should you choose?

Choose by the unit your costs grow in: OpenRouter's cost is a share of spend, while LiteLLM's is infrastructure and staff time.

OpenRouter fits teams that want many models without contracts, lack platform engineers, or spend little enough that the fee stays small. On Standard card purchases, $10,000 a month of credits costs $550 in fees, and $100,000 costs $5,500. In return you get one bill, automatic fallback and 500+ models with no servers to run. [4] [1] Teams that already hold provider keys can use OpenRouter's bring-your-own-key route free up to $25,000 of list-price inference a month. [4]

LiteLLM fits three situations. Traffic has to stay inside your own infrastructure or run air-gapped. You already hold provider contracts, such as Azure, Bedrock or Vertex AI, and want to keep billing through them. Or you need hard budgets per key, team and model, with spend tracked across those contracts. [2] [7] Enterprise becomes a factor once SSO, audit logs or a support SLA are requirements. [3]

Use last month's model bill to test the choice. Multiply it by 5.5%, then compare that figure with a quote for hosting LiteLLM and the hours needed to operate, patch and upgrade it. For the token prices underneath either gateway, see [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost), and for more research in this field, browse [model infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure).

## What this comparison cannot tell you

- Enterprise prices. LiteLLM Enterprise pricing and OpenRouter's Enterprise fee discounts are both on request. [3] [4]
- Your LiteLLM hosting bill. It depends on your cloud, traffic and staffing, and no page we checked prices it.
- Latency. LiteLLM publishes its own benchmark claiming 0.66 ms of added p99 latency for its Rust gateway, measured against a mock upstream. [2] That's a company benchmark, and we have no comparable figure for OpenRouter.
- Future fees. The view changes if LiteLLM publishes an Enterprise price, or if OpenRouter changes its 5.5% fee or its $25,000 bring-your-own-key allowance.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does OpenRouter mark up model prices?

No, by OpenRouter's own account. It says it passes provider pricing through without markup and earns its money from the 5.5% fee on credit purchases instead. [1] Bring-your-own-key usage above the monthly allowance carries a separate 5% fee. [1]

### Which LiteLLM features need the Enterprise licence?

SSO with SCIM, JWT auth, audit logs, air-gapped and multi-region deployment, and 24/7 support with SLAs sit in Enterprise. [2] [3] Virtual keys, budgets, teams, load balancing, rate limits and guardrails are in the free open-source gateway. [2]

### Does OpenRouter have a free tier?

Yes. The Free plan has no platform fee and offers 25+ free models, limited to 50 requests a day. [4] Accounts that have bought at least 10 credits get 1,000 free-model requests a day. [1] OpenRouter says free models are usually not suitable for production use. [1]

### Are OpenRouter credits refundable?

Only within 24 hours of purchase, and only the unused credit amount. Platform fees aren't refunded, and crypto payments are never refundable. [1]

### Does OpenRouter store my prompts?

Not by default. OpenRouter logs request metadata, such as timestamps, model and token counts, but not prompts or completions unless you opt in for a 1% discount. [1] It won't route to providers that log prompts, or whose policy it can't confirm, unless you switch on the model-training setting. [1]

## Source notes
1. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/docs/faq (checked September 28, 2026)
2. LiteLLM (Berrie AI Incorporated): https://www.litellm.ai/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. LiteLLM (Berrie AI Incorporated): https://www.litellm.ai/enterprise (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. TrueFoundry (gateway company; third-party comparison with a commercial interest): https://www.truefoundry.com/blog/litellm-vs-openrouter (checked September 28, 2026)
6. LiteLLM documentation: https://docs.litellm.ai/docs/providers/openrouter (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Merge (gateway company; third-party comparison with a commercial interest): https://www.merge.dev/blog/litellm-vs-openrouter (checked September 28, 2026)
8. BerriAI on GitHub: https://github.com/BerriAI/litellm (checked September 28, 2026)

# Navan price: travel and expense terms, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/navan-pricing
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: For companies of 300 or fewer employees, Navan's only published charge is Navan Expense: free for the first 5 monthly expensing users, then $15 per user per month. Navan Travel carries no platform fee.

Navan Travel carries no platform fee on the Navan Business plan, which covers companies up to 300 employees. Navan Expense is free for the first 5 monthly expensing users, then $15 per user per month. Companies above 300 employees go to Navan Enterprise, which has no published price and runs on a quote. [1] Those are Navan's published pricing terms from its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026.

For most small and mid-sized companies, the Expense seat count is the whole published bill.

## TL;DR

- Travel is free at the 300-employee line and below, with no trip limit. Navan says supplier commissions fund it. [1]
- Expense is the only published charge. Five monthly expensing users cost nothing; each one after that is $15 per user per month. [1]
- The bill moves with activity, not headcount. Anyone who submits a transaction in a month counts as an expensing user. [1]
- Crossing 300 employees ends the published pricing. Enterprise is quote-only, and the page shows no figure for it. [1]
- The page leaves out tax, a currency code and the text behind the asterisk on "free". Get those in writing before you sign.

## What are Navan's plans and prices?

Navan publishes two plans: a free Navan Business plan for companies up to 300 employees, and a quote-only Navan Enterprise plan for large organisations. [1] We file Navan under [spend management](/categories/spend-management). The table sets out each plan as the pricing page shows it on the checked date.

| Plan | Who it's for | Navan Travel | Navan Expense | Published price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Navan Business | Companies up to 300 employees | Included, no trip limit | Free for the first 5 monthly expensing users, then $15 per user per month | Free, plus Expense seats above 5 |
| Navan Enterprise | Large-scale organisations | "The full suite of Navan Travel" | "The full suite of Navan Expense", unlimited expensing users | None. "Let's talk" and a "Get a price quote" button | [1]

The page gives no currency code. The captured page is the version Navan's region menu labels United States, and separate pricing pages exist for the United Kingdom, France and Germany. [1] This article covers the United States page only.

## What does Navan Travel charge?

Navan Travel charges no platform fee on the Business plan. The page's headline reads "Navan Travel is free\*" with "no platform fees", and the plan price shows as "Free". [1]

The free plan includes these travel features, as listed: [1]

- global travel inventory and exclusive rates
- unlimited policy and approval workflows
- self-serve changes and 24/7 travel support agents
- Navan Rewards
- customisable reports
- 30+ HRIS integrations

Trip volume doesn't change the price. Navan's own FAQ says that as long as a company has 300 or fewer employees, there's no limit to how many trips it can book with Navan Travel. [1] Travellers can book flights, hotels, car rentals and trains. [1]

The asterisk matters. The captured page shows it on the word "free" but doesn't include the note it points to. "No platform fees" is also a narrower statement than "no fees". The page doesn't say whether per-booking or change fees apply. Confirm both in the current quote.

## What are the Navan Expense terms?

Navan Expense is free for the first 5 monthly expensing users, and then is $15 per user per month. [1] That's the only per-seat figure on the page.

The unit is the **active expense user**, not the employee. Navan defines one as "anyone who submits a transaction into Navan expense by manual transaction or Navan Connect". [1] So a company with 200 staff pays for the people who submit transactions in a given month, not for all 200.

The Expense features on the Business plan are: [1]

- managing expenses and issuing reimbursements
- connecting existing corporate or business credit cards
- receipt scanning
- integrations with most ERPs

### What does Expense cost at different team sizes?

The table applies the published rate to sample monthly user counts. It assumes the first five users stay free after the count passes five, which is the plain reading of "free for the first 5". The annual figure assumes the same count every month.

| Monthly expensing users | Billed users | Monthly Expense charge | Twelve months at that count |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0 | $0 | $0 |
| 10 | 5 | $75 | $900 |
| 25 | 20 | $300 | $3,600 |
| 50 | 45 | $675 | $8,100 |
| 100 | 95 | $1,425 | $17,100 |
| 300 | 295 | $4,425 | $53,100 |

Inputs: $15 per user per month, five free users, from Navan's pricing page. [1] Charge = (users − 5) × $15.

The page doesn't settle one point. If Navan bills every user once a company passes five, the 25-user month costs $375, not $300. The difference is a flat $75 a month at any count above five. Ask which reading applies before you model the budget. Our [methodology](/methodology) sets out how we check and compute published figures like these.

## What is quote-only?

Everything above 300 employees is quote-only. The FAQ tells those companies to "request a demo to learn more", and the Enterprise column shows "Let's talk" and a "Get a price quote" button in place of a price. [1]

Enterprise adds these items to everything in Navan Business: [1]

- the full suite of Navan Travel and Navan Expense
- unlimited travellers and expensing users
- global programme coverage
- a designated account executive and a dedicated customer success manager
- custom implementation
- corporate negotiated rates
- comprehensive back-office capabilities
- enterprise-grade travel support

The page describes the gap between the plans two ways. Its FAQ says both plans "have all the travel and expense features companies love", and that Enterprise adds support features for implementing and scaling. [1] The plan column, though, lists "the full suite" of Travel and Expense as an Enterprise addition. The full feature list sits behind a link the capture doesn't include. Treat the feature boundary between the two plans as unconfirmed until the quote itemises it.

The product menu also lists Navan Edge, Payments and Navan Events. [1] None of them carries a price on the pricing page.

## How does Navan fund free travel?

Supplier commissions fund it, Navan says. The FAQ reads: "Navan is powered by travel providers' commission fees", "so you get access to a huge inventory without any cost to you." [1]

That's Navan's own account of how it earns, and it sets the economics. Travel providers pay Navan commission; the company buying travel pays for Expense seats. The page doesn't publish commission rates or say whether they affect the fares a traveller sees. The practical test is to price one real itinerary in Navan and through your current booking channel on the same day.

## What the pricing page does not publish

Several terms that change the real cost aren't on the page:

- **Tax.** No statement on whether sales tax, VAT or GST applies to the $15 charge.
- **Currency.** No currency code. This article didn't check the regional pricing pages.
- **The asterisk.** "Free\*" appears without the note it refers to.
- **Enterprise pricing.** No figure, no floor and no unit.
- **Other products.** No prices for Payments, Navan Edge or Navan Events.
- **Contract terms.** No billing frequency, minimum term or cancellation terms.

The page also carried a promotional offer of $500 for personal travel when a company joins Navan. [1] Its conditions sit behind a link the capture doesn't include.

Navan's Expense charge is one input to a wider spend-management decision. Our [Center vs Ramp comparison](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) covers two other systems in the same category.

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does it cost to use Navan?

For companies with 300 or fewer employees, Navan Travel has no platform fee and Navan Expense costs $15 per user per month after the first 5 monthly expensing users. [1] Above 300 employees, pricing comes through a quote.

### Who counts as an expensing user?

Anyone who submits a transaction into Navan Expense, either manually or through Navan Connect, in that month. [1] Staff who travel but submit nothing don't appear in that count on Navan's definition.

### Is there a limit on trips on the free plan?

No. Navan says companies with 300 or fewer employees can book an unlimited number of trips with Navan Travel. [1]

### What happens when a company grows past 300 employees?

It moves out of the published pricing. Navan tells companies above 300 employees to request a demo, and the Enterprise plan is priced by quote. [1]

### Is this the same as Navan's share price?

No. "Navan price" also returns stock quotes, because Navan, Inc. Class A common stock trades on Nasdaq as NAVN. [2] This page covers what companies pay to use the product, not the share price.

We publish new research by email. [Subscribe to the briefing](/subscribe) to get the next one.

## Source notes
1. Navan pricing page (United States version): https://navan.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Navan, Inc. Class A Common Stock (NAVN): https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/navn (checked September 28, 2026)

# Navan reviews: G2 and Trustpilot, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/navan-review
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Navan's product reviews are strongly positive on G2 (4.7 from 9,298) and split on Trustpilot (3.3 from 477, 33% one-star), checked 28 September 2026. The gap mostly reflects who reviews and how they were asked.

Navan's rating depends on which platform you read. Checked 28 September 2026, G2 showed 4.7 out of 5 from 9,298 reviews. [1] Trustpilot showed a TrustScore of 3.3 from 477 reviews, with 33% rated one-star. [2] Navan's published pricing makes travel booking free for companies of up to 300 employees and charges $15 per expensing user per month after the first five. [3] This is an evidence review of Navan from its published pages and dated rating aggregates (G2, Trustpilot), checked 28 September 2026. No first-hand use is claimed.

## TL;DR

- The two ratings sample different people. G2's reviews come mostly from end users at mid-market companies, and nine of the ten on its first page carry G2's "Incentivized" label. [1] Trustpilot files Navan as a travel agency, and its unprompted reviews run far lower than its invited ones. [2]
- Both platforms' own summaries raise the same complaint: prices can be higher than booking direct. [1] [2]
- Support splits the record. G2's summary credits responsive support; [1] Trustpilot's says reaching human support during unexpected issues can be frustrating. [2]
- The published price is low because travel suppliers' commissions fund the travel side. Expense costs $15 per user per month after five free users, and Enterprise is quote-only. [3]
- None of this shows fare parity, disruption support or reimbursement speed. Price one real itinerary through Navan and direct before committing.

## How do Navan's G2 and Trustpilot ratings compare?

G2 rates Navan 4.7 out of 5 from 9,298 reviews, while Trustpilot gives it a **TrustScore** of 3.3 from 477 reviews. [1] [2] The gap sits in the low end. Only 111 of Navan's G2 reviews are one or two stars, about 1.2%, against 36% on Trustpilot. Both pages were captured on 28 September 2026, and every figure below is copied as each platform displayed it.

| Measure (checked 28 September 2026) | G2 | Trustpilot |
|---|---|---|
| Headline rating | 4.7 out of 5 | TrustScore 3.3, labelled "Average" |
| Reviews | 9,298 | 477 |
| Five-star share | 83% (7,798 reviews) | 47% |
| One-star share | 72 reviews, displayed as 0% | 33% |
| Category Navan sits in | Travel Management Software | Travel Agency |
| Reviews in the last 12 months | Not shown | 198 |
| Company relationship shown | Seller profile "By Navan" | Claimed profile since April 2024; paid Trustpilot subscription |
| What the platform says about checking | Validates each reviewer's identity before approving | Screens reviews by software; doesn't fact-check them |

Navan sits in Glamdring's [spend management coverage](/categories/spend-management), where review aggregates are read as evidence about a sample rather than a verdict on the product.

G2's star counts reconcile. The five buckets shown beneath the rating are 7,798 five-star, 1,248 four-star, 141 three-star, 39 two-star and 72 one-star, and they sum to exactly 9,298. [1] G2 describes its checks this way: it "requires verified methods to write a review and validates the reviewer's identity before approving." [1]

Trustpilot publishes a coarser breakdown: 47% five-star, 14% four-star, 3% three-star, 3% two-star and 33% one-star. [2] A plain average of those rounded shares comes to about 3.4. Trustpilot's own TrustScore is 3.3, and the captured page doesn't show how it's calculated. Trustpilot also states that it doesn't fact-check reviews. [2] In its Travel Agency category, Trustpilot ranks Navan #195 of 200. [2]

Our [methodology](/methodology) sets out how Glamdring records a third-party figure: platform, capture date and the field it came from. These aggregates are reported by the platforms from reviewer submissions. They aren't measured outcomes.

## Why do G2 and Trustpilot disagree about Navan?

Glamdring's reading is that the two platforms reach different people through different doors, and that explains most of the 1.4-point gap. G2, a business software review site, draws Navan's reviews mostly from end users at mid-market companies, and most of its recent ones were invited. [1] Trustpilot, where anyone can write a review, files Navan as a travel agency, and its unprompted Navan reviews skew heavily negative. [2]

The G2 side shows up in its own filters. Of the 9,298 reviews, 8,313 are tagged "User" and 525 "Administrator". [1] By company size, 5,538 come from mid-market firms (51 to 1,000 employees), 2,833 from enterprises and 753 from small businesses of 50 or fewer staff. [1] North America accounts for 7,847 reviews, Europe 804 and Australia and New Zealand 91. [1] On the first page of G2's default sort, nine of the ten reviews carry the "Incentivized" label. Eight list "Source: Seller invite", one "G2 invite on behalf of seller" and one "G2 invite" without the incentive label. [1]

Trustpilot says Navan "invites their customers to review, whether positive or negative". [2] The first page of its most-recent list held 20 reviews. The nine marked "Invited" averaged about 3.6 stars, and only two of them were one or two stars. The 11 marked "Unprompted review" averaged about 1.8 stars, and nine of them were one or two stars. [2] Twenty reviews is a slice, not a sample. It shows the direction of the effect, not its size.

Navan answers the negative side, just slowly. Trustpilot reports that the company replied to 92% of negative reviews, typically taking over a month. [2]

The decision changes with the job being evaluated. A finance team checking admin setup has 525 administrator reviews on G2 to read. [1] A travel manager worried about disruptions will find the closer evidence in Trustpilot's unprompted reviews, which are few and self-selected.

## What do reviewers praise and criticise about Navan?

Reviewers mostly praise easy booking and having travel and expense in one system. Their complaints centre on prices against booking direct, booking and hotel problems, and support when trips go wrong. G2's AI-generated summary says users praise "the ease of use and streamlined travel management", then adds that "some users note that the pricing can be higher compared to booking directly through providers." [1]

G2's pros-and-cons tags put numbers on that. The five leading positive tags are Ease of Use (1,588), Easy Booking (683), Convenience (584), Simple (528) and Intuitive (454). The five leading negative tags are Limited Options (195), Booking Confusion (195), Booking Issues (187), Hotel Issues (179) and Approval Issues (143). [1] Together that's 3,837 positive mentions against 899 negative, about 4.3 to one.

Trustpilot's AI summary covers 189 recent reviews and lands in a different place. Most reviewers were "somewhat happy", but it says price is "a major source of frustration due to unexpected charges and high costs." [2] It also says prices for upgrades or changes can be "noticeably higher compared to booking directly with airlines", and that reaching human support during unexpected issues can be "frustrating and difficult." [2]

Both platforms wrote these summaries with AI from their own review pools. They reflect those pools. They don't audit Navan's fares.

## What does Navan cost?

Navan publishes two plans. Navan Business, for companies of up to 300 employees, is free for travel booking with no trip limit. Navan Expense is free for the first five monthly expensing users, then $15 per user per month. Navan Enterprise has no published price and is sold by quote. [3] These terms come from Navan's US pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. The page shows the price in dollars without naming the currency or tax treatment.

Navan explains who pays: "Navan is powered by travel providers’ commission fees", "so you get access to a huge inventory without any cost to you." [3] The travel side is funded by supplier commission, not subscription. Whether that model affects the prices travellers see is the question both review platforms' summaries raise.

On the expense side, Navan counts an active expense user as "anyone who submits a transaction into Navan expense by manual transaction or Navan Connect." [3] Here is what the published rate means at three sizes, assuming a company of 300 or fewer employees:

| Monthly expensing users | Billable users | Published monthly expense charge |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0 | $0 |
| 20 | 15 | $225 |
| 50 | 45 | $675 |

Companies above 300 employees are told to request a demo. [3] Enterprise adds a designated account executive, a dedicated customer success manager, custom implementation and corporate negotiated rates. [3] The headline "Navan Travel is free" carries an asterisk, and the captured page doesn't include the footnote it points to. [3]

## How does Navan's G2 rating compare with other travel and expense systems?

Navan's 4.7 sits near the top of the six systems on its G2 page, and it has the most reviews. Only Ramp rates higher, at 4.8 from 2,526 reviews. [1] SAP Concur has the next-largest review pool but rates lowest of the six.

| System (G2, checked 28 September 2026) | G2 rating | G2 reviews |
|---|---|---|
| Ramp | 4.8 | 2,526 |
| Navan (Formerly TripActions) | 4.7 | 9,298 |
| Perk (formerly TravelPerk) | 4.6 | 2,142 |
| Egencia by Amex GBT | 4.5 | 931 |
| Rydoo | 4.4 | 743 |
| SAP Concur | 4 | 7,200 |

These are G2 figures, carrying the same sampling questions as Navan's own rating. G2 lists SAP Concur, Perk and Egencia as comparisons, and Rydoo, Ramp and Perk as top-rated alternatives. [1] The ratings don't tell you whether a system handles travel booking, expenses or both. Glamdring's [Center vs Ramp comparison](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) works through two spend systems on the same criteria.

## What the evidence cannot show

The captured pages establish Navan's published terms and what reviewers report. They leave four buying questions open. The first is fare and room-rate parity against booking direct, which both review summaries question but no captured page measures. The second is support performance during disruptions. Trustpilot's "over 1 month" figure measures review replies, not support tickets. [2] The third is reimbursement speed, which searchers ask about and no captured source states. The fourth is total cost above 300 employees, because Enterprise is quote-only. [3]

Several of Navan's own claims stay as company statements here. The pricing page says Navan powers travel programmes at more than 10,000 companies. [3] It also links a Forrester Total Economic Impact report under the headline "Study finds Navan saves customers 16% on business travel". [3] That report wasn't captured, so its method and assumptions remain unchecked.

Location matters too. G2 holds 91 reviews from Australia and New Zealand. [1] Navan's region selector lists France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, with no Australian option. [3]

Use one real workflow to test the claims. Price the same itinerary through Navan and directly with the airline and hotel, then ask Navan for its disruption support commitments in writing. For Enterprise, confirm the terms in the current quote.

More of Glamdring's work on enterprise software sits in the [research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Navan a legitimate company?

Yes, on the public record. Navan publishes its pricing, has a G2 seller profile carrying 9,298 reviews and claimed its Trustpilot profile in April 2024. [1] [2] Its pricing page names the Navan card issuers: Celtic Bank (Member FDIC), Stripe Technology Europe Limited, Stripe Payments UK Limited, and Adyen N.V. with two of its branches. [3] Its customer list, which includes Canva, HelloFresh, DoorDash, Duolingo and Steelcase, is Navan's own statement. [3]

### How much does Navan cost per person?

Travel booking has no per-person fee for companies of up to 300 employees. The per-person charge applies to expenses: $15 per user per month for each monthly expensing user after the first five. [3] Larger companies get a quote, so no per-person Enterprise figure is published.

### Where is Navan based?

Navan's Trustpilot profile lists its contact address as 3045 Park Blvd, 94306, Palo Alto, United States. [2] The captured sources don't cover the company's founding history.

### Are Glassdoor reviews of Navan about the product?

No. Glassdoor rates Navan as an employer. On 28 September 2026 it showed an employee rating of 3.9 out of 5 from 1,030 company reviews, with 75% of employees saying they'd recommend working there. [4] Those pages rank for Navan review searches but say nothing about the booking and expense system.

### Does G2's "Incentivized" label mean the reviews are fake?

No. The label describes how a review was collected, not whether it's authentic. G2 states that it validates each reviewer's identity before approving a review. [1] Incentivised and unprompted reviews are still different samples, and it's reasonable to weigh them separately.

New research on spend and travel systems goes out in Glamdring's free [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Source notes
1. Navan (Formerly TripActions) Reviews & Product Details: https://www.g2.com/products/navan/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Navan Reviews | Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/navan.com (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Navan pricing (United States page): https://navan.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Navan Reviews | Glassdoor: https://www.glassdoor.sg/Reviews/Navan-Reviews-E1376371.htm (checked September 28, 2026)

# OneTrust competitors: plans and pricing, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/onetrust-competitors
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: None of OneTrust's three main competitors' pricing pages showed a price, checked 28 September 2026: OneTrust quotes all nine packages, TrustArc's pricing address returned a missing page and Osano's pricing page is a demo request.

TrustArc, Osano, Ketch, Usercentrics, Enzuzo, Didomi and BigID are the privacy platforms the ranking comparison pages most often set against OneTrust. [1] [2] [3] None of the three main pricing pages shows a price, checked 28 September 2026. OneTrust sends all nine packages to a quote, TrustArc's pricing address returned a missing-page notice, and Osano's pricing page is a demo request that points elsewhere for self-service plans. [4] [5] [6] Published plan prices sit with the consent-first tools, such as Ketch. [7]

## TL;DR

- OneTrust prices each package on usage meters: admin users and inventory for risk and privacy work, visitors or data subject profiles for consent work. Every package ends in a quote.
- TrustArc shows its product families but no plans or prices at its pricing address. Plan on a sales conversation.
- Osano runs two tracks: self-service plans on a separate page, and a sales-led route for the wider privacy programme.
- Ketch, Usercentrics and Enzuzo publish plan prices. Didomi and BigID are reported as quote-only.
- The competitor set depends on the OneTrust package you're replacing. Consent buyers can compare published plans. Buyers replacing Privacy Automation, Third-Party Management or Tech Risk & Compliance should expect quotes from every serious alternative, so compare the meters.

## How this comparison was built

This comparison sits in our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation). We captured the official pricing pages of OneTrust, TrustArc and Osano on 28 September 2026. [4] [5] [6] The competitor set comes from the Google results for "onetrust competitors" (United States, English) collected the same day. Nine organic results were recorded, and the five top-ranked captured pages were read in full: Gartner Peer Insights, Osano, Usercentrics, Ketch and Enzuzo.

Each company is classed on one field, **pricing disclosure**:

- **Published price**: the company's own page shows a figure for at least one plan.
- **Quote-only**: the page sends buyers to sales and shows no figure.
- **No pricing page found**: the checked address returned no pricing content.

Plan structure and products covered come from the same pages. Where no official pricing page was captured, the company's own ranking page stands in, and failing that a third-party report, labelled as such in the table. Four of the five full-read pages come from companies selling against OneTrust and each other. Their statements about rivals are claims, not findings.

This page prints no plan prices. A price on a company's own page is that company's statement, and none of the captured pages states tax status, so a price column would set unlike figures side by side. Our [research standard](/methodology) explains how sources are dated and graded.

Eight companies made the table. Three rest on official pricing pages, three on the company's own comparison or review page, and two on third-party reports only.

## Which privacy platforms compete with OneTrust?

Seven platforms recur across the ranking pages, and they split into full-programme suites that quote and consent-first tools that publish prices.

| Company | Pricing disclosure, checked 28 September 2026 | Plan structure | Products covered | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OneTrust | Quote-only | 9 packages in 5 solution areas; Base and Suite tiers in three areas; usage-metered tiers | AI governance, consent and preferences, privacy automation, tech risk and compliance, third-party management | Official pricing page [4] |
| TrustArc | No pricing page found | Three product families; no plans shown | Privacy Studio (consent, preferences, individual rights, trust centre), Governance Suite (programme management, data mapping, assessments, regulatory research), Assurance Services (certifications and validations) | Official pricing address [5]; third-party report of quote-only [2] |
| Osano | Quote-led pricing page; self-service plans on a separate page | Self-service plans plus a sales-led route; free 30-day trial | Cookie consent, subject rights, assessments, unified consent and preference hub, data mapping, vendor privacy risk | Official pricing page [6]; third-party reports [1] [2] |
| Ketch | Published price for Free, Starter and Plus; Pro is custom | Four plans | Consent management, DSR automation, privacy compliance | Ketch's own comparison page [7] |
| Usercentrics | Published price for four Web CMP plans; Corporate is custom | Five Web CMP plans; 14-day trial | Consent management for web, apps and connected TV | Usercentrics' own article, 24 September 2025 [1] |
| Enzuzo | Published price | Pro plan covering 10 domains; mid-market tier | Cookie consent, Google Consent Mode v2, DSAR management; no data mapping, DPIA or RoPA | Enzuzo's own article, updated 7 August 2026 [2] |
| Didomi | Quote-only (reported) | Consent Essentials, Core Privacy UX, Privacy UX Plus (reported) | Consent across web, mobile app, in-app and connected TV | Third-party reports [1] [2] |
| BigID | Quote-only (reported) | Not captured | Data discovery, privacy governance, CMP Express consent product | Third-party report [2] |

The companies' own sites confirm the rivalry. TrustArc's footer links to comparison pages against Ketch, MineOS, OneTrust, Osano and Transcend. [5] Osano's menu offers migration "from OneTrust and other legacy tools". [6] Osano, a competitor of both, calls TrustArc one of OneTrust's closest competitors. [3]

## How does OneTrust price its packages?

OneTrust prices each package on one or more usage meters and quotes every one; its pricing page shows no figures. [4] Each of the nine packages carries a "Get Pricing" button, and the form beneath offers a call "for a personalized quote based on your team size and business goals". [4]

The meter changes with the job the package does. Risk and compliance packages are metered on admin users and the size of the inventory they manage. Data collection packages are metered on data profiles, visitors or data volume. [4]

| Package | Pricing meter, in OneTrust's words |
|---|---|
| AI Governance | Admin users and AI inventory |
| Consent Management Platform (CMP) Base | Average daily visitors aggregated across all channels and properties |
| Consent Management Platform (CMP) Suite | Average daily visitors aggregated across all channels and properties |
| Universal Consent & Preference Management | Total data subject profiles captured |
| Privacy Automation Base | Users and privacy asset inventory |
| Privacy Automation Suite | Users and privacy asset inventory |
| Tech Risk & Compliance | Admin users and asset inventory |
| Third-Party Risk Management Base | Admin users and third-party inventory |
| Third-Party Management Suite | Admin users and third-party inventory |

Source: OneTrust pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [4]

The Suite tiers add scope rather than seats. CMP Suite adds privacy notices and DSR automation to consent capture. Privacy Automation Suite adds DSR fulfilment and incident management. Third-Party Management Suite adds Dow Jones ethics and compliance databases, including sanctions and watchlists. [4]

Tiers move with usage. If usage consistently exceeds the current tier's limits, OneTrust says the account executive moves the customer to the next tier. Customers on legacy module-based pricing are told to ask for a customised proposal. [4]

The decision changes with your own counts. Before a OneTrust quote means anything against a rival's, you need admin users, asset or third-party inventory, average daily visitors and data subject profiles for the packages in scope.

## What does TrustArc publish?

TrustArc publishes its product families and no pricing: trustarc.com/pricing/ returned "Oops, that page doesn't exist!" when checked 28 September 2026. [5]

The site menu on that page sets out three families. [5]

- **Privacy Studio**: Cookie Consent Manager, Consent & Preference Manager, Individual Rights Manager and Trust Center.
- **Governance Suite**: PrivacyCentral, Data Mapping & Risk Manager, Assessment Manager and Nymity Research.
- **Assurance Services**: 11 listed certifications, verifications and validations, including TRUSTe certifications, Data Privacy Framework verification, and GDPR and CCPA/CPRA validation.

No plan names, tiers or meters appear. Enzuzo, which sells a competing consent tool, reports TrustArc pricing as "not publicly listed" and says it needs a sales conversation. [2] Osano says TrustArc's pricing is comparable to OneTrust's. [3] That's a rival's claim, not a published figure.

Assurance Services is TrustArc's point of separation. OneTrust's nine packages on its pricing page include no certification line. [4] A buyer who wants certification and software from one supplier should put that question to both.

## What does Osano publish?

Osano's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, is a demo request with no figures, and it sends self-service buyers to a separate plans page. [6] The page also offers a free 30-day trial. [6]

It lists six products: Cookie Consent, Subject Rights Management, Assessments, Unified Consent & Preference Hub, Data Mapping and Vendor Privacy Risk Management. [6] It also describes a "No Fines, No Penalties" guarantee as a contractual promise to cover regulatory fines. [6] Usercentrics reports that the guarantee applies to enterprise plans and carries additional terms. [1]

The plans page itself wasn't captured. Two competitors describe it. Usercentrics' September 2025 article lists self-serve tiers, one free, one priced and one priced on request, and says larger plans aren't priced online. [1] Enzuzo's August 2026 page says pricing beyond the entry plan isn't published. [2] On those reports, Osano's consent product can be bought off a price list, while the wider programme goes through sales. Confirm the current self-service plans on Osano's own plans page.

## Which OneTrust alternatives publish their prices?

Ketch, Usercentrics and Enzuzo publish plan prices on their own pages; Didomi and BigID are reported as quote-only.

**Ketch** says its pricing is transparent and invites buyers to "see what each Ketch plan costs". [7] Its page lists Free, Starter and Plus with monthly prices, and Pro at custom pricing. [7] The free plan covers up to 5,000 monthly visitors. [7] Ketch describes itself as a permissioning platform covering consent management, DSR automation and privacy compliance. [7]

**Usercentrics** published five Web CMP plans in September 2025, separated by domains, regulations and sessions. The top plan, Corporate, is custom. A 14-day free trial covers one regulation on one domain. [1]

**Enzuzo** publishes a Pro plan covering 10 domains and a mid-market tier for higher traffic. [2] It states that it doesn't include data mapping, DPIA or RoPA. [2]

**Didomi** and **BigID** are both reported as pricing on request. [2] Usercentrics reported in 2025 that Didomi doesn't list pricing for its Consent Essentials, Core Privacy UX or Privacy UX Plus products. [1]

The pattern holds across the set. Published prices attach to consent products metered by domains, sessions or visitors. [7] [1] [2] The top tier still goes to sales, even at Ketch, and so does the wider programme at OneTrust and Osano. [7] [4] [2] The constraint for a full-programme buyer is the quote, whichever supplier they choose.

## Why do published figures for these platforms disagree?

Figures disagree because the pages were written on different dates, by companies selling against each other, in different currencies and units.

- **Dates.** Usercentrics' September 2025 table gives Ketch Plus a lower starting price than Ketch's own page showed on 28 September 2026. [1] [7]
- **Currency and unit.** Usercentrics' own 2025 list is in US dollars and puts a 15,000-session allowance on its third plan. Enzuzo's August 2026 page gives a Usercentrics starting price in euros for 15,000 sessions. [1] [2]
- **Rivals' claims.** Ketch says OneTrust pricing begins with contract minimums confirmed during procurement. [7] Enzuzo states a specific OneTrust minimum annual contract. [2] OneTrust's own pricing page publishes no minimum. [4]

Take figures only from the company's own current page, then confirm them in a written quote.

## What the comparison cannot tell you

This comparison records what each company publishes. It can't tell you what you'll pay.

- **Contract prices.** Quotes depend on the meters above and on negotiation. None were obtained.
- **Uncaptured pages.** Osano's plans page and Ketch's full pricing page weren't captured, so their plan details come from the companies' comparison pages and rival reports.
- **TrustArc.** A missing page at trustarc.com/pricing/ shows no pricing at that address on 28 September 2026. It doesn't prove TrustArc publishes no prices anywhere.
- **Stale entries.** Usercentrics' plan list dates from September 2025.
- **Product depth.** Feature claims on these pages are company statements. Test one real workflow, such as a DSR from intake to deletion, in each shortlisted system.

New comparisons in this field go out through our [free email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### What are the key differences between OneTrust and TrustArc?

Both sell multi-product privacy suites, and neither showed a price at the addresses checked 28 September 2026. [4] [5] OneTrust sorts nine packages into five solution areas, including AI governance and tech risk, and meters each on users, inventory, visitors or profiles. [4] TrustArc sorts its products into three families and adds Assurance Services, a line of certifications and validations that OneTrust's pricing page doesn't carry. [5] [4]

### Is OneTrust a big company?

OneTrust states that 14,000+ customers, large and small, rely on it. [4] That's the company's own figure. Revenue, valuation and ownership questions fall outside the sources captured here.

### Is CookiePro a OneTrust competitor?

No. Osano describes CookiePro as a OneTrust product designed for cookie consent. [3] Buying CookiePro keeps you with OneTrust.

### Who competes with OneTrust on tech risk and GRC?

Governance, risk and compliance tools compete with OneTrust's Tech Risk & Compliance package. Gartner Peer Insights lists 44 alternatives that its users considered, starting with Archer IT & Security Risk Management, Diligent One Platform, ServiceNow Governance Risk and Compliance, NAVEX IRM Software (Legacy) and SAFE One. [8] Enzuzo names Vanta, Drata, BigID and TrustArc for GRC and vendor risk. [2] We compare two compliance-automation tools in [Laika vs Vanta](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide).

### Does OneTrust publish a minimum contract price?

No. OneTrust's pricing page routes every package to a quote and states no minimum. [4] Ketch refers to OneTrust contract minimums, and Enzuzo states a specific annual figure. [7] [2] Both are rivals' statements. Confirm any minimum in OneTrust's own quote.

## Source notes
1. Usercentrics: https://usercentrics.com/knowledge-hub/onetrust-competitors/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Enzuzo: https://www.enzuzo.com/blog/onetrust-competitors-alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Osano: https://www.osano.com/comparison/onetrust-competitors (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OneTrust: https://www.onetrust.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. TrustArc: https://trustarc.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Osano: https://www.osano.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Ketch: https://www.ketch.com/onetrust-alternative (checked September 28, 2026)
8. Gartner Peer Insights: https://www.gartner.com/reviews/product/onetrust-tech-risk-compliance/alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)

# OneTrust pricing: what OneTrust publishes, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/onetrust-pricing
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: OneTrust publishes no price for any of its nine packages, checked 28 September 2026. Cost is set by a sales quote against per-package usage meters, and inventory is the meter most likely to move a bill after signing.

OneTrust publishes no price. Its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, lists nine packages across five solution areas. Each package shows a "Get Pricing" button where a figure would sit. [1] The cost comes from a sales quote. OneTrust bases it on usage meters: admin users plus an inventory for the risk and governance packages, and daily visitors or data subject profiles for the consent packages. [1]

The number to prepare before a sales call is your own count on each meter.

## TL;DR

- OneTrust sells by quote only. None of its nine packages shows a price, a free edition or a trial offer. [1]
- Three solution areas come in Base and Suite editions. Suite adds data subject request handling in consent and privacy, and Dow Jones ethics screening in third-party management. [1]
- Inventory is the meter to watch. Admin users count a team, inventories grow with the business, and OneTrust moves customers who consistently exceed a tier to the next one. [1]
- Dollar figures in search results come from buyer marketplace data. OneTrust has not confirmed the reported minimum contract. [2]

## How we checked OneTrust's pricing page

We read OneTrust's US English pricing page, titled "OneTrust Pricing and Packaging", on 28 September 2026. [1] OneTrust sits within our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation). For each package we recorded the solution area, the edition, the listed capabilities and the line that states the pricing basis. We then searched the captured page for currency amounts, free plans and trial offers. None appeared. [1]

The count at each step: five solution areas, nine packages, nine pricing-basis lines and zero published prices. OneTrust also offers German, Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese versions of the page. We did not check those. [1] The standard behind every check is set out in our [research methodology](/methodology).

## What packages does OneTrust publish?

OneTrust publishes nine packages in five solution areas: AI Governance, Consent & Preferences, Privacy Automation, Tech Risk & Compliance and Third-Party Management. None carries a published price. Each package states the basis OneTrust prices it on, shown below in OneTrust's own words. [1]

| Solution area | Package and edition | Pricing basis, as OneTrust states it | Published price |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AI Governance | AI Governance | Admin users and AI inventory | None |
| Consent & Preferences | Consent Management Platform (CMP) Base | Average daily visitors aggregated across all channels and properties | None |
| Consent & Preferences | Consent Management Platform (CMP) Suite | Average daily visitors aggregated across all channels and properties | None |
| Consent & Preferences | Universal Consent & Preference Management (UCPM) | Total data subject profiles captured | None |
| Privacy Automation | Privacy Automation Base | Users and privacy asset inventory | None |
| Privacy Automation | Privacy Automation Suite | Users and privacy asset inventory | None |
| Tech Risk & Compliance | Tech Risk & Compliance | Admin users and asset inventory | None |
| Third-Party Management | Third-Party Risk Management Base | Admin users and third-party inventory | None |
| Third-Party Management | Third-Party Management Suite | Admin users and third-party inventory | None |

Source: OneTrust pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

Two names on OneTrust's site sit outside this list. Its navigation offers a "Data Use Governance" solution, and its pricing form lists "Data Governance" as a solution of interest. Neither has a package on the pricing page. [1] A buyer who needs data governance should ask which package the quote is built on.

## What does each OneTrust package include?

Base editions cover the core programme, and Suite editions add a second workflow. In Consent & Preferences and Privacy Automation, the addition is data subject request (DSR) handling. In Third-Party Management, it is ethics and compliance screening with Dow Jones data. AI Governance and Tech Risk & Compliance each come as one package. [1]

AI Governance keeps AI initiatives, models, agents, datasets and vendors in one system of record. It aligns risk assessments to the EU AI Act, NIST and ISO 42001, and it sets approval gates before a system reaches production. At runtime it applies controls to prompts, outputs, data access and allowed AI actions. It also governs agent tool access across MCP environments. [1]

CMP Base builds consent banners for websites, mobile apps and CTV devices. It keeps an inventory of trackers and SDKs, and OneTrust says its cookie database holds over 45 million categorised cookies. [1] CMP Suite adds centrally managed privacy notices and DSR automation, covering intake, identity verification, discovery and redaction. [1]

UCPM does a different job. It collects consent and preferences across the customer journey, runs branded preference centres and syncs that data to marketing systems. It is metered on data subject profiles, while both CMP editions are metered on visitors. [1]

Privacy Automation Base maintains a data and activity map and runs privacy impact assessments. It also assesses vendor privacy risk, manages DPAs and data transfers, and supplies DataGuidance regulatory intelligence. [1] Privacy Automation Suite adds DSR fulfilment from intake to deletion, plus management of privacy incidents and notification duties. [1]

DSR tools therefore appear in two Suite editions, CMP Suite and Privacy Automation Suite. OneTrust's pricing page gives no account of how the two relate. [1] A buyer who needs consent banners and privacy operations together should confirm which package carries the DSR workflow before signing.

Tech Risk & Compliance is OneTrust's governance, risk and compliance (GRC) package. It supplies templates and guidance across 50+ standards, regulations and frameworks. It consolidates assets for IT risk, quantifies risk and automates assessments and control management. It also runs the policy lifecycle with reviews, approvals and attestations. [1]

Third-Party Risk Management Base builds the third-party inventory and automates vendor assessments. OneTrust says it adds risk intelligence data on millions of third parties. [1] Third-Party Management Suite adds Dow Jones ethics and compliance databases, including PEP, sanctions and watchlists. It also screens for adverse media and reputational risk. Both editions use the same meter: admin users and third-party inventory. [1]

## How does OneTrust set the price?

OneTrust prices each package on "one or more value-based usage meters", and the meter depends on the programme. [1] Its FAQ says risk and compliance solutions "are metered on admin users and the size of inventory managed by the solution." Data collection and use solutions are metered on data profiles, visitors or data volume. [1]

The model is tiered, and the tiers sit inside the contract term. OneTrust's pricing form offers "a personalized quote based on your team size and business goals." [1] The quote is where the tier, the meter counts and the price meet for the first time.

One meter in the FAQ has no package attached. OneTrust names data volume as a pricing basis, but no package on its pricing page lists it. [1] If a quote uses data volume, ask which package it applies to and how OneTrust counts it.

## Which meter will move a OneTrust quote?

Inventory is the meter most likely to raise a OneTrust bill after signing. Glamdring Research reads OneTrust's terms this way for a structural reason. Admin users count a team. Inventories count the business: assets, third parties, AI systems and privacy assets. OneTrust's FAQ says a customer whose usage "consistently exceeds the current tier’s limits" moves to the next tier with its Account Executive. [1]

Scrutineer, a compliance software company that sells a competing product, reaches the same view for vendor risk. It says a vendor inventory "only grows" as procurement adds tools and acquisitions add suppliers. [3]

Consent packages carry the same exposure through traffic. Both CMP editions count "average daily visitors aggregated across all channels and properties." [1] A new app or CTV property adds to that one count.

OneTrust publishes no tier limits and no definition of "consistently". Ask for three things in writing: each tier's limit on each meter, the next tier's price, and the period over which "consistently exceeds" is measured. Scrutineer's OneTrust guide recommends the same contract checks. [3]

Buyers weighing other compliance automation systems can read our [Laika and Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide).

## Why do third-party OneTrust prices disagree?

Third-party OneTrust prices disagree because they come from different samples of buyer data, collected at different dates. OneTrust supplies none of them. FeeGuides says its figures "come from buyers and analysts, not from the vendor", and it cites Vendr data from 306 purchases. [2] Scrutineer cites Vendr data across 309 purchases, as of February 2026. [3]

Scrutineer adds that a marketplace median "is not your number". Its sample mixes single consent packages with multi-package programmes. [3] FeeGuides reports a minimum annual contract and notes that "OneTrust has not confirmed it". [2] Software directories list OneTrust as a custom quote. [4] [5]

Glamdring reports OneTrust's published terms, so the package table holds no marketplace estimates. A single median spread across nine packages and five kinds of meter cannot price one buyer's scope. Use the estimates to test whether a quote looks plausible. Negotiate from your own meter counts.

## What the pricing page cannot tell you

OneTrust's pricing page leaves every commercial term to the quote. As checked on 28 September 2026, it shows none of the following: [1]

- a price for any package or tier
- the limits of each tier on each meter
- setup, implementation or services fees
- contract length, renewal terms or annual increases
- prices outside the US English page
- how the DSR tools in CMP Suite and Privacy Automation Suite relate

Confirm each of these in the written quote before comparing OneTrust with another system. New pricing research in this category arrives through the [Glamdring email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Does OneTrust publish its prices?

No. On 28 September 2026, all nine packages on OneTrust's pricing page showed a "Get Pricing" button and no figure. [1] KolApp's directory listing describes a "custom quote pricing model". [4] Lister's listing shows pricing from "Custom". [5]

### Is OneTrust free?

OneTrust's pricing page lists no free package and no trial offer, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Directories disagree on a trial. KolApp lists no free trial. [4] SpotSaaS lists one and links it to OneTrust's pricing page. [6] Ask OneTrust sales whether a trial exists for the package you need.

### What is OneTrust used for?

OneTrust sells software for five programmes: AI governance, consent and preference management, privacy automation, technology risk and compliance, and third-party management. [1] It defines a solution package as a bundle of the capabilities that support "an end-to-end customer use case". [1]

### How do customers on OneTrust's older module pricing move to packages?

OneTrust tells customers on legacy module-based pricing to contact their Account Executive. The Account Executive walks through the new packages and prepares a customised proposal. [1] Scrutineer notes that the old line items and the new meters "do not map one to one". Request the new quote in writing before agreeing to migrate. [3]

### What should a buyer count before asking OneTrust for a quote?

Count each meter for each package you plan to buy. For the risk and governance packages, that means admin users plus the inventory each package manages: AI systems, assets, privacy assets or third parties. For consent, count average daily visitors across all channels and properties. For UCPM, count total data subject profiles. [1] Bring those counts to the sales call and ask which tier each one falls into.

## Source notes
1. OneTrust Pricing and Packaging: https://www.onetrust.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OneTrust costs about $10,000 to $120,000 a year: https://feeguides.com/software-pricing/onetrust-pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. OneTrust Pricing: GRC and TPRM Costs: https://scrutineer.ai/blog/onetrust-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OneTrust Review, Pricing & Features (2026): https://kolapp.com/blog/software/onetrust/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. OneTrust: review, pricing and rankings: https://www.lister.ai/tools/onetrust (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Modulos vs OneTrust Comparison: https://www.spotsaas.com/compare/modulos-vs-onetrust (checked September 28, 2026)

# OneTrust vs Osano: plans and prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/onetrust-vs-osano
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Neither OneTrust nor Osano published a price on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026.

Neither OneTrust nor Osano published a price on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] Both pages route buyers to a sales form. The difference is what each discloses about the bill. OneTrust lists nine solution packages and names the usage meter behind each one, from admin users and asset inventory to average daily visitors. [1] Osano's pricing page shows a demo form, its product list and a link to self-service plans, with no price and no billing unit. [2] So the decision turns on the meter you'll be billed on, and the only comparable number is a quote.

## TL;DR

- **No list price on either pricing page.** A price comparison between OneTrust and Osano can't be made from public vendor pages as of 28 September 2026. It has to be made from two quotes built on the same usage figures.
- **OneTrust is the more legible system.** Every package names its meter, and an account that consistently exceeds its tier is moved to the next one. You can forecast the bill's drivers before the first call.
- **Osano is the lower-friction entry.** Its pricing page links to self-service plans, and its own comparison page offers a free trial. What those plans cost, and what they're metered on, isn't on the pricing page.
- **The products overlap on privacy operations.** Consent, subject rights requests, data mapping, assessments and vendor risk appear on both sides. AI governance, broad GRC and sanctions screening appear as packages only at OneTrust.
- **Treat third-party dollar figures as estimates.** The most-cited cost figures in current search results come from a competing consent vendor that calls them best estimates.

## How do OneTrust and Osano compare on plans and prices?

On published pricing, the two tie at zero: neither pricing page states a price, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] OneTrust discloses more of the pricing system, a named meter and a tier rule for each package. Osano discloses more of the buying path, a self-service route beside the demo form. The table sets out what each pricing page showed on the checked date.

| Dimension | OneTrust | Osano |
|---|---|---|
| Price shown on the pricing page | None. Each package carries a "Get Pricing" link | None |
| What the page asks for | A "Get Customized Pricing" form for a personalised quote | A demo request with an Osano expert |
| Plan structure | Nine solution packages across five solution areas, several split into Base and Suite | Six products in the navigation; no named plan tiers on the page |
| Billing unit stated | Yes, per package: admin users, inventory, average daily visitors or data subject profiles | Not stated |
| What happens above a limit | The Account Executive helps move the account to the next tier | Not stated |
| Self-service route | None shown | Link to "self-service plans" for cookie consent |
| G2 rating, as reported by G2 | OneTrust Privacy Automation: 4.3/5 from 154 reviews | Osano: 4.5/5 from 173 reviews |

Sources: OneTrust pricing page [1], Osano pricing page [2], G2 comparison page [3].

The G2 row compares one OneTrust product against Osano as a whole, so read it as a review signal only. [3] The pricing rows carry the weight. Other privacy and compliance systems sit in our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation).

## How does OneTrust package and meter its plans?

OneTrust sells solution packages, and each package has "one or more value-based usage meters that determine pricing." [1] The page names nine packages. None shows a price.

| Package | What OneTrust says it covers | Meter named on the page |
|---|---|---|
| AI Governance | AI models, agents, datasets and vendors in one system of record; risk tiering to the EU AI Act, NIST and ISO 42001 | Admin users and AI inventory |
| Consent Management Platform (CMP) Base | Consent banners across websites, mobile apps and CTV devices | Average daily visitors across all channels and properties |
| Consent Management Platform (CMP) Suite | Consent, privacy notices and DSR automation | Average daily visitors across all channels and properties |
| Universal Consent & Preference Management (UCPM) | Consent and preferences across the customer journey | Total data subject profiles captured |
| Privacy Automation Base | Data and activity mapping, impact assessments, vendor privacy risk | Users and privacy asset inventory |
| Privacy Automation Suite | Base capabilities plus DSR fulfilment and incident management | Users and privacy asset inventory |
| Tech Risk & Compliance | GRC templates and guidance across 50+ standards, regulations and frameworks | Admin users and asset inventory |
| Third-Party Risk Management Base | The third-party lifecycle from onboarding to offboarding | Admin users and third-party inventory |
| Third-Party Management Suite | Base capabilities plus ethics and compliance screening using Dow Jones data | Admin users and third-party inventory |

Source: OneTrust pricing page. [1]

The meters split along one line. Governance and risk packages are "metered on admin users and the size of inventory managed by the solution." Data collection packages are metered on "the number of data profiles, visitors, or data volume." [1] That split decides which number you need to forecast. A consent buyer forecasts traffic. A privacy operations buyer forecasts headcount and the size of the asset inventory.

The tier rule matters as much as the meter. OneTrust says that if usage "consistently exceeds the current tier’s limits," the Account Executive "will help you transition to the next tier." [1] The cost of growth therefore sits in the tier limits, which the page doesn't publish. Ask for them in writing.

One detail changes scoping. Data subject request handling appears in two packages on two different meters. CMP Suite automates "DSR request intake, identity verification, discovery, and redaction" and is priced on visitors. Privacy Automation Suite automates DSR fulfilment and is priced on users and privacy asset inventory. [1] A buyer who needs DSR handling should ask which package the quote places it in, because the two packages scale with different inputs.

Existing customers on older contracts face a separate step. OneTrust tells customers with "legacy module-based pricing" to contact their Account Executive for a customised proposal on the new packages. [1]

## What does Osano's pricing page show?

Osano's pricing address returned a demo page, not a price list, checked 28 September 2026. [2] The page offers a demo with "an Osano Expert" and a line for buyers who want to start alone: "Explore our self-service plans", linked to Osano's cookie consent plans. [2] No price, plan tier or billing unit appears on the page as checked.

The page does set out the product system. Osano lists six products: Cookie Consent, Subject Rights Management, Assessments, Unified Consent & Preference Hub, Data Mapping and Vendor Privacy Risk Management. [2] It describes consent rule sets for "95+ regulations in 50+ countries" and SDKs for Android, iOS and React Native. [2] Those are Osano's statements about its own product, not tested results.

Two commercial terms sit outside the price and still affect it. First, Osano's comparison page carries a "Start Free Trial" link to the same cookie consent plans. [4] Second, the pricing page lists a "No Fines, No Penalties" guarantee, described as a contractual promise to cover regulatory fines. [2] Osano puts the cap at $500,000 and makes it conditional: the organisation must run the software "according to Osano’s documented compliance best practices." [5] Read the guarantee terms before counting it as value.

Osano's G2 listing adds one clue about packaging. Its pricing card shows "Contact Us" and a "Start Package", while OneTrust Privacy Automation's card says "No pricing available". [3] G2 doesn't show the Start Package's contents or price.

## Which products line up, and where do they differ?

The overlap is privacy operations: consent, subject rights requests, data mapping, assessments and vendor risk appear on both pricing pages. [1] [2] OneTrust also packages AI governance, broad GRC and third-party ethics screening. Osano's pricing page lists no equivalent products for those three.

| Buyer need | OneTrust package | Osano product |
|---|---|---|
| Cookie consent banners | CMP Base or CMP Suite | Cookie Consent |
| Consent and preferences beyond cookies | UCPM | Unified Consent & Preference Hub |
| Data subject requests | CMP Suite or Privacy Automation Suite | Subject Rights Management |
| Data mapping and records | Privacy Automation Base or Suite | Data Mapping |
| Privacy impact assessments | Privacy Automation Base or Suite | Assessments |
| Vendor privacy risk | Privacy Automation; Third-Party Risk Management Base or Suite | Vendor Privacy Risk Management |
| AI governance | AI Governance package | No package; Assessments include AI-specific templates |
| GRC across standards and frameworks | Tech Risk & Compliance | None on the pricing page |
| Sanctions, PEP and watchlist screening | Third-Party Management Suite | None on the pricing page |
| Consent outside the website | Mobile apps and CTV devices | Android, iOS and React Native SDKs |

Sources: OneTrust pricing page [1], Osano pricing page. [2]

The table sets the boundary of the price comparison. A consent-only buyer compares CMP Base with Osano Cookie Consent. A privacy operations buyer compares Privacy Automation with a bundle of four or five Osano products. Buyers who need AI governance, GRC or sanctions screening from one supplier are no longer comparing like with like.

Reviewers on G2 describe the same shape from the other side. They call OneTrust Privacy Automation's pricing "reasonable and tailored" but say "costs can add up quickly as more modules are added." Osano's listed trade-offs include "Limited Customization (14)" and "Expensive (12)." [3] Those are review mentions, not measured costs.

## What do third-party pages say about cost?

Third-party cost figures for both companies exist, but none is confirmed by either company's pricing page. The most detailed figures in the current results come from Enzuzo, a competing consent vendor. Enzuzo states that "All pricing mentions are best estimates since both vendors now require a sales conversation before revealing any numbers." [6] We don't reproduce those estimates as prices for that reason.

Enzuzo's account of Osano's pricing is also inconsistent within one page. Its comparison table describes Osano as "Per-domain pricing; public plans page; free trial available." Later it says Osano "no longer even lists its pricing publicly." [6] Its per-domain claim, that Osano's "cost climbs as you add sites," is a third-party description. Osano's pricing page doesn't state a billing unit. [2]

Osano's own claims about the gap are company claims. Its article on JD Supra says "Osano is typically less expensive than OneTrust" and adds that total cost of ownership runs "beyond the software license." [5] That establishes Osano's position. It doesn't establish the market price. How we treat vendor and third-party figures is set out in our [research standard](/methodology).

## How should a buyer get comparable quotes?

Send both companies the same scope and the same usage figures, then compare the total over the full contract term. Four steps make the quotes comparable.

1. **Fix the scope from the product table.** Name each capability you need and map it to one OneTrust package and one or more Osano products.
2. **Give both the same usage inputs.** OneTrust's meters tell you which inputs to prepare: average daily visitors across all channels and properties, data subject profiles, admin users and inventory counts. [1] Give Osano the same figures, plus your domain count, and ask it to name its billing unit in writing.
3. **Ask for tier limits and the step price.** OneTrust moves accounts that consistently exceed a tier to the next one. [1] Ask each company what triggers a step and what the next tier costs.
4. **Price the terms, not just the licence.** Ask OneTrust which package carries DSR handling. Ask Osano for the guarantee's conditions and how they apply to your configuration. [5]

Confirm every figure in the current quote. Pricing pages change, and both pages here were checked on 28 September 2026. For a related compliance buying decision, our [Laika and Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide) covers two systems in the same category. The rest of our work is in the [research archive](/research).

The verdict would change if either company published list prices or tier limits, or if Osano's self-service plan page shows a price and unit that a buyer can confirm without a sales call.

## Frequently asked questions

### Who are OneTrust's main competitors?

Osano's own comparison page, updated 22 September 2026, lists Osano, Ketch, BigID, CookiePro, DataGrail, Cookiebot, TrustArc, Termly and Didomi as OneTrust competitors. [4] Osano describes CookiePro as "a OneTrust product explicitly designed to manage cookie consent." [4] The list is a competitor's selection, not a neutral market map.

### Who are Osano's main competitors?

G2 names Securiti, TrustArc and OneTrust Privacy Automation as the top three alternatives to Osano and OneTrust Privacy Automation. [3] Enzuzo, a consent management vendor, also positions itself against both companies. [6]

### Does OneTrust or Osano offer a free trial?

Osano does. Its comparison page links a "Start Free Trial" button to its cookie consent plans. [4] OneTrust's pricing page shows no trial offer, only pricing and demo requests. [1]

### What does Osano's No Fines, No Penalties guarantee cover?

Osano says the guarantee "provides up to $500,000 toward regulatory penalties if your business receives a fine resulting from your use of Osano." [5] Coverage requires the organisation to run the software according to Osano's documented compliance best practices, so the configuration you deploy decides whether it applies. [5]

### Can existing OneTrust customers switch from module pricing to the new packages?

Yes, through their Account Executive. OneTrust says customers on "legacy module-based pricing" should contact their Account Executive for a walkthrough and a customised proposal. [1] The page doesn't say whether the move changes the price.

## Source notes
1. OneTrust Pricing and Packaging: https://www.onetrust.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. We'll Solve Your Privacy Compliance Challenges (page served at the Osano pricing URL): https://www.osano.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. OneTrust Privacy Automation vs Osano Comparison: https://www.g2.com/compare/onetrust-privacy-automation-vs-osano (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OneTrust Competitors: A Guide to Data Privacy Management Solutions: https://www.osano.com/comparison/onetrust-competitors (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Why Companies Are Leaving OneTrust in 2026: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/why-companies-are-leaving-onetrust-in-3273705/ (checked September 28, 2026)
6. OneTrust vs Osano: cost, features & best fit (2026): https://www.enzuzo.com/blog/onetrust-vs-osano (checked September 28, 2026)

# OneTrust vs TrustArc: plans and pricing, Sept 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/onetrust-vs-trustarc
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Neither OneTrust nor TrustArc showed a price on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. OneTrust discloses more: nine packages in five solution areas, the usage meter behind each and a tier rule, all priced by quote.

Neither OneTrust nor TrustArc showed a price on its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] [2] OneTrust discloses more of its pricing system: nine packages across five solution areas, the usage meter behind each one and a rule for moving up a tier, all ending in a quote. [1] TrustArc's pricing address returned a missing-page notice, which leaves a product menu of three families and no plans. [2] So the decision starts with scope, and the only comparable price is a written quote.

## TL;DR

- **No list price on either side.** OneTrust and TrustArc can't be compared on price from their public pages as of 28 September 2026. [1] [2] The comparison needs two quotes built on the same scope and the same usage figures.
- **OneTrust is the more legible buy.** Every package names its meter (admin users, inventory, visitors or data subject profiles), so a buyer can count the bill's drivers before the first sales call. [1]
- **TrustArc publishes structure, not terms.** Privacy Studio, Governance Suite and Assurance Services are listed. Plan names, tiers and billing units aren't. [2]
- **The overlap is privacy operations.** Cookie consent, preference management, subject rights requests, data mapping, assessments, vendor risk and AI governance appear on both sites. [1] [2]
- **Each sells something the other doesn't list.** TrustArc sells TRUSTe certifications and regulatory validations. OneTrust packages GRC across 50+ standards and frameworks, plus Dow Jones sanctions and watchlist screening. [1] [2]
- **Third-party cost figures are unconfirmed.** Ranking comparison pages describe both as expensive, but no dollar figure among them is confirmed by either company. [3] [4]

## How do OneTrust and TrustArc compare on products, plans and pricing?

They tie on published price, at none, and differ on almost everything else the pricing page discloses. Both sit within our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation). We captured each company's pricing page on 28 September 2026 and read five of the pages ranking for "onetrust vs trustarc" in United States Google results collected the same day.

| Dimension | OneTrust | TrustArc |
|---|---|---|
| Price on the pricing page | None. Every package carries a "Get Pricing" link | None. The address returned "Oops, that page doesn't exist!" |
| What the page asks for | A "Get Customized Pricing" form for a personalised quote | Nothing. It suggests a site search or the homepage |
| Plan structure | Nine packages in five solution areas; Base and Suite tiers in three areas | Three product families; no plan names or tiers shown |
| Billing unit stated | Yes, one or more meters per package | Not stated |
| Rule above a usage limit | The Account Executive helps move the account to the next tier | Not stated |
| Certification services | None among the nine packages | Assurance Services: 11 listed certifications, verifications, validations and dispute resolution |
| Free trial, as reported by Slashdot | No (Privacy Automation) | No |
| Founded, as reported by Slashdot | 2016 | 1997 |

Sources: OneTrust pricing page, [1] TrustArc pricing address, [2] Slashdot comparison. [5]

The first five rows carry the decision. OneTrust shows how its bill is built without showing the bill. TrustArc shows what it sells without showing how it charges. The Slashdot rows are directory data, reported rather than verified.

## How does OneTrust package and price its products?

OneTrust sells solution packages, each with "one or more value-based usage meters that determine pricing", and none of the nine shows a price. [1] The page asks buyers to "Schedule a quick call for a personalized quote based on your team size and business goals." [1]

| Solution area | Package | Meter named on the page |
|---|---|---|
| AI Governance | AI Governance | Admin users and AI inventory |
| Consent & Preferences | Consent Management Platform (CMP) Base | Average daily visitors across all channels and properties |
| Consent & Preferences | Consent Management Platform (CMP) Suite | Average daily visitors across all channels and properties |
| Consent & Preferences | Universal Consent & Preference Management (UCPM) | Total data subject profiles captured |
| Privacy Automation | Privacy Automation Base | Users and privacy asset inventory |
| Privacy Automation | Privacy Automation Suite | Users and privacy asset inventory |
| Tech Risk & Compliance | Tech Risk & Compliance | Admin users and asset inventory |
| Third-Party Management | Third-Party Risk Management Base | Admin users and third-party inventory |
| Third-Party Management | Third-Party Management Suite | Admin users and third-party inventory |

Source: OneTrust pricing page. [1]

The meters split along one line. Privacy, technology, third-party and AI risk packages are "metered on admin users and the size of inventory managed by the solution". Packages for data collection and use are metered on "the number of data profiles, visitors, or data volume". [1] That split tells a buyer which number to prepare. A consent buyer forecasts traffic. A privacy operations buyer counts users and the asset inventory.

The plans are the Base and Suite pairs. In Privacy Automation, Suite adds data subject request fulfilment and privacy incident management to Base. In third-party work, Suite adds Dow Jones ethics and compliance databases, "including PEP, sanctions, and watchlists", plus adverse media screening. [1]

Growth is priced through tiers. OneTrust says that if usage "consistently exceeds the current tier’s limits", the Account Executive "will help you transition to the next tier". [1] The tier limits aren't published, so the cost of growth sits in a number the buyer has to request.

Customers on older contracts face a separate conversation. OneTrust tells those with "legacy module-based pricing" to contact their Account Executive for a customised proposal on the new packages. [1]

## What does TrustArc publish about its products and pricing?

TrustArc publishes its product families and no pricing: trustarc.com/pricing/ returned "Oops, that page doesn't exist!" when checked 28 September 2026. [2] The site menu captured on that page sets out three families. [2]

- **Privacy Studio:** Cookie Consent Manager, Consent & Preference Manager, Individual Rights Manager and Trust Center.
- **Governance Suite:** PrivacyCentral, Data Mapping & Risk Manager, Assessment Manager and Nymity Research.
- **Assurance Services:** 11 entries, including Dispute Resolution, TRUSTe Global CBPR and PRP Certification, Data Privacy Framework Verification, TRUSTe Responsible AI Certification, TRUSTe Enterprise Privacy Certification, and CCPA/CPRA and GDPR validations.

TrustArc's own navigation still points at the missing page. Its product menu links each family to a tab on the pricing address, from `#tab01` to `#tab03`, and that address is the page that returned the missing-page notice. [2] Slashdot's comparison listing agrees that no price is public: its TrustArc pricing field reads "No price information available." [5]

The public buying route therefore runs through contact. The page header links an RFP template and a contact form, and the Solutions menu lists Privacy Program Consulting. [2] A missing page at one address doesn't prove TrustArc publishes no price anywhere. It proves the pricing route showed none on the checked date.

## Which products line up, and where do they differ?

Consent, subject rights, data mapping, assessments, vendor risk and AI governance line up across the two companies. Certification is TrustArc's alone. GRC across frameworks and sanctions screening are OneTrust's alone. [1] [2]

| Buyer need | OneTrust package | TrustArc product or solution |
|---|---|---|
| Cookie consent banners | CMP Base or CMP Suite | Cookie Consent Manager |
| Consent and preferences beyond cookies | UCPM | Consent & Preference Manager |
| Data subject requests | CMP Suite or Privacy Automation Suite | Individual Rights Manager |
| Data mapping | Privacy Automation Base or Suite | Data Mapping & Risk Manager |
| Privacy impact assessments | Privacy Automation Base or Suite | Assessment Manager |
| Regulatory research | DataGuidance intelligence, inside Privacy Automation | Nymity Research |
| Vendor privacy risk | Privacy Automation; Third-Party Risk Management | Data Mapping and Vendor Risk Management solution |
| AI governance | AI Governance package | AI Governance solution; AI Risk assessments in Assessment Manager |
| GRC across 50+ standards and frameworks | Tech Risk & Compliance | None in the product menu |
| Sanctions, PEP and watchlist screening | Third-Party Management Suite | None in the product menu |
| Privacy certification and validation | None among the nine packages | Assurance Services |
| Public trust centre | None among the nine packages | Trust Center |

Sources: OneTrust pricing page, [1] TrustArc site menu on the pricing address. [2]

The table sets the boundary of a fair price comparison. A consent-only buyer compares CMP Base with Cookie Consent Manager. A privacy programme buyer compares Privacy Automation with Governance Suite plus Individual Rights Manager. A buyer who needs a TRUSTe certification, or GRC and sanctions screening from the same supplier, is no longer comparing like with like.

Subject rights handling needs one extra question at OneTrust. It appears in two packages on two different meters: CMP Suite automates "DSR request intake, identity verification, discovery, and redaction" on visitor counts, while Privacy Automation Suite handles DSR fulfilment on users and privacy asset inventory. [1] Ask which package the quote places it in.

TrustArc is openly selling against OneTrust. Its footer links a TrustArc vs OneTrust comparison page, its Solutions menu lists a Migrate service, and its resources promote an eBook titled "Sick of Your Current Privacy Vendor? Why and How Companies Switch". [2] That's a sales position, so treat TrustArc's own OneTrust comparison as a company claim to test.

## What do third-party pages say about cost?

Third-party pages describe both companies as expensive, but no dollar figure among them is confirmed by OneTrust or TrustArc. Osano, which sells a competing privacy system, labels OneTrust's pricing "Enterprise-level (high)" and TrustArc's "Higher range". [3] It says poor-fit OneTrust customers complain of "erratic pricing structure with high renewal costs", and that some people find TrustArc's pricing "a bit too high". [3] Those are a rival's characterisations, not measured prices.

FuturePicker, a comparison site, publishes a starting-price column that includes TrustArc and gives an annual starting figure for OneTrust. [4] The page doesn't say where the figures come from, and neither company's pricing page confirms them, so they aren't repeated here. Slashdot's pricing fields show no figure for either: OneTrust's reads "OneTrust offers modular solutions to fit your CCPA, GDPR & global privacy compliance requirements." [5]

Osano's renewal point connects to OneTrust's own tier rule. If usage above a tier moves an account up, the renewal price depends on growth the buyer can forecast now. Put the renewal terms in the first quote.

## How should a buyer get comparable quotes?

Send both companies the same scope and the same usage figures, then compare the total over the full contract term. Four steps make the two quotes comparable.

1. **Fix the scope from the product table.** Name each capability you need and map it to one OneTrust package and one or more TrustArc products.
2. **Give both the same inputs.** OneTrust's meters list what to prepare: average daily visitors across all channels and properties, data subject profiles, admin users and inventory counts. [1] Give TrustArc the same figures and ask it to name its billing unit in writing.
3. **Ask for tier limits, the next-tier price and renewal terms.** OneTrust moves accounts that consistently exceed a tier to the next one. [1] TrustArc publishes no tier rule, so ask for one. [2]
4. **Price services apart from software.** If you want a TRUSTe certification or a GDPR validation, ask TrustArc whether Assurance Services sit inside the software contract or on a separate order. [2]

Use one real workflow to test each shortlist, such as a subject rights request from intake to deletion. For a neighbouring buying decision in the same category, our [Laika and Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide) sets out how two security compliance systems disclose their plans.

## What the pricing pages cannot tell you

The pages can't tell you a price, a tier limit or a renewal term for either company. [1] [2] TrustArc's page can't tell you whether its families are sold as plans, bundles or single products.

Feature and outcome claims on both sites are company statements. Both point buyers to Forrester economic studies. TrustArc says it "commissioned a Forrester study" on the benefits of using its product. [2] OneTrust's pricing page says customers "achieved a 227% 3-year ROI and payback in just 7 months" beside a Forrester logo. [1] Neither figure is a price, and neither was measured at your organisation. How we separate company claims from evidence is set out in our [research standard](/methodology).

Review signals on these directory pages are too thin to use. Slashdot showed one rating for OneTrust Privacy Automation and none for TrustArc. [5]

The verdict would change if either company published list prices or tier limits, or if TrustArc restored a pricing page with plans. This comparison reflects both pages as checked 28 September 2026. Our other published work is in the [research archive](/research), and new compliance software checks go out in our [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Who are TrustArc's main competitors?

TrustArc names its own set. Its site footer links comparison pages against Ketch, MineOS, OneTrust, Osano and Transcend. [2] That's TrustArc's selection of the companies it sells against, not a neutral market map.

### Who are OneTrust's main competitors?

Two of the pages ranking for this search name the same five: TrustArc, Osano, BigID, Securiti and DataGrail. FuturePicker's OneTrust alternatives guide covers exactly those five. [4] Osano's comparison, written by a competitor of both, lists all five plus Enzuzo and places Osano first. [3]

### Is TrustArc reliable?

No source here measures TrustArc's reliability. Slashdot reports the company was founded in 1997, which makes it the older of the two. [5] Osano, a competitor, calls it "a reliable product that has stood the test of time" but also says customers often "need additional support to make basic changes to their configuration". [3] Test one real workflow before signing.

### Does OneTrust or TrustArc offer a free trial?

Neither shows a free trial on the pages checked. Slashdot reports no free trial for OneTrust Privacy Automation or TrustArc. [5] It lists a free version for OneTrust Consent & Preferences, which OneTrust's pricing page doesn't mention, so confirm it with OneTrust. [6] [1]

### Which data privacy management software is best?

It depends on the scope you're buying, and many pages answering it are written by vendors. Five of the nine results recorded for "onetrust vs trustarc" came from privacy vendors or from TrustArc itself, and Osano's guide lists Osano first. [3] For a full privacy programme, OneTrust and TrustArc both sell the core modules. For certification, TrustArc lists services OneTrust's pricing page doesn't. For GRC or sanctions screening in the same contract, OneTrust packages both. [1] [2]

## Source notes
1. OneTrust Pricing and Packaging: https://www.onetrust.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
2. TrustArc pricing address (returned a missing-page notice with full site navigation): https://trustarc.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Top Data Privacy Management Software: Find The Best Data Privacy Software for You: https://www.osano.com/comparison/best-data-privacy-management-software (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Best OneTrust Alternatives in 2026: BigID vs TrustArc vs Osano vs Securiti vs DataGrail: https://futurepicker.com/en/onetrust-alternatives-2026/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Compare OneTrust Privacy Automation vs. TrustArc: https://slashdot.org/software/comparison/OneTrust-Privacy-Automation-vs-TrustArc/ (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Compare OneTrust Consent & Preferences vs. TrustArc: https://slashdot.org/software/comparison/OneTrust-Consent-Preferences-vs-TrustArc/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenAI API alternatives: OpenRouter prices, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openai-api-alternatives
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: No lab undercuts OpenAI's cheapest model on listed input price: gpt-oss-20b ranks first at $0.018 per million tokens on OpenRouter on 28 September 2026, ahead of Mistral Nemo ($0.019) and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 ($0.021).

OpenAI's gpt-oss-20b has the lowest listed input price per million tokens from OpenRouter's public model API on 28 September 2026: $0.018. It ranks first of 318 paid models from 13 labs, ahead of Mistral Nemo at $0.019 and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 at $0.021. [1] So nothing undercuts OpenAI at the bottom of the list. The cheaper alternatives sit higher up. GPT-6 Sol lists at $2.00, while Grok 4.7 lists at $1.60, Mistral Medium 3.5 at $1.50 and DeepSeek V4 Pro at $0.95526. [1]

## TL;DR

- OpenAI owns the floor on input price. gpt-oss-20b lists at $0.018, one thousandth of a dollar below Mistral Nemo, but Nemo lists output at $0.03 against OpenAI's $0.09. [1]
- Anthropic matches OpenAI at the top two tiers. Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra both list at $10.00 input and $50.00 output. [1] Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-6 Sol both list at $2.00 and $10.00. [1]
- Below GPT-6 Sol the field opens up. 239 of the 318 paid models list input below $2.00. [1]
- The last nine rows of the ranking all belong to OpenAI, ending with o1-pro at $150.00 input and $600.00 output. [1]
- OpenRouter matched the lab's own page for every GPT-6, Claude, Gemini and Mistral price we checked. It listed Grok 4.7 at $1.60 input against $2.00 on xAI's page, and no DeepSeek model we checked matched DeepSeek's own table. [1] [2] [3]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked every paid model from 13 AI labs on one field, as part of our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure): the listed input price in OpenRouter's public model API, captured on 28 September 2026. The field is **pricing.prompt**, which OpenRouter gives in US dollars per token. Each value was multiplied by 1,000,000 and printed at full precision. Ties on input are broken by output price, then by model ID. [1]

The 13 labs are OpenAI, Mistral, DeepSeek, Meta, Alibaba Qwen, Amazon, Cohere, Google, Zhipu, MiniMax, Moonshot AI, Anthropic and xAI. Free listings are excluded, which leaves 318 paid models. [1]

Model IDs ending in `:batch` are OpenRouter's batch listings. Each one we compared with a lab's published batch rate matched. GPT-6 Sol's batch listing is $1.00 input and $5.00 output on both OpenRouter and OpenAI's batch table. [1] [4] Claude Haiku 4.5's is $0.50 and $2.50 on both OpenRouter and Anthropic's batch table. [1] [5]

We then checked the listed prices against six labs' own pricing pages, captured the same day: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, Mistral and xAI. [4] [5] [6] [3] [7] [2] The other seven labs are ranked on OpenRouter's listing alone. Prices are in US dollars, and none of the captured pages states a tax treatment for tokens bought direct. How we treat company-published figures is set out in our [research methodology](/methodology).

## Which AI API models have the lowest input price?

OpenAI's gpt-oss-20b lists the lowest input price of the 318, at $0.018 per million tokens, followed by Mistral Nemo at $0.019 and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 at $0.021. [1] The first 25 rows are below, with figures exactly as OpenRouter lists them.

| Rank | Model ID | Lab | Input (USD per 1M tokens) | Output (USD per 1M tokens) | Context (tokens) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `openai/gpt-oss-20b` | OpenAI | 0.018 | 0.09 | 131,072 |
| 2 | `mistralai/mistral-nemo` | Mistral | 0.019 | 0.03 | 131,072 |
| 3 | `deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731` | DeepSeek | 0.021 | 0.32 | 1,310,720 |
| 4 | `openai/gpt-oss-20b:batch` | OpenAI | 0.024 | 0.112 | 131,072 |
| 5 | `openai/gpt-5-nano:batch` | OpenAI | 0.025 | 0.20 | 400,000 |
| 6 | `meta-llama/llama-3.2-1b-instruct` | Meta | 0.027 | 0.201 | 60,000 |
| 7 | `openai/gpt-oss-120b:batch` | OpenAI | 0.0296 | 0.136 | 131,072 |
| 8 | `qwen/qwen3.7-flash` | Alibaba Qwen | 0.03 | 0.13 | 1,000,000 |
| 9 | `amazon/nova-micro-v1` | Amazon | 0.035 | 0.14 | 128,000 |
| 10 | `deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash` | DeepSeek | 0.035 | 0.29 | 1,048,576 |
| 11 | `cohere/command-r7b-12-2024` | Cohere | 0.0375 | 0.15 | 128,000 |
| 12 | `meta-llama/llama-3.1-8b-instruct` | Meta | 0.05 | 0.08 | 131,072 |
| 13 | `mistralai/mistral-small-24b-instruct-2501` | Mistral | 0.05 | 0.08 | 32,768 |
| 14 | `google/gemma-3-4b-it` | Google | 0.05 | 0.10 | 131,072 |
| 15 | `google/gemma-3-12b-it` | Google | 0.05 | 0.15 | 131,072 |
| 16 | `google/gemini-2.5-flash-lite:batch` | Google | 0.05 | 0.20 | 1,048,576 |
| 17 | `openai/gpt-4.1-nano:batch` | OpenAI | 0.05 | 0.20 | 1,047,576 |
| 18 | `openai/gpt-6-luna-pro:batch` | OpenAI | 0.05 | 0.25 | 1,050,000 |
| 19 | `openai/gpt-6-luna:batch` | OpenAI | 0.05 | 0.25 | 1,050,000 |
| 20 | `meta-llama/llama-3.2-3b-instruct` | Meta | 0.05 | 0.33 | 131,072 |
| 21 | `openai/gpt-5-nano` | OpenAI | 0.05 | 0.40 | 400,000 |
| 22 | `z-ai/glm-5.3-flash:batch` | Zhipu | 0.06 | 0.20 | 1,048,576 |
| 23 | `amazon/nova-lite-v1` | Amazon | 0.06 | 0.24 | 300,000 |
| 24 | `z-ai/glm-4.7-flash` | Zhipu | 0.0605 | 0.40 | 200,000 |
| 25 | `qwen/qwen3.5-flash-02-23` | Alibaba Qwen | 0.065 | 0.26 | 1,000,000 |

Source: OpenRouter public model API, captured 28 September 2026. [1]

OpenAI holds 8 of the top 25 rows, more than any other lab, and six of those eight are batch listings. [1] The first three models sit $0.003 apart on input. At a billion input tokens a month, that gap is worth $3.

Output price moves far more. Mistral Nemo lists output at $0.03, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731, one place below it, lists output at $0.32. [1] A workload that writes more than it reads should sort this table by the output column, not the input one.

## What is the cheapest model from each lab?

The cheapest listing per lab runs from $0.018 per million input tokens for OpenAI to $1.00 for xAI. [1]

| Lab | Cheapest listed model | Input (USD per 1M tokens) | Output (USD per 1M tokens) |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | `openai/gpt-oss-20b` | 0.018 | 0.09 |
| Mistral | `mistralai/mistral-nemo` | 0.019 | 0.03 |
| DeepSeek | `deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731` | 0.021 | 0.32 |
| Meta | `meta-llama/llama-3.2-1b-instruct` | 0.027 | 0.201 |
| Alibaba Qwen | `qwen/qwen3.7-flash` | 0.03 | 0.13 |
| Amazon | `amazon/nova-micro-v1` | 0.035 | 0.14 |
| Cohere | `cohere/command-r7b-12-2024` | 0.0375 | 0.15 |
| Google | `google/gemma-3-4b-it` | 0.05 | 0.10 |
| Zhipu | `z-ai/glm-5.3-flash:batch` | 0.06 | 0.20 |
| MiniMax | `minimax/minimax-01` | 0.20 | 1.10 |
| Moonshot AI | `moonshotai/kimi-k2.5` | 0.45 | 2.25 |
| Anthropic | `anthropic/claude-haiku-4.5:batch` | 0.50 | 2.50 |
| xAI | `x-ai/grok-4.3:batch` | 1.00 | 2.00 |

Source: OpenRouter public model API, captured 28 September 2026. [1]

Three of those floors are batch listings: Zhipu's, Anthropic's and xAI's. At standard rates, Zhipu's cheapest is GLM 4.7 Flash at $0.0605 input. [1] Anthropic's cheapest standard listing on OpenRouter is Claude Haiku 4.5 at $1.00 input and $5.00 output. xAI's grok-build-0.1 lists at the same $1.00 and $2.00 as the batch Grok 4.3. [1]

The decision changes with the size of the job. For small, high-volume calls, nine labs list a model under $0.10 input. [1] Anthropic and xAI don't compete at that end of the market on price.

## How do flagship model prices compare side by side?

OpenAI and Anthropic list the same price for their flagships, and the other four checked labs list less. GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 both list at $10.00 input and $50.00 output on OpenRouter. [1] Both labs' own pages show the same figures. [4] [5]

"Flagship" follows the lab's own label or page order where the captured page gives one. The basis column says which.

| Lab | Flagship model | Basis | OpenRouter input | OpenRouter output | Lab page input | Lab page output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | `openai/gpt-6-astra` | First row of OpenAI's "Flagship models" table | 10.00 | 50.00 | 10.00 | 50.00 |
| Anthropic | `anthropic/claude-fable-5.1` | First row of Anthropic's model pricing table | 10.00 | 50.00 | 10 | 50 |
| Google | `google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview` | The Pro model in Google's Gemini 3.x text line | 2.00 | 12.00 | 2.00 | 12.00 |
| xAI | `x-ai/grok-4.7` | xAI calls it "Our flagship model" | 1.60 | 4.80 | 2.00 | 6.00 |
| Mistral | `mistralai/mistral-medium-3-5` | Mistral's pick "For most tasks and coding" | 1.50 | 7.50 | not on captured page | not on captured page |
| DeepSeek | `deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro` | The Pro model on DeepSeek's two-model page | 0.95526 | 1.91052 | 0.66 off-peak, 1.32 peak | 1.98 off-peak, 3.96 peak |

All prices in US dollars per million tokens. Sources: OpenRouter [1]; OpenAI [4]; Anthropic [5]; Google, rate for prompts of 200,000 tokens or fewer [6]; xAI [2]; Mistral [7]; DeepSeek, cache-miss input [3].

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists input at $2.00, one fifth of GPT-6 Astra's $10.00. [1] Of the six flagships, DeepSeek V4 Pro lists the lowest input and output through OpenRouter, at $0.95526 and $1.91052. [1] Bought direct, it costs $0.66 per million cache-miss input tokens off-peak and $1.32 at peak. [3]

## Which models are cheaper than OpenAI's, tier for tier?

At each of OpenAI's three flagship price points, at least one other lab lists a lower input price. OpenAI's page names those three as GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna. [4] The pairings below match on price band. They aren't a capability match, which this ranking doesn't measure.

| OpenAI tier (input / output) | Same input price | Lower listed input price |
|---|---|---|
| GPT-6 Astra, 10.00 / 50.00 | Claude Fable 5.1, 10.00 / 50.00 | Claude Opus 5.5, 4.00 / 20.00; Qwen3.8 Max Prime, 4.00 / 12.00; Kimi K3, 3.00 / 15.00 |
| GPT-6 Sol, 2.00 / 10.00 | Claude Sonnet 5, 2.00 / 10.00 | Grok 4.7, 1.60 / 4.80; Mistral Medium 3.5, 1.50 / 7.50; GLM 5.3, 1.40 / 4.40; DeepSeek V4 Pro, 0.95526 / 1.91052 |
| GPT-6 Luna, 0.10 / 0.50 | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite, 0.10 / 0.40 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, 0.035 / 0.29; Qwen3.7 Flash, 0.03 / 0.13 |

All prices in US dollars per million tokens, from OpenRouter's public model API, captured 28 September 2026. [1]

By count, 36 of the 318 paid models list input below GPT-6 Luna's $0.10. [1] 239 list it below GPT-6 Sol's $2.00. [1] 300 list it below GPT-6 Astra's $10.00. [1]

The decision changes when output dominates the bill. Grok 4.7 lists output at $4.80, less than half of GPT-6 Sol's $10.00. DeepSeek V4 Pro lists it at $1.91052, under a fifth. [1] A workload that writes long answers from short prompts saves more by switching than the input column suggests.

## Does OpenRouter charge the same as buying direct?

For OpenAI's GPT-6 models, Anthropic, Google and Mistral, yes: every listed price we checked matched the lab's own page. For xAI and DeepSeek, no, and OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol doesn't match the one table that lists it.

| Model | OpenRouter input / output | Lab page input / output | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI `gpt-6-astra` | 10.00 / 50.00 | 10.00 / 50.00 | Yes |
| OpenAI `gpt-6-sol` | 2.00 / 10.00 | 2.00 / 10.00 | Yes |
| OpenAI `gpt-6-luna` | 0.10 / 0.50 | 0.10 / 0.50 | Yes |
| OpenAI `gpt-5.3-codex` | 1.75 / 14.00 | 1.75 / 14.00 | Yes |
| OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol` | 2.00 / 10.00 | 4.00 / 20.00 (cyber models table) | No |
| Anthropic `claude-fable-5.1` | 10.00 / 50.00 | 10 / 50 | Yes |
| Anthropic `claude-opus-5.5` | 4.00 / 20.00 | 4 / 20 | Yes |
| Anthropic `claude-sonnet-5` | 2.00 / 10.00 | 2 / 10 | Yes |
| Anthropic `claude-haiku-4.5` | 1.00 / 5.00 | 1 / 5 | Yes |
| Google `gemini-3.1-pro-preview` | 2.00 / 12.00 | 2.00 / 12.00 (200k tokens or fewer) | Yes |
| Google `gemini-3.8-flash` | 0.75 / 3.75 | 0.75 / 3.75 through 31 December 2026 | Yes, until 2027 |
| Google `gemini-2.5-flash-lite` | 0.10 / 0.40 | 0.10 / 0.40 | Yes |
| Mistral `mistral-large-2512` | 0.50 / 1.50 | 0.5 / 1.5 (Mistral Large) | Yes |
| xAI `grok-4.7` | 1.60 / 4.80 | 2.00 / 6.00 | No, OpenRouter 20% lower |
| DeepSeek `deepseek-v4.1-flash` | 0.035 / 0.29 | 0.15 off-peak, 0.3 peak / 0.6 off-peak, 1.2 peak | No, OpenRouter lower |
| DeepSeek `deepseek-v4-pro` | 0.95526 / 1.91052 | 0.66 off-peak, 1.32 peak / 1.98 off-peak, 3.96 peak | No |
| DeepSeek `deepseek-v4-pro-0813` | 0.2523 / 4.20 | 0.66 off-peak, 1.32 peak / 1.98 off-peak, 3.96 peak | No |

All prices in US dollars per million tokens. Sources: OpenRouter [1]; OpenAI [4]; Anthropic [5]; Google [6]; Mistral [7]; xAI [2]; DeepSeek, cache-miss input [3].

Mistral's batch listing for Mistral Large on OpenRouter is $0.25 input and $0.75 output. [1] That is half the standard $0.50 and $1.50, which matches Mistral's statement that batch processing cuts the price by 50%. [1] [7]

DeepSeek is the lab to confirm before you buy. Its own page bills DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash at $0.15 per million cache-miss input tokens off-peak and $0.3 at peak. [3] OpenRouter lists it at $0.035. [1] DeepSeek's page also says the legacy names `deepseek-v4-flash` and `deepseek-v4-flash-vision-exp` are served by V4.1-Flash and billed at the Flash price. [3] OpenRouter still lists them as separate models, at $0.14 and $0.44 input. [1] The captured sources don't explain why the OpenRouter and DeepSeek figures differ. Confirm this in the current quote before routing volume either way.

## Why do other published price lists disagree?

Because a lab's price depends on how you call the model, and a list shows one number per model. Four conditions on the checked pages change the rate.

**Prompt length.** Google charges $2.00 input for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on prompts of 200,000 tokens or fewer, and $4.00 above that. [6] OpenAI lists GPT-6 Sol at $2.00 for short context and $4.00 for long context. [4] Anthropic bills Claude 4.6 and later models at standard pricing across the full 1M-token window. [5]

**Processing mode.** OpenAI's batch rate for GPT-6 Sol is $1.00 input. [4] Anthropic's Batch API takes 50% off both input and output tokens. [5] Mistral says batch processing cuts the price by 50% and cached input tokens cut input cost by up to 90%. [7]

**Time of day and region.** DeepSeek's off-peak rates are half its peak rates, with peak hours of 01:00 to 04:00 and 06:00 to 10:00 UTC, Monday to Friday. [3] OpenAI charges a 10% uplift on data-residency endpoints for eligible models released on or after 5 March 2026. [4] Anthropic applies a 1.1x multiplier when Claude 4.6 and later models are pinned to US-only inference. [5]

**Promotions with end dates.** Gemini 3.8 Flash lists at $0.75 input through 31 December 2026 and $1.50 from 1 January 2027. [6] OpenAI says GPT-5.6 Sol's promotional pricing runs at least through 21 November 2026. [4] Its cyber-models table lists gpt-5.6-sol at $4.00 input and $20.00 output. [4] OpenRouter lists `openai/gpt-5.6-sol` at $2.00 and $10.00. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

This ranking measures listed price, not quality, speed or reliability. A model that costs a tenth as much can still cost more per finished task if it needs retries or longer outputs. Use one real workflow to test the claim before you move production traffic.

Price per token also assumes a token means the same thing across labs. It doesn't. Anthropic says Claude 4.7 and later models use a newer tokenizer that produces approximately 30% more tokens for the same text. [5] Two models with the same listed price can bill different amounts for the same prompt.

Listed prices leave out charges that sit beside the token rate. OpenAI bills web search at $10.00 per 1,000 calls plus search content tokens. [4] Google charges $14 per 1,000 requests for grounding with Google Search, after 5,000 free a month shared across Gemini 3.x models. [6] DeepSeek caps concurrency at 2,500 for its Flash model and 500 for V4 Pro. [3] Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the cost drivers behind list prices like these.

Seven of the 13 labs weren't cross-checked against their own pages: Meta, Alibaba Qwen, Amazon, Cohere, Zhipu, MiniMax and Moonshot AI. Their rows are OpenRouter listings only. The prices are also a single day's snapshot, and two of them carry published end dates. Other published Glamdring work sits in the [research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is there a free alternative to the OpenAI API?

Yes, with limits. Google's Gemini API has a free tier with free input and output tokens on a limited set of models, and Google says free-tier content is used to improve its products. [6] Gemma 4 is free of charge on that tier and has no paid rate. [6] Mistral's Free plan includes $10 a month in API credits. [7] This ranking covers paid listings only, so free tiers don't appear in the tables.

### Is the OpenAI API cheaper than Anthropic's?

At the top and middle tiers they list the same price. GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 both list at $10.00 input and $50.00 output. [1] GPT-6 Sol and Claude Sonnet 5 both list at $2.00 and $10.00. [1] At the low end OpenAI is far cheaper. Its cheapest model lists at $0.018 input, against $1.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5, Anthropic's cheapest standard listing on OpenRouter. [1] Which one suits your work is a quality question this ranking doesn't measure.

### Is the OpenAI API being deprecated?

No such notice appears on OpenAI's pricing page. It says OpenAI is winding down its fine-tuning platform, which new users can no longer access, and that fine-tuned models stay available for inference until their base models are deprecated. [4]

### Will these prices change?

Some already have dates. Gemini 3.8 Flash rises to $1.50 input and $7.50 output on 1 January 2027. [6] OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol promotional pricing runs at least through 21 November 2026. [4] DeepSeek's page says its prices may vary and that DeepSeek reserves the right to adjust them. [3] Check the lab's page on the day you commit.

## Source notes
1. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/models (checked September 28, 2026)
2. xAI: https://docs.x.ai/docs/models (checked September 28, 2026)
3. DeepSeek: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OpenAI: https://platform.openai.com/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Anthropic: https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/about-claude/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Google: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Mistral AI: https://mistral.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenRouter alternatives: AI gateway fees, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openrouter-alternatives
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Of five OpenRouter alternatives, checked 28 September 2026, Vercel AI Gateway publishes the lowest fee on model spend: no markup and no platform fee on tokens, against OpenRouter's 5.5% Standard fee. Requesty and Cloudflare Unified Billing take 5%.

Of five OpenRouter alternatives compared on published fees, checked 28 September 2026, Vercel AI Gateway charges the least on model spend: no markup and no platform fee on tokens. [1] OpenRouter's Standard plan charges a 5.5% platform fee. [2] Requesty adds 5% to model spend. [3] Cloudflare AI Gateway charges 5% on credits bought through Unified Billing. [4] Portkey charges by recorded logs, at $49 a month for Production. [5] LiteLLM's open-source gateway is free to self-host, and you run the servers. [6]

## TL;DR

- On $10,000 a month of model spend bought through the gateway, the published fees come to $0 on Vercel AI Gateway, $500 on Requesty or Cloudflare Unified Billing, $550 on OpenRouter Standard and $800 on OpenRouter Business. [1] [3] [4] [2] The OpenRouter figures assume its percentage applies to the whole spend.
- Your own provider keys change the order. OpenRouter charges no fee on the first $25,000 a month of list-price inference through your own keys, then 5%. [2] Vercel charges no fee on your own keys but requires purchased credits first. [1]
- Portkey and LiteLLM list no fee on model spend. Portkey sells log volume, and LiteLLM's core gateway is MIT-licensed and free. [5] [6]
- Portkey and LiteLLM are the only two of the five with a published self-hosted option. [5] [6] The Vercel, Cloudflare and Requesty pricing pages list none.
- Vercel's zero markup covers tokens. Team-wide zero data retention adds $0.10 per 1,000 requests, which is $100 a month at one million requests. [1]
- The gateway fee is one line of the bill. The token rate, and how many tokens each task burns, sets the rest, as our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) sets out.

## How this comparison was built

Glamdring Research selected five gateways: Portkey, Vercel AI Gateway, Cloudflare AI Gateway, Requesty and self-hosted LiteLLM. OpenRouter's own pricing page sets the baseline. We captured eight company pages on 28 September 2026: one pricing page for each hosted gateway and OpenRouter, plus LiteLLM's home page, enterprise page and GitHub repository.

Each gateway gets the same four fields. They are the pricing model, the **published fee** on model spend, the bring-your-own-key (BYOK) terms and the self-hosted option. No single published field prices all five. Three gateways take a share of spend, Portkey sells log volume and LiteLLM's core gateway is free. So this is a comparison, and the table groups gateways by how they charge.

Every figure appears as its page prints it, in dollars. None of the pages states tax treatment beside its fee. The $10,000 and one-million-request examples are Glamdring's arithmetic on the listed rates. These are company statements about company prices, which is how our [research methodology](/methodology) treats them. The gateways sit in our [model infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) coverage.

## What does each OpenRouter alternative charge?

Vercel AI Gateway publishes a 0% fee on model spend, Requesty and Cloudflare AI Gateway publish 5%, and Portkey and LiteLLM publish no fee on model spend. OpenRouter, the baseline, charges 5.5% on Standard and 8% on Business. [2] Vercel describes its product as a managed gateway. [1] LiteLLM runs on your own servers. [7]

| Gateway | Pricing model | Published fee on model spend | Free entry point | Bring your own key | Self-hosted option |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenRouter (baseline) | Platform fee on pay-as-you-go plans | 5.5% Standard, 8% Business | 25+ free models, 50 requests a day | First $25,000 a month of list-price inference fee-free, then 5% | None listed |
| Vercel AI Gateway | Provider list price, paid from prepaid credits | 0%: "no markup and no platform fee on tokens" | $5 monthly credit, Free Tier models only | Paid tier only, no fee | None listed |
| Cloudflare AI Gateway | Core features free; fee on Unified Billing credits | 5% on Unified Billing credits | Core features free on all plans | Not named on the pricing page | None listed |
| Requesty | Markup on model spend | 5% | Free models, 200 requests a day | Listed on Pay as you go | None listed |
| Portkey | Subscription priced by recorded logs | None listed | Developer: 10,000 recorded logs a month | Virtual keys and key management listed | Open-source "Host it Yourself" tier; private cloud and VPC on Enterprise |
| LiteLLM | Free open-source gateway; paid Enterprise licence | None listed | Open source: $0, "Free forever" | Keys stay in your own infrastructure | Yes, including air-gapped |

Each row comes from that operator's own page, checked 28 September 2026. [2] [1] [4] [3] [5] [8] [6]

Vercel prices every request at the provider's list price and deducts it from a credit balance. [1] Its free tier gives each team $5 of credit a month on a subset of models. Buying credits moves the team to the paid tier and ends that monthly credit. [1] Vercel also leaves any payment processing fees with the customer. [1]

Cloudflare's example states its fee basis plainly: a $100 credit purchase results in a $105 charge. [4] Provider inference then passes through at the provider's own per-token rate. [4] Dashboard analytics, caching and rate limiting are free on every plan. [4]

Requesty states its fee the same way. A model that costs $10 per million tokens from OpenAI costs $10.50 through Requesty. [3] It lists no per-seat price and no minimum spend. Routing, caching and EU data residency come with every plan. [3]

Portkey prices its plans by recorded logs. Production costs $49 a month for 100,000 recorded logs, with 30 days of log retention. [5] The free Developer plan records 10,000 logs a month and keeps them for three days. Portkey calls it "Not suitable for production workloads." [5]

## What does the fee cost at $10,000 a month of model spend?

At $10,000 a month of model spend bought through the gateway, the published fees run from $0 on Vercel AI Gateway to $800 on OpenRouter's Business plan. The Requesty and Cloudflare rows follow each company's own worked example. [3] [4] The OpenRouter rows assume its platform fee applies to the whole $10,000, since its table gives the percentage without the calculation. [2]

| Gateway and plan | Published fee rule | Fee on $10,000 | Total paid |
|---|---|---:|---|
| Vercel AI Gateway, paid tier | 0% on tokens | $0 | $10,000, plus any payment processing fees |
| Requesty, Pay as you go | Spend plus 5% | $500 | $10,500 |
| Cloudflare AI Gateway, Unified Billing | 5% on credits purchased | $500 | $10,500 |
| OpenRouter, Standard | 5.5% platform fee | $550 | $10,550 |
| OpenRouter, Business | 8% platform fee | $800 | $10,800 |

Portkey needs a different unit, because its price follows log volume. Production includes 100,000 recorded logs and charges $9 for each further 100,000 requests. [5] At one million requests a month, that is $49 plus nine overage blocks of $9, or $130. The plan comparison caps that overage at 3 million requests. [5]

A 5% fee reaches $130 at $2,600 of monthly spend. Above that level, Portkey's flat price costs less than a 5% gateway, provided Portkey adds no charge on tokens. Its pricing page lists none. [5] The comparison turns on your ratio of spend to requests. Cheap, high-volume calls favour a percentage fee. Expensive calls at modest volume favour a flat one.

BYOK moves OpenRouter down the table. At $10,000 a month of list-price inference through your own keys, OpenRouter charges nothing. [2] At $40,000, the first $25,000 stays fee-free and 5% of the remaining $15,000 comes to $750.

## Which gateways let you bring your own provider keys?

Vercel AI Gateway, Requesty and OpenRouter name BYOK on their pricing pages, and Vercel is the only one that states no fee on it at every volume. [1] Portkey lists virtual keys and key management. [5] LiteLLM keeps keys inside your own deployment. [8] Cloudflare's pricing page does not mention BYOK.

Vercel's terms carry two conditions. BYOK sits on the paid tier, so you need purchased AI Gateway Credits to use your own keys. [1] And when a request with your credentials fails, Vercel retries it with its own credentials and charges that fallback against your credits. [1] A provider outage on your key can therefore land on your Vercel balance.

OpenRouter publishes a dollar threshold for fee-free BYOK. Standard and Business accounts get $25,000 of list-price inference a month with no fees, then pay 5%. Enterprise raises the allowance to $200,000 a month. [2] The free plan has no BYOK allowance. [2]

Requesty lists "Bring your own keys" on its Pay as you go plan. [3] Its page does not say whether the 5% markup applies to traffic on your own keys. Confirm this in the current quote before routing high-volume BYOK traffic through it.

LiteLLM's enterprise page describes a gateway "that runs in your own infrastructure, so your data and your keys never leave it." [8] Cloudflare's page ties its 5% fee to credits bought through Unified Billing. [4] It names no separate path for your own keys, so confirm it in Cloudflare's product documentation.

## Which OpenRouter alternatives can you self-host?

LiteLLM and Portkey are the two alternatives with a published self-hosted option. LiteLLM's open-source gateway is MIT-licensed and free. [6] Portkey offers an open-source tier labelled "Host it Yourself". [5] The Vercel, Cloudflare and Requesty pricing pages list no self-hosted version.

LiteLLM describes itself as an "Open Source AI Gateway for 100+ LLMs. Self-hosted. Enterprise-ready." [7] The free tier includes virtual keys, budgets, teams, load balancing, rate limits and guardrails. [6] Its home page says "the open-source gateway is MIT-licensed and production-grade. Enterprise adds SSO, RBAC, audit logs, and support on top, not a different core." [6] Enterprise pricing is custom and goes through sales. [8] The enterprise tier supports self-hosted and air-gapped deployment. [8] The repository showed 59.7k stars and 11.8k forks on the capture date. [7]

Portkey's self-hosted tier lists a universal API, retries and timeouts, routing, guardrails, automatic fallbacks, load balancing and a basic dashboard, with community support. [5] The plan comparison shows no monthly request limit for it. [5] Portkey Enterprise adds private cloud deployment and VPC hosting at custom pricing. [5]

The constraint moves when you self-host. The licence costs nothing, and the servers, database, upgrades and on-call time become yours. Neither LiteLLM nor Portkey publishes what that infrastructure costs. Use one month of real traffic to test that cost against the $500 a 5% gateway would take on $10,000 of spend.

## What do Vercel, Cloudflare and Portkey charge beyond the headline fee?

Vercel AI Gateway and Cloudflare AI Gateway both charge for optional features outside the token price, and Portkey's free plan limits logging. Vercel's surcharges come off the AI Gateway Credits balance once a team enables them. [1] Cloudflare's log pricing changed for gateways created on or after 24 September 2026. [4]

Vercel lists these add-ons on its pricing page, last updated 8 September 2026: [1]

| Vercel add-on | Price | Availability |
|---|---|---|
| Custom Reporting writes | $0.075 per 1,000 tag, user ID or quota entity ID writes | Not stated |
| Custom Reporting queries | $5 per 1,000 queries | Not stated |
| Team-wide provider allowlist | $0.10 per 1,000 successful requests | Pro and Enterprise |
| Team-wide zero data retention | $0.10 per 1,000 requests | Pro and Enterprise |
| AI Gateway Traces | $0.05 per 1,000 traces | Pro and Enterprise |
| Trace egress | $0.50 per GB | Pro and Enterprise |

The per-request versions of the provider filter and zero data retention cost nothing extra. [1] A team that sets both controls team-wide adds $200 a month at one million successful requests.

Cloudflare customers who created their first gateway on or after 24 September 2026 follow Workers Logs pricing. [4] Earlier customers keep Legacy Logs, with 100,000 logs in total on Workers Free and 10,000,000 logs per gateway on Workers Paid. [4] Logpush on Workers Paid includes 10 million requests a month, then costs $0.05 per million. [4] Guardrails bill as Workers AI inference, while DLP scanning is free on all plans. [4]

Portkey's free plan handles overflow by dropping logs. Requests beyond 10,000 a month still run, and only the logs beyond the limit go unrecorded. [5]

## What the comparison cannot tell you

The six operators' published fees are company statements about their own prices. No fee figure measures latency, uptime, failover quality or the models each gateway carries. Model counts are self-reported and inconsistent even within one company. LiteLLM's home page claims 140+ providers and 1,800+ models. [6] Its repository says 100+ LLM providers. [7] OpenRouter lists 500+ models and 80+ providers on its paid plans. [2]

Five terms stay open on the pages we captured. OpenRouter does not show the base its 5.5% applies to. Requesty does not say whether its 5% applies to BYOK traffic. Cloudflare's pricing page does not name BYOK. None of the pages states tax treatment. Enterprise and volume terms go through sales at all six operators. [2] [1] [4] [3] [5] [8]

Portkey's page also carries a banner: "Portkey is now PRISMA AIRS AI Gateway, generally available for all enterprises." [5] Its Production upgrade button links to Palo Alto Networks. [5] Confirm which company you contract with and whether the $49 plan remains on sale.

The decision changes when a gateway republishes its fee, or when your spend-to-request ratio moves across the $2,600 line. Confirm this in the current quote, filing or operating data. More of our model and infrastructure analysis sits in the [research archive](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is OpenRouter API free?

OpenRouter has a free plan with no platform fee, limited to 25+ free models from four free providers at 50 requests a day. [2] The free plan excludes budgets, prompt caching and BYOK allowances. [2] Paid models need the Standard plan, which carries a 5.5% platform fee and passes rate limits through from the providers. [2]

### Is LiteLLM similar to OpenRouter?

LiteLLM and OpenRouter both put many model providers behind one API. LiteLLM calls 100+ providers in the OpenAI format. [7] OpenRouter reaches 80+ providers on its paid plans. [2] The operating model differs. LiteLLM is open-source software you host yourself at no licence cost. [6] OpenRouter is a hosted service that charges a platform fee of 5.5% on Standard. [2]

### Is Portkey still sold as Portkey?

Portkey's pricing page says Portkey is now Prisma AIRS AI Gateway, generally available for enterprises. [5] The page still lists Developer, Production at $49 a month and Enterprise plans, alongside the open-source tier. [5] Confirm the contracting company and plan availability before you buy.

### Does Vercel AI Gateway charge when my own key fails?

Vercel AI Gateway charges for the retry. When a request with your credentials fails, Vercel retries it with system credentials and charges that fallback usage against your credits balance. [1] BYOK requests that succeed carry no markup or fee from Vercel. [1]

## Source notes
1. Vercel: https://vercel.com/docs/ai-gateway/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Requesty: https://www.requesty.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Cloudflare: https://developers.cloudflare.com/ai-gateway/reference/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Portkey (page banner: now Prisma AIRS AI Gateway, Palo Alto Networks): https://portkey.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. BerriAI (LiteLLM): https://www.litellm.ai/ (checked September 28, 2026)
7. BerriAI (LiteLLM) on GitHub: https://github.com/BerriAI/litellm (checked September 28, 2026)
8. BerriAI (LiteLLM): https://www.litellm.ai/enterprise (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenRouter free models: API list, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openrouter-free-models
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: OpenRouter's public API priced 21 of 458 models at zero on 28 September 2026. They suit testing, not production: free use is capped at 50 requests a day, or 1,000 after buying at least 10 credits.

On 28 September 2026, OpenRouter's public models API priced 21 of its 458 listed models at zero for both input and output. [1] The longest context window among them is 1,048,576 tokens, shared by four entries: Thinking Machines' Inkling Small (free) and Inkling (free), and Google's Lyria 3 Pro Preview and Lyria 3 Clip Preview. [1] Free use is capped at 50 requests a day, or 1,000 a day once an account has bought at least 10 credits. [2]

The free list changes often, so treat it as a dated snapshot, not a standing catalogue.

## TL;DR

- 21 models cost nothing per token on 28 September 2026. Eighteen carry the `:free` suffix or are the free router; three are zero-priced listings without the suffix.
- Context length runs from 1,048,576 tokens down to 65,536. Eight of the 21 sit at 262,144 tokens.
- NVIDIA supplies five of the 21, the most of any company. Google supplies four.
- The daily cap is the constraint. Fifty requests a day is enough to test a prompt, not to run a product.
- Buying 10 credits lifts the daily cap to 1,000. On a 10-credit top-up, OpenRouter's purchase fee is the US$0.80 minimum.
- Some free models may keep or train on your prompts. Read each model's terms before sending anything sensitive.

## How this ranking was built

The ranking uses one source and one field. The source is OpenRouter's public models API at `https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/models`, read without a key on 28 September 2026. [1] Our [research standard](/methodology) sets how that capture is kept and checked.

- **Fields:** `pricing.prompt` (input) and `pricing.completion` (output), which OpenRouter reports in US dollars per token. [1]
- **Inclusion rule:** both prices equal zero. [1]
- **Row count:** 458 models listed, 21 kept. [1]
- **Ranked field:** context length in tokens, as the API reports it. Nothing was merged or removed. Tied entries keep the order the capture gives them.

These are OpenRouter's listed prices and context lengths. They are reported figures, not measured throughput or tested context.

## Which models are free on OpenRouter?

These 21 models were priced at zero for input and output on 28 September 2026, ranked by the API's **context_length** figure. [1] They sit in the [model infrastructure](/categories/model-infrastructure) field we cover.

| Rank | Model | Model ID | Context length (tokens) | Listing type |
|---:|---|---|---:|---|
| 1 | Thinking Machines: Inkling Small (free) | `thinkingmachines/inkling-small:free` | 1,048,576 | `:free` variant |
| 2 | Thinking Machines: Inkling (free) | `thinkingmachines/inkling:free` | 1,048,576 | `:free` variant |
| 3 | Google: Lyria 3 Pro Preview | `google/lyria-3-pro-preview` | 1,048,576 | Zero-priced, no suffix |
| 4 | Google: Lyria 3 Clip Preview | `google/lyria-3-clip-preview` | 1,048,576 | Zero-priced, no suffix |
| 5 | Space Bunny Alpha | `stealth/space-bunny-alpha` | 1,000,000 | Zero-priced, no suffix |
| 6 | NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (free) | `nvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightning:free` | 1,000,000 | `:free` variant |
| 7 | NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Ultra (free) | `nvidia/nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b:free` | 1,000,000 | `:free` variant |
| 8 | Dots Studio: Dots3-Note Preview (free) | `dots-studio/dots-3-note-preview:free` | 512,000 | `:free` variant |
| 9 | inclusionAI: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free) | `inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash-sante:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 10 | inclusionAI: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free) | `inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash-fin:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 11 | Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B (free) | `qwen/qwen3.8-27b:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 12 | Poolside: Laguna S 2.1 (free) | `poolside/laguna-s-2.1:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 13 | Poolside: Laguna XS 2.1 (free) | `poolside/laguna-xs-2.1:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 14 | Google: Gemma 4 26B A4B (free) | `google/gemma-4-26b-a4b-it:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 15 | Google: Gemma 4 31B (free) | `google/gemma-4-31b-it:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 16 | NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Super (free) | `nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b:free` | 262,144 | `:free` variant |
| 17 | Cohere: North Mini Code (free) | `cohere/north-mini-code:free` | 256,000 | `:free` variant |
| 18 | NVIDIA: Nemotron 3 Nano Omni (free) | `nvidia/nemotron-3-nano-omni-30b-a3b-reasoning:free` | 256,000 | `:free` variant |
| 19 | Free Models Router | `openrouter/free` | 200,000 | Router |
| 20 | NVIDIA: Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety (free) | `nvidia/nemotron-3.5-content-safety:free` | 128,000 | `:free` variant |
| 21 | LiquidAI: LFM2.5-2.6B (free) | `liquid/lfm-2.5-2.6b:free` | 65,536 | `:free` variant |

Seven entries offer a context window of 1,000,000 tokens or more. The largest cluster is 262,144 tokens, where eight models sit.

By company, NVIDIA leads with five entries: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning, Nemotron 3 Ultra, Nemotron 3 Super, Nemotron 3 Nano Omni and Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety. Google has four, split between two Lyria previews and two Gemma 4 models. Thinking Machines, inclusionAI and Poolside have two each. [1]

The listing type matters for the limits. OpenRouter's FAQ describes `:free` as "a free version of the model with its own rate limits". [2] Lyria 3 Pro Preview, Lyria 3 Clip Preview and Space Bunny Alpha are priced at zero without that suffix, and the FAQ doesn't say which request caps govern them.

The Free Models Router, `openrouter/free`, isn't a model of its own. The FAQ describes it as a way "to automatically select a free model for your requests". [2] Use it when any free model will do. Name a `:free` model directly when the output has to be repeatable.

## What are the limits on OpenRouter's free models?

OpenRouter caps free-model use at 50 requests a day for accounts that have bought fewer than 10 credits. [2] Accounts that have bought at least 10 credits get 1,000 free-model requests a day. [2]

The cap counts requests, not tokens. A request that fills a 1,000,000-token context window counts once, the same as a one-line prompt. That makes the long-context models in the table the better value per request, if the task needs the room.

OpenRouter's own FAQ says these models have low rate limits and "are usually not suitable for production use". [2] Fifty requests a day covers testing a prompt, not serving users. The decision changes at 1,000 a day: that covers a personal tool, a demo or a small internal script, but still not a customer-facing product with real traffic.

## What unlocks higher limits?

Buying at least 10 credits raises the free-model cap from 50 to 1,000 requests a day. [2] The FAQ ties the tier to credits purchased, so the credits don't have to be spent on paid models to count.

The economics are small but not zero:

- OpenRouter's credits are denominated in US dollars. [2]
- It charges a 5.5% fee on credit purchases, with a US$0.80 minimum. [2] On a 10-credit purchase, 5.5% is US$0.55, so the US$0.80 minimum applies.
- Refunds for unused credits must be requested within 24 hours of purchase. [2]
- OpenRouter reserves the right to expire unused credits one year after purchase. [2]

Beyond 1,000 requests a day, the route is a paid model. OpenRouter lists a price per million tokens for each paid model, usually with different prompt and completion prices. [2] What those per-token prices depend on is set out in [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## Why do other free-model lists disagree?

Other OpenRouter pages count free models differently because they use different rules, not because the models changed.

- **The Free Models collection** ranks the top 16 models by tokens processed over the trailing seven days. [3] It measures use, not price, and it includes two VoyageAI rerankers listed at $0.02 and $0.05 per million tokens. [3]
- **A search for "free" on the models page** returns 18 text models. [4] That matches the 18 entries in our table whose name or ID contains "free". The three zero-priced listings without the word, the two Lyria previews and Space Bunny Alpha, don't match a text search.
- **The models page** also shows non-text entries at zero, such as Respan's Span-01 Lite, listed on 26 September 2026, and LiquidAI's LFM2.5-Embedding-350M (free). [5] They didn't appear in the models API capture, so they aren't ranked here.

Context figures can also differ within OpenRouter. Nemotron 3 Super's description mentions a 1M token context window, while its listing shows 262K. [3] Nemotron 3 Nano Omni's description says it supports up to 300K context, and its listing shows 256K. [3] The table uses the API figure, because that is the field the ranking is built on.

## What do free models cost besides money?

Some free models are paid for with data. Poolside states that if you use Laguna S 2.1 or Laguna XS 2.1 for free, it may use your inputs and outputs to train its models. [3] Space Bunny Alpha is a stealth model from an anonymous provider; its prompts and completions may be retained by that provider, though not used for training. [3] LiquidAI's free embedding model states that requests may be retained and used to train Liquid models. [5]

The rule for a team is simple. Keep client data, credentials and unreleased code out of free endpoints unless the model's own terms say it isn't kept or trained on. Confirm this on each model's page before the first request.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

This list ranks context length, which is capacity, not quality. A 1,048,576-token window says nothing about how well a model reasons across it.

It also fixes one day. The models page shows new listings dated 25 and 26 September 2026, so the free set can change within days. [5] The list doesn't cover speed, uptime or queueing under load. And it doesn't settle which caps apply to the three zero-priced listings without the `:free` suffix; OpenRouter's FAQ doesn't say.

## Frequently asked questions

### Does OpenRouter give free models?

Yes. On 28 September 2026, OpenRouter's models API listed 21 models priced at zero for both input and output. [1] They are capped at 50 requests a day, or 1,000 a day after buying at least 10 credits. [2]

### Is OpenRouter itself free to use?

OpenRouter says new users receive a small free allowance to test the service. [2] Paid models draw on prepaid credits, and OpenRouter takes a 5.5% fee, with a US$0.80 minimum, when you buy them. [2]

### Which free OpenRouter model has the biggest context window?

Four entries tie at 1,048,576 tokens: Inkling Small (free), Inkling (free), Lyria 3 Pro Preview and Lyria 3 Clip Preview. [1] For text work, the two Inkling models are the ones OpenRouter describes as suited to reasoning and coding. [3]

### Are OpenRouter free models any good for production?

OpenRouter says they are usually not suitable for production use. [2] The binding constraint is the daily request cap, followed by the data terms some free models attach. Use them to prototype and compare, then move to a paid model when traffic is real.

### What are the most affordable OpenRouter models?

The 21 models in the table above cost nothing per token. Beyond them, OpenRouter lists separate prompt and completion prices per million tokens for each paid model. [2] Compare paid options on the unit your workload uses most, input or output.

New rankings like this one go out through our [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Source notes
1. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/models (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/docs/faq (checked September 28, 2026)
3. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/collections/free-models (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/models/?q=free (checked September 28, 2026)
5. OpenRouter: https://openrouter.ai/models (checked September 28, 2026)

# OpenRouter pricing: fees and limits, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/openrouter-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: OpenRouter's own charge is a fee on buying credits: 5.5% by card with a $0.80 minimum, 5% in crypto, and a listed 8% on Business. It states model prices pass through with no markup.

OpenRouter's own charge is a fee on buying credits. Its FAQ says model prices pass through at the provider's rate with no markup, and that buying credits carries a 5.5% fee with a $0.80 minimum, or 5% when paying in crypto. [1] Its pricing page lists an 8% platform fee on the Business plan and fee discounts on Enterprise. [2] All figures are US dollars, checked 28 September 2026.

If the no-markup statement holds, that fee is the whole premium over direct provider billing. The $0.80 floor makes small top-ups dearer.

## TL;DR

- The premium over direct billing is a share of credit purchases: 5.5% by card, 5% in crypto, a listed 8% on Business. [1] [2]
- The $0.80 minimum makes a $10 top-up cost 8% and a $5 top-up 16%. Above about $14.55, the headline 5.5% applies. [1]
- Bring-your-own-key use is fee-free up to $25,000 of list-price inference a month ($200,000 on Enterprise), then costs 5%. [2]
- Free use means 25+ free models at 50 requests a day, or 1,000 a day after 10 credits are bought. Paid models inherit provider rate limits. [2] [1]
- Credits can expire after a year; refunds close after 24 hours; platform fees are never refunded. [1]
- Verdict: for multi-model or fallback-dependent work, the fee buys one bill and one API. For one model at high volume, price direct billing against the 5.5% first.

## How these figures were checked

Every OpenRouter figure here comes from its own pricing page and documentation FAQ, captured on 28 September 2026 for our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure). [2] [1] One model price comes from OpenRouter's models listing, captured the same day. [3] Fee examples are computed from the stated percentages and minimum, with the inputs beside each result. Third-party figures are named where they appear, under the same sourcing rule as the rest of our [published research](/research).

These are company statements. They establish what OpenRouter says it charges, not what every account pays after tax or negotiation. The standard behind that distinction is set out in our [research methodology](/methodology).

## What does each OpenRouter plan charge?

OpenRouter publishes four plans: Free, Standard (pay-as-you-go), Business (pay-as-you-go) and Enterprise. [2] The charge the pricing page calls the **Platform fees** row is N/A on Free, 5.5% on Standard, 8% on Business and "Fee discounts available" on Enterprise. [2]

| Plan | Platform fee | Models and providers | Rate limits | Payment options | BYOK allowance per month | Cost controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | N/A | 25+ free models, 4 free providers | 50 requests/day | None listed | Not available | No budgets, no prompt caching |
| Standard | 5.5% | 500+ models, 80+ providers | Passthrough from the provider(s) | Credit card, crypto & more | $25,000 of list-price inference, 5% after | Budgets and spend controls, prompt caching |
| Business | 8% | 500+ models, 80+ providers | Passthrough from the provider(s) | Credit card, crypto & more | $25,000 of list-price inference, 5% after | Adds EU and US in-region routing, 1,000 workspaces |
| Enterprise | Fee discounts available | 500+ models, 80+ providers | Higher allowances available | Invoicing options | $200,000, 5% after | Adds SSO/SAML, contractual SLAs, dedicated support |

Source: OpenRouter pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. Figures in US dollars; tax treatment is not stated in the captured page. [2]

The plan changes the controls around spend more than the spend itself. Budgets and spend controls, prompt caching and auto-routing are marked "No" on Free and "Yes" on every paid plan. [2]

## How are model prices passed through?

OpenRouter bills each request at the model's listed price and deducts it from your credits. Its FAQ says pricing is shown per million tokens, usually with separate prices for prompt and completion tokens, and that some models charge per request, for images or for reasoning tokens. [1] After a request, OpenRouter receives the token count the provider processed, calculates the cost and deducts it from the credit balance. [1]

The FAQ states that OpenRouter passes through the underlying providers' pricing with no markup on inference, and makes its money from the fee on credit purchases. [1] That is OpenRouter's own claim. This check did not compare OpenRouter's listed rates with each provider's price page, so confirm the rate for your model on both before relying on parity.

A worked example shows where the fee sits. OpenRouter's models listing showed Perceptron Mk1.5 at $0.15 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens on 28 September 2026. [3] A workload of 10 million input tokens and 2 million output tokens therefore draws $1.50 plus $3.00, or $4.50, from credits. The fee was paid earlier, when those credits were bought: about $0.25 on $4.50 at the 5.5% card rate, if they came from a top-up large enough to clear the $0.80 minimum. [1] Nothing further is added per request.

Three pricing levers sit inside the model catalogue. The `:free` variant is a free version of a model with its own rate limits, `:batch` is the batch-priced version, and `:floor` sorts providers by price. [1] Accounts can also opt in to logging prompts and completions in exchange for a 1% discount on usage costs. [1] What sets the token prices upstream is covered in our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost).

## What does the 5.5% credit fee cost in practice?

On Standard, the fee is 5.5% of each card purchase, with $0.80 as the floor. [1] The minimum stops binding at $0.80 ÷ 0.055, about $14.55. Below that, the effective rate climbs.

| Credit purchase (USD) | Card fee at 5.5%, $0.80 minimum | Effective rate | Crypto fee at 5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5 | $0.80 | 16.0% | $0.25, minimum not stated |
| $10 | $0.80 | 8.0% | $0.50, minimum not stated |
| $50 | $2.75 | 5.5% | $2.50 |
| $100 | $5.50 | 5.5% | $5.00 |
| $1,000 | $55.00 | 5.5% | $50.00 |
| $10,000 | $550.00 | 5.5% | $500.00 |

Computed from the FAQ's 5.5% fee, $0.80 minimum and 5% crypto fee, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

The decision changes with top-up size. An account that loads $10 at a time pays 8% for the same inference that a $100 top-up buys at 5.5%. Auto top-up, which refills the balance when it falls below a set threshold, runs on the same arithmetic: each refill under $14.55 pays the minimum. [1]

The Business figure needs care. The pricing page lists 8%, but the captured text does not include the answer to its own question, "What does the Business plan fee apply to?" [2] If it applies to the same purchase base, a $1,000 purchase would carry $80. Confirm the basis with OpenRouter before modelling Business costs.

## What does bring-your-own-key cost?

Bring-your-own-key (BYOK) is fee-free up to a monthly allowance, then costs 5%. OpenRouter measures that allowance by list-price inference cost, not request count: $25,000 a month on pay-as-you-go plans and $200,000 on Enterprise. [1] Above it, the fee is 5% of what the same model and provider would normally cost on OpenRouter, deducted from OpenRouter credits. [1]

BYOK moves the provider bill and rate limits back to your own provider account while keeping OpenRouter's interface. [1] It does not remove the need for an OpenRouter balance, because the overage fee comes out of credits.

Take a Standard account running $40,000 of list-price inference through its own keys in one month. The first $25,000 carries no fee. The remaining $15,000 carries 5%, or $750, taken from credits. [2] The same month on Enterprise stays inside the $200,000 allowance and carries no BYOK fee. [2]

## What are the free and paid limits?

Free use is capped by requests, and paid use by the provider. The pricing page lists 50 requests a day for the Free plan. [2] The FAQ sets free-model limits by credits purchased: 50 free-model requests a day, or 1,000 a day once at least 10 credits have been bought. [1] OpenRouter's credit system uses the US dollar as its base currency. [1]

OpenRouter describes the free models as having low rate limits and being "usually not suitable for production use". [1] New users also receive "a small free allowance" to test the service; the FAQ does not give its size. [1]

On Standard and Business, the rate limits are listed as "Passthrough from the provider(s)". Enterprise lists "Higher allowances available". [2] When a provider returns an error, OpenRouter falls back to the next provider automatically. [1]

Plan limits also cover structure. Free and Standard allow 5 workspaces, Business 1,000, and Enterprise a custom number. [2] Support runs from community support on Free to email on Standard and Business and a dedicated team on Enterprise. [2]

## What happens to credits you don't use?

Unused credits can lapse, and the refund window is short. OpenRouter reserves the right, under its terms, to expire unused credits one year after purchase. [1] Refunds for unused credits must be requested within 24 hours of the transaction. The unused amount returns to the payment method, but platform fees are non-refundable and crypto payments are never refundable. [1]

Deleting an account loses its unused credits, and they cannot be reclaimed by recreating the account. [1] The FAQ lists major credit cards, AliPay and USDC as payment methods, with PayPal described as coming soon. [1] The expiry rule and the minimum fee point the same way: top up in amounts above $14.55 that will be spent within a year.

## Why other published OpenRouter figures disagree

Third-party guides describe older or different terms. TrueFoundry's guide, dated 25 August 2026, says the first 1 million BYOK requests each month are free on standard plans and 5 million on Enterprise. [4] OpenRouter's FAQ now measures the BYOK allowance in list-price dollars, $25,000 and $200,000, and states it is "not request count". [1]

The same guide describes three tiers and 300+ models. [4] The pricing page checked on 28 September 2026 shows four plans, including Business at 8%, and 500+ models. [2] TrueFoundry's guide also gives a $100 purchase as leaving about $94.50 for inference, which treats the fee as deducted from the credit. [4] OpenRouter's refund rule, which returns the unused credit amount but not the platform fee, reads as though the two are separate sums. [1] The captured pages do not settle which way the fee is applied. TrueFoundry sells a competing AI gateway, which its guide promotes alongside the pricing analysis. [4]

For current figures, use the pricing page and the FAQ together.

## What the published pricing does not tell you

Several cost terms were not resolved in the captured pages. The pricing page lists questions on whether taxes (VAT/GST) are included, whether failed or fallback attempts are billed, and what happens when a model's pricing changes, but the captured text does not include their answers. [2] The per-minute limit on free models, the size of the new-user allowance and the base of the Business 8% fee are also unstated in these pages.

Two statements sit in tension. The FAQ says OpenRouter "does not currently offer volume discounts" beyond a request by email for exceptional cases, while the Enterprise column lists fee discounts. [1] [2] Treat Enterprise pricing as negotiated.

This view would change if OpenRouter altered the **Platform fees** row, the $0.80 minimum or the BYOK allowance. Confirm each in the current pricing page before committing a budget.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is OpenRouter still free?

Yes, for free models. The Free plan carries no platform fee and offers 25+ free models from 4 free providers, capped at 50 requests a day. [2] Paid models need purchased credits. Free variants use model IDs ending in `:free`, and the `openrouter/free` router picks a free model automatically. [1]

### How many free requests do you get on OpenRouter?

Fifty free-model requests a day, or 1,000 a day once an account has bought at least 10 credits. [1] TrueFoundry's August 2026 guide also reports a limit of 20 requests per minute on the free tier; the OpenRouter pages checked for this piece give only the daily caps. [4]

### Is OpenRouter worth using?

It depends on what the 5.5% buys you. OpenRouter's case is one API across providers, one bill and automatic fallback when a provider errors. [1] At $10,000 of card top-ups a month, the fee is $550. [1] A team running several models, or depending on fallback, is paying for that. A team running one model at high volume can compare that sum with billing the provider directly, or use BYOK, which carries no fee up to $25,000 of list-price inference a month. [2]

### Does OpenRouter offer volume discounts?

Not on standard terms. The FAQ says volume discounts are not currently offered, though exceptional cases can be raised by email. [1] Enterprise lists fee discounts, and any account can take a 1% discount on usage costs by opting in to prompt and completion logging. [2] [1]

## Source notes
1. OpenRouter FAQ: https://openrouter.ai/docs/faq (checked September 28, 2026)
2. OpenRouter Pricing: https://openrouter.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Models: https://openrouter.ai/models (checked September 28, 2026)
4. OpenRouter Pricing in 2026: Full Breakdown of Plans, Costs, and Hidden Fees: https://www.truefoundry.com/blog/openrouter-pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Ramp vs Brex: plans and fees compared, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/ramp-vs-brex
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Brex lists the lower paid-plan rate ($12 against $15 per user per month) and no platform fee, but Ramp's platform fee is unpublished, so no buyer can total Ramp Plus without a written quote.

Brex lists the lower paid-plan rate. On the pricing pages checked 28 September 2026, Brex Premium costs $12 per user per month [1] and Ramp Plus costs $15 per user per month plus a platform fee based on team size [2]. Ramp doesn't publish that fee's amount. Both companies start with a $0 plan and price enterprise work by quote [2] [1].

The free plans differ more than the prices do.

## TL;DR

- **Paid tier:** Brex Premium is $3 per user per month cheaper at list price, and Brex's pricing page shows no platform fee. Ramp Plus carries a team-size platform fee that its public page leaves unpriced.
- **Annual billing:** Ramp offers 20% off Plus for annual billing. If that discount applies to the $15 rate, the per-user price matches Brex at $12, and Ramp's platform fee becomes the whole gap.
- **Free tier:** Ramp Free lists the wider finance scope: payables, receivables, treasury and vendor tools. Brex Essentials includes up to two entities, one local card program and API access.
- **Card fees:** Neither pricing page publishes a foreign-exchange fee. Third-party accounts disagree about Brex, so get it in writing.
- **Verdict:** No buyer can total Ramp Plus from public information. Get a written Ramp quote for your headcount before treating Brex Premium as the cheaper option.

## How do Ramp and Brex plan prices compare per user?

Brex Premium lists $12 per user per month and Ramp Plus lists $15, but only Ramp lists a platform fee on top [2] [1]. This comparison belongs to our [spend management coverage](/categories/spend-management) and uses each company's own pricing page, captured on 28 September 2026. Figures are shown as the pages give them: US dollars, per user per month, with no tax status stated on either page. They are company statements, not market prices.

| | Ramp | Brex |
|---|---|---|
| Entry plan | Free: $0 per user per month [2] | Essentials: $0 per user per month [1] |
| Mid plan | Plus: $15 per user per month [2] | Premium: $12 per user per month [1] |
| Platform fee | Plus: "based on team size", amount not published [2] | None listed on the pricing page [1] |
| Billing discount | Plus: 20% off with annual billing [2] | None stated [1] |
| Top plan | Enterprise: custom, annual billing [2] | Enterprise: custom pricing [1] |
| Separately priced items | Procurement add-on (Plus or Enterprise), receivables add-on, 1099 filing at $0.65 per IRS filing [2] | Smart Card at custom pricing; "Some Brex products have associated fees" [1] |

The two companies use the same unit, one user per month. Neither page defines who counts as a user, so a team with many cardholders and few approvers should ask how each company counts before comparing totals. Our [methodology](/methodology) sets out how we treat company-published figures.

Brex's own footer restates the structure: plans start at $0 per user per month, and more advanced features cost $12 per user per month [1].

## Which platform and card fees do Ramp and Brex publish?

Ramp publishes one fee without a price, the Plus platform fee, while Brex publishes no platform fee and names no specific extra fees [2] [1].

On Ramp's page, the published fee items are:

- a platform fee on Plus, "based on team size", with no figure [2]
- 1099 filing at $0.65 per IRS filing, with free state filing, on every plan [2]
- unlimited virtual and physical cards "at no extra cost" [2]
- no fees, minimum deposits or transfer caps on its treasury accounts, and free wires and same-day ACH through Bill Pay [2]

Ramp's card is a corporate liability charge card [2]. Ramp also lets customers pay for Plus by ACH or with rewards earned on Ramp card spend [2].

Brex's page is thinner on fees. It lists local currency wires and travel booking as part of Essentials, with travel booking marked free on that plan [1]. Its only general fee statement names no fee: "Some Brex products have associated fees." [1]

Neither pricing page publishes a foreign-exchange or foreign-transaction fee. The third-party accounts we read don't agree. KleerCard's comparison, which cites NerdWallet, says Ramp charges a 3% currency conversion fee on foreign-currency purchases and that Brex's local-currency cards carry no FX markup [3]. Rippling's comparison, updated 11 November 2025, says Brex card transactions across 200+ currencies come "with FX markups" [4], yet the same article lists no foreign transaction fees among Brex's pros [4]. Both publishers sell competing cards [3] [4]. Treat FX cost as unconfirmed and get it in writing from both companies.

Rippling's article also recorded no annual fee for either card as of November 2025 [4]. Neither company's pricing page addresses annual card fees.

## What does a 10-user or 50-user team pay on the listed rates?

On list rates, Brex Premium costs a 10-user team $120 a month and Ramp Plus costs $150 a month plus the platform fee [2] [1]. The arithmetic multiplies each page's per-user rate by headcount. It excludes add-ons, tax and any negotiated discount.

| Team size | Brex Premium, per month | Ramp Plus user fees, per month | Gap before Ramp's platform fee |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 users | $120 | $150 | $30 a month, $360 a year |
| 50 users | $600 | $750 | $150 a month, $1,800 a year |

The platform fee is the unknown that controls the result. At 10 users, any Ramp platform fee adds to a $360 yearly gap that already favours Brex.

Annual billing can shift the per-user part. Ramp states "Save 20% with annual billing" beside the Plus price [2]. If that 20% applies to the $15 rate, the annual-billed rate is $12, the same as Brex Premium, and the two differ only by Ramp's platform fee. The page doesn't say whether the discount covers the platform fee, or whether $15 is the monthly-billed price. Brex's page states no annual-billing terms for Premium [1].

## What do the free plans include?

Ramp Free lists wider finance coverage, while Brex Essentials includes a second entity, one local card program and API access [2] [1]. Both cost $0 per user per month.

Ramp Free lists [2]:

- unlimited cards with card issuing controls
- travel booking, a custom travel policy, and expense completion by SMS or Slack
- automatic receipt collection and matching
- payables: invoice extraction by OCR, configurable approvals, automated fraud checks, and bill payment by ACH, card, check and wire
- receivables: invoice creation, automated customer follow-up, cash application, and payment acceptance by ACH, card and check
- treasury accounts, basic accounting rules, and QuickBooks Online and Xero integrations
- AI reporting, a custom report builder, vendor tracking, price intelligence and 24/7 chat support

Brex Essentials lists [1]:

- global card acceptance and one local card program
- AI-powered custom rules and real-time reporting
- up to two entities, one of them global
- accounting integrations, which the plan card doesn't name
- local currency wires, bill pay and reimbursements
- travel booking, free on Essentials
- Brex API access

A single-entity team that wants payables and receivables in one free tool gets more listed scope from Ramp Free. A team with two entities starts on Brex Essentials without paying, because Ramp places multi-entity support in Plus [2]. Ramp's plan list doesn't mention API access, although Ramp links API documentation in its site footer [2].

Both companies pair the card with cash accounts, but their quoted rates use different measures. Ramp quotes a 2% APY on checking, accurate as of 28 September 2026, and a 4.64% yield to maturity on its investment account [2]. Brex quotes a total treasury return between 3.53% and 3.87%, an annualised estimate that it says applies to customers eligible for its highest-tier rate [1]. These figures aren't comparable with each other, and all of them vary.

## What do Ramp Plus and Brex Premium add?

Both paid tiers add multi-entity support and deeper accounting integration. Ramp Plus leans towards payables automation and administrative controls, and Brex Premium leans towards expense policy, VAT and travel rules [2] [1].

Ramp Plus adds, on top of Free [2]:

- AI-driven expense reviews, and cards that lock automatically when compliance is unmet
- 24/7 phone support for travel bookings
- auto-coded invoice line items, AI approval recommendations, batch payments and payment release approvals
- NetSuite and Sage Intacct integrations, AI coding for every field, and multi-entity support
- automatic tax capture, shared live reports and budgets tracked against actuals in real time
- custom user roles, multi-entity visibility restrictions and an audit log

Procurement is a separate add-on to Plus or Enterprise, and Ramp's page gives no price for it [2]. Revenue recognition schedules and recurring billing need the receivables add-on on every plan [2].

Brex Premium adds, on top of Essentials [1]:

- multiple customisable expense policies, with category rules, role-based exceptions and auto-approval rules
- dynamic expense review chains and dynamic spend-limit approval chains
- AI-powered compliance audit detection and insights
- multi-entity support across the US and internationally
- customisable ERP and HRIS integrations
- VAT documentation, group travel with advanced travel rules, and live budgets

The decision changes with the workflow. A finance team whose month-end pain sits in supplier invoices will find more named payables features on Ramp Plus. A team running expense policy across several countries will find VAT documentation and multi-entity policy named on Brex Premium, at $3 less per user.

## What do the enterprise plans add?

Both enterprise plans are priced by quote and add local-currency operations, named account management and implementation services [2] [1].

Ramp Enterprise, sold on annual billing, adds Workday and Oracle Fusion Cloud integrations, locally funded reimbursements, card payments in local currency, local-currency card issuing in 30+ countries, a dedicated account and customer success manager, priority 24/7 global support, implementation scoping and custom development [2]. Ramp's comparison page puts local card issuing at 40+ countries [5], so the country count needs confirming in the quote.

Brex Enterprise adds unlimited US or global entities, local card issuance, collections, reimbursements and policies, a named account manager, an admin centre and fully customisable implementation services [1]. Brex also sells a separate Smart Card for procurement at custom pricing, with local-currency cards in 50+ countries [1].

## What the published pricing cannot tell you

The public pages settle list rates and plan contents. They don't settle what a given team will pay.

Five items stay open after reading both pages:

1. **Ramp's platform fee.** It is described but not priced [2].
2. **Add-on prices.** Ramp procurement and receivables, Brex Smart Card and Brex's unnamed "associated fees" have no published price [2] [1].
3. **Foreign-exchange cost.** Neither page states it, and third-party accounts conflict [3] [4].
4. **The user definition.** Neither page says who counts as a billable user.
5. **Tax and currency.** Neither page states tax treatment or names its currency; both are US company pages [2] [1].

Ownership adds one more condition. Brex LLC is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One [1]. The rates above are the ones Brex listed on 28 September 2026, and renewal terms should be confirmed in the contract.

Use one real month of your team's card, invoice and reimbursement volume to test both quotes. If Ramp is also up against a card-led alternative, our [Center vs Ramp comparison](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) runs the same exercise on a different pair. [Subscribe to our research](/subscribe) for new spend management comparisons.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is it hard to get approved for Ramp or Brex?

Brex's published thresholds are higher for most monthly-payment accounts, according to KleerCard's May 2026 reading of both companies' requirements [3]. KleerCard reports that Ramp requires at least $25,000 in cash in a connected US business bank account [3]. It reports that Brex monthly-payment accounts need $50,000 in cash for funded startups or $1M+ in annual revenue for bootstrapped businesses, with lower requirements for daily-payment accounts [3]. KleerCard competes with both for nonprofit buyers [3], so confirm the current thresholds with each company.

### Does Capital One's ownership change Brex's pricing?

The pricing page doesn't say. Brex LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capital One [1], and KleerCard reports that the acquisition closed on 7 April 2026 [3]. Brex still listed $0 and $12 per user per month on 28 September 2026 [1]. None of the sources we read states future Brex pricing.

### Can you try Ramp Plus before paying?

Yes. Ramp offers a free 30-day trial of Plus and lets customers switch plans at any time [2]. Brex's pricing page states no trial period for Premium [1].

### How do users rate Ramp and Brex on review sites?

Brex has a 4.8 out of 5 rating from 1,637 reviews on G2 [6] and a 1.9 TrustScore from 575 reviews on Trustpilot [7]. Trustpilot showed Ramp at 2.3 from 214 reviews on the same date [7]. Rippling's November 2025 comparison listed Ramp at 4.8 from 2,186 G2 reviews [4]. These ratings are reported by review sites, not measured outcomes, and Trustpilot states that it doesn't fact-check reviews [7].

## Source notes
1. Brex LLC: https://www.brex.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Ramp Business Corporation: https://ramp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. KleerCard (Owen Hill); competes with Ramp and Brex for nonprofit buyers: https://www.getkleercard.com/blogs/ramp-vs-brex (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Rippling (Vanessa Kahkesh); sells a competing corporate card: https://www.rippling.com/blog/ramp-vs-brex (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Ramp Business Corporation: https://ramp.com/versus/brex (checked September 28, 2026)
6. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/brex/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/brex.com (checked September 28, 2026)

# Ramp vs Expensify: published prices, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/ramp-vs-expensify
Category: Spend management
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Per paid seat, Expensify is cheaper: Collect at $5 per member a month and Control from $9, against Ramp Plus at $15 per user a month plus an unpublished platform fee. Ramp Free covers more at $0 for teams that qualify for Ramp's card.

Expensify's cheapest company plan costs less per head than Ramp's paid plan: $5 per member a month for Collect [1] against $15 per user a month for Ramp Plus, which adds a platform fee Ramp doesn't publish. [2] Ramp's free plan covers more than Expensify's. For 10 people at list price, Ramp Free costs $0, Expensify Collect $50 a month and Ramp Plus $150 a month plus that fee. Both pricing pages were checked 28 September 2026.

The decision turns on one thing: whether your team needs what sits behind Ramp's paid tier.

## TL;DR

- Per paid seat, Expensify is cheaper. Collect is $5 per member a month and Control starts at $9 per active member a month. [1] Ramp Plus is $15 per user a month before its platform fee. [2]
- Ramp's free plan is a company system. It includes corporate cards, bill pay and QuickBooks Online and Xero integrations. [2] Expensify's free plan, Submit, is an employee plan. [1]
- A 10-person team on Ramp Free pays no subscription. Expensify's cheapest company plan costs that team $50 a month.
- Ramp Plus has no complete published total. The platform fee is "based on team size" and carries no figure. A written quote is the only way to price it. [2]
- Both vendors discount. Ramp takes 20% off Plus for annual billing. [2] Expensify discounts for annual commitments and Expensify Card use but publishes no discounted rate. [1]

## How we compared the prices

We took every price from each vendor's own pricing page, captured on 28 September 2026, and compared the plans on the unit each vendor bills by. The method follows our [published research standard](/methodology), and the comparison sits in our [spend management coverage](/categories/spend-management).

The units differ. Ramp prices per user. [2] Expensify prices Collect per member and Control per active member. [1] For the team totals we count each person as one billable seat and apply no discount.

Both pages show prices in dollars. Expensify's page has a currency switch that lists USD first. [1] Ramp's page carries no currency label, and we read its prices as US dollars. Neither page says whether tax is included. Every figure below is a list price as the company states it, before any negotiated terms.

The table sets out every published plan, with Ramp's figures from its pricing page [2] and Expensify's from its own. [1]

| Plan | Published price | Billing unit | Stated discount or trial |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramp Free | $0/mo/user | User | None needed |
| Ramp Plus | $15/mo/user plus a platform fee based on team size | User | 20% off with annual billing; free 30-day trial |
| Ramp Enterprise | Custom, annual billing | Not published | Contact sales |
| Expensify Submit | Free for all members | Member | None needed |
| Expensify Collect | $5 per member/month | Member | Annual commitment and Expensify Card discounts |
| Expensify Control | Custom pricing, as low as $9 per active member/month | Active member | Annual commitment and Expensify Card discounts |

## What does each plan cost per user or member?

Expensify Collect costs $5 per member a month, Expensify Control starts at $9 per active member a month and Ramp Plus costs $15 per user a month plus a platform fee. [1] [2] On the published seat rate alone, Ramp Plus costs three times Collect.

The Ramp figure is a floor. The Plus price card reads "$15/mo/user" with "Platform fee based on team size" beneath it, and no fee schedule appears anywhere on the captured page. [2] Annual billing saves 20%. If that discount applies to the seat charge, a Plus seat falls to $12 a month. The page doesn't say whether the discount also reaches the platform fee.

Expensify's $5 has its own gap. The page doesn't state which billing term it assumes. Its pricing FAQ says "Discounts are available for annual commitments and when using the Expensify Card", and the card section promises "Save up to 50% on Expensify". [1] Neither discount has a published rate.

Control is quoted "as low as $9 per active member/month" under the heading "Custom pricing". [1] The captured page doesn't define an active member. Ask how a person who submits nothing in a month is counted, because that changes the bill for a team with occasional spenders.

Ramp Enterprise is "Custom" with annual billing. [2] Neither top tier can be priced from its page.

## Which free option covers more?

Ramp Free covers more of a company's finance work than Expensify Submit. Ramp lists its free plan at $0/mo/user with a corporate card, unlimited cards, card issuing controls, travel booking, automatic receipt collection and matching, invoice extraction, configurable approval workflows, bill payment by ACH, card, check and wire, and QuickBooks Online and Xero integrations. [2]

Ramp Free's scope depends on Ramp's own card. The card is a "Corporate liability charge card", and Ramp's footer says the Ramp Visa Corporate Card "is subject to credit approval". [2] A company that can't or won't move its spending to Ramp's card gets less from the free plan. Our [Center vs Ramp comparison](/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide) sets Ramp against another card-led system.

Expensify Submit is "Free for all members" and described as "The free plan for employees, no company approval needed." [1] Its list covers receipt scanning, mileage tracking, expense reports, categories and tags, custom distance and tax rates, personal card import, chat on every expense, and AI and human support. [1]

The Submit list leaves out reimbursements, corporate card management, expense approvals and the QuickBooks and Xero integrations. All four appear on the Collect list. [1] For a company running its expense process, Collect is Expensify's cheapest workable plan.

One point on Expensify's page conflicts with itself. Submit lists categories and tags, but the pricing FAQ says free individual use comes "with unlimited SmartScans, but additional functionality such as expense categorization requires a paid plan." [1] Test the free account before relying on categorisation.

Ramp also offers a free 30-day trial of Plus. [2]

## What would 10 people cost?

At list price, 10 people cost $0 a month on Ramp Free, $50 on Expensify Collect, from $90 on Expensify Control and $150 plus a platform fee on Ramp Plus. [2] [1] Each figure is 10 seats multiplied by the published rate, with no discount applied.

| Plan | Published rate | 10 seats, per month | 10 seats, 12 months | What the total leaves out |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramp Free | $0/mo/user | $0 | $0 | Needs Ramp's card, subject to credit approval |
| Expensify Submit | Free | $0 | $0 | Employee plan; no reimbursements or approvals listed |
| Expensify Collect | $5 per member/month | $50 | $600 | Billing term not stated; discounts unpublished |
| Expensify Control | From $9 per active member/month | From $90 | From $1,080 | Custom price; bills active members |
| Ramp Plus | $15/mo/user plus platform fee | $150 plus fee | $1,800 plus fee | Platform fee unpublished; 20% annual discount |
| Ramp Enterprise | Custom | Not published | Not published | Contact sales |

For 10 seats, Ramp Plus costs $100 a month more than Collect before its platform fee. Over 12 months the gap is $1,200. Against Control's floor the gap is $60 a month, or $720 a year. If Ramp's 20% annual discount applies to seats only, 10 Plus seats cost $1,440 a year before the fee.

If Ramp Free meets the team's needs and the company qualifies for Ramp's card, Ramp is cheaper by $50 a month against Collect. Once the team needs Plus, Expensify is cheaper per seat at both paid tiers. Ramp's full cost stays unknown until it quotes the fee.

## What does the extra money buy?

Ramp Plus and Expensify Control both unlock ERP integrations and deeper approval rules, while Collect adds the basics a company expense process needs. [2] [1]

Ramp Plus adds, among other items, "NetSuite, Sage Intacct, and more integrations", multi-entity support, custom user roles, an audit log, AI-driven expense reviews, automatic card locking when compliance is unmet, automated batch payments, budgets tracked against actuals and 24/7 phone support for travel bookings. [2]

Expensify Collect lists receipt scanning, reimbursements, corporate card management, expense and travel approvals, travel booking and rules, QuickBooks and Xero integrations, and chat. [1] Control adds multiple approval flows, custom expense rules, "ERP integration (NetSuite, Sage Intacct)", HR integrations with Workday and Certinia, SAML/SSO, custom reporting and budgeting. [1]

A team that needs NetSuite or Sage Intacct therefore compares Ramp Plus at $15 per user plus a fee with Expensify Control from $9 per active member. [2] [1]

Expensify's own comparison guide, dated 31 July 2026, states a different position: "Expensify includes every accounting integration, 24/7 support, and full approval configuration at $5 per member per month." [3] The pricing page places NetSuite and Sage Intacct under Control. Before signing, get written confirmation of which plan connects to your ERP. The answer can move a 10-person Expensify bill from $50 to $90 a month or more.

## What the published prices leave out

The published rates leave out several costs that can change the total. Each needs confirming in the current quote.

- Ramp's platform fee is listed on Plus as "based on team size", with no figure. [2]
- Ramp's Procurement module is an "Add-on to Plus or Enterprise". Automated revenue recognition and recurring billing each require the Accounts Receivable add-on. [2] Neither add-on carries a price on the captured page.
- Ramp charges for 1099 filing on every plan: "$.65 per IRS filing. Free state filing." [2]
- The Expensify Card offers "1% cash back on all US purchases (no minimums) and 2% cash back for monthly spend over $250K", and card use unlocks subscription discounts. [1] Ramp lets customers pay for Plus "with ACH or the rewards you earn from your Ramp card spending." [2]
- Neither page states tax treatment, and Ramp's page doesn't name its currency.

A team's bill adds the platform fee, card discounts and contract terms to these list rates. Use one real month of your team's expenses and seat count to test both quotes. New spend-management comparisons go out in our free [research briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Ramp free to use?

Yes. Ramp lists its Free plan at $0/mo/user, and Ramp Plus has a free 30-day trial. [2] The free plan runs on Ramp's corporate card, which is subject to credit approval, so a company must qualify for the card to use it fully. [2]

### Does Expensify charge a platform fee?

Expensify's pricing page lists no platform fee on any plan. [1] Its July 2026 comparison guide states there is "No platform fee, setup fee, or implementation fee" on its $5 per member plan. [3] Ramp Plus does list one, based on team size. [2]

### How can a team pay less for Expensify?

Expensify says discounts are available for annual commitments and for using the Expensify Card, and its card section promises savings of up to 50%. [1] It doesn't publish the discounted rates, so the saving on a 10-person Collect bill of $50 a month can only be confirmed in a quote.

### Is it hard to get approved with Ramp?

Ramp's pricing page doesn't publish approval criteria. Its footer says the Ramp Visa Corporate Card "is subject to credit approval". [2] The free plan's card features depend on that approval, so a company should apply before planning around a $0 bill.

### Who does Expensify compete with?

For the search "ramp vs expensify", Ramp, Rippling and Sage Expense Management (formerly Fyle) each publish comparison pages against Expensify. [4] [5] [6] Each of those pages is written by a competitor, so treat its conclusions as that company's case.

## Source notes
1. Expensify, Inc.: https://use.expensify.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Ramp Business Corporation: https://ramp.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Expensify, Inc. (Matt Moore), dated 31 July 2026: https://use.expensify.com/resource-center/guides/expensify-vs-ramp-comparison (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Ramp Business Corporation: https://ramp.com/versus/expensify (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Rippling (Vanessa Kahkesh), updated 13 November 2025: https://www.rippling.com/blog/ramp-vs-expensify (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Sage Expense Management (formerly Fyle), updated 25 February 2026: https://www.fylehq.com/blog/ramp-vs-expensify (checked September 28, 2026)

# Rippling reviews: G2 and Trustpilot ratings, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/rippling-review
Category: HR and payroll
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Rippling's review aggregates are strong on both platforms checked 28 September 2026: 4.8 out of 5 from 13,469 G2 reviews and 4.5 out of 5 from 2,469 Trustpilot reviews. They mostly record invited end users praising ease of use.

Rippling rates 4.8 out of 5 on G2 from 13,469 reviews [1] and 4.5 out of 5 on Trustpilot from 2,469 reviews [2], checked 28 September 2026. Both ratings are high. Both platforms also show that Rippling invites reviews, and much of the praise comes from employees who use it to clock in, check pay and request leave. The buyer's side is thinner: Rippling publishes no list price and quotes each product on top of a required core platform [3]. This is an evidence review of Rippling's published pages and those dated aggregates. No first-hand use is claimed.

## TL;DR

- The ratings are strong and consistent. On G2, 12,210 of 13,469 reviews are five stars (90.7%) and 243 are three stars or lower (1.8%) [1]. Trustpilot shows 88% five-star and 5% one-star reviews [2].
- They mostly measure the employee experience. G2 tags 7,391 reviewers as users and 1,521 as administrators [1]. Ease of use dominates the praise on both sites.
- The complaints cluster on setup, support and add-on cost. Trustpilot's summary names complicated initial configuration, unresponsive support, changing account managers and unexpected payroll errors [2].
- Rippling prices by custom quote. Most products bill per employee per month and some carry a monthly base fee [3]. Every product sits on the required Rippling Platform [3].
- The decision changes on your quote and your country. G2 holds 57 reviews tagged ANZ against 10,690 tagged North America [1]. The aggregates cannot tell a buyer outside the US how payroll and compliance will run for them.

## How were these figures checked?

We captured five public pages on 28 September 2026 and took every figure from those captures: Rippling's G2 review page [1], its Trustpilot profile [2], Rippling's pricing page [3], Rippling's home page [4] and its Glassdoor employer page [5]. Rippling's Capterra listing was also requested. It returned a "Page not found" notice, so no Capterra rating is used.

G2 shows its star bars as whole percentages. Beneath them the page lists five counts: 12,210, 1,016, 117, 26 and 100 [1]. Those counts sum to 13,469, the page's own review total, so we read them as the five-star to one-star counts and computed each share from them. Every percentage marked as computed below comes from that arithmetic. The wider research standard is set out in [how Glamdring checks figures](/methodology).

Every rating below is reported by reviewers and aggregated by the platform that hosts it.

## What do G2 and Trustpilot show for Rippling?

They show a highly rated product with a large review base on both sites, and a sharper negative tail on Trustpilot than on G2.

| Source, checked 28 Sep 2026 | Who rates | Rating | Reviews | Five-star share | One-star share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2 [1] | Software users | 4.8 / 5 | 13,469 | 90.7% (computed) | 0.7% (computed) |
| Trustpilot [2] | Customers and users | 4.5 / 5 (**TrustScore**) | 2,469 | 88% | 5% |
| Glassdoor [5] | Rippling's own employees | 3.7 / 5 | 1,276 | Not shown | Not shown |

G2's remaining counts are 1,016 four-star, 117 three-star and 26 two-star reviews [1]. The page displays the lower three bars as 0%, which is consistent with rounding down. The counts still add up to 243 reviews at three stars or below.

Trustpilot's split is 88% five-star, 5% four-star, 1% three-star, under 1% two-star and 5% one-star [2]. That profile is bimodal: Trustpilot's negative reviews sit almost entirely at one star. Trustpilot also records 871 reviews in the last 12 months [2], about 35% of the total (computed).

Glassdoor sits in the table for one reason: searchers for "Rippling reviews" meet it on the results page. It rates Rippling as an employer. Its 3.7 says nothing about the software.

## Who writes the reviews behind the ratings?

Mostly employees at Rippling's customers, and often at Rippling's invitation. The ratings therefore describe the employee's day-to-day app more than the administrator's system.

G2's filters tag 7,391 reviewers as users, 1,521 as administrators and 74 as executive sponsors [1]. By company size, 7,323 come from mid-market firms of 51 to 1,000 staff, 3,802 from small businesses and 611 from enterprises of more than 1,000 [1]. By region, 10,690 are tagged North America, 374 Europe and 57 ANZ [1].

G2 labels each review's origin. Reviews on the captured page carry labels such as "Organic", "Seller invite", "G2 invite on behalf of seller" and "Incentivized" [1]. One review there is marked "Business partner of the seller or seller's competitor, not included in G2 scores" [1], so G2 does exclude some reviews from its average. The page does not give the share of invited or incentivised reviews in the 13,469.

Trustpilot shows the same pattern from the other side. Rippling claimed its profile in June 2021, holds a paid Trustpilot subscription and "invites their customers to review, whether positive or negative" [2]. Trustpilot states that it doesn't fact-check reviews and applies the "Verified" label "when we can confirm a business interaction took place" [2]. One verified five-star review that Trustpilot shows under "Reviews shaping this summary" praises "The Portal Lounge" and its food [2]. It says nothing about Rippling's software.

A rating built mainly by employees checking pay and hours tells a buyer that the self-service app is easy to use. It tells them far less about the administrator's job: implementation, payroll corrections, compliance filings and support when something breaks.

## What do reviewers praise and criticise?

They praise ease of use by a wide margin. Criticism is smaller in volume and concentrates on missing features, setup complexity, support and cost as modules accumulate.

G2's pros-and-cons tags, generated from user reviews, put "Ease of Use" at 6,968 mentions, "Intuitive" at 5,171 and "Simple" at 4,565 [1]. The largest negative tags are "Missing Features" at 1,241, "Not User-Friendly" at 886 and "Learning Curve" at 858 [1]. G2's AI-generated summary adds that "the mobile app could benefit from improvements in functionality" [1].

Trustpilot's AI summary, drawn from 861 recent reviews, reaches the same split. Reviewers praise the design for making "time tracking, onboarding, and payroll management remarkably simple" [2]. It also records that "initial configuration and onboarding setup can occasionally feel overly complicated", plus "unresponsive support teams, changing account managers, and specific unexpected payroll processing errors" [2]. Trustpilot's topic panel describes feedback on service and staff as "ambiguous" [2].

Individual reviews show where the edges are. An organic 1/5 G2 review from an India-based HR reviewer reported compliance errors on a first payroll run and mandatory partner requirements [1]. Rippling's public reply said it "does offer India-specific payroll and onboarding flows" [1]. Both are claims; neither page settles the dispute. A five-star review from a finance executive still warned that "many features are sold as add-on modules, you have to be very intentional about your package" [1].

## What does Rippling sell?

Rippling sells HR, payroll, IT and finance products that share one employee record, plus a global employment line. Its home page describes "global HR, Payroll, IT, and Finance in one place" and says "Every product is built on a unified platform" [4].

The product menu on Rippling's pricing page lists these groups [3]:

| Group | Products listed |
|---|---|
| Platform | Workflow Studio, Analytics, Policies, Permissions, Integrations, App Studio |
| HCM | HRIS, HR Services, Recruiting, Headcount Planning, Performance, Surveys, Learning Management, Benefits Administration, PEO, Time & Attendance, Scheduling, Chat |
| IT | Identity & Access, Device Management, Inventory Management |
| Payroll | Payroll, Contractors, Global Payroll, Employer of Record, Contractor of Record, Global Contractors |
| Finance | Expense Management, Corporate Cards, Bill Pay, Travel |
| Global | Global HRIS, Global HR Advisor, Global Benefits, Global Finance, plus the Payroll group's global products |

The home page also promotes AI features, custom applications and an AI Spend Console [4]. G2 lists 185 integrations for Rippling [1].

Breadth is Rippling's own argument for the product, and it makes the headline rating hard to apply. A 4.8 on G2 is one rating across every module, and the page's category filters show payroll at 9,037 reviews against 657 for applicant tracking [1]. A buyer choosing Rippling for recruiting or device management is reading a rating built mostly from other modules.

## How is Rippling priced?

By custom quote. Rippling's pricing page publishes no prices and asks visitors to "Tell us what services you need, and we'll send you a custom quote" [3].

The page sets out three pricing rules:

1. Each HR, Finance and IT product "can be purchased separately", "alongside the core, required Rippling Platform" [3].
2. Most products "are billed on a simple per-employee, per-month basis", while "some may be charged at (or include) a monthly basis fee" [3].
3. Rippling offers partner pricing for brokers and accountants [3].

The quote form asks for headcount in bands from 1–10 to 1,001+ employees and contractors [3]. The governing unit is the employee-month per product, plus the platform and any base fees. The total therefore climbs with both headcount and module count, which matches the add-on warning in the reviews.

G2 adds reviewer-reported averages: one month to implement, seven months to return on investment and a 12% average discount [1]. Its estimated annual price was masked on the captured page and rests on 13 purchases [1]. Rippling's pricing page also cites a Forrester Total Economic Impact report that it says found a 42% lift in HR, payroll and finance efficiency [3]. The captured page gives that headline figure without its assumptions.

Confirm the numbers in the current quote. Ask for the per-employee monthly rate for each module, the platform charge, any monthly base fee and the discount applied.

## What the ratings cannot tell you

They cannot tell you what Rippling will cost, how it will run in your country or how support behaves when payroll goes wrong.

- No list price exists on Rippling's pricing page [3], and G2's estimate was hidden and based on 13 purchases [1].
- Fit outside North America is thinly evidenced. G2's region filter shows 57 ANZ reviews and 374 European reviews against 10,690 North American ones [1]. Local payroll and compliance quality needs local evidence.
- The headline rating blends every product. A module with few reviews borrows the rating of payroll and time tracking.
- Users outnumber administrators among tagged G2 reviewers by almost five to one (computed from 7,391 and 1,521) [1], so the administrator's experience is the minority view.
- Both platforms show invited reviews [1] [2]. Neither page reports how much of the total came through invitations.
- Rippling's pages show a 4.9 Capterra rating [3]. The Capterra listing we requested returned "Page not found", so that figure could not be checked. The G2 badge of 4.8 [3] matches G2's own page [1].

Use one real payroll cycle to test the claim: your headcount, your countries, your benefits and one correction. Glamdring's [published research](/research) covers other enterprise software on the same evidence standard.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Rippling trustworthy?

The review evidence supports a product most reviewers are satisfied with. G2 shows 4.8 from 13,469 reviews [1] and Trustpilot 4.5 from 2,469 [2], checked 28 September 2026. Trustpilot reports that Rippling replied to 97% of negative reviews and typically replies within one week [2]. Neither aggregate establishes payroll accuracy for a specific business.

### How much does Rippling cost a month?

Rippling doesn't publish a monthly price. Its pricing page says most products bill per employee per month, some add a monthly base fee, and every product requires the core Rippling Platform [3]. The figure comes from a custom quote based on headcount and the products chosen.

### Is Rippling good to work for?

Glassdoor rates Rippling 3.7 out of 5 as an employer from 1,276 reviews, with 67% of reviewers saying they would recommend it to a friend [5]. Glassdoor places that in line with the 3.8 average for information technology employers [5]. Employees rate work-life balance at 3.1 and career opportunities at 3.9 [5].

### What big companies use Rippling?

Rippling's own pages feature case studies from Chess.com, Barry's, Y Combinator, Kleiner Perkins and Blank Street Coffee [3], plus Clay and CookUnity [4]. G2 lists Clipboard Health and Anduril Industries as featured companies [1]. These are company-published customer names, chosen by Rippling for presentation.

### Can Rippling's own review badges be checked?

Partly. The 4.8 G2 badge on Rippling's pricing page [3] matches G2's review page on the same day [1]. The 4.9 Capterra, Software Advice and GetApp badges [3] were not confirmed, because the Capterra listing we requested returned "Page not found" and the other two sites were not captured.

## Source notes
1. G2: https://www.g2.com/products/rippling/reviews (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Trustpilot: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/rippling.com (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Rippling (company-owned): https://www.rippling.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Rippling (company-owned): https://www.rippling.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Glassdoor: https://www.glassdoor.com.hk/Reviews/Rippling-Reviews-E2521509.htm (checked September 28, 2026)

# RunPod alternatives by H100 price: September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/runpod-alternatives
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: No alternative checked lists a cheaper on-demand H100 than RunPod's $2.89 H100 PCIe (checked 28 September 2026). Lambda is the cheapest alternative at $3.29 per GPU-hour; Nebius ($3.85) and Crusoe ($3.90) follow.

No alternative we checked lists a cheaper on-demand H100 than RunPod. RunPod's H100 PCIe costs $2.89 per GPU-hour on its own pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] The cheapest alternative is Lambda at $3.29 for a one-GPU H100 PCIe instance. [2] Nebius at $3.85 and Crusoe at $3.90 come next. [3] [4]

So a lower H100 list price is a poor reason to leave RunPod. Billing shape, cluster size and a managed runtime are better ones.

## TL;DR

- RunPod has the lowest listed on-demand H100 price per GPU-hour, checked 28 September 2026, on every H100 variant it sells: $2.89 for PCIe, $3.19 for NVL and $3.49 for SXM. [1]
- Lambda is the cheapest alternative at $3.29, which is 40 cents (14%) above RunPod for the same PCIe card. [2]
- Four alternatives sit within 14 cents of each other: Nebius $3.85, Crusoe $3.90, Modal $3.95 and Together AI $3.99. [3] [4] [5] [6]
- CoreWeave prices its on-demand HGX H100 as an eight-GPU node at $49.24 an hour. Per GPU that's $6.16, more than double RunPod's rate. [7]
- Vast.ai's marketplace median of $2.16 an hour for an H100 SXM undercuts every list price, but hosts set that price and it changes hourly. [8]
- Nebius's H100 rate rises to $4.50 from 1 October 2026. That drops it from third to seventh. [3]

## How this ranking was built

The ranking uses one field from each provider's own public pricing page: the lowest listed on-demand H100 price per GPU-hour, for any H100 variant the provider sells. It sits within our [model infrastructure coverage](/categories/model-infrastructure). All nine pages were captured on 28 September 2026.

Prices are in US dollars. We treat every figure as a pre-tax list price. Lambda states that its rates are "plus applicable sales tax/VAT/GST". [2] DigitalOcean says it applies taxes in some countries. [9] Each page names the field differently. Nebius calls it **On-demand, GPU-hour**, Lambda **PRICE/GPU/HR** and CoreWeave **On-Demand Price (Per Hour)**. [3] [2] [7]

- **Pages captured:** 9. RunPod, Lambda, Nebius, Crusoe, Modal, Together AI, DigitalOcean, CoreWeave and Vast.ai.
- **Providers with a fixed on-demand H100 price:** 8. None of the eight omits the H100.
- **Excluded from the rank:** 1. Vast.ai publishes live prices "set by supply and demand across 40+ data centers", so it appears as a reference line under the table. [8]
- **Excluded prices:** spot, preemptible, reserved and promotional rates. They appear in the table's notes column and in the section on why published prices disagree.
- **Conversions:** Modal lists the H100 SXM5 at $0.001097 per second. Multiplied by 3,600, that's $3.95 an hour. [5] CoreWeave lists an eight-GPU HGX H100 node at $49.24 an hour. Divided by eight, that's $6.155, shown as $6.16. [7]
- **Rows ranked:** 8. RunPod plus seven alternatives.

These are prices the companies publish, not prices customers pay. Contract and reserved pricing runs through sales at most of them. [Our research methodology](/methodology) sets out how Glamdring dates and checks a figure.

## Which RunPod alternative lists the cheapest on-demand H100?

Lambda does, at $3.29 per GPU-hour for a one-GPU H100 PCIe instance. [2] RunPod stays first overall at $2.89. [1]

| Rank | Provider | H100 variant priced | On-demand price (USD per GPU-hour, pre-tax) | Other listed H100 prices |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RunPod | H100 PCIe 80 GB | 2.89 | H100 NVL $3.19; H100 SXM $3.49 [1] |
| 2 | Lambda | H100 PCIe 80 GB, 1x instance | 3.29 | H100 SXM $3.99 (8x) to $4.29 (1x) [2] |
| 3 | Nebius | HGX H100 | 3.85 | $4.50 from 1 October 2026; spot from $0.79 [3] |
| 4 | Crusoe | HGX H100 80 GB | 3.90 | Spot through sales [4] |
| 5 | Modal | H100 SXM5 | 3.95 | Listed as $0.001097 per second [5] |
| 6 | Together AI | HGX H100, GPU cluster | 3.99 | Preemptible $1.99; reserved $3.69 to $3.19 [6] |
| 7 | DigitalOcean | HGX H100 | 4.41 | 12-month reserved $3.26 [9] |
| 8 | CoreWeave | HGX H100, 8-GPU node | 6.16 | Node $49.24 an hour; spot $19.71 per node-hour [7] |
| Ref. | Vast.ai (marketplace, not ranked) | H100 SXM | 2.16 median | Offers from $1.73 an hour [8] |

The spread is wide at the ends and tight in the middle. From RunPod's $2.89 to CoreWeave's $6.16 is a factor of 2.13. Between third and sixth place, four providers fall within 14 cents: $3.85 to $3.99. For most of the list, the H100 price alone won't decide the move.

## Does any alternative beat RunPod on the same H100 variant?

No. RunPod's price is lower than every alternative's on each H100 variant it lists. [1]

The providers don't use one naming scheme, so compare like with like where a page allows it:

- **H100 PCIe:** RunPod $2.89 against Lambda $3.29, the only other provider here that names an H100 PCIe. [1] [2]
- **H100 SXM:** RunPod $3.49 against Modal's H100 SXM5 at $3.95 and Lambda's H100 SXM at $3.99 to $4.29, depending on instance size. [5] [2]
- **H100 NVL:** RunPod lists it at $3.19 with 94 GB of memory. No other fixed-price provider in this set lists an H100 NVL. [1]
- **HGX H100:** Nebius, Crusoe, Together AI, DigitalOcean and CoreWeave price an "HGX H100" and don't split it into PCIe or SXM on the captured pages. All five sit above RunPod's SXM price of $3.49, as well as its PCIe price. [3] [4] [6] [9] [7]

The per-GPU price also buys different amounts of host machine. RunPod's H100 PCIe pod lists 16 vCPUs and 188 GB of RAM. [1] Lambda's one-GPU H100 PCIe instance lists 26 vCPUs, 225 GiB of RAM and 1 TiB of SSD. [2] DigitalOcean's H100 Droplet lists 20 vCPUs, 240 GiB of memory and a 5 TiB NVMe scratch disk. [9] A data-loading job that starves on CPU can make the cheaper GPU the dearer run.

## Which GPUs does each provider list?

Every provider in the ranking lists an H100, and all eight also list a B200 or B300. The rest of the catalogue differs more than the H100 price does.

| Provider | GPUs listed on the captured pricing page | H100 variants |
|---|---|---|
| RunPod | B300, B200, H200, H100 NVL, H100 PCIe, H100 SXM, A100 PCIe, A100 SXM, RTX Pro 6000 (plus 48 GB and 24 GB MIG slices), L40S, L40, RTX 6000 Ada, A40, RTX A6000, RTX 5090, RTX 4090, RTX 3090, RTX A5000, L4 [1] | PCIe, SXM, NVL |
| Lambda | B200 SXM6, H100 SXM, H100 PCIe, GH200, A100 SXM (80 GB and 40 GB), A100 PCIe, A10, A6000, Quadro RTX 6000, Tesla V100 [2] | PCIe, SXM |
| Nebius | GB300 NVL72, GB200 NVL72, HGX B300, HGX B200, HGX H200, HGX H100, RTX PRO 6000, L40S [3] | HGX |
| Crusoe | GB200 NVL72, B200, H200, H100, A100 SXM, A100 PCIe, L40S, AMD MI355X, AMD MI300X [4] | HGX |
| Modal | B300, B200, H200 SXM, H100 SXM5, RTX PRO 6000, A100 80 GB, A100 40 GB, L40S, A10, L4, T4 [5] | SXM5 |
| Together AI (GPU clusters) | GB200 NVL72, GB300 NVL72, HGX B200, HGX B300, HGX H200, HGX H100 [6] | HGX |
| DigitalOcean | HGX H200, HGX H100, RTX 4000 Ada, RTX 6000 Ada, L40S, AMD MI325X, AMD MI300X on demand; HGX B300 and AMD MI350X and MI355X on reserved or spot plans only [9] | HGX |
| CoreWeave | GB300 NVL72, GB200 NVL72, HGX B300, HGX B200, HGX H200, HGX H100, GH200, RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Edition, L40S, L40, A100 [7] | HGX (8-GPU node) |

Three patterns matter for a move off RunPod. RunPod has the deepest bench of consumer and workstation cards, including the RTX 3090, 4090 and 5090. [1] Crusoe and DigitalOcean are the only fixed-price providers here that list AMD accelerators. [4] [9] Together AI's cluster table lists only HGX and NVL72 systems. [6] Vast.ai's marketplace lists 68-plus GPU types. [8]

## How does each provider bill an H100?

Most quote the H100 per GPU-hour, but three break that pattern: Modal lists a per-second rate, DigitalOcean bills by the second, and CoreWeave prices the whole eight-GPU node.

| Provider | Unit the H100 price is quoted in | Billing detail stated on the page |
|---|---|---|
| RunPod | Per hour | Page offers per-hour and per-second price views [1] |
| Lambda | Per GPU per hour | Instances come in 1x, 2x, 4x and 8x sizes [2] |
| Nebius | Per GPU-hour | Commitments cut up to 35% off on-demand rates [3] |
| Crusoe | Per GPU-hour | "Pay by the hour" on demand [4] |
| Modal | Per second | Pay for compute time used; CPU and memory priced separately [5] |
| Together AI | Per GPU per hour | GPU clusters billed "on an hourly basis" [6] |
| DigitalOcean | Per GPU per hour | Billed per second with a 5-minute minimum; 1 or 8 GPUs per Droplet [9] |
| CoreWeave | Per 8-GPU node per hour | GPU count listed as 8 for the HGX H100; a separate single-GPU inference price of $6.16 an hour [7] |
| Vast.ai (reference) | Per hour | Per-second billing with no minimum hours and no rounding up [8] |

The unit changes the bill more than the rate does for short or bursty work. CoreWeave's on-demand HGX H100 price covers the whole node, so a job on that node costs $49.24 an hour however many of the eight GPUs it uses. [7] At DigitalOcean a powered-off GPU Droplet is still billed until it's destroyed. [9] Modal argues its case with its own example: 75 GPUs for 24 hours at $3 a GPU-hour costs $5,400, against an average of 50 GPUs at $3.95 for $4,740 on Modal. [5] That's the company's illustration, not a measured result. The saving depends on the lower average: 75 GPUs held for 24 hours at $3.95 would cost $7,110.

## Why do other published H100 prices disagree with this table?

A lower H100 figure elsewhere is likely to be one of the prices this ranking excludes: marketplace offers, interruptible instances, reserved terms, promotions or a different product from the same provider.

- **Marketplace medians.** Vast.ai's H100 SXM median was $2.16 an hour, with offers from $1.73. Its H100 PCIe median was $2.53 and its H100 NVL median $2.76. The page says prices "reflect currently available offers and update hourly". [8]
- **Spot and preemptible.** Nebius lists preemptible HGX H100 capacity from $0.79 a GPU-hour. [3] Together AI lists preemptible HGX H100 at $1.99. [6] CoreWeave's spot price is $19.71 per node-hour, which is about $2.46 per GPU. [7] All three sit below RunPod's on-demand $2.89.
- **Reserved terms.** Together AI's reserved HGX H100 runs from $3.69 for 7 to 30 days down to $3.19 for 91 to 180 days. [6] DigitalOcean's 12-month reserved H100 is $3.26. [9]
- **Promotions.** Together AI's dedicated-inference H100 shows a $3.99 promotional rate against a $5.49 list rate, with the promotion valid until 30 September 2026. [6]
- **Different products.** RunPod's Serverless H100 PRO tier is $4.79 an hour, against $2.89 for the H100 PCIe pod. [1] Lambda's 16-GPU H100 cluster on a two-week to one-year term is $6.16 per GPU-hour, against $3.29 for a one-GPU instance. [2]
- **Dates.** RunPod's page says it was updated on 27 September 2026. [1] DigitalOcean's current GPU pricing took effect on 1 August 2026. [9] A list compiled before those dates may quote older rates.

## Which H100 prices change next?

Nebius changes first. Its HGX H100 rate moves from $3.85 to $4.50 per GPU-hour on 1 October 2026, a rise of 65 cents or 17%. [3] At $4.50, Nebius falls from third to seventh, below DigitalOcean's $4.41. [9]

The recomputed order from 1 October, with every other page unchanged: RunPod $2.89, Lambda $3.29, Crusoe $3.90, Modal $3.95, Together AI $3.99, DigitalOcean $4.41, Nebius $4.50, CoreWeave $6.16. Lambda stays the cheapest alternative.

Together AI's dedicated-inference promotion ends on 30 September 2026. [6] That doesn't move the ranked Together AI figure, which comes from its GPU cluster table.

Nebius's rise is the first known change that reorders this table.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking measures one published number. It says nothing about these:

- **Capacity.** A list price doesn't mean an H100 is free when you ask. Lambda describes its instances as "self-serve, first-come access". [2]
- **Speed per dollar.** PCIe, SXM, NVL and HGX listings aren't one product. RunPod lists 80 GB for its PCIe and SXM cards and 94 GB for the NVL. [1] We didn't benchmark any of them.
- **The whole bill.** Storage, egress, public IPs and CPU time can sit outside the GPU rate. Modal prices CPU and memory as separate resources. [5] CoreWeave charges $4.00 a month per public IP. [7]
- **Negotiated prices.** RunPod, Lambda, Crusoe and DigitalOcean all route reserved or contract pricing through sales. [1] [2] [4] [9]
- **Reliability and support.** Nothing here measures uptime, support response or how often capacity runs out.

The GPU-hour is one input to what a model costs to run. Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the others. To get the next price ranking when it's published, [subscribe to the Glamdring briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### What is better than RunPod?

On listed on-demand H100 price, none of the seven alternatives checked on 28 September 2026. RunPod's $2.89 H100 PCIe is the lowest, and Lambda's $3.29 is the nearest. [1] [2] Another provider can still suit a job better: Modal lists a per-second rate, CoreWeave sells eight-GPU HGX nodes, and Crusoe and DigitalOcean list AMD accelerators. [5] [7] [4] [9]

### Is RunPod free?

Not on its pricing page. Every Pod GPU listed there carries an hourly rate, from $0.27 for an RTX A5000 to $7.89 for a B300. [1] Among the alternatives here, Modal's Starter plan includes $30 a month of free compute. [5]

### How good is RunPod?

On price, it's the cheapest of the eight fixed-price GPU clouds checked for an on-demand H100, and it lists more GPU types than any of them. [1] The company says its Pods run across "30+ regions". [1] This ranking doesn't measure uptime, support or capacity, so it can't judge RunPod on those.

### Is Vast.ai cheaper than RunPod for an H100?

At the median, yes. Vast.ai's H100 SXM median was $2.16 an hour against RunPod's $3.49, and its H100 PCIe median was $2.53 against $2.89. [8] [1] Those are host-set marketplace offers that update hourly, not a fixed list price, so the rate on the day you rent can differ. [8]

## Source notes
1. GPU Cloud Pricing: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. AI cloud pricing: https://lambda.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Nebius prices: https://nebius.com/prices (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Crusoe Cloud pricing: https://www.crusoe.ai/cloud/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Pricing: https://modal.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Pricing: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
7. CoreWeave pricing: https://www.coreweave.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
8. GPU Pricing — Live Platform Rates: https://vast.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
9. GPU Droplets pricing: https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/gpu-droplets (checked September 28, 2026)

# RunPod pricing per GPU hour: runpod.io, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/runpod-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: RunPod lists 21 Pod GPUs from $0.27/hr (RTX A5000) to $7.89/hr (B300), billed per second with no egress fees.

RunPod's cheapest listed GPU Pod is the RTX A5000 at $0.27 an hour. The most expensive is the B300 at $7.89 an hour. [1] These are RunPod's listed GPU prices from its published pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. The page says it was updated on 27 September 2026. [1] An H100 costs $2.89 to $3.49 an hour depending on the variant, and both A100 variants are listed at $1.59. [1] RunPod bills Pods by the second, so a short job costs a fraction of the hourly rate. [2]

## TL;DR

- RunPod lists 21 GPUs for Pods, from $0.27 an hour for the RTX A5000 to $7.89 an hour for the B300. [1]
- The hourly figure is a display rate. Pods are billed by the second, and RunPod says there are no minimums and no ingress or egress fees. [2]
- Serverless costs more per hour than a Pod on the same GPU: 26% to 71% more for the six GPUs that share a name across both tables. [1] The premium buys scale-to-zero, because RunPod says flex workers scale to zero when idle. [3]
- Storage is the main extra charge. Volume disk costs $0.10/GB/mo while a Pod runs and $0.20/GB/mo while it sits idle. [1]
- Clusters are listed only for the H200 SXM ($4.31/hr) and A100 SXM ($1.79/hr). Every other cluster and every reserved term is "Contact sales". [1]
- The pricing page offers Community Cloud and Secure Cloud views, but the captured table shows one price per GPU. [1] RunPod's own product page quotes lower "from" prices for four GPUs, so confirm the price in the console before you commit. [2]

## How this ranking was built

The ranking uses one source and one field. The source is RunPod's GPU Cloud Pricing page at runpod.io/pricing. The page carries the line "Updated September 27, 2026", and we captured it on 28 September 2026. [1] The ranked field is the hourly price in the **Pods** table, read in its "Per hour" view. The unit is dollars per GPU per hour, as displayed. The page shows a $ sign but names no currency and gives no tax status. Figures appear here exactly as the page gives them.

Inclusion was every GPU row in the Pods table. The table has 21 rows; all 21 are ranked, with no merges and no exclusions. Ties share a rank and are listed alphabetically. Serverless, Clusters, reserved clusters and Public Endpoints use different units or unpublished prices, so each has its own section below and none is ranked against Pods.

One limit governs the whole table. The Pods table has a Community Cloud / Secure Cloud switch, and the capture records a single price per GPU without showing which view produced it. [1] See [our methodology](/methodology) for how Glamdring handles vendor-published figures.

## RunPod GPU prices per hour, ranked

The RTX A5000 is the cheapest Pod at $0.27/hr and the B300 is the most expensive at $7.89/hr. [1] VRAM, system RAM and vCPUs are the configuration RunPod lists beside each price.

| Rank | GPU | Listed Pod price ($/hr) | VRAM | System RAM | vCPUs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RTX A5000 | 0.27 | 24 GB | 25 GB | 9 |
| 2 | A40 | 0.49 | 48 GB | 50 GB | 9 |
| 2 | L4 | 0.49 | 24 GB | 50 GB | 12 |
| 4 | RTX 3090 | 0.50 | 24 GB | 125 GB | 16 |
| 5 | RTX A6000 | 0.53 | 48 GB | 50 GB | 9 |
| 6 | Pro 6000 MIG 24GB | 0.59 | 24 GB | 31 GB | 4 |
| 7 | RTX 4090 | 0.74 | 24 GB | 41 GB | 6 |
| 8 | L40 | 0.82 | 48 GB | 94 GB | 8 |
| 9 | RTX 6000 Ada | 0.84 | 48 GB | 167 GB | 10 |
| 10 | RTX 5090 | 0.99 | 32 GB | 35 GB | 9 |
| 11 | L40S | 1.09 | 48 GB | 94 GB | 16 |
| 11 | Pro 6000 MIG 48GB | 1.09 | 48 GB | 62 GB | 8 |
| 13 | A100 PCIe | 1.59 | 80 GB | 117 GB | 8 |
| 13 | A100 SXM | 1.59 | 80 GB | 125 GB | 16 |
| 15 | RTX Pro 6000 | 2.09 | 96 GB | 188 GB | 16 |
| 16 | H100 PCIe | 2.89 | 80 GB | 188 GB | 16 |
| 17 | H100 NVL | 3.19 | 94 GB | 94 GB | 16 |
| 18 | H100 SXM | 3.49 | 80 GB | 125 GB | 20 |
| 19 | H200 | 4.59 | 141 GB | 276 GB | 24 |
| 20 | B200 | 6.79 | 180 GB | 283 GB | 28 |
| 21 | B300 | 7.89 | 288 GB HBM3e | 251 GB | 32 | [1]

The bundled machine matters as much as the GPU. The RTX 3090 costs a cent an hour more than the L4 but comes with 125 GB of RAM and 16 vCPUs against 50 GB and 12. [1] Both A100 variants cost $1.59, but the SXM row carries twice the vCPUs of the PCIe row. [1]

## Which RunPod GPU is cheapest per GB of VRAM?

The A40 is cheapest per GB of VRAM, at about $0.0102 per GB per hour. The H100 SXM is the most expensive, at about $0.0436. We divided each listed Pod price by its listed VRAM and rounded to four decimal places. [1]

Where a model's memory footprint decides the card, this view changes the shortlist:

- Lowest: A40 $0.0102, RTX A6000 $0.0110, RTX A5000 $0.0113. Each has 24 GB or 48 GB of VRAM.
- Highest: H100 SXM $0.0436, B200 $0.0377, H100 PCIe $0.0361.
- The B300 costs the most per hour but works out at $0.0274 per GB. That's less than the H200 ($0.0326), the B200 and every H100 variant.
- The A100s ($0.0199) and the RTX Pro 6000 ($0.0218) are the cheapest routes to 80 GB or more on a single listed GPU.

This is a memory-cost figure, not a throughput figure. A card that is cheaper per GB can still cost more per finished job if it runs the job more slowly. [What controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the other levers.

## How does RunPod bill GPU time?

RunPod bills Pods by the second, from the moment a Pod starts running until you terminate it. [2] The hourly price is a display unit. RunPod's Cloud GPUs page says "Billed by the second, never by the hour", and it says there are no minimums. [2] The same page's pricing FAQ says compute is "billed by the millisecond". [2] Either way, RunPod's own example holds: run a job for 3 minutes, pay for 3 minutes. [2]

Per-second billing helps short, bursty work. It does nothing for a Pod you forget to stop. At the listed rates, a Pod left running for a 730-hour month costs:

| GPU | Listed $/hr | 730 hours |
|---|---|---|
| RTX A5000 | 0.27 | $197.10 |
| RTX 4090 | 0.74 | $540.20 |
| A100 PCIe | 1.59 | $1,160.70 |
| H100 SXM | 3.49 | $2,547.70 |
| H200 | 4.59 | $3,350.70 |
| B300 | 7.89 | $5,759.70 | [1]

Those totals exclude storage. The 730-hour month is our assumption for an always-on Pod, not a RunPod figure.

RunPod also sells spot instances at a discount. They can be evicted when demand spikes, and the page doesn't publish their prices. RunPod says the console and API show current spot availability and pricing. [2]

## What do Serverless GPUs cost on RunPod?

Serverless runs from $0.58/hr for the 16 GB class to $9.98/hr for the B300. [1] RunPod meters it per second, from worker start to full stop, rounded up to the nearest second. [3] Serverless prices a class of GPUs rather than a single card:

| Serverless tier | GPUs named | Listed $/hr |
|---|---|---|
| 280 GB | B300 | 9.98 |
| 180 GB | B200 | 8.64 |
| 141 GB | H200 | 5.93 |
| 80 GB PRO | H100 | 4.79 |
| 96 GB PRO | RTX 6000 Pro | 3.49 |
| 80 GB | A100 | 2.72 |
| 48 GB PRO | L40, L40S, 6000 Ada, MIG 48GB | 1.75 |
| 32 GB PRO | 5090 | 1.58 |
| 48 GB | A6000, A40 | 1.22 |
| 32 GB | RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell | 1.15 |
| 24 GB PRO | 4090 | 1.10 |
| 24 GB | L4, A5000, 3090, MIG 24GB | 0.69 |
| 16 GB | A4000, A4500, RTX 4000, RTX 2000 | 0.58 | [1]

Six GPUs appear under the same name in both the Pods and Serverless tables. For those six, Serverless costs 26% to 71% more per hour: B300 26%, B200 27%, H200 29%, RTX 4090 49%, RTX 5090 60% and A100 71%. [1] The premium buys autoscaling. RunPod says flex workers scale to zero when idle, so a Serverless endpoint with sparse traffic can cost less over a month than a Pod that runs all the time. [3] The decision turns on utilisation. A Pod that is busy most of the hour is cheaper. An endpoint that is idle most of the day favours Serverless.

Serverless also lists GPUs that the Pods table doesn't: the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell and the four 16 GB cards. [1] The pricing page has a "Workers" control but doesn't say whether the rates shown are for flex or active workers.

## What do Clusters and reserved capacity cost?

Only two cluster prices are published: H200 SXM at $4.31/hr and A100 SXM at $1.79/hr. [1] The L40S, H100 SXM and B200 clusters are "Contact sales". RunPod says clusters scale up to 64 GPUs with no commitments. [1]

Reserved Clusters list 1, 3, 6, 12 and 12+ month terms for the H200 SXM, A100 SXM, L40S, H100 SXM and B200. Every cell reads "Contact sales". [1] RunPod describes reserved clusters as offering guaranteed availability, SLA-backed uptime and discounted rates, but it publishes no reserved price. [1] The page doesn't say whether the cluster figures are per GPU or per cluster, so we have not compared them with Pod rates.

## What does RunPod charge for storage and data transfer?

Storage costs $0.05 to $0.20 per GB per month, and RunPod charges no ingress or egress fees. [1] [2]

| Storage type | Listed price |
|---|---|
| Container disk | $0.10/GB/mo |
| Volume disk, Pod running | $0.10/GB/mo |
| Volume disk, Pod idle | $0.20/GB/mo |
| Network storage (standard), under 1 TB | $0.07/GB/mo |
| Network storage (standard), over 1 TB | $0.05/GB/mo |
| Network storage (high-performance) | $0.14/GB/mo | [1]

The idle rate is the storage charge to plan for. RunPod says you pay compute only for the time your Pod runs, but an idle Pod's volume disk doubles in price, from $0.10 to $0.20 per GB per month. [1] [2] A 100 GB volume costs $10 a month while the Pod runs and $20 a month while it sits idle. Container disk has no idle price listed. [2] The page doesn't say whether the over-1 TB network storage rate applies to the whole volume or only to the portion above 1 TB.

Public Endpoints are a separate product. They are priced per request, per megapixel, per 1,000 characters or per million tokens, depending on the model, not per GPU hour. [1]

## Why do other RunPod prices disagree with this table?

Other published RunPod figures differ for three reasons: cloud tier, age and third-party copying.

RunPod's own Cloud GPUs page quotes lower "from" prices for four GPUs than the pricing table shows: A100 PCIe from $1.39/hr, L4 at $0.39, A40 at $0.44 and RTX 3090 at $0.46. [2] The pricing table lists those GPUs at $1.59, $0.49, $0.49 and $0.50. [1] The H100 PCIe ($2.89) and RTX A5000 ($0.27) match on both pages. [1] [2] The most likely explanation is the Community Cloud / Secure Cloud switch, but neither page states that, so treat it as unconfirmed.

Third-party calculators can drift further. One RunPod cost calculator lists the RTX 3090 on demand at $0.19/hr and the A100 SXM at $1.49/hr. [4] Neither figure appears on RunPod's pricing page as checked on 28 September 2026. [1]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

The ranking shows what RunPod lists. It doesn't show what you will pay. Four gaps remain.

- **Tier.** The table's cloud tier is unconfirmed, and RunPod's product page quotes lower prices for some GPUs.
- **Availability.** A listed price doesn't mean capacity is free in your region when you deploy. RunPod says its GPUs run across 30+ regions and doesn't publish per-region stock on this page. [1]
- **Spot and reserved rates.** Neither is published on the page.
- **History.** This is our first capture of the page, so we can't yet say which prices moved since RunPod's previous update. The next "Updated" date on runpod.io/pricing triggers a refresh.

These are RunPod's own published figures. They establish what RunPod says it charges, not a market price. For the wider market, see the [model infrastructure category](/categories/model-infrastructure) and [our published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is RunPod free?

No. The pricing page lists no GPU at zero cost, and Pods and Serverless workers bill per second while they run. [1] [2] RunPod says you don't need a credit card to explore the platform, and there are no minimums once you deploy. [2] Stopped Pods can still incur storage charges.

### What is the cheapest GPU to rent on RunPod?

The RTX A5000 is the cheapest listed Pod at $0.27 an hour, with 24 GB of VRAM. [1] For 48 GB, the A40 is the cheapest at $0.49. For 80 GB, both A100 variants are $1.59. [1] On Serverless, the cheapest tier is the 16 GB class at $0.58 an hour. [1]

### Does RunPod charge for a stopped Pod?

Not for compute, but it does charge for storage. RunPod says you only pay for the exact time your Pod runs. [2] Volume disk on an idle Pod costs $0.20/GB/mo, double the running rate. [1]

### Does RunPod publish spot prices?

No. RunPod offers spot instances at a discount, with the risk of eviction when demand spikes, and shows their current availability and price in the console and API rather than on its pricing page. [2]

## Source notes
1. GPU Cloud Pricing: https://www.runpod.io/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Cloud GPU Instances for AI Workloads: https://www.runpod.io/product/cloud-gpus (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Serverless GPU Platform for AI Inference: https://www.runpod.io/product/serverless (checked September 28, 2026)
4. RunPod Cost Calculator: https://www.buildmvpfast.com/tools/api-pricing-estimator/runpod (checked September 28, 2026)

# Secureframe pricing: plans and listed price, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/secureframe-pricing
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Secureframe lists one price: Fundamentals starts at $7,000 a year, checked 28 September 2026. Complete and Defense are quote-only. Vendr reports a $20,000 median contract, so treat $7,000 as a floor and budget separately for the external audit.

Secureframe lists one price. Its Fundamentals plan starts at $7,000 a year on the US English pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] The Complete and Defense plans show no price and send buyers to a quote form. [1] Treat $7,000 as a floor. Vendr reports a median of $20,000 a year across the Secureframe contracts in its dataset. [2]

## TL;DR

- Secureframe publishes three plans: Fundamentals, Complete and Defense. Each plan builds on the one before it. [1]
- Only Fundamentals carries a figure, and that figure is a starting price. Complete and Defense are quote-only. [1]
- Fundamentals and Complete each list one compliance framework in the page's comparison grid. The price of a second framework is left to the quote. [1]
- Complete mainly adds depth: advanced risk, vendor-risk, access-review and questionnaire tools, plus SSO, SCIM and custom integrations. Defense adds CMMC tooling and managed CUI environments. [1]
- The external audit sits outside the subscription. Vendr puts third-party audit fees at $10,000 to $30,000+ per framework. [2]

## What plans does Secureframe publish?

Secureframe's pricing page, titled "Secureframe packages", lists three plans: Fundamentals, Complete and Defense. [1] Fundamentals is the entry plan and the only one with a price. Complete includes everything in Fundamentals. Defense includes everything in Complete. [1] Every plan carries the same "Get a quote" button. [1] Our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation) tracks the other systems in this category.

| Plan | Secureframe's description | Listed price | Builds on | What it adds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fundamentals | Get compliant fast | Starting at $7,000/year | None | Monitoring, evidence collection, policies, personnel, risk and a Trust Center |
| Complete | Scale your compliance program and grow your business | None listed; quote | Fundamentals | Advanced risk, vendor-risk, access-review, Trust Center and questionnaire tools; SSO and SCIM; custom integrations |
| Defense | Simplify SSP, POA&M, and other CMMC compliance requirements | None listed; quote | Complete | SPRS tracking, SSP and POA&M work, and managed CUI environments |

Plan names, descriptions and the price are Secureframe's own statements, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

## What does the Fundamentals plan include?

Fundamentals lists seven feature groups: Infrastructure Monitoring; Custom Frameworks, Controls, and Tests; Evidence Collection; Personnel Management; Risk Management; Policy Management; and Trust Center. [1] It is the only Secureframe plan with a published price, starting at $7,000 a year. [1]

The comparison grid shows where Fundamentals stops. It allows one custom automated test and one automated asset-scoping rule. Complete allows unlimited numbers of each. [1] Both plans list one compliance framework, 300+ native integrations, automated evidence collection and continuous control monitoring. [1]

The grid ticks a long list of shared items for both plans. These include personnel onboarding and offboarding, policy acceptance tracking, pre-built policy templates, security awareness training and asset inventory management. [1] It also ticks Comply AI for policies and remediation, the Secureframe Agent and access to the Secureframe Audit Partner Network. [1]

The one-test and one-rule limits matter more than the feature list. A team that needs its own controls tested across several asset types will reach them early. The decision changes at that point, because the next step is a quote.

## What does the Complete plan add?

Complete includes everything in Fundamentals plus eight named additions. [1] These are Advanced Third-Party Risk Management, Advanced Risk Management, Advanced User Access Reviews, Advanced Trust Center, Advanced Questionnaire Automation, SSO & SCIM Connections, Custom Integrations and Additional Workspaces. [1] Secureframe marks Additional Workspaces as an add-on. [1] Complete has no listed price.

Most of the additions deepen modules that Fundamentals already has. Risk management, the Trust Center and access control appear in both plans, and Complete adds the advanced version. The grid's clearest numeric gap sits in automation limits. Custom automated tests and asset-scoping rules move from one to unlimited. [1]

The framework count stays the same. The grid lists one compliance framework for Complete, as it does for Fundamentals. [1] An information icon sits beside each figure, but its text isn't part of the page copy. A buyer who needs SOC 2 and ISO 27001 together should ask how the second framework is priced.

## What does the Defense plan add?

Defense is Secureframe's plan for CMMC compliance, and it includes everything in Complete. [1] The seven additions are SPRS Score Tracker, System Security Plan (SSP), Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M), Automate SSP Implementation Statuses, Managed CUI Enclave, Managed Virtual Desktops and Manage CUI Vendors. [1] Defense has no listed price.

Three of those items are managed environments: the CUI enclave, the virtual desktops and CUI vendor management. They describe an operated service as well as software, and the page gives no cost for them. Confirm that cost in the current quote. Secureframe's site footer also lists a product called Secureframe Defense for CMMC, under a solutions menu that names defense contractors. [1]

## Is Secureframe pricing listed or quote-only?

Secureframe pricing is mostly quote-only. The one exception is a starting price of $7,000 a year for Fundamentals. [1] Complete and Defense show no figure. Every plan routes through the same "Get a quote" form. [1]

We checked the US English page on 28 September 2026 and read the prices as written. Our [methodology](/methodology) explains how we date and source prices. The US English page shows the figure with a dollar sign. It states no currency code or tax treatment. It publishes no per-employee rate, no price per extra framework and no multi-year term. The Complete and Defense prices, and the real Fundamentals price for a given company, only appear in a quote.

Secureframe also runs German, Spanish and French pricing pages. [1] We did not check whether those pages list the same figure.

Third-party pages disagree on this point. Vendr's February 2026 guide says Secureframe "does not publish a standard rate card". [2] The checked page publishes a starting figure for one plan. Some other guides in search results quote a $7,500 starting figure, which does not match the $7,000 on Secureframe's page as checked.

## What do Secureframe buyers report paying?

Vendr reports a median Secureframe contract of $20,000 a year. [2] That is almost three times the $7,000 Fundamentals starting price. The figure comes from Vendr's anonymised transaction data. Vendr reports it; we have not measured it. Vendr's guide was last updated in February 2026. [2]

Vendr breaks its data down by company size and framework count:

| Company profile (Vendr's bands) | Reported annual contract value |
|---|---|
| Under 50 employees, single framework | $12,000 to $20,000 |
| 50 to 200 employees, one to two frameworks | $20,000 to $35,000 |
| 200 to 500 employees, multiple frameworks | $35,000 to $55,000 |
| 500+ employees, complex compliance programs | Over $55,000; some reach $80,000 or more |

Source: Vendr, "Secureframe Software Pricing & Plans 2026", last updated February 2026. [2]

Vendr names four pricing drivers: framework count, employee headcount, integration count and contract term. [2] It reports that two- and three-year terms often cut the annual price by 10 to 20%. [2] Vendr promotes its own pricing and negotiation tools throughout the guide. [2] Use its bands to test a quote, and keep Secureframe's own page as the record of what is listed.

## What costs sit outside the Secureframe subscription?

The largest outside cost is the audit itself. Vendr notes that Secureframe does not remove the need for third-party auditors, who conduct the formal assessment. It puts their fees at $10,000 to $30,000+ per framework, paid to the audit firm. [2] The Fundamentals grid lists access to the Secureframe Audit Partner Network. It does not say that audit fees are included. [1]

Three other costs can move the total:

- **Additional frameworks.** Both grid columns list one compliance framework. [1] Vendr reports that adding frameworks mid-contract often costs 15 to 25% more than bundling them at the start. [2]
- **Add-ons.** Secureframe marks Additional Workspaces as an add-on on the Complete plan. [1]
- **Services.** Vendr reports that optional implementation and onboarding services can add $3,000 to $10,000+. [2]

Vendr also reports renewal increases, usually in the 5 to 10% range. [2] Ask for a renewal cap in writing when the first contract is signed.

## How to test a Secureframe quote

Test a quote against the checked page first, then against reported contract values. Four checks cover most of the gap between $7,000 and a real contract.

1. Confirm which plan the quote covers. Match every feature you need to the Fundamentals, Complete or Defense list.
2. Count the frameworks. Ask for the price of each framework beyond the first.
3. Separate the subscription from audit fees, services and add-ons. Each needs its own line.
4. Ask for the price at your current headcount and at your expected headcount in 12 months.

Then compare the total with Vendr's band for your company size. A Fundamentals quote near $7,000 matches Secureframe's listed starting price and sits below Vendr's reported band for small companies. A quote above Vendr's band for your size needs a reason in its line items. For the Vanta side of a shortlist, our [Laika vs Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide) sets out how those two vendors compare.

## What the pricing page cannot tell you

The checked page establishes Secureframe's own statements: plan names, feature lists and one starting price. [1] It does not establish what most buyers pay. The Questionnaires, Trust Center, Risk Management, Third-Party Risk Management, Admin and Security, and Defense sections of the grid sit in collapsed panels. [1] We did not review their row-by-row contents.

Two events would change this view: a published price for Complete or Defense, or a new Fundamentals starting figure. Either one would appear on the same page.

For more dated price and product research across enterprise software, see our [published research](/research). To get new research by email, [subscribe to the Glamdring briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Does Secureframe offer a free trial?

Secureframe's pricing page lists no free trial. It offers "Get a quote" on each plan and "Request a demo" in its navigation. [1] Ask Secureframe directly if a trial matters to your evaluation.

### How many customers does Secureframe have?

Secureframe's pricing page says it is "Trusted and used by thousands of companies" and shows logos including Nasdaq, Generali and AngelList. [1] That is Secureframe's own statement. The page gives no exact customer count.

### Does the $7,000 Fundamentals price include a SOC 2 audit?

Secureframe's pricing page does not say the starting price includes an audit. Fundamentals lists access to the Secureframe Audit Partner Network. [1] Vendr reports that external audit fees are paid to the audit firm and run $10,000 to $30,000+ per framework. [2]

### How does Secureframe's price compare with Vanta and Drata?

Vendr reports a single-framework price for small companies of $12,000 to $20,000 a year for Secureframe. It reports $15,000 to $25,000 for Vanta and $13,000 to $22,000 for Drata. [2] All three are reported contract values from Vendr's data. Request quotes for the same frameworks and headcount before comparing.

## Source notes
1. Secureframe packages: https://secureframe.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Secureframe Software Pricing & Plans 2026: See Your Cost: https://www.vendr.com/marketplace/secureframe (checked September 28, 2026)

# Together AI pricing: GPU clusters and inference, Sep 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/together-ai-pricing
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: On Together AI's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, the HGX H100 is the cheapest cluster GPU at $3.99 per GPU-hour on demand, falling to $3.19 on a 91-to-180-day reservation and $1.99 preemptible; the B300 tops the list at $9.99.

The NVIDIA HGX H100 is the cheapest GPU in Together AI's clusters at $3.99 per GPU-hour on demand, on Together AI's pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] A 91-to-180-day reservation cuts it to $3.19, and preemptible capacity costs $1.99. [1] Serverless inference is billed per unit of work, mostly per million tokens, with no minimums. [2] One dated promotion is live: dedicated H100 inference at $3.99 an hour instead of $5.49, valid until 30 September 2026. [1]

## TL;DR

- Longer cluster terms cut the price unevenly. The H200 drops 33.4% on a 91-to-180-day reservation. The B200 drops 17.1% on the same term and only 2.4% on 7 to 30 days. [1]
- Preemptible capacity costs almost exactly half of on-demand on all four priced GPUs, from $1.99 (H100) to $4.99 (B300). [1]
- The GB200 NVL72, the GB300 NVL72 and every term of 181 days or longer need a sales conversation. So do all B300 reservations. [1]
- Provisioned throughput costs $0.05 per unit per minute. At full use it matches the serverless list rate per token for all three listed models, so a unit buys reserved capacity at the serverless token price. [1]
- After the promotion ends, a dedicated H100 endpoint costs $1.50 an hour more than an on-demand cluster H100. [1]
- Together AI's own docs and pricing page disagree on some cached-input rates and billing units. Glamdring uses the pricing page. [3] [1]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research ranked the hardware in Together AI's GPU Clusters table by one field: the **ON-Demand** price, which the page states per GPU per hour. [1] It sits in our [model infrastructure category](/categories/model-infrastructure) and covers Together AI's published GPU cluster and inference prices, checked 28 September 2026. The page was captured at 15:05 Australian Eastern Standard Time and shows no last-updated date.

The GPU Clusters table lists six hardware rows. Four carry an on-demand price and are ranked, cheapest first. The GB200 NVL72 and GB300 NVL72 show a dash for on-demand and preemptible and "Contact us" for reserved, so they sit unranked. [1] The captured table prints two header rows, which leaves the column order ambiguous. We checked it against the page's separate on-demand table. All four on-demand prices match, so the order is preemptible, on-demand, then the four reserved terms. [1]

Prices carry a $ sign. The page names no currency code and no tax treatment. [1] Discounts are Glamdring's arithmetic: one minus the term price divided by the on-demand price, rounded to one decimal place. Monthly figures assume a 720-hour month of continuous use. Our [research methodology](/methodology) sets out how prices are captured and checked.

## What does Together AI charge per GPU-hour for a cluster?

Together AI's on-demand cluster prices run from $3.99 per GPU-hour for the HGX H100 to $9.99 for the HGX B300, on the pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1] Every figure below is per GPU per hour, as the page states it.

| Rank | GPU | On-demand ($ per GPU-hour) | Preemptible | Reserved 7–30 days | Reserved 31–90 days | Reserved 91–180 days | Reserved 181+ days |
|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
| 1 | NVIDIA HGX H100 | $3.99 | $1.99 | $3.69 | $3.45 | $3.19 | Contact us |
| 2 | NVIDIA HGX H200 | $5.99 | $2.99 | $4.99 | $4.15 | $3.99 | Contact us |
| 3 | NVIDIA HGX B200 | $8.19 | $4.09 | $7.99 | $7.79 | $6.79 | Contact us |
| 4 | NVIDIA HGX B300 | $9.99 | $4.99 | Contact us | Contact us | Contact us | Contact us |
| Unranked | NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 | Not listed | Not listed | Contact us | Contact us | Contact us | Contact us |
| Unranked | NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 | Not listed | Not listed | Contact us | Contact us | Contact us | Contact us |

Price rises in rank order: H100, H200, B200, then B300. [1] One crossover matters for buyers. A 91-to-180-day H200 reservation costs $3.99, the same as an on-demand H100. At that term, an H200 costs no more than pay-as-you-go H100 capacity. [1]

The page labels the cheapest column "Preemptible Compute" and "Pay as you go". The page doesn't describe the preemption terms. Read the service terms before you put a training run on it. [1] A banner on the same page announces on-demand B200s on Together GPU Clusters. [1] Shared filesystem storage, colocated with the compute, is listed at $0.16 per GiB per month. [1]

## How much do reserved terms cut Together AI's cluster prices?

Reserved terms cut Together AI's cluster prices by 2.4% to 33.4% off on-demand, depending on the GPU and the term. Preemptible capacity cuts about 50.1% on every priced GPU. [1]

| GPU | 7–30 days | 31–90 days | 91–180 days | Preemptible |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| NVIDIA HGX H100 | 7.5% | 13.5% | 20.1% | 50.1% |
| NVIDIA HGX H200 | 16.7% | 30.7% | 33.4% | 50.1% |
| NVIDIA HGX B200 | 2.4% | 4.9% | 17.1% | 50.1% |
| NVIDIA HGX B300 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 50.1% |

The H200 has the steepest term curve. The B200 hardly moves until the 91-day threshold: $8.19 on demand, $7.99 for 7 to 30 days, $7.79 for 31 to 90 days, then $6.79. [1] A B200 buyer with a 60-day job saves 40 cents an hour against on-demand by reserving. A buyer who can stretch to 91 days saves $1.40.

In cash terms, one H100 for a 720-hour month costs $2,872.80 on demand and $2,296.80 on a 91-to-180-day reservation. The H200 falls from $4,312.80 to $2,872.80. The B200 falls from $5,896.80 to $4,888.80. [1] The estimate assumes continuous use. The captured page doesn't say whether a reservation bills for the whole term, how many GPUs a cluster must hold, or what the 181-day-plus rates are. Confirm all three in the current quote.

## What promotions is Together AI running, and when do they end?

Together AI's pricing page shows one promotion with an end date. Dedicated inference on an NVIDIA HGX H100 costs $3.99 per GPU-hour instead of $5.49, and the page says it's valid until 09/30/26: 30 September 2026. [1]

That's a 27.3% cut. It applies to Together AI's dedicated inference product; the GPU Clusters table carries no promotion. For a 720-hour month, the promotional H100 endpoint costs $2,872.80 against $3,952.80 at the standard price. [1] The promotion runs two days past our check date. Any contract signed after 30 September 2026 should be priced at $5.49 unless Together AI states otherwise in writing.

No other row on the captured page carries a promotional label or an end date. [1] Two standing discounts are not promotions. Cached input tokens are billed at a lower rate on some chat models. Batch workloads are discounted by up to 50% on some models. [2]

## How does Together AI price serverless inference?

Together AI prices serverless inference per unit of work, with no minimums and no provisioning cost. Chat, language, embedding and rerank models bill per input and output token. [2] The pricing page quotes chat rates per million tokens, image models per image or per megapixel, text-to-speech per million characters, transcription per audio minute and video per video. [1]

Among the paid chat models on the page, input runs from $0.09 per million tokens (Qwen3.8 Flash) to $3.00 (Kimi K3). Output runs from $0.14 (Llama 3 8B Instruct Lite) to $15.00 (Kimi K3). [1] Llama 3.3 70B is $1.04 each way, and gpt-oss-120B is $0.15 in and $0.60 out. [1]

Cached input is where the list price moves most. Fourteen of the 27 models in the first chat table show a cached rate. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash drops from $0.30 to $0.006 per million input tokens, a 98% cut. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B drops from $0.60 to $0.35, a 41.7% cut. [1] Caching is automatic and prefix-based. It's also best-effort on serverless: the cache is shared across the fleet, and hits aren't guaranteed. Dedicated endpoints enable prompt caching by default, scoped to your own replicas. [2] Budget on the standard input rate and treat cached savings as upside, unless your traffic runs on a dedicated endpoint.

Image pricing adds a steps factor. The docs give cost as megapixels × price per megapixel × (steps ÷ default steps). Steps count only above the default. [3] The page prices FLUX.2 [max] at $0.070 per megapixel with 50 default steps, and GPT Image 2 at $0.053 per image. [1] Our explainer on [what controls AI inference cost](/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost) covers the other inputs to a serving bill.

## Is Together AI's provisioned throughput cheaper than serverless?

No. Glamdring Research's arithmetic shows that a fully used provisioned throughput unit (PTU) costs the same per token as Together AI's serverless list rate, for all three models priced on 28 September 2026. [1] Each PTU costs $0.05 per minute and delivers a fixed tokens-per-minute rate that varies by model and token type. [1]

| Model | Token type | Tokens per minute per PTU | $ per 1M tokens at full use | Serverless list price ($ per 1M) |
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|
| MiniMax M3 | Input | 166,667 | $0.30 | $0.30 |
| MiniMax M3 | Cached input | 833,333 | $0.06 | $0.06 |
| MiniMax M3 | Output | 41,667 | $1.20 | $1.20 |
| Kimi K3 | Input | 16,667 | $3.00 | $3.00 |
| Kimi K3 | Cached input | 166,667 | $0.30 | $0.30 |
| Kimi K3 | Output | 3,333 | $15.00 | $15.00 |
| GLM-5.2 | Input | 35,714 | $1.40 | $1.40 |
| GLM-5.2 | Cached input | 192,308 | $0.26 | $0.26 |
| GLM-5.2 | Output | 11,364 | $4.40 | $4.40 |

The full-use figure is $0.05 divided by the tokens per minute, multiplied by one million, rounded to the cent. Every one of the nine rows lands on the serverless price. [1] A PTU running at half its capacity costs twice the serverless rate per token.

The page states its savings estimate against "the selected commercial model's published list price", not against Together AI's own serverless rate. It assumes continuous provisioning of about 43,800 minutes a month. [1] At $0.05 a minute, that is $2,190 per PTU per month. The calculator's default of 353 PTUs matches its displayed $773,070 monthly estimate. [1]

The case for PTUs is capacity. Serverless models are rate-limited, and Together AI's docs point steady traffic that needs higher limits or reserved hardware to provisioned throughput or dedicated endpoints. [2] Buy PTUs when throughput is the constraint. At full use the token price stays the same, and every idle minute raises it.

## What does Together AI's dedicated inference cost compared with a cluster GPU?

Dedicated inference costs more per GPU-hour than the same GPU in a cluster. The HGX H100 is $5.49 against $3.99, and the HGX B200 is $8.99 against $8.19, on the pricing page checked 28 September 2026. [1]

The H100 premium is $1.50 an hour, or 37.6%. The B200 premium is $0.80, or 9.8%. [1] Until 30 September 2026, the promotional H100 dedicated price of $3.99 removes the H100 premium entirely. The H200, B300, GB200 NVL72 and GB300 NVL72 have no public dedicated price, and every reserved dedicated term routes to sales. [1]

The premium buys a managed endpoint. The page describes single-tenant GPU instances with guaranteed performance, custom-model support and autoscaling. [1] A dedicated endpoint also lets you pin hardware to a region. Serverless requests run in a region you can't select. [2]

## Why do other published Together AI prices disagree?

Other published Together AI prices disagree for three traceable reasons: Together AI's docs differ from its own pricing page, the docs describe units two ways, and a third-party tracker carries models the pricing page's serverless tables don't list.

The docs model catalogue lists Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B cached input at $0.50 and Qwen3.7 Max cached input at $0.50 per million tokens. [3] The pricing page shows $0.25 and $0.30. [1] The docs list Qwen3.8 Flash output at $0.282. [3] The pricing page shows $0.28. [1]

The docs overview says video bills per second of output, and speech-to-text and text-to-speech per second of audio. [2] The docs catalogue and the pricing page price video per video, transcription per audio minute and speech per million characters. [3] [1] Check the invoice unit on a small test job before modelling a media workload.

AI Pricing Guru's Together AI page is titled July 2026 but says it was last updated on 27 September 2026. It lists DeepSeek V4 Pro at $1.74 in and $3.48 out, Kimi K2.6 at $1.20 and $4.50, and GPT-OSS 20B at $0.05 and $0.20. [4] The captured pricing page lists DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 at $1.32 and $3.96. Kimi K2.6 and gpt-oss-20B appear only in its fine-tuning tables, not its serverless chat tables. [1] Where figures differ, this page uses Together AI's pricing page.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

These are Together AI's listed prices on 28 September 2026. They are a company statement. They don't show what reserved or enterprise customers negotiate. [1]

The page shows price. Nor does it show available capacity, delivery times, minimum cluster size or preemption terms. The ranking doesn't measure performance per dollar. The captured page states no currency code or tax treatment; confirm both in the current quote. The page offers a "Batch API price" view, but the capture doesn't show which figures belong to it. The batch discount here comes from the docs' "up to 50%". [2]

The ranking will be rebuilt when Together AI changes its pricing page. The H100 promotion's 30 September 2026 end date is the first scheduled change. New pricing research goes out in our free [research briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Together AI free to use?

Mostly not. One chat model, Ternary Bonsai 27B, is listed at $0.00 for input and output on the pricing page checked 28 September 2026. Everything else on the page is metered. [1] Serverless use carries no minimum charge, so you pay only for what you process. [2] The captured pricing page states no free-credit amount.

### How much do 1,000 tokens cost on Together AI?

Divide the per-million rate by 1,000. Llama 3.3 70B at $1.04 per million tokens costs $0.00104 per 1,000 tokens, input or output. [1] Across the paid chat models on the page, 1,000 input tokens cost $0.00009 to $0.003. The same volume of output costs $0.00014 to $0.015, the top figure being Kimi K3. [1]

### What are the disadvantages of Together AI's serverless pricing?

Serverless trades control for simplicity. Together AI's docs say serverless models are rate-limited and you can't select the serving region. Cached-input discounts are best-effort, with no guaranteed hit rate or retention window. [2] Each fix costs money: provisioned throughput or a dedicated endpoint. Provisioned throughput matches the serverless token rate only at full use. [1]

## Source notes
1. Pricing: https://www.together.ai/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Overview - Together AI docs: https://docs.together.ai/docs/serverless/overview (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Available models - Together AI docs: https://docs.together.ai/docs/serverless/models (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Together.ai API Pricing (July 2026) — DeepSeek, Qwen, GPT-OSS, Kimi and more: https://www.aipricing.guru/together-pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Vanta competitors ranked: company pages, Sept 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vanta-competitors
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Drata publishes the largest framework count among Vanta's competitors ("30+ Pre-Built Frameworks", checked 28 September 2026), ahead of Sprinto ("25+ frameworks automated out of the box"). Only Secureframe prints a price; Vanta, Drata, Sprinto, Delve and Optro quote.

Drata publishes the largest framework count among Vanta's competitors: "30+ Pre-Built Frameworks" on its frameworks page, checked 28 September 2026. [1] Sprinto is second, with "25+ frameworks automated out of the box" on its pricing page. [2]

Secureframe, Delve and Optro (formerly AuditBoard) print no count. Secureframe is the only competitor that prints a price: "Starting at $7,000/year" for its Fundamentals package. [3]

## TL;DR

- Two of the five competitors print a framework count, and both counts are floors. Drata's "30+" outranks Sprinto's "25+" on the printed figure alone; neither is a verified total.
- Every entry plan that states its scope includes one framework: Vanta Essentials, Drata Foundation, Secureframe Fundamentals and both Sprinto plans. A second framework means an add-on or a higher tier.
- Drata's Foundation plan limits its one framework to SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA or GDPR, for up to 50 full-time staff. [4]
- Vanta, Drata, Sprinto, Delve and Optro sell by quote. Roundups print estimated prices for some of them, and those estimates disagree with each other.
- Compare quotes on one framework set. The included count and the add-on price decide the cost; the website catalogue does not.

## How this ranking was built

**Source.** Each company's own pricing, plans, frameworks or home page, read on 28 September 2026. The six companies sit in Glamdring's [compliance automation category](/categories/compliance-automation). Every figure is company-reported, not measured.

**Field.** The framework count each company prints, in its own words: **Pre-Built Frameworks** for Drata and **frameworks automated out of the box** for Sprinto. The unit is frameworks, stated as a floor. [1] [2]

**Inclusion.** Drata, Secureframe and Sprinto are the three names that recur across Google's US results for "vanta competitors" on 28 September 2026. Ciphers Security's roundup opens with all three. [5]

Delve appears on AI Agents Directory's list of Vanta alternatives. [6] Sprinto's own pricing page links a "Sprinto vs Delve" comparison beside "Sprinto vs Vanta". [2]

We added Optro, whose home page sells audit, risk, infosec and compliance software, to see whether the enterprise end of the category publishes more. [7]

**Merges.** auditboard.com served Optro's page, which names the company "Optro (formerly AuditBoard)". It counts once, as Optro. [7]

**Exclusions.** Third-party lists also name Hyperproof, OneTrust, Scrut, Scytale, Thoropass, Laika and Apptega. [5] [8] None of their own pages was read, so none is ranked on a roundup's figure.

**Row counts.** Six companies read. Five competitors. Two print a framework count, so two rows are ranked. The other three follow in alphabetical order, and Vanta sits last as the reference row. The sourcing rules are set out in our [research method](/methodology).

## Vanta competitors by published framework count

| Rank | Company | Published framework count (frameworks, company wording) | Price printed on its own page? | Frameworks in the entry plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Drata | 30+ "Pre-Built Frameworks" | No. "Get Personalized Pricing" | 1, from SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA or GDPR [1] [4] |
| 2 | Sprinto | 25+ "frameworks automated out of the box" | No. "Find my plan" opens a demo request | 1 of the buyer's choice, on either plan [2] |
| – | Delve | Not published | No. A "customized proposal" | Not stated [9] |
| – | Optro (formerly AuditBoard) | Not published | No. "Schedule a Demo" | Not stated [7] |
| – | Secureframe | Not published | Yes. Fundamentals "Starting at $7,000/year" | 1, on Fundamentals and on Complete [3] |
| Ref. | Vanta | Not published | No. "Get personalized pricing" | 1, on Essentials [10] |

## Which Vanta competitors publish a price?

Secureframe is the only one. Its Fundamentals package reads "Starting at $7,000/year"; Complete and Defense print no figure, and all three packages carry a "Get a quote" button. [3]

The figure carries a dollar sign with no currency code and no tax treatment. It is Secureframe's own statement, not a market price. [3]

Vanta asks buyers to "Request a free demo today to discuss your business needs and get personalized pricing." [10]

Drata's plans page lists three compliance plans under a "Get Personalized Pricing" button and prints no figure. [4] Its feature table adds: "For an exact breakdown, contact a Drata sales representative today." [4]

Sprinto's "Find my plan" button leads to its demo request page. [2]

Delve's last step reads: "Chat with our team directly and get a customized proposal tailored to you." [9]

Optro's home page offers "Schedule a Demo", pointing to a demo request form. [7]

One printed price among six companies means public pages can rank disclosure. They can't rank cost.

## How do the plan structures compare?

Vanta, Drata, Secureframe and Sprinto publish named plans. Delve groups its offer by company stage, and Optro by product.

| Company | Plans or groupings shown | Entry plan, in the company's words |
|---|---|---|
| Vanta | Essentials, Plus, Professional, Enterprise | "The fastest, simplest path to compliance" [10] |
| Drata | Foundation, Advanced, Enterprise on the GRC platform; a separate Foundation, Advanced and Enterprise on the Assurance platform; Third-Party Risk Management | "Launch your program with everything you need for liftoff." [4] |
| Secureframe | Fundamentals, Complete, Defense | "Get compliant fast" [3] |
| Sprinto | Foundation and Growth, plus a separate module set for mature GRC teams | "For startups on their first certification" [2] |
| Delve | Startup, Midmarket, Enterprise (company stages) | "Get compliant in days, not months." [9] |
| Optro | Audit, Risk, Infosec, Compliance, AI governance (products) | No entry plan named [7] |

Vanta's Plus adds AI-powered questionnaire automation at 25 questionnaires a year, plus access management. Professional raises the allowance to 144 a year and adds risk management with customisation, dashboards and reporting. [10]

Drata's Advanced plan opens "Any Available Framework" and adds custom connections, tests, fields and formulas. [4] Enterprise adds Risk Management Pro, Compliance as Code Pro and User Access Review. [4] The Assurance plans sell Drata's Trust Center and AI questionnaire assistance as a separate line. [4]

Secureframe's Complete adds advanced third-party risk management, user access reviews and questionnaire automation. [3] Defense adds CMMC material, including a System Security Plan, a POA&M and a managed CUI enclave. [3]

Sprinto's Growth plan adds programmable monitors, custom workflows and a custom API to Foundation. [2]

Optro's home page says it is "Trusted by over 50% of the Fortune 500", a company claim. [7] It names no entry package, so a team buying its first SOC 2 report has nothing to price from it.

## How many frameworks does the entry plan include?

One, at every company that says. The count on the website describes the catalogue; the entry plan buys a single framework.

Vanta's Essentials plan lists "One compliance framework with agentic policy generator". [10]

Drata's Foundation plan includes "1 Pre-Mapped Framework", limited to SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA and GDPR, for up to 50 FTEs. [4] The Advanced plan lifts the limit to "Any Available Framework". [4]

Secureframe's comparison table shows "Compliance Framework" at 1 for Fundamentals and 1 for Complete. [3]

Sprinto tells buyers to "Get any one framework of your choice with either plan" and lists Additional Frameworks as an add-on. [2]

Delve and Optro state no included count on their home pages.

The constraint is the second framework. A company running SOC 2 and ISO 27001 together buys more than the entry plan at Vanta, Drata, Secureframe and Sprinto.

Drata's shortlist narrows the entry point further. PCI DSS appears among Drata's pre-built frameworks but is not one of the five Foundation allows; Advanced includes "Any Available Framework". [1] [4] Foundation also lists Additional Frameworks as an add-on, and the page doesn't say whether the add-on reaches past the five. Confirm the included count, and the price of each extra framework, in the current quote.

## How does each company define its framework count?

Each company counts differently, so "30+" and "25+" are not strictly like for like.

Drata's "30+" heads a tile list of 32 named frameworks plus a custom option. Three tiles, FFIEC, COBIT and SOX ITGC, link to Drata's demo page, not to a framework page. [1]

Sprinto prints two counts on one pricing page: "25+ frameworks automated out of the box" and "200+ frameworks digitized". [2] The module set for mature GRC teams describes an "Infinite Frameworks engine, 200+ frameworks plus custom regulations". [2] Only the first figure is ranked here, because it describes automated coverage.

Sprinto's list of 28 selectable frameworks also splits NIST 800-53 into Low, Medium and High, and CMMC into Level2 and Level3, so one standard can count more than once. [2]

Vanta prints no count. Its site footer names 18 frameworks, from SOC 2 and ISO 27001 to FedRAMP and CRI, then links to custom and additional frameworks. [10]

Secureframe's pricing page footer names seven: CMMC 2.0, SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, CCPA and GDPR, then "View All". [3]

Delve's framework picker names 12, from SOC 2 Type I and Type II to CCPA, then "+ more". [9]

Optro's home page names none. Its footer links a Frameworks & Controls page, which was not read. [7]

These named counts measure page layout as much as coverage. Read them as context, not as a second ranking.

## Why do other published lists disagree?

Roundups print prices the companies withhold. Ciphers Security's table gives a 2026 starting price for eight alternatives and says nearly all vendors in the category are quote-based. [5] It lists Drata at "$7,500/yr (quote-based)" and Sprinto at "~$8,000/yr (quote-based)", although neither company prints a price on its own page. [5]

Where a company does print a figure, the roundups still split. The CTO Club lists Secureframe "From $7,000/year (billed annually)", matching Secureframe's page. [8] Ciphers Security lists Secureframe at "$7,500/yr (quote-based)". [5]

Roundup framework counts also cover companies outside the ranking. Ciphers Security credits Hyperproof with "140+ frameworks". [5] The CTO Club says OneTrust supports "over 50 compliance frameworks" and Scrut "over 60". [8] None of the three was read at company source, so none is ranked.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

A framework count is a catalogue size. It says nothing about control mapping depth, audit acceptance or evidence automation for a given stack.

"30+" and "25+" are floors. Sprinto's automated count could exceed Drata's; the order follows what each company prints.

The figures are company statements on 28 September 2026. They show what each company says, not what a buyer receives under contract.

Price comparison is out of reach from public pages. Five of six companies quote, and Secureframe's printed figure states no currency code or tax treatment.

Seven companies named by other lists were not read. [Our Laika and Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide) covers one of them head to head.

Use one real framework set, such as SOC 2 plus ISO 27001, and one headcount to test the quotes. [Subscribe to the research briefing](/subscribe) to get the next edition when a checked page changes.

## Frequently asked questions

### Who competes with Vanta?

Drata, Secureframe and Sprinto recur most often across US search results for Vanta's competitors. [5] Delve sells compliance automation by company stage, from startups closing their first enterprise deals upward. [9] Optro (formerly AuditBoard) sells audit, risk, infosec and compliance software. [7] Third-party lists add Hyperproof, OneTrust, Scrut, Scytale, Thoropass, Laika and Apptega. [5] [8]

### Is Vanta better than Drata?

Their own pages can't settle it. Drata prints "30+ Pre-Built Frameworks"; Vanta prints no count, and neither prints a price. [1] [10] Both entry plans include one framework, and Drata's Foundation adds a 50-FTE ceiling and a five-framework shortlist. [10] [4] Run the same framework set and headcount through both quotes, then compare the included count, the add-on price and the audit scope.

### Which Vanta competitor is cheapest?

No company page supports an answer. Secureframe is the only competitor printing a price, "Starting at $7,000/year" for Fundamentals. [3] The others quote, and roundup estimates for them disagree, so the lowest cost appears only when quotes sit side by side.

### Does Drata publish its prices?

No. Drata's plans page lists its plans and features and asks buyers to "Get Personalized Pricing". [4] The drata.com/pricing address served a general overview page with no plans on 28 September 2026. [11]

### Has anything changed since the last check?

This is the first edition, checked on 28 September 2026. One change predates it: auditboard.com now serves Optro, "formerly AuditBoard". [7] The next edition will record any change to counts, plans or printed prices.

## Source notes
1. Drata: https://drata.com/frameworks (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Sprinto: https://sprinto.com/pricing/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Secureframe: https://secureframe.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Drata: https://drata.com/plans (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Ciphers Security: https://cipherssecurity.com/vanta-alternatives/ (checked September 28, 2026)
6. AI Agents Directory: https://aiagentsdirectory.com/agent/vanta/alternatives (checked September 28, 2026)
7. Optro (formerly AuditBoard): https://auditboard.com/ (checked September 28, 2026)
8. The CTO Club: https://thectoclub.com/tools/best-vanta-alternative/ (checked September 28, 2026)
9. Delve: https://www.delve.co/ (checked September 28, 2026)
10. Vanta: https://www.vanta.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
11. Drata: https://drata.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)

# Vanta pricing: plans and inclusions, September 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vanta-pricing
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Vanta publishes no price for any plan. Its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, lists Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise and routes every buyer to a demo for personalised pricing.

Vanta doesn't publish a price for any plan. Its pricing page, checked 28 September 2026, names four plans (Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise), prints no dollar figure against any of them and asks buyers to request a demo to "get personalized pricing". [1] What Vanta does publish is the plan structure. Each plan adds features to the one below it, and the only quantities on the plan cards are a framework count, a yearly questionnaire allowance and a report count.

## TL;DR

- **No list price exists.** Every Vanta plan is priced after a demo, so the figure you pay comes out of a sales conversation. [1]
- **Three plans stack; one is bespoke.** Plus contains everything in Essentials, Professional contains everything in Plus, and Enterprise is described as a "fully customizable package". [1]
- **The published quantities are the quote variables.** Essentials names one compliance framework. Plus includes 25 AI-powered questionnaires a year. Professional raises that to 144 and adds six customisable reports. [1]
- **Some features sit outside every plan.** Vanta's comparison table marks security reviews and every Customer Commitments feature as an add-on. [1]
- **Budget from a written quote, not a third-party range.** The quote should name the frameworks, the headcount basis, the questionnaire allowance, each add-on and the contract term.

## Does Vanta publish a price?

No. The pricing page opens with "Find your plan" and tells visitors to "Request a free demo today to discuss your business needs and get personalized pricing." [1] Its buttons read "Get personalized pricing", and none of the four plan cards carries a dollar figure, a per-employee rate or a billing period. [1]

Vendr, a software procurement marketplace, reads the page the same way from the buyer's side. It says Vanta "does not publish fixed-price tiers in the traditional sense" and that "most buyers receive custom quotes based on their specific compliance needs and company size." [2]

The consequence for a buyer is practical. Until a quote arrives, Vanta can only be compared on inclusions, and the inclusions are what the rest of this page sets out. Vanta sits within our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation).

## What plans does Vanta list?

Vanta lists four plans. Three are cumulative tiers and the fourth is a custom package.

| Plan | Published price | Vanta's description | Builds on | Quantities stated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essentials | Not published | "The fastest, simplest path to compliance" | Entry plan | One compliance framework |
| Plus | Not published | "A strong compliance foundation plus security" | Everything in Essentials | 25 questionnaires per year |
| Professional | Not published | "Compliance, risk, and reporting all in one package" | Everything in Plus | 144 questionnaires per year; six customisable reports |
| Enterprise | Not published | "A trust program tailored to your unique needs" | Not stated | None stated |

All descriptions and quantities are quoted from Vanta's pricing page, checked 28 September 2026. [1]

## What does each Vanta plan include?

Each Vanta plan card lists its inclusions: Essentials sets the base, Plus and Professional list only what they add, and Enterprise is a custom package. [1]

**Essentials** covers "One compliance framework with agentic policy generator", automated evidence collection "for audit readiness", and "Basic reporting and audit workflows, code change, and continuous controls monitoring". [1] It also includes the Vanta AI Agent (agentic search across policies, controls, frameworks, tests and documents, evidence checks, a policy template library, policy control mapping, evidence collection and SLA tracking with remediation), an Auditor API, a Trust Center and "Access to expert partners for additional compliance services". [1]

**Plus** takes everything in Essentials and adds automated policy onboarding, "AI-powered Questionnaire Automation (25 questionnaires per year)" and Access Management. [1]

**Professional** takes everything in Plus and adds eight lines: questionnaire automation at 144 questionnaires a year, "Risk management with customization, dashboard, and reporting", an Advanced Trust Center, "Custom monitoring tests and automation", automated access management, "Advanced reporting (six customizable reports)", advanced control management and "Additional Vanta AI Agent features like agentic issue management". [1]

**Enterprise** carries one line: "Fully customizable package with advanced GRC needs". [1] The card doesn't say whether Enterprise starts from Professional, so its contents are whatever the contract states.

## What changes between Vanta's plans?

Four things change between Vanta's plans: questionnaire volume, automation of access and risk work, reporting depth and the Trust Center. [1]

Questionnaire volume is the clearest step. Plus includes 25 AI-powered questionnaires a year and Professional includes 144, which is 5.76 times the Plus allowance. [1] A company that answers a few security questionnaires a quarter fits inside the Plus allowance. A company fielding three or more a week passes 144 a year, which puts it beyond Professional's allowance before any other feature matters.

Access and risk work gain automation. Plus lists Access Management; Professional lists automated access management, risk management with a dashboard and reporting, and custom monitoring tests. [1] Reporting moves from "Basic reporting" on Essentials to six customisable reports on Professional, and the Trust Center becomes an Advanced Trust Center. [1]

Framework count is the variable the cards leave open. Essentials names one framework, while Plus and Professional state no framework number at all. [1] The same page links to 18 named frameworks, from SOC 2 and ISO 27001 to Essential Eight, CPS 234 and FedRAMP, plus custom frameworks. [1] A buyer who needs a second framework should expect that to change the quote, and should confirm how in writing.

## Which Vanta features are sold as add-ons?

Two groups carry an "Add-on" mark in every plan cell of their rows in Vanta's feature comparison: security reviews, and all five Customer Commitments features. [1] The Customer Commitments rows are AI-powered commitment extraction, tracking and account linking; native contract storage integrations with Ironclad, Salesforce, Sharepoint, Google Drive and an API; transforming legal prose into structured data; gap analysis against standard commitments; and a searchable, filterable inventory. [1]

Vendr's reading of Vanta's commercial model points the same way. It lists vendor risk management, penetration testing and questionnaire automation among add-on modules that are "priced separately". [2] That is Vendr's account, not a Vanta statement, so treat it as a question for the quote.

## What sets the price of a Vanta quote?

Vanta itself says only that pricing follows "your business needs". [1] Vendr names three drivers: "the number of certifications (called "frameworks"), the number of employees at the company, and optional add-on services like penetration testing or vendor risk management." [2] It also reports that "Annual contracts are standard; multi-year commitments often unlock discounting". [2]

Vendr says its analysis rests on "anonymized contract data". [2] Several pages ranking for "vanta pricing" publish dollar ranges drawn from buyer data or market research. None of those figures is a Vanta price, and none appears here, because each rests on contracts or research whose scope the reader can't see. The drivers are the transferable part. On Vendr's account, two companies on the same plan can pay different amounts if their headcount, framework count or add-ons differ. [2]

## What should a Vanta quote state in writing?

A Vanta quote should state every variable the pricing page leaves open. Use one real workflow to test each line: last year's security questionnaires, the frameworks your customers ask for and the audit you plan to book.

- **Plan name**, and for Enterprise, the full list of inclusions.
- **Frameworks**, named, with the cost of adding another. Only Essentials states a framework count. [1]
- **Headcount basis**, since Vendr reports employee count as a price driver. [2]
- **Questionnaire allowance**, checked against your actual yearly volume, and what happens past 25 or 144. [1]
- **Each add-on as its own line**, including security reviews and Customer Commitments if you need them. [1]
- **Contract term and renewal terms**, because Vendr reports annual contracts as standard. [2]
- **The audit itself.** The plan cards list audit-readiness tools, an Auditor API and access to expert partners, and the site runs an auditor directory. [1] No card says an audit fee is included, so confirm who pays the auditor.

## What the pricing page cannot tell you

The page can't tell you a price, and it can't tell you how many frameworks Plus, Professional or Enterprise cover. [1] Enterprise's inclusions are unspecified beyond "advanced GRC needs". [1]

The feature-comparison table also has limits. Its ticks and crosses render as images, so the inclusions on this page come from the plan cards, and add-ons are reported only where Vanta prints the word "Add-on". Our [research standard](/methodology) governs how this check was made. The same table carries a column labelled "Pro" beside "Professional", although no plan card uses that name. [1]

This page reflects Vanta's pricing page as checked 28 September 2026, and it will be rechecked when Vanta publishes a figure or renames a plan. New checks of compliance automation pricing go out in our [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### Does a Vanta plan include the SOC 2 audit fee?

Vanta's pricing page doesn't say so. The plans include audit-readiness tools such as automated evidence collection, audit workflows and an Auditor API, and the site links to an auditor directory to "Connect with top compliance auditors." [1] No plan card lists the audit itself or an audit fee, so ask for the auditor's cost as a separate figure.

### Is there a free Vanta plan?

No free plan appears on Vanta's pricing page. The demo is free: the page invites visitors to "Request a free demo". [1] All four plans (Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise) are priced by quote. [1]

### Does Vanta charge per user?

Vanta doesn't publish a pricing unit. Vendr reports that the number of employees is one of three price drivers, alongside frameworks and add-ons. [2] Ask the quote to state whether headcount bands apply and what happens when headcount crosses one mid-contract.

### Who competes with Vanta?

Vendr's Vanta guide compares it with "alternatives like Drata, Secureframe, and Thoropass". [2] Our [comparison of Laika and Vanta](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide) sets those two side by side.

## Source notes
1. Plans and Pricing: https://www.vanta.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Vanta Software Pricing & Plans 2026: https://www.vendr.com/marketplace/vanta (checked September 28, 2026)

# Vanta vs Delve: frameworks, pricing, delivery (Sep 2026)

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vanta-vs-delve
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Neither company publishes a price. Vanta publishes more of its offer: four named plans with feature limits, 18 named frameworks and 400+ integrations, so buyers with a multi-framework scope or a need for DORA, NIS2, CPS 234 or CMMC have more to test there.

Vanta publishes more of its offer than Delve. Checked 28 September 2026, Vanta's pricing page names four plans and what each includes, and its site names 18 frameworks. [1] Delve's homepage lists 11 frameworks and a bundle of services it marks free, including white-glove onboarding and a dedicated compliance expert. [2] Neither company prints a price. Both route buyers to a demo for a quote. [1] [2]

So the decision turns on framework scope and delivery model, because the number that matters arrives only in a proposal.

## TL;DR

- **Frameworks:** Vanta's published list is wider and names specialised frameworks Delve's pages don't, including DORA, NIS2, CMMC, CPS 234 and Essential Eight. Nine frameworks appear on both companies' pages.
- **Pricing:** there's no list price for either. Vanta publishes the plan ladder and its limits, such as 25 or 144 automated questionnaires a year. Delve publishes only the services inside its bundle.
- **Delivery:** Vanta presents a software system with 400+ integrations and routes extra services to partners. Delve calls itself "a compliance partner, not a platform" and puts expert Slack support at the centre.
- **Evidence limit:** every claim here is a company statement. Vanta's comparison pages make claims about Delve we haven't verified, Delve's site links posts titled "Response to Misleading Claims", and neither side's claims establish audit outcomes.
- **Verdict:** a buyer with a multi-framework scope, or a need for DORA, NIS2, CPS 234 or CMMC, has more published evidence to test in Vanta's offer. A buyer after a first SOC 2 with hands-on help gets a clearer published service promise from Delve. Settle the rest in a written quote.

## How this comparison was built

We compared what each company publishes on its own site, checked 28 September 2026. The sources are Vanta's pricing page, Vanta's Delve comparison page and Delve's homepage, each captured that day. [1] [2] [3]

Three rules shaped the result:

1. **Company pages establish company statements only.** A claimed framework count, response time or customer total is what the company says. It isn't a measured result.
2. **Frameworks are counted from named links or list items,** not from a headline number. Vanta's dedicated frameworks page returned an error page when captured, so Vanta's list comes from the framework menu and footer on its pricing page.
3. **Prices come only from the companies.** Comparison pages from other compliance vendors publish estimates built on secondhand buyer data. [4] [5] We don't repeat them, because neither Vanta nor Delve stands behind them.

This is a comparison of published offers, not a ranking. Our [research standard](/methodology) sets out how sources are dated and cited.

## Vanta and Delve side by side

| Dimension | Vanta | Delve |
|---|---|---|
| Published plans | Essentials, Plus, Professional, Enterprise | None named |
| Published price | None | None |
| Route to a price | Demo for "personalized pricing" | Demo for "a customized proposal" |
| Frameworks named on captured pages | 18, plus custom frameworks | 11 (12 entries, with SOC 2 Type I and Type II listed separately), plus "+ more" |
| Framework count the company claims | 35+ | None stated |
| Integrations | "400+ tools" | No count published |
| Expert help | Essentials includes "access to expert partners for additional compliance services" | Free 1:1 Slack support and a free dedicated compliance expert |
| Buyer-facing trust page | Trust Center on Essentials; Advanced Trust Center on Professional | Free trust report |
| Questionnaire automation | 25 a year on Plus, 144 a year on Professional | Free security questionnaire autofill |
| Auditor network | "100+ trusted audit firms", described as AICPA peer-reviewed | Not stated on the homepage |

Sources: Vanta pricing page and Delve homepage, checked 28 September 2026; Vanta's framework claim, auditor figures and peer-review statement come from its Delve comparison page. [1] [2] [3]

## Which frameworks does each company publish?

Vanta names more frameworks. Its pricing page lists 18 by name, and a link to custom frameworks. [1] Delve's homepage lists 11 frameworks in its selection step and ends the list with "+ more". [2]

Nine appear on both: SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, HITRUST, ISO 42001, FedRAMP, the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. [1] [2] Delve describes SOC 2, first on both lists, as "the go-to security framework for B2B SaaS, required by most enterprise buyers". [2]

The gap sits in the more specialised frameworks. Vanta names USDP, CMMC, CJIS, NIS2, DORA, CPS 234, Essential Eight, Cyber Essentials and the Cyber Risk Institute profile. [1] None of those nine appears in Delve's captured framework lists. Delve publishes CMMC guides in its learning section, but a guide isn't a supported framework. [2]

Delve names two that Vanta's pricing-page list doesn't: PCI-DSS and CCPA. [2] Vanta's December 2025 comparison says Vanta supports both, so the omission is a menu choice, not a stated gap. [6]

Vanta's 35+ figure comes from its comparison page. [3] The 18 named on the pricing page are the part a buyer can check without a sales call. The rest sit behind an "additional frameworks" link we didn't capture.

The constraint is the framework your next buyer or regulator will ask for. If it's DORA, NIS2, CPS 234 or CMMC, only Vanta's published list names it. If it's SOC 2, ISO 27001 or HIPAA, both lists do.

## What does each company publish about pricing?

Neither publishes a price. Vanta's page says to "request a free demo today to discuss your business needs and get personalized pricing." [1] Delve's page says to "chat with our team directly and get a customized proposal tailored to you." [2]

What each does publish is the shape of the bill.

Vanta publishes a four-plan ladder with feature limits. [1]

- **Essentials** covers "one compliance framework", automated evidence collection, the Trust Center and an auditor API.
- **Plus** adds automated policy onboarding, access management and 25 AI-assisted questionnaires a year.
- **Professional** raises that to 144 questionnaires and adds risk management, an advanced Trust Center, custom monitoring tests and six customisable reports.
- **Enterprise** is a "fully customizable package".

The feature table also marks several items as add-ons. [1]

That structure tells a buyer where the price will move. A second framework, more questionnaires or risk reporting pushes a Vanta quote up a tier or into add-ons.

Delve publishes a bundle instead of a ladder. Five services carry a "FREE" label: white-glove onboarding, 1:1 Slack support, a dedicated compliance expert, a trust report and security questionnaire autofill. Two more, an advanced penetration test and vCISO support, appear without that label. [2] The page doesn't say whether those two cost extra, or which frameworks sit inside a base quote.

The economics differ in kind. Vanta prices a system whose scope grows by tier. Delve prices a service package whose contents are listed but whose limits aren't. Use one real scope to test both: the frameworks you need this year, your expected questionnaire volume and whether you need a penetration test. Confirm this in the current quote.

## How does each company deliver the work?

Vanta delivers through software and a partner network. Delve delivers through software plus its own experts.

Vanta's pricing page describes an "agentic trust platform" that pulls data from "400+ tools", with an AI agent for evidence checks, policy generation and remediation tracking. [1] Its comparison page says automated tests run hourly and cites "1400+ automated tests". [3] Its December 2025 page gives 1,300+ tests and later 1,200+. [6] Vanta's own figure moves between its pages, so treat any test count as a claim to confirm.

Human help at Vanta's entry tier runs through partners. Essentials includes "access to expert partners for additional compliance services". [1] Audits run through a network Vanta puts at "100+ trusted audit firms" and "20,000+ audits completed through Vanta". [3]

Delve says its AI agents automate "evidence collection, continuous monitoring, and security workflows". It describes agents that take screenshots, write reports and validate evidence. It says it scans infrastructure daily and checks every pull request for code security. [2]

Delve's page puts people at the centre of the offer. "We're a compliance partner, not a platform," it says, adding that its experts "respond in <5m" through 1:1 Slack support. [2] Its enterprise tier lists "1:1 support from MIT and Stanford AI engineers" and a computer-use agent for screenshot automation. [2]

The decision changes with who owns compliance inside the buying company. A team with a GRC owner can run Vanta's system and buy services as needed. A team without one is buying Delve's people as much as its software. That makes the named expert, their hours and their response commitment the terms to get in writing.

## Where do the published claims conflict?

They conflict on Delve's framework scope. On audit arrangements, the pages don't meet: Vanta makes claims about Delve, and Delve's homepage links its own posts answering what it calls misleading claims.

Vanta's December 2025 comparison says Delve supports "only six frameworks" and marks FedRAMP and CCPA as unsupported. [6] Delve's homepage menu does link six framework pages. Its selection step lists 11 frameworks, FedRAMP and CCPA among them. [2] Both statements can describe the same site. They measure different lists.

Vanta's comparison pages also make claims about Delve's auditor relationships. [6] We haven't verified them, and we don't repeat them. Delve's homepage links three of its own posts from March and April 2026: "Response to Misleading Claims", "Delve Announces Changes and New Customer Support Measures" and "Delve sets the record straight on anonymous attacks". [2]

A buyer can settle this without taking either side's word. Ask each company to name the audit firm it would put forward and confirm that firm's peer-review status directly. Read both companies' published statements before signing.

## Which offer suits which buyer?

The published evidence favours Vanta for breadth and Delve for hands-on service. Neither fit is proven by outcomes.

Vanta's published offer fits a company that expects to add frameworks, whose buyers or regulators ask for DORA, NIS2, CPS 234, Essential Eight or CMMC, or that wants plan limits it can read before the first call. Those five appear only on Vanta's named list, and its plan table shows which features cost a tier. [1]

Delve's published offer fits a company pursuing its first SOC 2, HIPAA or ISO 27001 audit without an internal compliance owner. Its homepage promises onboarding, a dedicated expert and Slack support as free parts of the package. [2] The terms that matter are the ones the page leaves open: framework limits, penetration-test pricing and the auditor.

Buyers weighing a third option can read our [Laika and Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide), another head-to-head in this category. Our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation) holds the rest.

## What the published pages cannot tell you

They can't tell you the price, the audit result or the service you'll get.

- **Price.** Both companies quote privately. [1] [2] Any figure outside a written quote is someone else's estimate.
- **Outcomes.** Delve's homepage claims "1,500+" customers and "8.7x faster audit preparation". Vanta's comparison page claims "16,000+" businesses. [2] [3] These are company-reported figures without a stated method.
- **Audit quality.** An automation system prepares evidence. The audit firm issues the report. Neither homepage lets a buyer assess the firm.
- **Change over time.** Vanta's test count differs across its own pages. [3] [6] Menus and bundles change without notice. Every figure here is dated 28 September 2026.

## Frequently asked questions

### How much does Vanta cost?

Vanta doesn't publish a price. Its pricing page names four plans (Essentials, Plus, Professional and Enterprise) and asks buyers to request a demo for "personalized pricing". [1] The plan limits show where cost rises: Essentials covers one framework, and questionnaire automation steps from 25 a year on Plus to 144 on Professional.

### How much does Delve cost?

Delve doesn't publish a price either. Its homepage offers "a customized proposal" after a demo. [2] It lists five services as free inside the package, including onboarding and a dedicated compliance expert. Penetration testing and vCISO support appear without a price or a "free" label, so ask whether they're in the quote.

### Does Delve support fewer frameworks than Vanta?

On the captured pages, yes. Vanta names 18 frameworks and claims 35+. [1] [3] Delve lists 11 and adds "+ more". [2] The nine shared frameworks include SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA and GDPR. The gap is in specialised frameworks such as DORA, NIS2 and CPS 234.

### Who are Vanta's main competitors besides Delve?

In a US Google search for "vanta vs delve" on 28 September 2026, the comparison pages ranking alongside Vanta's own came from Sprinto, ComplyJet, Cycore, G2 and Drata. Vanta's December 2025 comparison sets itself against Drata and Delve. [6] Our Laika and Vanta comparison covers another alternative in the category.

For new comparisons in this category, [subscribe to our research briefing](/subscribe). The full archive sits in [published research](/research).

## Source notes
1. Vanta: https://www.vanta.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Delve Technologies Inc.: https://www.delve.co/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Vanta: https://www.vanta.com/compare/delve (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Sprinto (compliance software company; competes with both subjects): https://sprinto.com/blog/delve-vs-vanta/ (checked September 28, 2026)
5. ComplyJet (compliance services company): https://www.complyjet.com/blog/delve-vs-vanta-2025 (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Vanta (Jess Munday, 16 December 2025): https://www.vanta.com/resources/vanta-vs-drata-vs-delve (checked September 28, 2026)

# Vanta vs Drata: Frameworks, Plans, Pricing (Sep 2026)

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/vanta-vs-drata
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: On vendor pages checked 28 September 2026, Drata names 32 frameworks and Vanta's footer names 18, with 13 in common.

On vendor pages checked 28 September 2026, Drata's frameworks page names 32 frameworks and Vanta's site footer names 18, with 13 on both lists. [1] [2] Both entry plans include one framework. Drata's Foundation plan limits that framework to SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA or GDPR and covers up to 50 FTEs. [3] Vanta's Essentials card states one framework and names no headcount limit. [1] Neither company publishes a price.

Both send buyers to personalised pricing, so the quote sets the cost.

## TL;DR

- Drata's page names 19 frameworks that Vanta's captured pages don't, including PCI DSS, ISO 27701, NIST 800 53 and NIST CSF 2.0. Vanta names five that Drata's page doesn't: USDP, CJIS, CPS 234, EU AI Act and CRI. [1] [2]
- Vanta's own comparison page claims 35+ frameworks, so its footer list is shorter than its headline figure by at least 17. [4]
- Drata publishes more plan detail. Its entry plan states which five frameworks qualify, a 50-FTE ceiling and an "Additional Frameworks" add-on on every GRC tier. [3] Vanta states a framework count only on Essentials. [1]
- Vanta sells one four-plan ladder that bundles a Trust Center and questionnaire automation. [1] Drata sells a GRC ladder and a separate Assurance ladder for its Trust Center and questionnaire work, plus a Third-Party Risk Management product. [3]
- Without a published price, compare written quotes that name the plan, the framework allowance and every add-on.

## How this comparison was built

The primary evidence is three vendor pages, each captured on 28 September 2026: Vanta's pricing page, Drata's frameworks page and Drata's plans page. Vanta's comparison page supplies Vanta's own headline framework figure. Our [research method](/methodology) sets the sourcing rules.

The compared field is a **named framework**: a framework with its own labelled link or card. Custom-framework and "request a framework" entries sit outside the counts. Vanta's "NIS2" and Drata's "NIS 2" count as one framework.

Vanta's address for a frameworks page returned a 404 page when captured. Vanta's names therefore come from the framework links in the navigation and footer of its pricing page. [1] The footer's "Additional frameworks" link leads to a page that wasn't captured, so Vanta's count is a floor.

Row counts: Vanta names 18 frameworks and Drata names 32. [1] [2] Together that's 37 distinct names: 13 on both pages, 5 only on Vanta's and 19 only on Drata's. Every figure here is a company statement about product coverage. None of it is an audit result.

| | Vanta | Drata |
|---|---|---|
| Frameworks named on captured pages | 18, plus custom frameworks and an "Additional frameworks" link [1] | 32, plus a custom framework and a request form [2] |
| Vendor's own headline figure | 35+ [4] | 30+ [2] |
| Published plan ladders | One: Essentials, Plus, Professional, Enterprise [1] | Two: GRC (Foundation, Advanced, Enterprise) and Assurance (Foundation, Advanced, Enterprise), plus Third-Party Risk Management [3] |
| Frameworks in the entry plan | One, on Essentials [1] | One pre-mapped framework, limited to SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA and GDPR [3] |
| Headcount limit on the entry plan | None stated [1] | Up to 50 FTEs [3] |
| Route to more frameworks | Higher plan cards state no framework count [1] | "Additional Frameworks" add-on on every GRC tier; Advanced lists "Any Available Framework" [3] |
| Published price | None: "personalized pricing" after a demo [1] | None: "Get Personalized Pricing" links to Contact Sales [3] |

Both products sit in our [compliance automation coverage](/categories/compliance-automation).

## Which frameworks do Vanta and Drata each list?

Both name the common security, privacy and AI frameworks, and Drata's page names more of the rest. [1] [2] The split looks like this:

| Group | Count | Frameworks |
|---|---|---|
| Named by both | 13 | SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, HITRUST, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, CMMC, NIS2, DORA, Essential Eight, Cyber Essentials, FedRAMP |
| Named by Vanta only | 5 | USDP, CJIS, CPS 234, EU AI Act, CRI |
| Named by Drata only | 19 | PCI DSS, TISAX, CCM, CIS, CCPA, ISO 27701, ISO 27017, ISO 27018, Microsoft SSPA, NIST 800 171, NIST 800 53, NIST CSF 2.0, NYDFS, FFIEC, COBIT, SOX ITGC, Cyber Fundamentals, CPS 230, AIUC-1 |

Vanta's names come from its footer links. [1] Drata's come from the cards in its frameworks grid. [2]

"Only" means named on one captured page. It doesn't mean the other product lacks the framework. Vanta's comparison page claims 35+ frameworks with cross-mapped evidence and puts Drata at about 30. [4] If Vanta's figure holds, at least 17 of its frameworks go unnamed in its footer. That's Vanta's claim about itself and its rival, and the captured pages can't confirm it.

Three of Drata's cards need a second look. FFIEC, COBIT and SOX ITGC link to Drata's demo page, while its other framework cards link to framework pages. [2] Treat those three as sales conversations until a framework page exists.

The CPS entries don't match. Vanta names CPS 234 and Drata names CPS 230. [1] [2] They're different standard numbers, so a buyer who needs one can't read the other as a match.

Both offer a way past the list. Vanta links to custom frameworks. [1] Drata describes its custom framework as a way to "Tailor to your unique customer, auditor, or internal needs", and it offers a form to request a new framework. [2]

Third-party summaries shrink these lists hard. Truvo Cyber's 18 September 2026 SOC 2 comparison lists four frameworks per product in its cross-framework row and names ISO 42001 only for Vanta. [5] Drata's own frameworks page lists ISO 42001 too. [2] Use the vendor pages for coverage and third-party pages for workflow opinion.

## How are Vanta's and Drata's plans structured?

Both ladders start with one framework. Drata splits its plans into a GRC ladder and an Assurance ladder, and it states framework and headcount limits. [3] Vanta runs one ladder and states a framework count only on its entry plan. [1]

Vanta's plan cards build on each other: [1]

- **Essentials** includes one compliance framework with an agentic policy generator, automated evidence collection, basic reporting and audit workflows, continuous controls monitoring, an Auditor API and a Trust Center.
- **Plus** adds automated policy onboarding, AI-powered questionnaire automation at 25 questionnaires per year, and access management.
- **Professional** adds questionnaire automation at 144 questionnaires per year, risk management with customisation, dashboard and reporting, an Advanced Trust Center, custom monitoring tests, automated access management and six customisable reports.
- **Enterprise** is a "Fully customizable package with advanced GRC needs".

Drata's GRC ladder sits under the heading Compliance Automation: [3]

- **Foundation** covers up to 50 FTEs and one pre-mapped framework, limited to SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA and GDPR. It includes pre-built integrations, Trust Center Standard, AI Questionnaire Assistance Standard, risk management, custom controls, compliance as code and Open API access. Additional frameworks and user access review are add-ons.
- **Advanced** adds "Any Available Framework", custom connections and tests, and custom fields and formulas. Additional frameworks, Risk Management Pro, workspaces and custom frameworks are add-ons.
- **Enterprise** adds Risk Management Pro, Compliance as Code Pro and user access review. Additional frameworks, workspaces, additional custom tests, custom frameworks and Agentic TPRM Assessment are add-ons.

Drata's Assurance ladder carries the Trust Center and AI questionnaire work. Foundation includes a branded Trust Center with up to 100 approved domains and questionnaire assistance for 10 questionnaires. Advanced adds SCIM, standard Salesforce and HubSpot integrations, and one Open API and one webhook connection. Enterprise makes API and webhook access unlimited and adds Microsoft Dynamics and data warehouse sync. [3] Third-Party Risk Management appears as its own product with its own capabilities list. [3]

The constraint is the framework line. On Drata, a second framework is an "Additional Frameworks" add-on at every GRC tier. [3] Advanced lists "Any Available Framework" and still lists that add-on, so read it as a wider choice of framework, not every framework included. On Vanta, Essentials states one framework and the three higher cards don't state a number. [1] A company that needs SOC 2 and ISO 27001 together can't tell from either page what the second framework costs.

The packaging also changes what a like-for-like quote looks like. Vanta puts a Trust Center in Essentials and questionnaire automation in Plus and Professional. [1] Drata's GRC Foundation includes standard versions of both, and its fuller Trust Center and questionnaire features sit in the separate Assurance ladder. [3] Matching Vanta's Professional plan may therefore mean pricing a Drata GRC tier and an Assurance tier together. Confirm this in the current quote.

Both feature tables resist a clean reading. Vanta's questionnaire row reads "25 per year included" with an "Optional upgrade to 144 per year", but the captured table doesn't show which plan column each tick or add-on label belongs to. [1] Its header also carries a fifth label, "Pro", beside Professional, though the cards show four plans. [1] Drata's table says its features "are not a comprehensive list of all solutions available". [3]

## Does Vanta or Drata publish a price?

No. Neither company published a price on the pages checked 28 September 2026. [1] [3]

Vanta's pricing page says: "Request a free demo today to discuss your business needs and get personalized pricing." [1] Drata's plans page puts a "Get Personalized Pricing" link to Contact Sales above its plans, and each plan's "Get Started" button links to Drata's demo page. [3] Its feature table notes: "For an exact breakdown, contact a Drata sales representative today." [3]

Third-party pages in the search results quote price estimates for both products. None is a vendor price, and none is used here.

A like-for-like price comparison can't be built from published material. Get both quotes in writing. Each should name the plan, the frameworks included, the headcount basis, the questionnaire allowance, the add-ons, the term, the currency and the tax treatment.

## How should a buyer use these published lists?

Start from the frameworks your customers and regulators require, not from either vendor's headline count.

1. Write down every framework you need now and in the next audit cycle.
2. Find each one in the framework table above.
3. For each framework named by one vendor only, ask the other in writing whether it's supported and on which plan.
4. On Drata, check whether your first framework is one of the five Foundation allows. [3]
5. On Vanta, ask how many frameworks your plan includes, because only Essentials states a number. [1]

Three worked cases show how the list changes the call.

A company of 40 people that needs SOC 2 alone fits the stated scope of both entry plans. Drata's Foundation allows SOC 2 and up to 50 FTEs, and Vanta's Essentials includes one framework. [3] [1] Framework coverage won't separate them, so the decision moves to workflow and quote.

A buyer that needs ISO 27001 and Essential Eight finds both named by both vendors. [1] [2] Essential Eight isn't one of the five frameworks Drata's Foundation allows, so on Drata that buyer is looking at Advanced or an add-on. [3] On Vanta, the second framework needs a written answer on plan and cost.

A buyer that needs PCI DSS finds it on Drata's frameworks page and not on Vanta's captured pages. [2] PCI DSS isn't on Drata's Foundation list either. [3] That buyer should get Vanta's support answer in writing before shortlisting it, and should price Drata above its entry plan.

Vanta also features in our [Laika and Vanta comparison](/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide), for readers weighing a third option.

## What this comparison cannot tell you

A named framework doesn't show the controls, tests or integrations behind it. Vanta's comparison page says it has 400+ integrations against Drata's 300+, and hourly tests against Drata's daily ones. [4] Those are Vanta's statements about a competitor, and this comparison doesn't test them.

The lists don't show whether an auditor will accept the evidence either product collects. They also change. Every count here holds for pages checked 28 September 2026, and Vanta's additional-frameworks page wasn't captured.

The plan pages don't fully reconcile either. Drata's Assurance Foundation card states questionnaire assistance for 10 questionnaires, while its feature table shows "Standard Up to 100" for questionnaire upload via the app. [3] The page doesn't say whether those count the same thing.

Price stays unknown until both vendors quote. More comparisons sit in our [published research](/research).

## Frequently asked questions

### How many frameworks do Vanta and Drata support?

Vanta claims 35+ on its comparison page, and Drata's frameworks page claims 30+. [4] [2] Drata's page names 32 individually. Vanta's footer names 18, plus custom frameworks and an additional-frameworks link. [2] [1] All of these are company statements.

### Does Vanta list PCI DSS?

Not on the Vanta pages captured 28 September 2026. Neither its header menu nor its footer names PCI DSS, while Drata's frameworks page does. [1] [2] Vanta's additional-frameworks page wasn't captured, so ask Vanta directly.

### Which frameworks can Drata's Foundation plan use?

Foundation includes one pre-mapped framework, limited to SOC 2, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials, HIPAA and GDPR. [3] Advanced lists "Any Available Framework", and additional frameworks are an add-on on every GRC tier. [3] Confirm in the quote which route applies to the framework you need.

### Can either tool handle a framework it doesn't list?

Both offer custom frameworks. [1] [2] Drata adds a form to request a new framework, and it lists custom frameworks as an add-on on its Advanced and Enterprise GRC plans. [2] [3] Neither vendor publishes a price for custom work, so put it in the quote. [1] [3]

## Source notes
1. Vanta pricing: Find your plan: https://www.vanta.com/pricing (checked September 28, 2026)
2. Drata frameworks: https://drata.com/frameworks (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Drata Plans and Pricing: https://drata.com/plans (checked September 28, 2026)
4. Vanta vs Drata (Vanta comparison page): https://www.vanta.com/compare/drata (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Drata vs Vanta for SOC 2 (2026 Comparison): https://truvocyber.com/blog/soc-2-audit-guide-drata-vanta (checked September 28, 2026)

# Wind farms in Australia by state: AEMO July 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/wind-farms-australia-by-state
Category: Electricity generation
Published: September 28, 2026
Revised: September 28, 2026
Verdict: Victoria operates the most NEM wind capacity, 5,480.9 MW in service (AEMO, 31 July 2026).

Victoria operates the most wind capacity in the National Electricity Market (NEM): 5,480.9 MW in service across 40 sites, according to AEMO's NEM Generation Information release of 31 July 2026. [1] Across the five NEM states, AEMO lists 269 wind sites with 133,691.3 MW of reported nameplate capacity, and 12,641.9 MW of that is in service. [1] Western Australia is outside the NEM release.

Most of the listed capacity exists only as publicly announced projects. The operating fleet is less than a tenth of everything AEMO lists.

## TL;DR

- Victoria leads on operating wind capacity with 5,480.9 MW in service, almost twice New South Wales (2,826.1 MW). South Australia (2,754.9 MW), Queensland (1,018.5 MW) and Tasmania (561.6 MW) follow. [1]
- Rank the states by everything AEMO lists and the order changes: Victoria 43,950.8 MW, New South Wales 42,734.5 MW, Queensland 34,408.8 MW, Tasmania 6,525.3 MW, South Australia 6,071.9 MW. [1]
- 9.5% of the NEM's listed wind capacity is in service. 84.1% carries AEMO's Publicly Announced status. [1]
- South Australia is the most built out, with 45.4% of its listed wind capacity in service. Queensland is the least, at 3.0%, but it has more capacity in commissioning (1,625.4 MW) than in service. [1]
- Seventeen sites named as offshore projects hold 32,452.2 MW, all Publicly Announced. Without them, Victoria would rank third on listed capacity. [1]
- Queensland lists the most wind capacity in sites not named as offshore. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Every figure in the state ranking and the site tables comes from one source, AEMO's NEM Generation Information release of 31 July 2026, under our published [research standard](/methodology). [1]

- **Source:** Australian Energy Market Operator, NEM Generation Information, July 2026, file `nem-generation-information-july-2026.xlsx`, sheet `Generator Information`. [1]
- **Field:** reported nameplate capacity, AEMO's **Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC)**. The unit is megawatts, alternating current. [1]
- **Inclusion:** every row with Technology Type = Wind, grouped by state. [1]
- **Merge:** generating-unit rows that share a site name and region are summed into one site, leaving 269 sites. [1]
- **Exclusion:** rows with the status Withdrawn. [1]
- **Status:** AEMO's own classes. In Service is operating capacity. In Commissioning, Committed, Anticipated and Publicly Announced are not yet in service. No wind site in the release carries Announced Withdrawal. [1]
- **Our arithmetic:** the per-state status splits are sums of AEMO's site figures. Publicly Announced is the state total less every other status. State figures can differ from the NEM total by 0.1 MW because of rounding.

AEMO records these capacities as registry figures. Nameplate capacity is the rating a site is registered at.

## Which state has the most wind capacity in service?

Victoria, with 5,480.9 MW in service across 40 sites. [1] The table ranks the five NEM states by that figure and splits the rest of each state's listed capacity by AEMO status.

| Rank | State | Sites (in service) | In service MW (AC) | In commissioning MW | Committed MW | Anticipated MW | Publicly announced MW | Total listed MW (AC) | Share in service |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Victoria | 79 (40) | 5,480.9 | 557 | 204.6 | 163.5 | 37,544.8 | 43,950.8 | 12.5% |
| 2 | New South Wales | 83 (20) | 2,826.1 | 0 | 414 | 1,697.4 | 37,797.0 | 42,734.5 | 6.6% |
| 3 | South Australia | 34 (25) | 2,754.9 | 0 | 256.2 | 600 | 2,460.8 | 6,071.9 | 45.4% |
| 4 | Queensland | 53 (6) | 1,018.5 | 1,625.4 | 754.4 | 2,359.5 | 28,651.1 | 34,408.8 | 3.0% |
| 5 | Tasmania | 20 (4) | 561.6 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 5,942.7 | 6,525.3 | 8.6% |
| | NEM total | 269 (95) | 12,641.9 | 2,182.4 | 1,629.2 | 4,841.4 | 112,396.5 | 133,691.3 | 9.5% |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, 31 July 2026; status splits and shares computed from AEMO's site figures. [1] Victoria's Committed figure is Delburn Wind Farm, which AEMO marks Committed\*. Boco Rock (New South Wales) and Wambo Wind Farm 1 (Queensland) are split across two statuses, as AEMO lists them.

The two rankings answer different questions. On operating capacity, South Australia sits third with 34 sites, because 25 of them are in service. On listed capacity it falls to fifth, since little of its capacity is still to come: 3,317.0 MW not yet in service, against 38,469.9 MW in Victoria and 39,908.4 MW in New South Wales. [1]

The largest single sites, by status:

- **Largest in service:** Golden Plains Wind Farm East, Victoria, 756.4 MW. [1]
- **Largest in commissioning:** MacIntyre Wind Farm, Queensland, 923.4 MW. [1]
- **Largest listed at any status:** Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm, Victoria, 3,000 MW, Publicly Announced. [1]
- **Largest not named as offshore:** Collinsville Green Energy Hub, Queensland, 2,839.2 MW, Publicly Announced. [1]

## How much of the planned wind capacity is offshore?

At least 32,452.2 MW across 17 sites, every one of them Publicly Announced. [1] That's 28.9% of the NEM's Publicly Announced wind capacity. The count uses a strict rule: a site qualifies only when its AEMO site name contains "Offshore" or "Off Shore".

| State | Sites named offshore | MW (AC) | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Victoria | 9 | 19,226 | Publicly Announced |
| New South Wales | 7 | 12,726.2 | Publicly Announced |
| Tasmania | 1 | 500 | Publicly Announced |
| South Australia | 0 | 0 | none |
| Queensland | 0 | 0 | none |

Source: site names and capacities from AEMO NEM Generation Information, 31 July 2026; sums computed. [1]

The rule undercounts. Orsted Gippsland 01 Windfarm (2,820.5 MW) has no offshore label in its site name, although AEMO records its owner as Orsted Offshore Australia 1 Pty Ltd. [1] It isn't in the total above.

The decision changes when offshore is set aside. Take the named offshore sites out and Victoria lists 24,724.8 MW, New South Wales 30,008.3 MW and Queensland 34,408.8 MW. Victoria's lead in listed capacity rests on offshore projects that haven't reached Committed status, while its lead in operating capacity is onshore.

## Which wind farms operate and are planned in Victoria?

Victoria has 79 wind sites in the release. Forty are in service, with 5,480.9 MW. The other 39 hold 38,469.9 MW that isn't in service yet. [1]

Golden Plains is the anchor: the eastern stage is the NEM's largest wind site in service at 756.4 MW, and its western stage (557 MW) is in commissioning. [1] The developer places the project west, south and south-west of Rokewood, about 60 km north-west of Geelong, and quotes an installed capacity of 1,330 MW for the whole project. [2] Stockyard Hill, the state's second-largest operating site at 527.6 MW, sits about 150 km west of Melbourne. [1] [3] The smallest operating site is Leonards Hill at 4.1 MW. [1]

| # | Site | AEMO status | Nameplate MW (AC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 3,000 |
| 2 | Deal 1 (West) Off Shore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 2,970 |
| 3 | Deal 2 (East) Off Shore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 2,968 |
| 4 | Orsted Gippsland 01 Windfarm | Publicly Announced | 2,820.5 |
| 5 | Great Eastern Offshore Wind - KCI | Publicly Announced | 2,508 |
| 6 | Star of the South Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 2,205 |
| 7 | Gippsland Dawn Offshore Wind Project | Publicly Announced | 2,100 |
| 8 | Blue Mackerel North Off Shore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,819 |
| 9 | Warracknabeal Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,642.5 |
| 10 | Greater Southern Offshore Wind - KCI | Publicly Announced | 1,500 |
| 11 | Meering West Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,500 |
| 12 | High Sea Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,281 |
| 13 | Spinifex Offshore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,206 |
| 14 | Southern Winds Offshore Wind | Publicly Announced | 1,155 |
| 15 | Boort Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,000 |
| 16 | Coleraine Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 1,000 |
| 17 | Western Tables Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 1,000 |
| 18 | Strathbogie Ranges Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 800 |
| 19 | Golden Plains Wind Farm East | In Service | 756.4 |
| 20 | Hexham | Publicly Announced | 720.8 |
| 21 | Kentbruck Green Power Hub | Publicly Announced | 600 |
| 22 | Golden Plains Wind Farm West | In Commissioning | 557 |
| 23 | Mount Fyans Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 550.8 |
| 24 | Stockyard Hill Wind Farm | In Service | 527.6 |
| 25 | Macarthur Wind Farm | In Service | 420 |
| 26 | Moreton Hill Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 387.6 |
| 27 | Willatook | Publicly Announced | 374.4 |
| 28 | Tall Tree Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 342 |
| 29 | Dundonnell Wind Farm | In Service | 336 |
| 30 | Darlington Wind Farm - GPG | Publicly Announced | 324 |
| 31 | Moorabool Wind Farm | In Service | 312 |
| 32 | Wimmera Plains Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 312 |
| 33 | Watta Wella Power Station | Publicly Announced | 306 |
| 34 | Nyaninyuk Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 302.1 |
| 35 | Berrybank Wind Farm | In Service | 289.8 |
| 36 | Ararat Wind Farm | In Service | 240 |
| 37 | Koyuga Nanneella Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 234 |
| 38 | Murra Warra Wind Farm - stage 1 | In Service | 225.7 |
| 39 | Ryan Corner Wind Farm | In Service | 218.4 |
| 40 | Murra Warra Wind Farm - stage 2 | In Service | 209 |
| 41 | Delburn Wind Farm | Committed* | 204.6 |
| 42 | Bulgana Green Power Hub - Wind Farm | In Service | 200.8 |
| 43 | Waubra | In Service | 192 |
| 44 | Wimmera Plains Energy Facility | Publicly Announced | 177.9 |
| 45 | Mortlake South Wind Farm | In Service | 157.5 |
| 46 | Portland Wind Farm | In Service | 151.7 |
| 47 | Yendon Wind Farm | In Service | 144.4 |
| 48 | Mt Gellibrand Wind Farm | In Service | 138.6 |
| 49 | Mt Mercer Wind Farm | In Service | 131.2 |
| 50 | Wimmera Plains Energy Facility Stage 2 - KCI | Publicly Announced | 130 |
| 51 | Alberton Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 122.4 |
| 52 | Normanville Energy Park | Publicly Announced | 122.4 |
| 53 | Bald Hills Wind Farm | In Service | 106.6 |
| 54 | Hawkesdale Wind Farm | In Service | 96.6 |
| 55 | Inverleigh Wind Farm | Anticipated | 91.5 |
| 56 | Elaine Wind Farm | In Service | 83.6 |
| 57 | Crowlands Wind Farm | In Service | 80 |
| 58 | Woolsthorpe Wind Farm | Anticipated | 72 |
| 59 | Oaklands Hill Wind Farm | In Service | 67.2 |
| 60 | Cherry Tree Wind Farm | In Service | 57.6 |
| 61 | Salt Creek Wind Farm | In Service | 54 |
| 62 | Challicum Hills | In Service | 52.5 |
| 63 | Rifle Butts Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 40 |
| 64 | Kiata Wind Farm | In Service | 31.1 |
| 65 | Yambuk | In Service | 30 |
| 66 | Yaloak South Wind Farm | In Service | 28.7 |
| 67 | Wombelano Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 23.4 |
| 68 | Toora | In Service | 21 |
| 69 | Coonooer Bridge Wind Farm | In Service | 19.8 |
| 70 | Mortons Lane Wind Farm | In Service | 19.5 |
| 71 | Codrington Wind Farm | In Service | 18.2 |
| 72 | Ferguson Wind Farm | In Service | 12 |
| 73 | Wonthaggi Wind Farm | In Service | 12 |
| 74 | Diapur Wind Farm | In Service | 8 |
| 75 | Timboon West Wind Farm | In Service | 7.2 |
| 76 | Yawong Wind Farm | In Service | 7.2 |
| 77 | Maroona Wind Farm | In Service | 6.9 |
| 78 | Chepstowe Wind Farm - VIC | In Service | 6.2 |
| 79 | Leonards Hill | In Service | 4.1 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, 31 July 2026, Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC). [1]

## Which wind farms operate and are planned in New South Wales?

New South Wales has 83 wind sites in the release, more than any other state. Twenty are in service, with 2,826.1 MW. The other 63 hold 39,908.4 MW, the largest not-yet-in-service total in the NEM. [1]

The operating fleet is made of mid-sized sites. The largest is Rye Park at 396 MW, and no New South Wales wind site is in commissioning. [1] One site is Committed (Uungula, 414 MW) and four are Anticipated, led by Valley of the Winds at 936 MW. [1] Seven offshore-named sites account for 12,726.2 MW of the Publicly Announced total. Bango, which AEMO lists as two sites (Bango 973 at 159 MW and Bango 999 at 84.8 MW), is in the Southern Tablelands. [1] [3]

Five site names in this state mention a battery (BESS). The figures here are the release's wind rows only. Battery capacity is a separate question, covered in our ranking of the [largest battery storage sites in Australia](/post/largest-battery-storage-sites-australia), which draws on AEMO Generation Information.

| # | Site | AEMO status | Nameplate MW (AC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eden Offshore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 2,000 |
| 2 | Illawarra Offshore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 2,000 |
| 3 | Novocastrian Offshore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 2,000 |
| 4 | Ulladulla Offshore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 2,000 |
| 5 | Eastern Rise Offshore Wind | Publicly Announced | 1,725 |
| 6 | South Pacific Offshore Wind Project | Publicly Announced | 1,601.2 |
| 7 | Yanco Delta Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,497.6 |
| 8 | Hunter Central Coast Offshore Energy (Wind) | Publicly Announced | 1,400 |
| 9 | Liverpool Range Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,332 |
| 10 | Pottinger Energy Park - Wind - KCI | Publicly Announced | 1,300 |
| 11 | The Plains | Publicly Announced | 1,224 |
| 12 | Lake Victoria Energy Park - KCI | Publicly Announced | 1,087.5 |
| 13 | Baldon Wind Farm Stage 2 | Publicly Announced | 1,040 |
| 14 | Valley of the Winds | Anticipated | 936 |
| 15 | Argoon Wind Farm (RES Group) - KCI | Publicly Announced | 763.2 |
| 16 | Dinawan Energy Hub | Publicly Announced | 756 |
| 17 | Skye Ridge Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 750.2 |
| 18 | Winterbourne Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 731.6 |
| 19 | Bendenine | Publicly Announced | 720 |
| 20 | Spicers Creek Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 702 |
| 21 | Devlins Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 662.7 |
| 22 | Hargraves Energy Project - Wind Solar And BESS | Publicly Announced | 600 |
| 23 | Junction Rivers Wind And BESS | Publicly Announced | 595.2 |
| 24 | Piambong Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 583.2 |
| 25 | Mallee Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 547.2 |
| 26 | Gol Gol Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 499.7 |
| 27 | Bookham WF and BESS | Publicly Announced | 480 |
| 28 | Ben Bullen Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 460.8 |
| 29 | Burrendong Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 434 |
| 30 | Milpulling Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 432 |
| 31 | Hills of Gold Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 420 |
| 32 | Uungula Wind Farm | Committed | 414 |
| 33 | Hargraves BESS | Publicly Announced | 407 |
| 34 | Tchelery Wind Farm and BESS | Publicly Announced | 403.2 |
| 35 | Hargaves Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 400 |
| 36 | Kings Plain Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 399.6 |
| 37 | Central Para Wind Farm (KCI) | Publicly Announced | 399 |
| 38 | Kerrs Creek Wind Farm | Anticipated | 396 |
| 39 | Rye Park Wind Farm | In Service | 396 |
| 40 | Bendemeer Renewable Energy Hub - Wind | Publicly Announced | 380 |
| 41 | Baldon Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 360 |
| 42 | Bowmans Creek Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 346.6 |
| 43 | Euston Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 330 |
| 44 | Ilford Green Energy Hub | Publicly Announced | 322 |
| 45 | Bullawah Wind Farm – Stage 1 | Publicly Announced | 312 |
| 46 | Koorakee Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 300 |
| 47 | Coppabella Hybrid Generator | Anticipated | 289.8 |
| 48 | Jeremiah Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 288 |
| 49 | Paling Yards Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 286.7 |
| 50 | Bullawah Wind Farm Stage 2 | Publicly Announced | 276 |
| 51 | Sapphire Wind Farm | In Service | 270 |
| 52 | Coonerang Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 264 |
| 53 | Ruby Hills North Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 248 |
| 54 | Burroway Energy Hub | Publicly Announced | 241.8 |
| 55 | Collector | In Service | 226.8 |
| 56 | Wallaby Creek Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 216.6 |
| 57 | White Rock Wind Farm - Stage 2 | Publicly Announced | 211.5 |
| 58 | Thunderbolt Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 210 |
| 59 | Aquila Wind | Publicly Announced | 201.6 |
| 60 | Silverton Wind Farm | In Service | 198.9 |
| 61 | Boco Rock Wind Farm | In Service 113; Publicly Announced 79.5 | 192.5 |
| 62 | White Rock Wind Farm - Stage 1 | In Service | 175 |
| 63 | Gullen Range Wind Farm | In Service | 165.5 |
| 64 | Bango 973 Wind Farm | In Service | 159 |
| 65 | Flyers Creek Wind Farm | In Service | 145.5 |
| 66 | Mount Lambie Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 144 |
| 67 | Crudine Ridge Wind Farm | In Service | 141.7 |
| 68 | Capital Wind Farm | In Service | 140.7 |
| 69 | Capital 2 Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 134.4 |
| 70 | Conargo Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 130 |
| 71 | Elderbury Creek Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 122.4 |
| 72 | Bodangora Wind Farm | In Service | 113.2 |
| 73 | Gullen Range Wind Farm 2 | In Service | 110.7 |
| 74 | Taralga Wind Farm | In Service | 106.8 |
| 75 | Crookwell 2 Wind Farm | In Service | 96 |
| 76 | Bango 999 Wind Farm | In Service | 84.8 |
| 77 | Upper Hunter Energy Park - Wind | Anticipated | 75.6 |
| 78 | Crookwell 3 Wind Farm | In Service | 57.6 |
| 79 | Woodlawn Wind Farm | In Service | 48.3 |
| 80 | Gunning Wind Farm | In Service | 46.5 |
| 81 | Conroys Gap WF - KCI | Publicly Announced | 30 |
| 82 | Cullerin Range Wind Farm | In Service | 30 |
| 83 | Northern Tablelands Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 8 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, 31 July 2026, Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC). [1]

## Which wind farms operate and are planned in South Australia?

South Australia has 34 wind sites in the release. Twenty-five are in service, with 2,754.9 MW, and the other nine hold 3,317.0 MW. [1] Nearly three in four of its listed sites already operate, the highest share in the NEM.

AEMO lists several South Australian farms as separate stages, which is why the site count runs high for the capacity. Hornsdale appears as three sites (112 MW, 102.4 MW and 102.4 MW), Hallett as four and Lincoln Gap as three, the third of them Publicly Announced. [1] The largest operating site is Snowtown S2 at 270 MW. Few projects wait behind the operating fleet: one Committed site (Carmodys Hill, 256.2 MW), one Anticipated (Goyder North, 600 MW) and seven Publicly Announced, led by Nonowie at 1,015 MW. [1]

| # | Site | AEMO status | Nameplate MW (AC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nonowie Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,015 |
| 2 | Goyder North Wind Farm | Anticipated | 600 |
| 3 | Hughes Gap WF - KCI | Publicly Announced | 300 |
| 4 | Whyte Yarcowie | Publicly Announced | 288.6 |
| 5 | Lincoln Gap Wind Farm stage 3 | Publicly Announced | 277.2 |
| 6 | Palmer Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 274 |
| 7 | Snowtown S2 Wind Farm | In Service | 270 |
| 8 | Carmodys Hill Wind Farm | Committed | 256.2 |
| 9 | Goyder South Wind Farm 1A | In Service | 209 |
| 10 | Goyder South Wind Farm 1B | In Service | 203.5 |
| 11 | Port Augusta Renewable Energy Park - Wind | In Service | 201 |
| 12 | Barn Hill | Publicly Announced | 186 |
| 13 | Lake Bonney 2 Wind Farm | In Service | 159 |
| 14 | Hallett 4 North Brown Hill | In Service | 132.3 |
| 15 | Waterloo Wind Farm | In Service | 130.8 |
| 16 | Lincoln Gap Wind Farm - stage 1 | In Service | 126 |
| 17 | Willogoleche Wind Farm | In Service | 122.6 |
| 18 | Willogoleche Wind Farm 2 | Publicly Announced | 120 |
| 19 | Hornsdale Wind Farm Stage 3 | In Service | 112 |
| 20 | Hornsdale Wind Farm Stage 1 | In Service | 102.4 |
| 21 | Hornsdale Wind Farm Stage 2 | In Service | 102.4 |
| 22 | Snowtown Wind Farm | In Service | 98.7 |
| 23 | Hallett Stage 1 Brown Hill | In Service | 94.5 |
| 24 | Wattle Point | In Service | 90.8 |
| 25 | Lincoln Gap Wind Farm - Stage 2 | In Service | 86.4 |
| 26 | Lake Bonney 1 Wind Farm | In Service | 80.5 |
| 27 | Mt Millar Wind Farm | In Service | 72.5 |
| 28 | Hallett Stage 2 Hallett Hill | In Service | 71.4 |
| 29 | Cathedral Rocks | In Service | 62 |
| 30 | Clements Gap Wind Farm | In Service | 56.7 |
| 31 | Hallett 5 The Bluff WF | In Service | 52.5 |
| 32 | Canunda | In Service | 46 |
| 33 | Lake Bonney 3 Wind Farm | In Service | 39 |
| 34 | Starfish Hill | In Service | 33 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, 31 July 2026, Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC). [1]

## Which wind farms operate and are planned in Queensland?

Queensland has 53 wind sites in the release. Six are in service, with 1,018.5 MW, and the other 47 hold 33,390.3 MW. [1] That's the lowest in-service share of any NEM state, at 3.0%.

Queensland's gap is timing: it has 1,625.4 MW in commissioning across MacIntyre (923.4 MW), Clarke Creek (450 MW) and part of Wambo Wind Farm 1 (252 MW), which is more than its whole operating fleet. [1] Another 754.4 MW is Committed and 2,359.5 MW Anticipated. The largest operating site is Coopers Gap at 452.9 MW. The largest listed site is Collinsville Green Energy Hub at 2,839.2 MW, Publicly Announced. None of Queensland's sites is named as offshore. [1]

| # | Site | AEMO status | Nameplate MW (AC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Collinsville Green Energy Hub | Publicly Announced | 2,839.2 |
| 2 | Prairie WF and Wongalee WF | Publicly Announced | 2,000 |
| 3 | Tara Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 1,800 |
| 4 | Pikedale Wind Farm (KCI) | Publicly Announced | 1,500 |
| 5 | Forest Wind | Publicly Announced | 1,200 |
| 6 | Gemfields Integrated Facility - Wind And Solar | Publicly Announced | 1,200 |
| 7 | Boomber Green Energy Hub | Publicly Announced | 1,185.6 |
| 8 | Bungaban Wind Farm | Anticipated | 1,155 |
| 9 | Theodore Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,054 |
| 10 | Kariboe Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 1,020 |
| 11 | Karma Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 966 |
| 12 | Marmadua Wind Farm (KCI) | Publicly Announced | 950 |
| 13 | MacIntyre Wind Farm | In Commissioning | 923.4 |
| 14 | Herries Range Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 897.6 |
| 15 | Cattle Creek Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 850 |
| 16 | Nemaroo Bimbi Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 800 |
| 17 | Harrami Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 799.2 |
| 18 | Springlands Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 798.6 |
| 19 | Middle Creek Renewable Energy Hub - Wind | Publicly Announced | 750 |
| 20 | Clarke Creek Wind Farm Stage 2 | Publicly Announced | 696 |
| 21 | Goombi Renewable Energy Hub | Publicly Announced | 663.4 |
| 22 | Bogandilla Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 663 |
| 23 | Jackson North Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 613.8 |
| 24 | Dawson Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 560 |
| 25 | Magnetite Energy Hub | Publicly Announced | 504 |
| 26 | Wambo Wind Farm 1 | In Commissioning 252; Committed 248 | 500 |
| 27 | Bunkers Hill Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 499.2 |
| 28 | Coopers Gap Wind Farm | In Service | 452.9 |
| 29 | Clarke Creek Wind Farm | In Commissioning | 450 |
| 30 | Tarong West Wind Farm (Ironleaf) | Anticipated | 436.5 |
| 31 | Callide Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 421.6 |
| 32 | Gawara Baya Wind And BESS | Anticipated | 408 |
| 33 | Stony Creek Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 400 |
| 34 | Mount Hopeful Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 370 |
| 35 | Burrenbring Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 360 |
| 36 | Moah Creek Wind Farm | Anticipated | 360 |
| 37 | Specimen Hill Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 336 |
| 38 | Wooroora Station Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 322.4 |
| 39 | Mt Fox Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 291.4 |
| 40 | Lotus Creek Wind Farm | Committed | 285.2 |
| 41 | Banana Range Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 273 |
| 42 | Millmerran Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 252 |
| 43 | Boulder Creek Wind Farm | Committed | 221.2 |
| 44 | Captains Mountain Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 217 |
| 45 | Mt Challenger Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 216 |
| 46 | Mount Emerald | In Service | 180.7 |
| 47 | Dulacca Wind Farm | In Service | 172.9 |
| 48 | Forsayth Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 165 |
| 49 | Kaban Wind Farm | In Service | 156.8 |
| 50 | Dugald River Wind Faarm | Publicly Announced | 144 |
| 51 | Lakeland Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 73.1 |
| 52 | Kennedy Energy Park | In Service | 43.2 |
| 53 | Windy Hill | In Service | 12 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, 31 July 2026, Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC). [1]

## Which wind farms operate and are planned in Tasmania?

Tasmania has 20 wind sites in the release. Four are in service, with 561.6 MW, and the other 16 hold 5,963.7 MW. [1]

The operating four are Musselroe (168 MW), Cattle Hill (144 MW), Woolnorth Studland Bay / Bluff Point (138 MW) and Granville Harbour (111.6 MW). [1] The other 16 are Publicly Announced, apart from Port Latta (21 MW), which is Anticipated. Nothing is Committed or in commissioning. The largest listed site is North East Wind - KCI at 1,288.8 MW. The Bass Offshore Wind Energy Project (500 MW) is the state's one offshore-named site. [1]

| # | Site | AEMO status | Nameplate MW (AC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | North East Wind - KCI | Publicly Announced | 1,288.8 |
| 2 | Robbins Island Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 928.8 |
| 3 | Guildford Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 525.6 |
| 4 | Bass Offshore Wind Energy Project | Publicly Announced | 500 |
| 5 | Bashan 1 Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 460.2 |
| 6 | Hollow Tree Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 421.2 |
| 7 | Cellars Hill Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 400 |
| 8 | St Patricks Plains Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 291.4 |
| 9 | Whaleback Ridge Wind Farm - KCI | Publicly Announced | 288 |
| 10 | George Town Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 232 |
| 11 | Bellbay Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 227.9 |
| 12 | Musselroe Wind Farm | In Service | 168 |
| 13 | Hellyer Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 155 |
| 14 | Derwent Valley Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 150 |
| 15 | Cattle Hill Wind Farm | In Service | 144 |
| 16 | Woolnorth Studland Bay / Bluff Point | In Service | 138 |
| 17 | Granville Harbour Wind Farm | In Service | 111.6 |
| 18 | Western Plains Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 50.4 |
| 19 | Triabunna Wind Farm | Publicly Announced | 23.4 |
| 20 | Port Latta Wind Farm | Anticipated | 21 |

Source: AEMO NEM Generation Information, 31 July 2026, Aggregated Nameplate Capacity (MW AC). [1]

## Why do other published wind farm figures disagree?

Because they count different things: farms instead of AEMO sites, different size thresholds, different dates and a different geography.

- **Stages and sites.** AEMO lists many farms as several sites. Beca gives Lincoln Gap as 212 MW; AEMO lists stage 1 (126 MW) and stage 2 (86.4 MW) in service, which sum to 212.4 MW, plus a third stage Publicly Announced. [3] [1] Wikipedia gives the Hallett Group as 351 MW; AEMO's four in-service Hallett sites sum to 350.7 MW. [4] [1]
- **Whole projects against stages.** The Golden Plains developer quotes 1,330 MW installed capacity. [2] AEMO lists the eastern stage at 756.4 MW in service and the western stage at 557 MW in commissioning, 1,313.4 MW together. [1]
- **Size thresholds.** Wikipedia's list covers farms of more than 50 MW, and RenewEconomy's map covers projects of 10 MW or above. [4] [5] The AEMO release includes sites below both, down to Leonards Hill at 4.1 MW. [1]
- **Dates.** ARENA's page says there were 94 wind farms in Australia at the end of 2018, delivering nearly 16 GW. [6] That figure is Australia-wide, eight years old and doesn't name its field, so it can't be reconciled with this release. Wikipedia still lists Rye Park and Goyder South 1A and 1B as under construction, and flags itself as incomplete since April 2023. [4] AEMO records all three as In Service. [1]
- **Rounding.** Beca puts Stockyard Hill at 530 MW and Bango at 244 MW. [3] AEMO lists 527.6 MW, and 243.8 MW across the two Bango sites. [1]
- **Names.** RenewEconomy's map lists a Biala wind farm in New South Wales. [5] AEMO has no site by that name: it records the Biala Wind Farm units under the site Gullen Range Wind Farm 2, 110.67 MW in service. [1]

Beca says around 90 wind farms operate in Australia, with around another 200 planned or under construction. [3] AEMO has 95 wind sites in service in the NEM and 174 that aren't. [1] The numbers look close, but Beca counts farms nationally and AEMO counts NEM sites, so they measure different units.

## What the ranking cannot tell you

- **Output.** Nameplate capacity is a rating. The release carries no generation figure for any site.
- **Exact location.** The release groups sites by state. Any more precise location given for a farm comes from the developer or a third party.
- **Timing and certainty.** A Publicly Announced site has no build date in these figures. The status says where AEMO has classified a project, not whether it will be built. AEMO's status names appear unchanged, and the release doesn't explain the asterisk on Delburn's Committed status.
- **Change since the last release.** The July 2026 figures stand alone here. Glamdring's [ranking of the largest wind farms](/post/largest-wind-farms-australia) compares them with April 2026.
- **Batteries.** Several site names mention a battery (BESS), and one New South Wales site, Hargraves BESS, sits in the wind rows at 407 MW. We've kept every figure as AEMO lists it. Battery capacity belongs to the [energy storage research field](/categories/energy-storage).
- **Western Australia.** Western Australia is outside the NEM release, so every total here is a NEM total, not a national one.

The next AEMO Generation Information release will move these figures. [Subscribe to the Glamdring briefing](/subscribe) to get the refreshed state tables.

## Frequently asked questions

### How many wind farms are there in Australia?

In the NEM, AEMO's 31 July 2026 release lists 269 wind sites, 95 of them in service. [1] That isn't a national farm count. Western Australia is outside the NEM release, and AEMO lists some farms as several stages, so the NEM holds fewer farms than sites. Beca puts the national figure at around 90 operating wind farms, with around another 200 planned or under construction. [3]

### What are the largest wind farms in Australia?

In service, the largest are Golden Plains Wind Farm East (756.4 MW), Stockyard Hill (527.6 MW), Coopers Gap (452.9 MW), Macarthur (420 MW) and Rye Park (396 MW), all by AEMO's reported nameplate capacity at 31 July 2026. [1] MacIntyre in Queensland is larger at 923.4 MW but is still in commissioning. The largest listed project at any status is Seaspray Off Shore Wind Farm in Victoria at 3,000 MW, which is Publicly Announced. [1]

### Why is Western Australia missing from AEMO's wind list?

Western Australia is outside the NEM release, though the state has wind farms: Wikipedia lists Collgar (222 MW), Walkaway (90 MW), Emu Downs (80 MW) and Mumbida (55 MW), and RenewEconomy's map includes Western Australian sites such as Albany and Badgingarra. [4] [5] Those figures come from different sources, so they can't be added to AEMO's NEM totals on a like-for-like basis.

## Source notes
1. NEM Generation Information, July 2026 (Generator Information sheet): https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information (checked September 28, 2026)
2. About Golden Plains Wind Farm: https://goldenplainswindfarm.com.au/about-golden-plains-wind-farm/ (checked September 28, 2026)
3. Wind Farms in Australia: https://www.beca.com/what-we-do/projects/power-and-energy/mt-mercer-wind-farm (checked September 28, 2026)
4. List of wind farms in Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Australia (checked September 28, 2026)
5. Large Scale Wind Farm Map of Australia: https://reneweconomy.com.au/large-scale-wind-farm-map-of-australia/ (checked September 28, 2026)
6. Wind energy: https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/wind/ (checked September 28, 2026)

# Australia's largest battery storage sites: AEMO July 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/largest-battery-storage-sites-australia
Category: Energy storage
Published: September 26, 2026
Revised: September 26, 2026
Verdict: Birriwa BESS reports the most storage on AEMO's register at 1,840 MWh, but it is only announced. The largest battery in service is Western Downs at 1,019.2 MWh. Take capacity from the release and build status from the status column.

Australia's largest registered battery storage site is Birriwa BESS in New South Wales, at 1,840 megawatt hours of reported nameplate storage capacity in the AEMO Generation Information July 2026 release. AEMO classes it as publicly announced, and only one entry in the top 20 carries the in-service class: Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2 in Queensland, sixth on the list at 1,019.2 MWh. [1] Every ranked figure below comes from that one release. It sits in our [energy storage](/categories/energy-storage) research.

## TL;DR

- Ranked by reported capacity, the largest entries sit above the built fleet. 51 of the 580 sites report 799.3 MWh or more, and one of the top 20 is in service. [1]
- Every row is a battery storage unit. Some are registered under the wind farm, solar farm or water treatment plant they sit beside, so a site name is not a technology. [1]
- 251 of the 580 rows report zero, which makes a registration and a stated capacity two different things. [1]
- Published figures for the same site disagree because they mix power ratings with energy figures, project totals with single connection points, and dates. [2] [3]
- Take the capacity from the release and the build status from the status column or the operator. [1]

## What does the AEMO Generation Information release record?

The AEMO Generation Information July 2026 release records the storage capacity reported for each registered generator in the National Electricity Market, in a field named **Agg Nameplate Storage Capacity (MWh)**. [1] Glamdring extracted every row on the Generator Information sheet whose technology type is battery storage: 619 unit rows. Units that share a site name and region were summed into one site, giving 588 sites. Eight have no site owner recorded and are left out, which leaves 580. [1] 329 of them report a capacity above zero and 251 report zero. [1] The field reports a capacity and does not measure one. [1]

Generation Information sits inside AEMO's forecasting and planning data, and the storage column is one field in a register that also covers generation. Each row carries a region code, NSW1 for Birriwa BESS and QLD1 for Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2. [1]

## How this ranking was built

Glamdring Research sorted the 580 sites by Agg Nameplate Storage Capacity (MWh), highest first, and kept the extract's order where two figures tie. [1] The table below shows the 25 largest. Beyond summing the units at one site, no figure was converted or adjusted, so a project registered under four site names still appears four times. [1] Our [methodology](/methodology) sets that rule: publish the field as it stands, then name what it leaves out.

A rank here is a rank on a reported figure, and the extract gives no grouping key. Goyder BESS and Goyder BESS Stage 2 both report 800.9 MWh. The Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub appears as Side B, Connection A3, Connection A1 and Connection A2. Summerfield BESS and Summerfield North are separate rows at 1,065.4 MWh and 940 MWh. A reader who wants one line per project has to group those rows, and the release does not say whether a repeated figure describes one site at two stages or two separate projects. [1]

## Which battery storage sites are largest, on the 31 July 2026 release?

Birriwa BESS leads at 1,840 MWh, and Glamdring Research ranked the 25 largest entries in the release across four states: South Australia and Victoria hold seven each, New South Wales six and Queensland five. [1] The release itself is not ranked. The order is Glamdring's sort on reported capacity.

| # | Site | State | Status | Reported MWh |
|---:|---|---|---|---:|
| 1 | Birriwa BESS | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 1,840 |
| 2 | Lockyer Valley Energy Project | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 1,600 |
| 3 | Armidale BESS | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 1,550 |
| 4 | Nebo BESS | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 1,200 |
| 5 | Summerfield BESS | South Australia | Committed* | 1,065.4 |
| 6 | Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2 | Queensland | In Service | 1,019.2 |
| 7 | Mt Piper BESS | New South Wales | Anticipated | 999.9 |
| 8 | Joel Joel BESS | Victoria | Anticipated | 999.7 |
| 9 | MegaLink BESS | South Australia | Publicly Announced | 999.7 |
| 10 | Holloway - Battery | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 999.6 |
| 11 | Opal BESS | South Australia | Publicly Announced | 999.6 |
| 12 | Kerang Battery Plant | Victoria | Publicly Announced | 979.2 |
| 13 | Romani Standalone BESS | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 960 |
| 14 | Summerfield North | South Australia | Publicly Announced | 940 |
| 15 | Cooba Solar Farm - KCI | Victoria | Publicly Announced | 912 |
| 16 | The Block BESS | Queensland | Publicly Announced | 885.1 |
| 17 | Kiamal BESS | Victoria | Publicly Announced | 880 |
| 18 | Romani Solar Farm | New South Wales | Publicly Announced | 864 |
| 19 | Lower Wonga Solar Farm and BESS | Queensland | Committed | 843 |
| 20 | North Yarragon BESS - KCI | Victoria | Publicly Announced | 840 |
| 21 | Goyder BESS | South Australia | Anticipated | 800.9 |
| 22 | Goyder BESS Stage 2 | South Australia | Anticipated | 800.9 |
| 23 | Koolunga Battery Energy Storage System | South Australia | Publicly Announced | 800.8 |
| 24 | Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub - Side B | Victoria | Publicly Announced | 800.8 |
| 25 | Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub Connection A3 | Victoria | In Service | 800.8 |

Every row in the table comes from the same release and the same field. [1]

Seventeen of the 25 are publicly announced, four are anticipated, one is committed, one carries the asterisk beside committed, and two are in service. [1] The largest entry with an in-service class is Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2 at 1,019.2 MWh, and the next in-service row is 25th: Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub Connection A3 at 800.8 MWh. [1]

The distance between the first row and the built fleet is the shape of the list. Birriwa BESS reports 820.8 MWh more than the largest in-service entry. Whether the announced rows get built is a separate question, and this release does not answer it. [1]

## Where the rest of the 580 rows sit

51 of the 580 rows report 799.3 MWh or more, 99 report 600 MWh or more and 186 report 400 MWh or more. [1] The 143 rows with a figure below 400 MWh run down to 4 MWh, and 251 rows report zero. [1]

Two round numbers hold the middle of the list. Twenty rows report exactly 800 MWh and twenty-nine report exactly 400 MWh, so the band between 400 and 800 MWh reads as blocks of identical figures. [1] The smallest figures above zero belong to batteries at Kennedy Energy Park at 4 MWh, Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant at 4.3 MWh and Bolivar Waste Water Treatment at 5 MWh. [1]

The distribution is why a ranking like this one needs its thresholds stated. A reader who wants the top of the market can work with the first 51 rows. A reader who wants everything with a figure has 329 rows to sort through, and the last 251 rows on the register carry no capacity at all. [1]

## Why published capacity figures disagree with the registry

The disagreements below come down to three things: the unit reported, the scope of the figure and the date of the document. Glamdring Research checks each published figure against the release row for the same site. [1] Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2 shows what a date does.

The release reports 1,019.2 MWh for Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2, the largest in-service entry in the list. [1] Renew Economy reported on 6 September 2025 that the site's second stage was complete and that Western Downs was sized at 540 MW and 1,040 MWh, overtaking Tarong BESS as the biggest in Queensland. [2] The two energy figures sit 20.8 MWh apart and the documents are roughly eleven months apart.

The Victorian Big Battery shows the same drift over a longer period. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation page for the project, last updated in July 2021, describes the 300 MW Victorian Big Battery as midway through construction. [4] Renew Economy put the same battery at 450 MWh in September 2025. [2] The release reports 470 MWh. [1] A reader working from the 2021 page treats a completed battery as a construction site, and a reader working from the 2025 report lands 20 MWh under the registry figure.

Scope explains the Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub. SEC Victoria described the project in September 2024 as a 600 MW battery with three components providing 1.6 gigawatt hours, enough to power up to 200,000 homes at peak. [3] The release carries four rows for the hub: Side B and Connection A3 at 800.8 MWh each, and Connections A1 and A2 at 399.8 MWh each. [1] Those four rows total 2,401.2 MWh, the release does not group them as one project, and neither document reconciles the two totals.

For Blyth BESS the gap runs the other way. The release reports 400 MWh for the site in South Australia and classes it as in service. [1] Renew Economy put Neoen's Blyth battery at 237 MW and 274 MWh in the same September 2025 report. [2] The release carries one Blyth row and does not say whether the figure covers the original build or a later stage.

Compare the unit, the scope and the date before two capacity numbers go side by side. Renew Economy reports both a power rating in megawatts and an energy figure in megawatt hours for Western Downs. The release carries only the energy figure. A registry row covers one registered connection point, and a project announcement covers the site. [1] [2]

## What the ranking cannot tell you

Every row is a battery storage unit, but the site name does not always say so. Several batteries are registered under the wind farm, solar farm or water plant they sit beside. [1] Ben Bullen Wind Farm reports 800 MWh of battery storage, Mt Challenger Wind Farm 720 MWh, Adelaide Desalination Plant 12.6 MWh and Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant 4.3 MWh. [1]

Three other limits matter when the numbers travel. The extract carries no power rating, so nothing here says how fast a site discharges. It carries no commissioning date, so a row at 1,840 MWh and a row at 4 MWh look equally current. And 251 rows report zero, which puts sites on the register with no stated storage capacity. [1]

Summerfield BESS, fifth in the list at 1,065.4 MWh, carries the class Committed*. AEMO defines it as projects with known timing that partially meet the planning or contracts commitment criteria and satisfy the other four. [1] The other class names in the top 25 are Publicly Announced, Anticipated, Committed and In Service. [1] The extract also holds no site from Western Australia or the Northern Territory, so the list stops at the edge of the National Electricity Market. [1]

AEMO records 1,840 MWh for Birriwa BESS. That is a registry figure and not a measured output. [1]

Every figure here is dated to the 31 July 2026 release, and the ranking changes when AEMO publishes the next one. The revision will carry a change note and its sources: subscribe to the [email briefing](/subscribe).

## Frequently asked questions

### What is Australia's biggest battery project?

By reported storage capacity it is Birriwa BESS in New South Wales at 1,840 MWh, which AEMO classes as publicly announced. [1] By build status the largest is Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2 in Queensland at 1,019.2 MWh, classed as in service. [1] By power rating the question has no answer in this release, because the extract carries no megawatt figure for any site. [1]

### Is there a BESS project in NSW, Australia?

New South Wales holds six of the 25 largest rows in the release, including Birriwa BESS at 1,840 MWh, Armidale BESS at 1,550 MWh and Mt Piper BESS at 999.9 MWh. [1] South Australia and Victoria hold seven rows each and Queensland holds five, so the top of the list is spread across all four mainland states in the National Electricity Market. [1]

### Which is the largest battery storage site in Australia reported as in service?

Western Downs Battery - Stage 1 And 2 in Queensland, at 1,019.2 MWh. [1] Renew Economy reported its second stage as 270 MW and 540 MWh and complete on 6 September 2025, six weeks ahead of schedule. [2] The next in-service row in the release is Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub Connection A3 at 800.8 MWh, ranked 25th. [1]

### What does the asterisk after Committed mean?

It is an AEMO commitment class. AEMO defines Committed* as projects with known timing that partially meet the planning or contracts commitment criteria and satisfy the other four commitment criteria. [1] Summerfield BESS in South Australia carries it at 1,065.4 MWh, fifth in this ranking. [1]

## Source notes
1. Generation Information, 31 July 2026 release: https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-information (checked July 31, 2026)
2. Second stage of Sunshine state's biggest battery completed ahead of schedule: https://reneweconomy.com.au/second-stage-of-sunshine-states-biggest-battery-completed-ahead-of-schedule/ (checked September 25, 2026)
3. Work powers up on SEC's giant battery as Megapacks arrive on site: https://www.secvictoria.com.au/news/work-powers-up-on-secs-giant-battery-as-megapacks-arrive-on-site (checked September 25, 2026)
4. 300 MW Victorian Big Battery targets stronger grid and more renewable energy: https://www.cefc.com.au/insights/videos/300-mw-victorian-big-battery-targets-stronger-grid-and-more-renewable-energy/ (checked September 25, 2026)

# What controls the cost of AI inference in production?

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/what-controls-ai-inference-cost
Category: Model infrastructure
Published: September 9, 2026
Revised: September 9, 2026
Verdict: Budget for the full workload: model calls, context, retries, tools and human review. Compare cost per accepted task using current rates and explicit assumptions.

You are about to commit budget to a feature that calls a model thousands of times a day, and the only number in front of you is a price per million tokens. That number is real, but it does not tell you what the feature will cost. The cost of AI inference in production is controlled by five things: token volume, model choice, context length, calls per task and hardware utilisation. A per-token rate tells you what one unit costs inside a narrow boundary, not what your workload will cost.

Inference cost is the cost of running data through a trained model to produce an output. [1] It is charged every time a model generates output, and it runs every time a user sends a request. [2] [1] Five inputs set the number: token volume, model choice, context length, calls per task and hardware utilisation. [2] Everything below builds the boundary those five inputs sit inside.

## Key takeaways

- Inference cost is what you pay each time a trained model runs data to produce an output, not what you paid to train it. [1] [2]
- The unit changes with the modality: dollars per million tokens for LLMs, dollars per image for image generation, and per second for audio and video. [3]
- Five inputs set the number: token volume, model choice, context length, calls per task and hardware utilisation. [2]
- Token-only figures exclude caching, retries, tools, storage, tax, hosting and human review. They do not measure cost per accepted task.
- Per-token prices have fallen steeply, but the fastest drops are the most recent and the least likely to persist, so treat decline as an assumption you state, not a plan you fund. [1] [4]

## What is AI inference cost, and what does the figure measure?

Inference cost measures the working stage of a model, not the building stage. It is the cost of running data through a trained model to produce an output: a prediction, a generated response or a classification. [1] Training is a sunk event. Inference runs every time a user sends a request. [1]

The system boundary includes more than the request itself. Inference cost is the total compute, memory and infrastructure expense of running that working stage. [5] It covers accelerator time spent generating each output, the memory that holds the model in place, the networking that moves requests in and responses out, and the platform overhead that keeps endpoints available. [5] A headline price per million tokens compresses all of that into one number and hides which part of it moves when your traffic changes.

## Which unit is the figure measured in, and does it match your workload?

The unit depends on what the model produces. Inference cost is measured in dollars per million tokens for LLMs, dollars per image for image generation, and per second for audio and video. [3] If your product generates images and you budget in tokens, the unit and the workload do not match, and the forecast fails before the first request.

For text workloads, the driver underneath the unit is tokens, the units of data models process. [1] Tokens are the meter. Your job is to know how many of them one completed task consumes, not how many one call consumes.

Prices and product terms move. We date every mutable price we publish, and we expect the same discipline from you: check the rate in the current provider page or quote before it enters a plan. Our [methodology](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/methodology) sets out how we handle checked dates on figures that change.

## What drives the production inference bill?

Five things set the number: token volume, model choice, context length, calls per task and hardware utilisation. [2] Four of those five are yours to control. Only the posted rate belongs to the vendor.

A wider view names the same mechanics. Cost drivers include model size, token volume and context length, hardware choice, runtime efficiency and scaling behaviour, and the optimisation levers span the model, runtime, infrastructure and platform levels. [1]

The constraint is usually calls per task and context length, not price per token. A retrieval step that stuffs 40,000 tokens of context into every call, or an agent loop that makes six calls where one would do, multiplies the meter regardless of which vendor you picked. Constraints reveal more than announcements. Read your own call graph before you read the next price cut.

## What does a per-token rate exclude, and where does the rest of the cost sit?

It excludes most of the operating cost. The calculation divides the sum of billed input tokens times input rate and billed output tokens times output rate by 1,000,000. These token-only figures exclude caching, retries, tools, storage, tax, hosting and human review. They do not measure cost per accepted task.

The cost moves to the parts nobody prices on the pricing page. Retries on failed outputs. Tool calls and the services they hit. Vector storage. The person who checks the output before it reaches a customer. Total cost of ownership formulas handle this by incorporating hardware depreciation, hosting fees and software licensing to produce a yearly server cost, a cost per 1,000 prompts, and a cost per 1 million input and output tokens. [6] That structure is the one to copy, because it forces the boundary to be stated.

## How do you compare model prices without misreading the comparison?

Hold the workload constant and let only the rate vary. The scenario below is an illustrative billing scenario, not a benchmark: 10,000 billed input tokens and 2,000 billed output tokens per call, with 1,000 calls per day. Billed output includes reasoning where charged. Equal tokens do not imply equal text, quality or completion rates. Standard paid direct API rates checked 9 September 2026; short context for OpenAI.

| Model | Input USD per million | Output USD per million | USD per call | USD for 1,000 calls per day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 2 | 12 | 0.044 | 44.00 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 2 | 10 | 0.040 | 40.00 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 0.75 | 3.75 | 0.015 | 15.00 |

The posted rates behind those rows carry their own conditions. GPT-5.6 Terra on the direct API standard short context rate lists input at $2.00, cached input at $0.20, cache write at $2.50 and output at $12.00 per million tokens, checked 9 September 2026. [7] Claude Sonnet 5 on the direct API standard rate lists input at $2.00, a five-minute cache write at $2.50, a one-hour cache write at $4.00, a cache hit at $0.20 and output at $10.00 per million tokens. [8] Gemini 3.8 Flash on the direct API standard paid tier lists input at $0.75, output including thinking at $3.75, cached input at $0.075 and cache storage at $0.50 per million tokens per hour, on promotional rates through 31 December 2026. [9]

The decision changes when completion rates differ. A cheaper model that needs two attempts on a third of tasks is not cheaper. Compare on cost per accepted task, then read the table.

## Should you rent inference or self-host it?

Rent while your load fluctuates, and model self-hosting once it does not. Companies weigh building a self-hosted GPU cluster against renting from the cloud, and cloud options offer more flexibility for small to medium-scale or fluctuating workloads, while self-hosted clusters give better marginal cost advantages under sustained high load. [10]

The limiting condition is duty cycle. Owned hardware bills you for the hours it sits idle; an API does not. Estimating the infrastructure required for inference applications and the total cost of ownership is a problem enterprises face before deploying generative AI systems at scale. [6] Vendor claims on either side establish what the vendor says, not what your utilisation curve will do. Build the comparison on your own traffic profile and compare it against the same category work in our [research library](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/research).

## Are inference costs falling, and can you plan on that?

Yes to the first, with caution on the second. The Stanford HAI 2025 AI Index Report states that the inference cost for a system at GPT-3.5 level dropped over 280-fold between November 2022 and October 2024. [1] That is a steep decline over two years.

The evidence remains incomplete where it matters most for planning. The fastest price drops in that range occurred in the past year, so it is less clear that they will persist. [4] A plan that funds growth out of expected price cuts is a plan with an unstated assumption inside it. State the assumption, hold the current rate as the base case, and treat any decline as upside you did not spend in advance.

## How do you build an inference cost figure you can commit to?

Start from the load case, not the price list. Infrastructure sizing uses latency constraints and peak request volumes to determine the minimum number of model instances and servers required for a deployment. [6] Peak volume and the latency you promise set the floor on capacity, and capacity sets cost.

Then pick the operating point. Latency-throughput trade-off curves and Pareto fronts identify optimal deployment configurations where throughput is maximised while latency stays minimal, across precision formats such as FP4, FP8 and BF16. [6] Where you sit on that curve is a commercial decision wearing an engineering label.

The estimate assumes a token profile per task, a completion rate, a retry rate and a fixed context length. Write those four assumptions down next to the number. Then run one real workflow end to end at production volume and check the figure against the invoice. The economics only close when you can say who pays, which unit governs the charge and what happens to that unit when volume triples. See how we frame the same question across other [categories](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/categories), or [subscribe](https://www.glamdringresearch.com/subscribe) for new cost analyses.

## Frequently asked questions

### What is inference in AI?

Inference is the stage where a trained model produces an output. Inference cost is the cost of running data through a trained model to produce that output: a prediction, a generated response or a classification. [1] It runs every time a user sends a request. [1]

### Why does running a model cost money on every request?

Because every request consumes physical resources. Inference cost covers the GPU or accelerator time spent generating each output, the memory needed to hold the model in place, the networking that moves requests in and responses out, and the platform overhead that keeps endpoints available. [5] It is the total compute, memory and infrastructure expense of running that working stage. [5]

### How do you calculate cost per million tokens?

Multiply billed input tokens by the input rate, multiply billed output tokens by the output rate, add the two, then divide by 1,000,000. These token-only figures exclude caching, retries, tools, storage, tax, hosting and human review. They do not measure cost per accepted task. Test the formula against a stated scenario: 10,000 billed input tokens and 2,000 billed output tokens per call, with 1,000 calls per day, where billed output includes reasoning where charged. Equal tokens do not imply equal text, quality or completion rates.

### What do LLM providers charge per million tokens right now?

GPT-5.6 Terra lists $2.00 input and $12.00 output per million tokens on the direct API standard short context rate, with cached input at $0.20 and cache write at $2.50, checked 9 September 2026. [7] Claude Sonnet 5 lists $2.00 input and $10.00 output, with a five-minute cache write at $2.50, a one-hour cache write at $4.00 and a cache hit at $0.20, on the direct API standard rate. [8] Gemini 3.8 Flash lists $0.75 input and $3.75 output including thinking, with cached input at $0.075 and cache storage at $0.50 per million tokens per hour, on the direct API standard paid tier at promotional rates through 31 December 2026. [9]

### Is the cost of inference going down?

Yes. The Stanford HAI 2025 AI Index Report states that the inference cost for a system at GPT-3.5 level dropped over 280-fold between November 2022 and October 2024. [1] The fastest drops in that range occurred in the past year, so it is less clear that they will persist. [4]

### Why can your inference bill rise while the per-token price falls?

Because price is one of five inputs. Token volume, model choice, context length, calls per task and hardware utilisation together set the number. [2] The cost is driven by tokens, the units of data models process, so longer context and more calls per task raise the meter even as the rate per token drops. [1]

### Where are the levers to reduce inference cost?

Work the drivers, in order of size. Cost drivers include model size, token volume and context length, hardware choice, runtime efficiency and scaling behaviour, and the optimisation levers span the model, runtime, infrastructure and platform levels. [1] Cut context and calls per task first, because they multiply every other charge.

### Is self-hosting cheaper than paying an API per token?

It depends on load. Cloud options offer more flexibility for small to medium-scale or fluctuating workloads, while self-hosted clusters give better marginal cost advantages for sustained high-load scenarios. [10] Compare them on the same basis: total cost of ownership formulas incorporate hardware depreciation, hosting fees and software licensing to produce a yearly server cost, a cost per 1,000 prompts and a cost per 1 million input and output tokens. [6]

### How do you size infrastructure for an inference workload?

Start with latency constraints and peak request volumes, which determine the minimum number of model instances and servers a deployment requires. [6] Then select the operating point using latency-throughput trade-off curves and Pareto fronts, which identify configurations where throughput is maximised while latency stays minimal for precision formats such as FP4, FP8 and BF16. [6]

### How do you tie inference cost to a product or feature?

Fix one workload, price it across candidate models, then attach the result to the feature that generates the calls.

| Model | Input USD per million | Output USD per million | USD per call | USD for 1,000 calls per day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 2 | 12 | 0.044 | 44.00 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 2 | 10 | 0.040 | 40.00 |
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 0.75 | 3.75 | 0.015 | 15.00 |

## Source notes
1. Optimizing Inference Costs: The Complete Guide: https://www.mirantis.com/blog/inference-costs/ (checked September 9, 2026)
2. LLM inference cost: what drives it and how to lower it: https://www.cloudzero.com/blog/inference-cost/ (checked September 9, 2026)
3. Inference Cost: definition, the per-token economics ...: https://www.startups.com/lexicon/inference-cost (checked September 9, 2026)
4. LLM inference prices have fallen rapidly but unequally ...: https://epoch.ai/data-insights/llm-inference-price-trends (checked September 9, 2026)
5. What Is Inference Cost in AI? Definition: https://www.gmicloud.ai/en/blog/what-is-inference-cost-in-ai (checked September 9, 2026)
6. How Much Does Your LLM Inference Cost?: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/llm-inference-benchmarking-how-much-does-your-llm-inference-cost/ (checked September 9, 2026)
7. OpenAI API pricing: https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/pricing (checked September 9, 2026)
8. Anthropic model and feature pricing: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing (checked September 9, 2026)
9. Gemini Developer API pricing: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing (checked September 9, 2026)
10. Beyond Benchmarks: The Economics of AI Inference: https://arxiv.org/html/2510.26136v1 (checked September 9, 2026)

# Pest Control Rockhampton: Choosing the Right Treatment

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/pest-control-rockhampton
Category: Property services
Published: September 7, 2026
Revised: September 7, 2026
Verdict: Book for the pest and property you have. Ask what the treatment includes, what needs preparation and when follow-up applies before comparing quotes.

Pest control in Rockhampton should start with the pest, the places it appears and the conditions letting it return. A cockroach problem inside kitchen appliances needs a different service from rodents in a roof void or fleas in a rental. Ask for a defined treatment scope before comparing prices.

For a local starting point, Insight Termite & Pest Solutions provides [pest control Rockhampton](https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/) services for homes, rentals and businesses. Its published service range includes cockroaches, ants, spiders, rodents, fleas and wasps, alongside separate termite inspection and treatment services. [1]

## Which pest-control service do you need?

The details you give at booking help the technician plan the visit. “We have pests” leaves too much open. “Small cockroaches are appearing around the dishwasher each evening” gives the business a place to start.

| What you have noticed | What to discuss when booking |
|---|---|
| Cockroaches around appliances, cupboards or wet areas | Where they appear, how often you see them and whether activity has spread between rooms |
| Ant trails that keep returning | The trail location, likely entry points and any treatments already used |
| Scratching, droppings or gnawed packaging | Roof, wall, shed or storage access, plus possible entry points |
| Fleas in a home or rental | Affected rooms, pet areas and preparation requirements |
| A visible wasp nest | Its location and height, nearby access paths and whether people can keep clear |
| Mud leads or damaged timber that may indicate termites | A termite inspection or active-termite assessment, with the evidence left intact |

These are booking prompts, not diagnoses. Photographs can help explain what you have seen, but the technician may still need to inspect before identifying the pest or confirming the work.

Tell the business your suburb and property type. A highset home with a subfloor, a slab-on-ground house and a shop with food storage present different access questions. Mention locked rooms, roof or subfloor access and any areas where activity is concentrated.

## What should a pest-control quote include?

Compare the work included in each quote. A lower price may cover fewer pests or a smaller treatment area. A more expensive proposal needs to explain the extra work.

Ask for:

- the pests covered by the quoted treatment;
- the internal and external areas included;
- any roof void, subfloor, garage or shed work;
- preparation and access requirements;
- whether another visit is expected;
- what any service warranty covers and excludes;
- the total price, including GST and any stated extra charges.

A general pest treatment does not establish that a termite inspection, termite treatment or pre-purchase timber-pest report is included. Name those services when you request the quote and ask the provider to list them separately.

Insight publishes property-specific quotes rather than one fixed price for every job. Its stated pricing factors include the pest, property size, access, infestation level, treatment areas and follow-up needs. [1]

## Why can pests return after treatment?

Recurring activity deserves a closer look at the property. Food, water, hiding places and entry points can remain even after visible pests have been treated. Insight identifies these as factors in repeat pest activity. [1]

For cockroaches, explain whether sightings are concentrated around a sink, appliance or storage area. For rodents, report droppings, damaged packaging and the location of noises. For ants, note whether the same trail returns or activity appears somewhere new.

Ask the technician which conditions you can change and which need separate work. Repairing a leak, improving food storage or closing a confirmed entry point can form part of the response. The recommendation should follow the findings at your property.

Keep the treatment record. If activity returns, the date, location and pattern help the provider decide whether to monitor, revisit or reassess the scope. Ask what post-treatment activity to expect before the technician leaves.

## How should you prepare for the visit?

Get preparation instructions for the treatment being booked. Do not assume that advice from an earlier visit applies to a different pest or product.

Before the appointment, tell the provider about children, pets, fish tanks, food-preparation areas and anyone with sensitivities. Ask which areas need to be cleared, whether anyone needs to leave and what re-entry instructions apply. Insight lists these as questions to settle with the technician before treatment. [1]

Provide access to the agreed inspection and treatment areas. Tell the provider if furniture, stored goods or a locked gate will prevent that access. Explain any recent sprays or other products you have used, including where and when you applied them.

After the visit, follow the written instructions for cleaning, drying time and re-entry. If the instructions are unclear, contact the provider before changing the treated area.

## What changes for a rental property?

Pest-control responsibility in a Queensland rental depends on the circumstances. The Residential Tenancies Authority says rental properties must meet minimum housing standards. Owners or property managers must keep them free from pests, except where the tenant's actions caused the pests. Tenants should report vermin as soon as possible. [2]

The RTA also says tenants generally need to return the property to its starting condition, allowing for fair wear and tear. A property manager cannot require a particular pest-control business, product or set fee. End-of-tenancy and pet conditions need to be read against the tenancy's circumstances. [2]

If you are organising treatment for a rental, give the provider the relevant pest issue and reporting requirements. Confirm access with the tenant or property manager. Keep the treatment record with the tenancy documents and use the RTA's current guidance for responsibility questions.

## Questions to ask before booking

### How often should a Rockhampton property have pest control?

The schedule depends on the pest history and property conditions. Ask whether the current problem calls for one treatment, planned follow-up or recurring visits. A termite inspection has its own purpose and schedule; it should not be assumed to happen during a general pest treatment. [1]

### Can treatment happen while people are at home?

That depends on the treatment and the areas involved. Ask for the preparation, drying and re-entry instructions before the visit. Give the technician the household details needed to answer for your situation. [1]

### Is the cheapest quote the best choice?

Compare matching scopes first. Two quotes are only comparable when they cover the same pests, areas and follow-up. Ask the lower-priced provider about omissions and the higher-priced provider to explain the added work.

### What should I send with a quote request?

Send the pest or visible signs, suburb, property type and urgency. Add photographs if you can take them without approaching a nest or disturbing suspected termites. Note previous treatments and any access limits. Insight uses the pest, address and urgency to help determine the next step. [1]

## Book the service that matches the problem

A clear booking should leave you knowing what will be assessed, what treatment is proposed and what happens afterward. For Rockhampton property owners, Insight offers a local contact for that conversation across general pests, termite inspections and termite treatment. Start with the signs at your property and request a written scope.

*Commercial disclosure: Glamdring Research is operated within Searchmaxxed's publication network. Insight Termite & Pest Solutions is a Searchmaxxed client. This article forms part of that client's marketing work.*

## Source notes
1. Insight Termite & Pest Solutions: services and customer questions: https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/ (checked September 7, 2026)
2. Queensland Residential Tenancies Authority: carpet cleaning and pest control: https://www.rta.qld.gov.au/pests (checked September 7, 2026)

# Termite Inspection and Treatment Rockhampton: What to Book

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/termite-inspection-treatment-rockhampton
Category: Property services
Published: September 7, 2026
Revised: September 7, 2026
Verdict: Arrange an inspection to understand the termite evidence and property conditions. If activity is found, get a written treatment plan that explains the method, access and follow-up.

A termite inspection in Rockhampton checks accessible areas for activity, damage and conditions that need attention. Termite treatment addresses a confirmed problem or forms part of a property protection plan. An inspection helps establish what is happening before you choose a treatment method or compare quotes.

Insight Termite & Pest Solutions offers local [termite inspection Rockhampton](https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/) services alongside treatment, barriers, baiting and pre-purchase timber-pest inspections. Its service information makes the property, access and termite evidence the starting point for a recommendation. [1]

## When should you book a termite inspection?

Book an assessment when you find suspected termite activity. Mud leads, damaged timber, blistered surfaces, discarded wings and visible insects are reasons to investigate, although a visible sign alone does not establish the cause. Termite activity can also remain concealed before obvious damage appears. [1]

An inspection also has a role when there is no visible activity. The Queensland Building and Construction Commission recommends an inspection and report by a licensed pest controller every year, or more often in high-hazard areas. Your existing management system may set additional inspection and maintenance requirements. [2]

Other reasons to discuss an inspection include:

- previous termite activity or treatment at the property;
- a property purchase that calls for a timber-pest report;
- moisture or timber-contact conditions that need assessment;
- renovations or landscaping near a termite-management system;
- missing records about an existing barrier or monitoring system.

QBCC warns that footpaths, garden beds, patios, pergolas, landscaping and turf can affect a termite-management system. Tell the inspector about these changes, including work completed since the last inspection. [2]

## What should you do if you find active termites?

Leave the activity intact and contact a termite professional. Insight advises against spraying, breaking open timber or disturbing suspected activity before assessment. If you can take a photograph without disturbing the area, record the location and send it with your enquiry. [1]

Explain exactly where you found the evidence: a door frame, wall, timber post, floor or outdoor structure. Mention any earlier termite treatment and whether an inspection report or management notice is available.

Avoid choosing a treatment from the first visible sign. The response needs to account for the property and the activity that can be assessed. Killing exposed insects does not establish that concealed activity or the wider colony has been addressed. [1]

## What does a termite inspection include?

Insight describes an inspection of accessible internal and external areas for active termites, previous evidence, visible damage and risk conditions. The scope depends on the building and safe access. Roof voids, subfloors, wet areas, sheds and restricted spaces can affect the work involved. [1]

Before the visit, ask which areas are included and what you need to make accessible. Have keys available and tell the inspector about stored goods or areas that cannot be opened.

Read the report for more than a finding of activity or no activity. Ask these questions:

| Report question | Why it changes your next step |
|---|---|
| Was active termite activity found? | Determines whether a treatment response needs to be discussed |
| Was previous activity or visible damage identified? | Helps explain what needs further assessment or monitoring |
| Which areas were inaccessible? | Shows the limits of what the inspection could establish |
| What property conditions need attention? | Identifies maintenance or access changes to discuss |
| What follow-up was recommended? | Gives you the next inspection, treatment or monitoring action |

An inaccessible area is an inspection limitation. Ask how that affects the findings and whether further access or another assessment is needed. Keep the report with the property's treatment and maintenance records.

## How is termite treatment selected?

For [termite treatment Rockhampton](https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/), Insight describes several options, including active treatment, barriers, baiting and monitoring. It states that the recommendation depends on activity, construction, access, moisture and existing management measures. [1]

The method name alone does not tell you whether a proposal suits your home. Ask the technician to explain what the chosen method is intended to do at the property.

### Treating active activity

Where termites are active, the proposal should explain how the identified activity will be addressed and how progress will be checked. Ask whether more than one visit is expected, what access is needed and how any later protection work fits into the plan.

### Barriers and property protection

QBCC describes several forms of termite management, including chemical systems and physical measures such as mesh or graded stone. The suitability and installation requirements depend on the building and system. [2]

For an existing home, ask the provider to explain the proposed scope and any access or construction limits. An existing system should be assessed from its records and current condition. Do not assume a renovation or new garden bed leaves the original protection unchanged.

### Baiting and monitoring

Insight describes baiting as an option for some properties and termite situations. Placement, inspection and follow-up are part of that approach. Ask what monitoring visits are included and what ongoing maintenance will cost. [1]

A practical proposal should distinguish the initial treatment from the continuing inspection or monitoring programme. You need to understand both before agreeing to the work.

## How much does termite treatment cost in Rockhampton?

A property-specific assessment is needed for a meaningful quote. Insight lists termite activity, affected areas, construction, access, treatment method, barrier scope and follow-up among the factors that change treatment cost. [1]

Ask each provider to separate:

- the inspection and report;
- the initial treatment work;
- any barrier, baiting or monitoring system;
- planned follow-up visits;
- ongoing inspections and maintenance;
- warranty terms and conditions;
- the total price and any exclusions.

Compare proposals that address the same property conditions. A price for treating one area cannot be compared directly with a plan that includes a wider management system and future visits.

Insight quotes according to the job. Contact the business with your address, the signs you have found and any existing reports so it can explain the assessment and quoting process. [1]

## Does a termite system replace regular inspections?

Regular inspection remains part of termite management. QBCC recommends a licensed pest-controller inspection and report every year, or more often in high-hazard areas. It also advises owners to meet their system's maintenance requirements. [2]

QBCC says the termite-management notice is usually in the electrical meter box. It should identify the protection method and installation date, along with relevant chemical life expectancy and inspection recommendations. Use that notice to find the requirements for your system. [2]

A long warranty or product-life claim does not by itself mean that inspection and maintenance can stop. Read the documents and ask the provider which conditions apply to the property.

## Termite inspection and treatment questions

### Can a house have termites without visible damage?

Yes. Insight notes that termites can travel through concealed areas before obvious damage appears. A professional inspection assesses accessible areas and records the limits of that assessment. [1]

### Is general pest control the same as termite treatment?

No. Insight lists general pest control, termite inspection and termite treatment as separate services. When booking, name the termite concern and ask for the relevant assessment or treatment scope. [1]

### What if I am buying a property?

Ask for the pre-purchase timber-pest inspection and reporting scope. Tell the provider about the purchase timetable and arrange access through the seller or agent. Read the report's findings and inaccessible-area notes before deciding what further advice or work you need. Insight offers pre-purchase timber-pest inspection services. [1]

### Should I choose a barrier or baiting system?

Ask for a recommendation based on the inspection and the property. Discuss installation access, maintenance, inspection frequency and follow-up cost. Insight says neither method is automatically the best option for every building. [1]

## Start with the property evidence

If you have found suspected activity, leave it undisturbed and request an assessment. If you are arranging a routine inspection, gather the previous report and any termite-management records. Insight Termite & Pest Solutions services Rockhampton and surrounding Central Queensland communities, with inspection and treatment options that can be scoped to the property. [1]

*Commercial disclosure: Glamdring Research is operated within Searchmaxxed's publication network. Insight Termite & Pest Solutions is a Searchmaxxed client. This article forms part of that client's marketing work.*

## Source notes
1. Insight Termite & Pest Solutions: termite inspection and treatment: https://www.insighttermiteandpest.au/ (checked September 7, 2026)
2. Queensland Building and Construction Commission: protect against termites: https://www.qbcc.qld.gov.au/home-owner-hub/maintain-protect/protect-against-termites (checked September 7, 2026)

# 15Five vs Lattice: Which performance platform fits your team?

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/15five-vs-lattice-compared-2026-guide
Category: Performance management
Published: September 1, 2026
Revised: September 1, 2026
Verdict: Choose 15Five for manager habits and focused performance workflows. Choose Lattice for a broader talent system with compensation and career growth.

## Decision summary

15Five and Lattice overlap on reviews, goals, feedback and engagement. The difference is the shape of the system.

15Five centers manager behavior. Its current Perform plan includes AI-assisted reviews, goals, calibration, competency mapping and manager-focused workflows. Lattice extends further into compensation, career growth, succession and a broader HR platform.

| Decision | Better fit | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly manager habits and continuous feedback | 15Five | Manager effectiveness is central to the product and pricing structure. |
| Configurable performance cycles | Lattice | Lattice combines reviews, promotions, succession and manager tools. |
| Compensation planning | Lattice | Compensation is a named add-on with pay-cycle workflows. |
| Engagement as a separate entry point | 15Five | Engage is sold as a standalone plan. |
| Career paths and development | Lattice | Grow adds competency and career progression workflows. |
| Transparent entry pricing | 15Five | 15Five publishes clear prices for three plans. |

## What 15Five costs

15Five listed three annual-billing prices when checked on 1 September 2026:

- Engage: US$4 per user each month.
- Perform: US$11 per user each month.
- Total Platform: US$16 per user each month.

Engage covers surveys, assessments, action planning and benchmarking. Perform covers performance reviews, goals, calibration and manager workflows. Total Platform combines both and adds manager training microlearning.

These figures are public list prices. Implementation, services, contract length and negotiated terms can change the final amount.

## What Lattice costs

Lattice builds a custom package. Its pricing page states that Performance and Goals and OKRs can be purchased separately for US$8 per seat each month. Compensation is listed as a US$6 per-seat monthly add-on.

Lattice also sells Engagement, Grow, HRIS and payroll-related products. A buyer comparing full suites needs a written quote that separates base products, add-ons, implementation and support.

## Where 15Five is stronger

### Manager enablement

15Five treats the manager as the operating unit. Check-ins, reviews, goals and manager guidance sit close together. This makes the product easier to explain when the buying problem is weak feedback cadence or inconsistent manager habits.

### Clear package boundaries

The public pricing page gives buyers a clean first estimate. A team can compare engagement-only, performance-only and combined options before entering sales.

### Focus

15Five is easier to assess when compensation and HRIS consolidation sit outside the project. The narrower product boundary can reduce selection noise.

## Where Lattice is stronger

### Talent-system breadth

Lattice covers reviews, goals, promotions, succession, compensation and career growth. That breadth matters when HR wants one connected system for several annual talent processes.

### Compensation

Lattice has a dedicated compensation product. Teams can connect performance information with pay planning inside the same vendor environment.

### Career growth

Lattice Grow gives career frameworks and competency development a named place in the suite. That is a stronger fit when internal mobility is part of the purchase.

## Questions to ask in both demos

1. Which workflows are included in the quoted package?
2. Which modules require separate implementation or services?
3. How does each system handle calibration across departments?
4. Can historical review data migrate with its original structure?
5. Which HRIS fields sync in each direction?
6. What support is included during the first review cycle?
7. How do permissions work for compensation and succession data?
8. Which AI features use customer data, and what controls govern that use?

## Recommendation by team shape

Choose 15Five when the project starts with manager quality, feedback cadence and review consistency. It gives that problem a focused product and a clear public price.

Choose Lattice when the project joins performance with compensation, succession and career development. Its wider system can replace more point tools, but buyers should model the full package cost.

A final choice needs a live workflow test. Use one real review cycle, one goal hierarchy and one permission model in both demos. The strongest product is the one that fits the operating process your team will maintain.

## Source notes
1. 15Five pricing: https://www.15five.com/pricing (checked September 1, 2026)
2. Lattice pricing: https://lattice.com/pricing (checked September 1, 2026)

# Best performance management platforms for 2026

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/best-performance-management-platforms-2026-ranked
Category: Performance management
Published: September 1, 2026
Revised: September 1, 2026
Verdict: 15Five leads for manager habits, Lattice for connected talent operations, and Culture Amp for engagement-led performance programs.

## Direct answer

The best performance management platform depends on the operating problem.

15Five is the clearest fit for teams building stronger manager habits. Lattice is the strongest fit for connected performance, compensation and career workflows. Culture Amp is the strongest fit when engagement research and performance development belong in one program.

| Platform | Best for | Public pricing posture | Main limit to test |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15Five | Manager-led continuous performance | US$4, US$11 and US$16 per user monthly on annual billing | Product breadth outside manager and performance workflows |
| Lattice | Connected talent operations | Custom package; selected products list seat prices | Total suite cost and module boundaries |
| Culture Amp | Engagement-led performance | Quote-based | Cost visibility and package fit |

## 1. 15Five

### Best for manager habits

15Five combines engagement, performance reviews, goals, calibration and manager enablement. Its product structure makes sense when the company wants managers to run better conversations throughout the year.

The current public pricing page lists Engage at US$4, Perform at US$11 and Total Platform at US$16 per user each month with annual billing.

Choose 15Five when:

- weekly feedback and manager habits drive the project;
- the buyer wants transparent entry pricing;
- compensation planning remains in another system;
- the team wants a focused rollout.

Pressure-test how well the product handles complex review structures, global permissions and reporting across several business units.

## 2. Lattice

### Best for connected talent operations

Lattice combines performance with engagement, compensation, succession and career growth. It can support a broader talent architecture than a review-only tool.

Lattice states that Performance and Goals and OKRs can be purchased separately for US$8 per seat each month. Compensation is listed as a US$6 add-on. Other products and services require a tailored package.

Choose Lattice when:

- HR wants performance and compensation in one environment;
- career frameworks and succession matter;
- the organization expects several connected talent processes;
- module breadth can replace other tools.

Pressure-test the final package price, implementation scope and reporting model. A broad suite creates value only when the team will use the connected workflows.

## 3. Culture Amp

### Best for engagement-led performance

Culture Amp offers separate Engage and Perform products. Engage covers surveys, retention insights, benchmarking and action planning. Perform covers feedback, reviews, calibration, development plans, goals and performance insights.

Culture Amp uses quote-based pricing. Its public page separates smaller organizations, mid-sized organizations and enterprises, but it does not publish a simple per-seat price.

Choose Culture Amp when:

- engagement evidence drives the people program;
- the team wants surveys and performance development from one vendor;
- people-science support matters;
- manager coaching and employee development carry more weight than compensation tooling.

Pressure-test the cost of Engage and Perform together. Ask which consulting, support and AI features sit inside the quote.

## How to choose

### Start with the operating problem

Write one sentence that names the failure the new system must fix.

Examples:

- Managers avoid continuous feedback.
- Review cycles consume too much administrative time.
- Performance and compensation decisions use disconnected data.
- Engagement surveys produce findings without action.

The problem determines the shortlist.

### Build one live scenario

Use the same scenario in every demo:

1. one review cycle;
2. one goal hierarchy;
3. one calibration session;
4. one employee development plan;
5. one executive report;
6. one HRIS update.

Score task completion, permission clarity and reporting quality. Feature checklists alone hide workflow friction.

### Model full cost

Include:

- software subscription;
- implementation;
- data migration;
- manager training;
- integration work;
- support tier;
- internal administration;
- renewal assumptions.

Public seat prices create a starting point. The full buying decision needs a written quote and a three-year cost model.

## Final shortlist

Use 15Five for a focused manager-effectiveness program. Use Lattice for a broader talent operating system. Use Culture Amp for an engagement-led people program with connected performance development.

Run the same live scenario in all three. The winner should reduce the operating burden of the process your team already owns.

## Source notes
1. 15Five pricing: https://www.15five.com/pricing (checked September 1, 2026)
2. Lattice pricing: https://lattice.com/pricing (checked September 1, 2026)
3. Culture Amp plans and pricing: https://www.cultureamp.com/platform/plans-and-pricing (checked September 1, 2026)

# Center vs Ramp: Spend management compared

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/center-vs-ramp-compared-2026-guide
Category: Spend management
Published: September 1, 2026
Revised: September 1, 2026
Verdict: Choose Center for a focused card and expense workflow. Choose Ramp when the project includes broader finance automation and the added modules will replace real systems.

## Decision summary

Center and Ramp both connect corporate cards with expense management. Ramp now presents a wider finance platform that includes bill pay, procurement, travel, treasury and accounting automation. Center's public material focuses on real-time card and expense workflows.

| Decision area | Center | Ramp |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate cards | Yes | Yes |
| Receipt capture | Mobile receipt capture and prompts | Card and expense automation across app, SMS and Slack workflows |
| Expense approval | Configurable multi-level rules | Policy controls, approval workflows and automated reviews |
| Bill pay | Confirm in current quote | Included in Ramp's current product map |
| Procurement | Confirm in current quote | Add-on to Plus or Enterprise |
| Treasury | Confirm in current quote | Included in Ramp's current product map |
| Public price | Request quote | Free, Plus and Enterprise tiers |

## Center strengths

### Focused expense flow

Center's official overview describes a card-led process. Employees swipe a CenterCard, capture receipts in the mobile app and review automatically coded details. Finance teams can route approvals by department, project, job or amount.

### Real-time submission

The workflow prompts employees close to the transaction. That can reduce the gap between spend and documentation.

### Configurable approvals

Center describes multi-level and multi-attribute approval rules. This is important for teams whose main problem is expense policy and month-end reconciliation.

## Ramp strengths

### Wider finance platform

Ramp combines corporate cards, travel and expense, bill pay, procurement, treasury and accounting automation. This can consolidate several finance workflows under one provider.

### Published price tiers

Ramp listed three tiers when checked on 1 September 2026:

- Free: US$0 per user each month.
- Plus: US$15 per user each month.
- Enterprise: custom pricing.

The Free tier includes cards and several expense and payment features. Plus adds deeper automation and control. Procurement is listed as an add-on to Plus or Enterprise.

### Broader automation

Ramp's public material emphasizes automated receipt matching, policy controls, accounting workflows and spend review. Buyers should test these claims with their own card policy and accounting structure.

## Where the decision changes

### The project is expense management only

Center can be the cleaner shortlist when the team needs cards, receipt capture, approvals and accounting export. A focused scope can simplify rollout.

### The project includes accounts payable and procurement

Ramp has the broader public product map. The suite creates value when it replaces separate systems or manual workflows.

### The organization has complex approval rules

Run the same policy in both products. Include entity, department, amount, project and exception logic.

### International operations matter

Ramp lists local-currency cards and reimbursements in its Enterprise tier. Confirm country coverage, funding, support and accounting behavior. Confirm Center's current international scope in writing.

## Demo script

Use one complete expense journey:

1. issue a card;
2. make a test transaction;
3. capture a receipt;
4. code the expense;
5. trigger an exception;
6. route two approval levels;
7. export to the accounting system;
8. close the reporting period.

Then test one bill and one purchase request if those workflows sit in scope.

Record employee steps, finance steps, exceptions and manual exports. The product with fewer steps is not automatically the winner. The workflow must preserve policy, accounting detail and audit evidence.

## Cost model

Compare:

- per-user subscription;
- card economics;
- implementation;
- accounting integration;
- procurement or bill-pay add-ons;
- support;
- internal administration;
- systems retired;
- renewal terms.

Ramp's Free tier can lower the entry price. A wider rollout can still create added implementation and change work. Center's quote needs the same full-cost treatment.

## Recommendation

Choose Center for a focused card and expense program. Choose Ramp when broader finance automation is part of the approved project and the suite will retire real work.

Require current quotes from both vendors. Center's checked product overview dates from 2023, so every feature and commercial term needs current confirmation during procurement.

## Source notes
1. Center Core Expense overview: https://getcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy/2023-04/Center_CoreExpense_Overview_042023_Digital.pdf (checked September 1, 2026)
2. Ramp pricing: https://ramp.com/pricing (checked September 1, 2026)
3. Ramp vs Center: https://ramp.com/versus/center (checked September 1, 2026)

# Lattice pricing in 2026: What buyers can verify

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/how-much-does-lattice-cost-2026
Category: Performance management
Published: September 1, 2026
Revised: September 1, 2026
Verdict: Budget from the published module prices, then require a written package that separates software, implementation, support and add-ons.

## Direct answer

Lattice uses custom package pricing. Its public pricing page gives buyers two clear reference points:

- Performance can be purchased separately for US$8 per seat each month.
- Goals and OKRs can be purchased separately for US$8 per seat each month.
- Compensation is listed as a US$6 per-seat monthly add-on.

The page also presents Engagement, Grow and other products without one universal total. The final price depends on the selected modules, workforce size, services and contract.

## Published pricing reference

| Product | Public figure checked 1 September 2026 | Notes |
|---|---:|---|
| Performance | US$8 per seat each month | Lattice states this can be purchased separately. |
| Goals and OKRs | US$8 per seat each month | Lattice states this can be purchased separately. |
| Compensation | +US$6 per seat each month | Listed as an add-on. |
| Engagement | Request quote | Package price is not shown as one simple seat rate. |
| Grow | Request quote | Package price is not shown as one simple seat rate. |
| HRIS and payroll products | Request quote | Scope and availability can affect the final package. |

Public pricing can change. Capture the dated pricing page with the proposal.

## What the quote must separate

### Software

List every product and add-on. Confirm which manager tools, analytics and AI features come with each product.

### Implementation

Ask for configuration, migration, integration, training and launch support as separate lines.

### Support

Confirm the response model, named support, service hours and review-cycle support.

### Contract

Record minimum term, renewal rule, seat floor, growth bands and price protection.

### Data and integrations

Confirm the HRIS integration, single sign-on, data export, API access and historical review migration.

## Three-year cost model

Use this structure:

| Cost | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Subscription | Quote | Renewal assumption | Renewal assumption |
| Implementation | Quote | 0 or change work | 0 or change work |
| Integration | Quote | Maintenance | Maintenance |
| Training | Launch plan | New managers | New managers |
| Internal administration | Hours | Hours | Hours |
| Exit and data export | Contract term | Contract term | Contract term |

A seat price does not show the full operating cost. Review cycles, permission design, reporting and integrations create internal work.

## Questions for Lattice sales

1. Which products are required for the proposed workflow?
2. Which manager tools come with each product?
3. Is the seat count based on all employees or active users?
4. How does pricing change as headcount moves?
5. Which services are mandatory in year one?
6. What changes at renewal?
7. What data can be exported without services?
8. Which AI features can be disabled?
9. How are compensation permissions isolated?
10. What support covers the first live review cycle?

## Recommendation

Use the public module prices to build a lower-bound estimate. Require one written package that names every product and service. Compare the three-year cost with the systems Lattice will replace.

The buying case is strongest when the connected modules remove manual work or retire other software. A wider package without system retirement can increase cost and administration at the same time.

## Source notes
1. Lattice pricing: https://lattice.com/pricing (checked September 1, 2026)
2. Lattice HR software pricing guide: https://lattice.com/articles/hr-software-pricing (checked September 1, 2026)

# Laika vs Vanta in 2026: Laika is now Thoropass

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/laika-vs-vanta-compared-2026-guide
Category: Compliance automation
Published: September 1, 2026
Revised: September 1, 2026
Verdict: Treat every Laika comparison as Thoropass research. Compare audit-service depth with Vanta's trust-management platform using your target frameworks and evidence workflow.

## Direct answer

Laika became Thoropass on 29 March 2023. A current Laika vs Vanta evaluation is a Thoropass vs Vanta evaluation.

Thoropass describes an end-to-end compliance product that combines software, audit preparation and audit services. Vanta describes a trust-management platform that connects risk, continuous monitoring, framework programs, security reviews and questionnaires.

| Decision | Thoropass | Vanta |
|---|---|---|
| Current company name | Thoropass | Vanta |
| Former name | Laika | None relevant to this query |
| Core posture | Compliance software plus service and audit path | Trust management, monitoring and compliance automation |
| Framework breadth | Thoropass names SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA and HITRUST | Vanta states access to more than 20 frameworks and custom frameworks |
| Auditor relationship | Thoropass promotes an integrated audit experience | Vanta promotes auditor partnerships and monitoring workflows |
| Pricing | Request quote | Request quote |

## Why the name matters

Old reviews, contracts and integrations may still use Laika. Current product research should use Thoropass.

During procurement:

1. map the old Laika record to the current Thoropass legal and product identity;
2. confirm the contracting entity;
3. confirm whether old plan names still apply;
4. confirm migration and support terms for an existing Laika customer;
5. use current Thoropass documentation in the security review.

## Thoropass position

Thoropass states that it pairs software and services to simplify information-security compliance. Its rebrand announcement also presents audit preparation, continuous monitoring and an integrated audit experience as core parts of the offer.

This model can fit teams that want one provider to guide readiness and carry the audit relationship. Buyers should verify auditor independence, service scope, scheduling and the boundary between software support and audit work.

## Vanta position

Vanta presents a broader trust-management platform. Its public platform page covers continuous monitoring, framework roadmaps, security reviews, questionnaires, integrations and auditor partnerships.

This model can fit teams building a reusable trust program across compliance, vendor risk and customer security work. Buyers should verify which products sit in the quote and how much operational support comes with them.

## Comparison questions

### Framework and control model

- Which frameworks are included?
- Can one control map to several frameworks?
- Can the team add custom controls?
- How does evidence reuse work across programs?

### Integrations and evidence

- Which systems have native integrations?
- How often does each integration test evidence?
- What happens when an integration loses access?
- Can evidence and control history be exported?

### Audit workflow

- Can the buyer use an external auditor?
- Which audit firms are supported?
- What information moves between the platform and auditor?
- Which audit steps require services?

### Trust operations

- How are security questionnaires handled?
- How is vendor risk managed?
- Can customer-facing trust material be published?
- Which workflows need another product tier?

### Contract and exit

- Which products, services and frameworks appear in the quote?
- What changes at renewal?
- What data can be exported at exit?
- Does the contract preserve evidence history?

## Recommendation

Use Thoropass when the integrated compliance-service and audit path matches the team's operating model. Use Vanta when continuous monitoring and a broader trust-management platform carry more weight.

Run one control and one evidence item through both demos. Then run one audit request and one customer questionnaire. Those four tasks expose the real operating difference.

## Source notes
1. Laika is now Thoropass: https://www.thoropass.com/blog/laika-is-now-thoropass (checked September 1, 2026)
2. Vanta platform: https://www.vanta.com/vanta-platform (checked September 1, 2026)

# Lattice vs Culture Amp: Performance management compared

URL: https://www.glamdringresearch.com/post/lattice-vs-culture-amp-2026-which-is-better
Category: Performance management
Published: September 1, 2026
Revised: September 1, 2026
Verdict: Choose Lattice for connected talent operations. Choose Culture Amp when engagement evidence and performance development form one program.

## Decision summary

Lattice is the stronger fit when performance management connects to compensation, succession and career architecture. Culture Amp is the stronger fit when engagement data, manager coaching and employee development drive the program.

| Decision area | Lattice | Culture Amp |
|---|---|---|
| Performance reviews | Configurable cycles, promotions and succession | Reviews, calibration and continuous feedback |
| Goals | Goals and OKRs product | Goal management inside Perform |
| Engagement | Separate Engagement product | Core Engage product with survey and benchmark depth |
| Compensation | Dedicated add-on | No equivalent product named on the checked pricing page |
| Career development | Grow product | Development plans and skills coaching in Perform |
| Pricing | Selected seat prices plus custom package | Quote-based |

## Lattice strengths

### Connected talent processes

Lattice places reviews, goals, promotions, succession, compensation and career growth inside one product family. This helps when HR wants one system to carry several annual processes.

### Compensation

Lattice lists Compensation as a dedicated add-on. That gives performance and pay planning a direct product connection.

### Clear module map

The pricing page shows base products and add-ons. Buyers can see the architecture before requesting the final quote.

## Culture Amp strengths

### Engagement depth

Culture Amp Engage includes surveys, benchmarking, retention insights, pulse surveys and action planning. This suits organizations that treat employee listening as the evidence base for people decisions.

### Performance development

Culture Amp Perform includes continuous feedback, reviews, calibration, one-to-one conversations, development plans, skills coaching and goals.

### People-science support

Culture Amp offers People Science Consulting as an add-on. Buyers who need program design support should compare that service with their internal capability and other vendors.

## Pricing posture

Lattice states that Performance and Goals and OKRs can be unbundled at US$8 per seat each month. Compensation is listed at an additional US$6 per seat each month. A complete package can include several other products.

Culture Amp asks buyers to request a quote for Engage and Perform. Its public page describes support models for small, mid-sized and enterprise organizations.

Request comparable quotes. Each quote should separate software, support, implementation, migration and consulting.

## Which product fits each buying problem?

### Reviews and compensation need one system

Choose Lattice. Its product map gives compensation a clear place beside performance.

### Engagement findings fail to become action

Choose Culture Amp. Engage and Perform connect employee listening with manager and development workflows.

### Career frameworks drive the project

Compare Lattice Grow with Culture Amp development plans and skills coaching. Use one real career framework in both demos.

### HR needs a broad platform

Lattice has the wider named suite. Confirm whether that breadth will replace current systems or add another layer.

### The organization needs program support

Culture Amp's people-science service may matter. Confirm scope, delivery model and cost before treating it as part of the software value.

## Demo script

Use the same six tasks:

1. configure one review cycle;
2. run a calibration session;
3. create one cross-functional goal;
4. turn one engagement finding into a manager action;
5. build one employee development plan;
6. produce one executive report.

Record time, permission steps and manual exports. A clear demo score exposes operating friction.

## Final recommendation

Lattice suits organizations connecting performance to a wider talent system. Culture Amp suits organizations connecting engagement evidence to performance and development.

The decision should follow the process the organization intends to run. Buy the smaller workflow that solves the named problem, then expand only when the connected modules replace real work.

## Source notes
1. Lattice pricing: https://lattice.com/pricing (checked September 1, 2026)
2. Culture Amp plans and pricing: https://www.cultureamp.com/platform/plans-and-pricing (checked September 1, 2026)
3. Culture Amp performance management platform: https://www.cultureamp.com/platform/perform (checked September 1, 2026)