Priced against the stack, not against a single SaaS.
Most software pricing comparisons start from "this product vs another product." Wrong frame. The real comparison is what your firm pays for the operating layer today.
Your partner services firm runs on six tools that do not talk to each other.
For a typical 10-person partner firm, this is what the stacked SaaS reality actually costs. Plus the operational tax of getting data between them, which is real but harder to quantify.
| Tool | What it covers | Per user per month |
|---|---|---|
| Productive PSA | Projects, time tracking, basic invoicing | $25 to $35 |
| HubSpot CRM Pro | Sales pipeline | $90 |
| Gusto Plus | Payroll for contractors and employees | $60 |
| QuickBooks Advanced | Accounting and GL | $200 flat |
| Slack Pro | Team communication | $7 |
| Notion or Confluence | Documentation | $10 to $15 |
| Stacked total | Five disconnected tools plus the integration tax | ~$200/user/mo |
A 10-person partner firm pays $20,000 to $24,000 per year in subscriptions, then spends senior operator time keeping the data in rough sync between them. Quote in HubSpot, project in Productive, time in Productive, invoice in Productive or QuickBooks, payroll in Gusto. The handoffs are manual. The reports do not match.
Four tiers. One platform. Below the stack, with more capability.
PartnerView replaces three to four of the tools above, unifies the data model, and adds capabilities the stack does not provide. Prices below are starting points and reflect the working framework we are validating with pilot customers. Final pricing depends on firm size, contract length, and implementation scope.
Starter
For solo consultants and small firms running one practice area. 1 to 5 people.
CRM with companies, contacts, leads, deals, and quotes. Basic time tracking. Basic invoicing. Five users included in the base.
Implementation: self-service onboarding, optional paid setup help.
Pro
The typical partner services operating use case. 5 to 25 people.
Full PSA with projects, requirements documents (DRD, BRD, FRD), change orders, and tasks. Reports module. Chatter and Mentions Inbox. Notifications. Help center. MSP engagement type. Basic multi-payer billing.
Implementation: $5,000 to $10,000 one-time setup.
Business
Larger firms with payroll complexity and multiple billing relationships. 25 to 75 people.
HR and payroll module. Full multi-payer billing. Advanced approval workflow with manager hierarchy. Advanced reports. Advanced importer with QBO and CRM export mapping presets.
Implementation: $10,000 to $20,000 one-time setup.
Partner
Consulting firms with their own reseller networks. Channel-style operating model.
Channel Partner module. Dedicated single-tenant deployment with brand-agnostic theming for your white-label. Priority support with named engineer contact. Dedicated success manager.
Implementation: $25,000 to $50,000 one-time setup, with ongoing managed services available.
Available on any tier.
Capability that does not fit a tier subscription model, priced separately so you only pay for what you use.
Implementation services
Beyond the setup included in your tier. Custom integrations, data migration, deep configuration.
Managed services
Outsourced PartnerView operations. Configuration changes, partner setup, custom reports. Flat monthly fee.
Document Generation
Claude-assisted DRD-to-FRD generation. Per-row provenance, FRD batch versioning, approval gate. Token and cost tracking with a configurable monthly USD cap. Requires an Anthropic API key.
Priority support
Faster response SLA for non-Partner-tier customers. Same engineer-to-engineer contact path as Partner tier.
Why these numbers are a starting point.
We are in pilot. PartnerView has not yet been sold externally at the time of writing. The tier structure and prices above reflect a working framework based on what we believe partner firms will pay for what they actually need, not a locked rate card.
If you are an early pilot candidate, the price is whatever lets us start the conversation. If you are not, the numbers above are a fair starting point for that conversation.
For anyone reading this and thinking "I will just rebuild this with Claude Code," we built a page specifically for that question. The math is here: Why not rebuild →