Allbound is reasonably priced, but I haven't compared it with any other solution. I like that Allbound charges a flat rate instead of charging by the number of partners or users, which is the model other platforms use.
I have no complaints about it, but it is not something that is my purview. I know the pricing. I deal with it, but I have not compared it to other things. I know it is much more affordable than going with some of the other services. For example, Salesforce has a partner portal option, but it is much more expensive, so I know Allbound is reasonable in that sense, but I do not know what the reasonability is across the board. Allbound has a flat, package-based pricing model, as opposed to tier-based pricing, that grows as our number of partners increases. I love it because growth is a huge part of our partner program right now, but it is not a huge deal because overall, within the partner ecosystem, we are starting to see that partner programs are more focused on quality over quantity, so there is not a big drive to have hundreds of partners as there once was.
Allbound is cost-efficient. It's on the cheaper end of the spectrum. Allbound's flat pricing is crucial to our business model. It isn't based on the number of partners. We pay a flat one-time fee for the platform.
Allbound is one of the most affordable solutions. The license is based on the number of users, and we have some flexibility because we purchased an enterprise license. We're pretty happy with the license, and we don't get billed for anything additional. Allbound's flat package-based model is helpful as we grow and become more complex.
Considering the interface, the price is high, although Allbound offers a lot. Some of my negative opinion here is because we have yet to upgrade to using the tool's best-in-class features due to internal issues. As it stands, I don't personally see the value that supports the cost, but that could change when we turn on the features. For example, we only get one sandbox, and as we're waiting for this internal project to finish, we can't stage or test much in Allbound's systems. We're stuck waiting, and the project is a year overdue, which isn't Allbound's fault, but they only offer one sandbox, and we don't have the option to pay for another one. They did create a custom environment for me to test in, but it's not a match to our production environment; it helps, but it's not the same as a full sandbox that matches all of our settings, users, and so on.
Allbound has forced other vendors to be a little more competitive with their pricing. For what you get, which is a lot, the pricing of Allbound is fine. Allbound's flat, package-based pricing model contrasts with tier-based pricing which grows as the number of partners increases. I don't like that latter model at all because you run the risk of suppressing the process of getting more partners. I'm of the ilk of figuring out who your partners really should be. What goals are you trying to achieve? Find the partners that will help you support that. But there are definitely other companies that want as many partners as they can possibly get, and when you have that kind of pricing, it's not fun at all because there's nothing predictable.
Its pricing is fair, especially because we can have as many partners create accounts as we want. It has a very fair price range compared to other companies that charge per partner. We've thousands, so it would just be too expensive to go with a different option. We really appreciate the flat rate. Because we've new partners onboarding every single day, it would get expensive very fast if we had to pay per user. One of the main reasons why we love Allbound is the flat rate.
The pricing model is critical because it helped us grow our program without being penalized. We didn't want to continue to pay more just to add more people who weren't engaged. Allbound's price is a great deal. The way I describe it to people internally is I would personally pay for Allbound if we didn't have a budget. The solution is very useful. Allbound would have to be pried out of my hands because what we get for the cost is more than worth it. If the solution was sitting on the shelf, it wouldn't be worth anything. When we actually implement it and start to get it going, we get a lot of value for the money invested and a lot more time. There's a lot of staff time invested that goes in, as well. One of my larger costs is partner enablement, partner training, and development. The people I pay cost a lot more than Allbound, but without the right tool for the job, they wouldn't be as effective in their role.
It's reasonably priced for what it can do and how much time it can save. It's a big amount of money, but for the time that it can save for people from having to do the work, it's definitely worth it. Considering the constant improvements and the features they keep adding, its price is reasonable. It's perfect for us that Allbound has a flat, package-based pricing model, as opposed to tier-based pricing that grows as the number of partners increases. Especially for our scale, it's so good to know that the pricing will remain the same even while growing. In the end, Allbound gets cheaper for us, which is really nice.
Channel Strategy and Technical Development Manager, at Cloudify
Real User
2022-10-08T03:48:00Z
Oct 8, 2022
This is the highest price that you'll pay, but I am not comparing it with Salesforce, SAP, or Oracle. In the mid-level solutions, Allbound has one of the highest costs, but it also has higher capabilities and flexibility to customize things without developing. I'm not sure if they have flat pricing. At least at that time, they had three different levels of pricing without limitation of how many users, tenants, or partners you wanted to onboard. Even today, I don't have any limitation on how many users or partners I can use within the platform. Other platforms have this kind of limitation, and this is something that we had to think about during the purchase because we didn't want to be limited in some way.
Allbound’s partner-centric technology is driving the future of channel success. The company’s partner relationship management (PRM) platform is a powerful solution focused on the partner life cycle from onboarding, training, enablement, and pipeline management that together enable businesses to put partners first.
Allbound is reasonably priced, but I haven't compared it with any other solution. I like that Allbound charges a flat rate instead of charging by the number of partners or users, which is the model other platforms use.
I have no complaints about it, but it is not something that is my purview. I know the pricing. I deal with it, but I have not compared it to other things. I know it is much more affordable than going with some of the other services. For example, Salesforce has a partner portal option, but it is much more expensive, so I know Allbound is reasonable in that sense, but I do not know what the reasonability is across the board. Allbound has a flat, package-based pricing model, as opposed to tier-based pricing, that grows as our number of partners increases. I love it because growth is a huge part of our partner program right now, but it is not a huge deal because overall, within the partner ecosystem, we are starting to see that partner programs are more focused on quality over quantity, so there is not a big drive to have hundreds of partners as there once was.
Allbound is cost-efficient. It's on the cheaper end of the spectrum. Allbound's flat pricing is crucial to our business model. It isn't based on the number of partners. We pay a flat one-time fee for the platform.
Allbound is one of the most affordable solutions. The license is based on the number of users, and we have some flexibility because we purchased an enterprise license. We're pretty happy with the license, and we don't get billed for anything additional. Allbound's flat package-based model is helpful as we grow and become more complex.
Considering the interface, the price is high, although Allbound offers a lot. Some of my negative opinion here is because we have yet to upgrade to using the tool's best-in-class features due to internal issues. As it stands, I don't personally see the value that supports the cost, but that could change when we turn on the features. For example, we only get one sandbox, and as we're waiting for this internal project to finish, we can't stage or test much in Allbound's systems. We're stuck waiting, and the project is a year overdue, which isn't Allbound's fault, but they only offer one sandbox, and we don't have the option to pay for another one. They did create a custom environment for me to test in, but it's not a match to our production environment; it helps, but it's not the same as a full sandbox that matches all of our settings, users, and so on.
Allbound has forced other vendors to be a little more competitive with their pricing. For what you get, which is a lot, the pricing of Allbound is fine. Allbound's flat, package-based pricing model contrasts with tier-based pricing which grows as the number of partners increases. I don't like that latter model at all because you run the risk of suppressing the process of getting more partners. I'm of the ilk of figuring out who your partners really should be. What goals are you trying to achieve? Find the partners that will help you support that. But there are definitely other companies that want as many partners as they can possibly get, and when you have that kind of pricing, it's not fun at all because there's nothing predictable.
Its pricing is fair, especially because we can have as many partners create accounts as we want. It has a very fair price range compared to other companies that charge per partner. We've thousands, so it would just be too expensive to go with a different option. We really appreciate the flat rate. Because we've new partners onboarding every single day, it would get expensive very fast if we had to pay per user. One of the main reasons why we love Allbound is the flat rate.
The pricing model is critical because it helped us grow our program without being penalized. We didn't want to continue to pay more just to add more people who weren't engaged. Allbound's price is a great deal. The way I describe it to people internally is I would personally pay for Allbound if we didn't have a budget. The solution is very useful. Allbound would have to be pried out of my hands because what we get for the cost is more than worth it. If the solution was sitting on the shelf, it wouldn't be worth anything. When we actually implement it and start to get it going, we get a lot of value for the money invested and a lot more time. There's a lot of staff time invested that goes in, as well. One of my larger costs is partner enablement, partner training, and development. The people I pay cost a lot more than Allbound, but without the right tool for the job, they wouldn't be as effective in their role.
It's reasonably priced for what it can do and how much time it can save. It's a big amount of money, but for the time that it can save for people from having to do the work, it's definitely worth it. Considering the constant improvements and the features they keep adding, its price is reasonable. It's perfect for us that Allbound has a flat, package-based pricing model, as opposed to tier-based pricing that grows as the number of partners increases. Especially for our scale, it's so good to know that the pricing will remain the same even while growing. In the end, Allbound gets cheaper for us, which is really nice.
This is the highest price that you'll pay, but I am not comparing it with Salesforce, SAP, or Oracle. In the mid-level solutions, Allbound has one of the highest costs, but it also has higher capabilities and flexibility to customize things without developing. I'm not sure if they have flat pricing. At least at that time, they had three different levels of pricing without limitation of how many users, tenants, or partners you wanted to onboard. Even today, I don't have any limitation on how many users or partners I can use within the platform. Other platforms have this kind of limitation, and this is something that we had to think about during the purchase because we didn't want to be limited in some way.