Infrastructure
Commercials
Commercial terms are agreed per partnership and depend on the deployment model, scope and support expectations. The partner sets what its own users pay, because the partner owns the client relationship.
The principles we work to
The partner owns the client relationship and therefore sets end-user pricing. The commercial model should scale with the value the partner's users actually get rather than with seat counts.
- You set what your users pay.
- Deployment model and scope drive the structure.
- A scoped pilot comes before any wider commitment.
What actually drives the structure
Four variables move a partner deal more than anything else. The deployment model, because a full white-label surface on your domain carries a different support and release burden from an API integration you operate yourself. The scope, because one capability on one segment is not the same commitment as all four across a network. The support model, because some partners want their own team to hold first-line support while others want it handled behind the brand. And the data direction, because a partner contributing data that is attributed as a source inside the layer is bringing something to the arrangement that a pure consumer is not.
Those four are the discovery agenda. Nothing about them is guessable from a website, which is why a published partner rate card would be a number we then qualified away in the first call.
- Deployment model: white label, embedded components, API, MCP, referral or data exchange
- Scope: how many capabilities, how many segments, how many tenants
- Support model: who holds first line, and under whose brand
- Data direction: whether the partner also contributes attributed source data
Why we do not publish partner economics
Partner deals differ too much for a published rate card to be honest. Rather than post a figure we would then qualify away, we set terms after discovery, once the archetype, the scope and the support model are clear.
Direct platform pricing for funds is published in full on the main site, and partners are welcome to use it as a reference point.
What a pilot costs you
The main cost of a pilot is attention: a segment, a workflow, some real records and someone on your side who can judge whether user behaviour changed. Commercial terms for the pilot itself are agreed alongside the scope.
A pilot that proves nothing is usually one that was scoped too wide. The version that produces a decision picks a single user segment, a single workflow with a measurable before state, and a fixed review date at which the partner can say whether the behaviour changed. If it did not, the arrangement stops there and neither side has rebuilt a business around an assumption.
How partners price their own users
Because the partner sets end-user pricing, the question that follows is what to charge for. Partners generally take one of three positions: fold the capability into an existing subscription and use it to defend renewal, price it as a distinct tier for the users who need decisioning and evidence rather than storage, or charge on transaction events where the workflow directly replaces a manual process the partner was already staffing.
None of those is prescribed. The direct pricing published on the main site exists as a reference for what a fund pays when it buys the capability itself, which is a useful anchor when a partner is deciding what its own users will bear.
Frequently asked
Do you publish partner pricing?
No. Terms are agreed per partnership after discovery, because deployment model and scope change the structure materially.
Who sets what our users pay?
You do. You own the client relationship and the pricing that goes with it.
Where can we see direct platform pricing?
Direct pricing for funds is published in full on the main pricing page.