Compare · HubSpot vs Close

HubSpot vs Close: which CRM is actually right for you?

HubSpot is an all-in-one Marketing, Sales, and Service hub. Close is an outbound-first sales CRM with a native dialer, email, and SMS sequencing built in. This is the honest side-by-side so you can pick the right tool.

Start free trial See pricing
Why buyers are here

HubSpot vs Close: what buyers actually weigh.

HubSpot and Close show up on the same shortlist more often than either vendor would admit, but they are not direct substitutes. HubSpot is a growth platform that assumes marketing is driving a meaningful share of pipeline, and that sales, service, and operations will all live on the same contact record. Close is a sales CRM that assumes an SDR or AE is going to pick up the phone, send a sequence, and work a list from the top down. One is contact-tier priced and inbound-shaped. The other is per-seat priced and outbound-shaped. Picking the wrong one is a two-year mistake because the migration cost on either side is real. Here is what buyers actually come looking for when they type "hubspot vs close" into a search bar, and what the honest answer looks like for each.

Pricing shape

Two completely different billing models.

Close charges per seat on a flat ladder with four published tiers, one price per user per month, and the dialer, email, and SMS tooling baked into the seat cost. HubSpot charges per seat on Sales Hub but layers Marketing Hub on top with contact-tier billing that steps every 1,000 or 5,000 marketing contacts. The HubSpot bill at year three looks nothing like the HubSpot bill at month one. That is the single biggest line of regret in HubSpot migrations away.

Outbound motion

Dialer, email, and SMS in one UI versus a growth hub.

Close ships a native power dialer, predictive dialer on the top tier, email sequencing, and SMS sequencing in the same UI reps live in all day. HubSpot ships calling minutes, email sequences, and task queues on Sales Hub, but SMS is add-on territory and the dialer is lighter than Close for high-volume outbound. If the daily driver is a rep working through a call list, Close carries the heavier half of the comparison.

Marketing depth

All-in-one hub versus outbound-only tool.

HubSpot ships native email marketing, landing pages, forms, lifecycle automation, lead scoring, and attribution out of the box. Close ships bulk email, email sequences, and segmentation, but does not pretend to be a marketing automation platform. If your buying motion is inbound-heavy, if marketing and sales share a team, if lifecycle automation is a core workflow, HubSpot wins the comparison. If marketing lives elsewhere and your CRM job is pipeline plus outbound, Close wins.

Time to value

Who is going to configure this?

Close onboards in days. A sales manager can set up pipelines, import leads, build sequences, and get reps dialing inside a week. HubSpot takes weeks to configure well, especially once you turn on Marketing Hub, lifecycle stages, Workflows, custom reports, and lead scoring. Both can be run without a certified admin, but HubSpot rewards a dedicated operator and Close mostly does not require one.

Team size fit

Where each tool breaks.

Close is beloved for 2 to 50 person sales teams and feels thin past 100 seats, particularly on cross-object reporting, complex permissions, and enterprise RevOps workflows. HubSpot scales further on paper, but the pricing shape punishes growth at exactly the moment it starts working. Many teams end up jumping off Close to HubSpot or Salesforce around the 50 to 100 seat mark, and off HubSpot to Salesforce around the 150 to 300 seat mark.

Service and ticketing

Does your team need a help desk?

HubSpot Service Hub adds ticketing, a knowledge base, SLA tracking, and a help desk inbox on the same record as sales and marketing. Close does not ship a Service Hub equivalent and is explicit about not being a support tool. If customer support is in scope for the CRM, HubSpot wins by default. If support lives in a dedicated tool already, this stops mattering.

Where HubSpot wins

HubSpot is the better pick when marketing and sales share the record.

HubSpot was never designed as a sales execution tool with marketing bolted on. It was designed as a growth platform where the contact record is shared across Marketing, Sales, Service, and Operations. That inheritance shows up in the features below. If your buying motion depends on inbound funnels, lifecycle nurture, attribution, and a help desk, HubSpot is the stronger half of this comparison.

Email marketing

Native email built for lifecycle, not blasts.

HubSpot ships a drag-and-drop email builder, segmentation on any property, A/B testing, send-time optimization, and native tracking of opens, clicks, and replies. Lifecycle emails run as part of Workflows, so a free signup, a trial, and a closed-lost reactivation each run their own nurture track off the same contact record. Close bulk email is capable but is a sales tool, not a marketing engine.

Lifecycle automation

Workflows that span the whole funnel.

HubSpot Workflows trigger off any contact, deal, company, or custom-object property. A single automation can rotate a lead, enroll them in a nurture, set a lifecycle stage, create a task, send an internal Slack message, and alert the owner on reply. The automations run across Marketing and Sales on one engine. Close Workflows are strong for outbound cadence but are sales-scoped by design.

Inbound attribution

First-touch, last-touch, multi-touch out of the box.

If a buyer reads three blog posts, downloads a guide, attends a webinar, and then books a demo, HubSpot can attribute revenue across every touch and report it in a single view. Attribution reports are available on the Pro Marketing tier and up. Close does not ship native marketing attribution; teams rely on Google Analytics plus manual UTM tagging.

Landing pages and forms

Capture and conversion without a separate tool.

HubSpot includes a landing page builder, form builder, chat and pop-up tools, and a CMS Hub for the full marketing site. Everything writes back to the same contact record. Close ships web form capture through integrations but does not build landing pages or run a CMS; teams on Close typically use a dedicated website platform.

Service and ticketing

A help desk on the same contact record.

HubSpot Service Hub adds a ticket pipeline, a knowledge base builder, a shared conversations inbox, SLA tracking, and feedback surveys. A ticket, a deal, and a lifecycle stage all live on the same record. For teams that want sales and support in one place, this is a real feature. Close has no comparable module.

Reporting breadth

Custom reports across every object.

HubSpot ships a custom report builder with multi-object joins, funnel reports, attribution reports, and dashboards shareable across teams. The Pro tier opens most of this; the Enterprise tier adds advanced business intelligence features and a reporting data warehouse hook. Close Reporting is sales-focused and clean but does not go as deep on cross-object or attribution reporting.

Free tier

A real free CRM for very small teams.

HubSpot ships a genuinely usable free CRM: unlimited users, contact management, deals, meetings, email templates, limited email tracking, forms, and reporting. For a two-person team not yet ready to pay, it buys 6 to 12 months of runway. Close has a free trial but no permanent free tier, and the value prop breaks down without the dialer and sequences the paid plans unlock.

Content strategy

Blog, SEO, and content hub built in.

HubSpot CMS Hub, Content Hub, and SEO tools let a marketing team run the blog, pillar pages, topic clusters, and SEO strategy inside the same system that holds the CRM. A piece of content is tied to the contacts and deals it influenced. Close does not touch content and does not try to.

Enterprise feature set

Custom objects, playbooks, and advanced governance.

HubSpot Enterprise ships custom objects, playbooks, forecasting on multiple pipelines, field-level permissions, partitioning, and single sign-on with SCIM. Close enterprise features exist but the ceiling on complex governance is lower. For a 150-seat sales team with multiple business units, HubSpot clears the complexity bar; Close is likely to feel thin.

Where Close wins

Close is the better pick when the job is outbound SDR execution.

Close has always been built for the sales motion specifically. It is not trying to be a marketing platform or a help desk. That focus shows up in a leaner product, a cleaner daily experience for reps who dial and sequence, and pricing math that stays sane as the team grows. The features below are where the Close side of the comparison lands harder than HubSpot.

Native power dialer

Click-to-call, voicemail drop, local presence.

Close ships a built-in dialer with click-to-call from any lead, pre-recorded voicemail drops, call recording, call transcription, local presence numbers, and a predictive dialer on the top tier. The dialer is baked into the seat cost. HubSpot ships calling minutes on Sales Hub, but high-volume dialers like PowerDialer or Orum are usually bolted on. For 50 to 200 dial-a-day reps, Close is a materially faster daily driver.

Integrated SMS

Native SMS, MMS, and SMS inside sequences.

Close ships two-way SMS and MMS on the deal record and inside sequence steps. A rep can text a prospect from the lead view, log the thread automatically, and mix SMS steps with email and call steps in the same cadence. HubSpot added mobile messaging and WhatsApp but SMS at scale is usually an add-on or a third-party integration. For outbound teams that want SMS as a first-class channel, Close wins the comparison.

Sequence engine

Multi-channel cadences built for SDRs.

Close Workflows chain email steps, call tasks, and SMS steps into a single multi-channel sequence with reply detection, bounce handling, and automatic completion when a prospect replies or books a meeting. HubSpot Sequences on Sales Hub Pro do the same for email and task steps but are lighter on the dialer and SMS integration. For an outbound SDR running 200 touchpoints a day, Close feels built for the job.

Per-seat predictability

The bill scales with your team, not your list.

Close charges one price per user per month on four tiers, no contact escalator. A team that triples its lead list in year two pays the same base per seat it paid in year one. For sales-led teams whose growth comes from reps closing deals rather than from inbound list growth, the Close pricing shape is the right shape.

Rep-first UX

The call list is the home screen.

Open Close and a smart view, a lead inbox, or a call list is the first thing you see. Lead cards show company, phone, next step, last contact, and sequence status at a glance. Reps work the list from top to bottom, dial, log, sequence, and advance. HubSpot has similar screens but behind a larger navigation surface that includes Marketing, Service, Operations, Commerce, and Content. Reps who spend 80 percent of their time dialing find Close faster to live in.

Faster time-to-value

Onboarding measured in days, not weeks.

A sales manager who has run outbound before can set up Close in a day. Define a pipeline, import leads, invite reps, port a number, launch sequences. Reps dial on day two. HubSpot rewards and often requires a dedicated operator to configure Workflows, lifecycle stages, lead scoring, custom reports, and Marketing Hub assets. For teams without a RevOps hire, Close is the lower-effort pick.

API and webhooks

Developer-friendly surface for the lean stack.

Close publishes a clean REST API, webhooks on every event, native Zap-free integrations with the common sales stack, and an SDK that lets a developer build custom automations in hours. HubSpot has a bigger API surface but it is also heavier to learn. For small teams with a half-time engineer wiring the stack, Close is faster to extend.

Lower sticker at mid-scale

The 20-seat bill lands cheaper on most ladders.

For a 20-seat sales team with 50,000 marketing contacts, the HubSpot bill (Sales Pro plus Marketing Pro plus a dialer add-on) runs materially higher than the Close bill (Professional times 20, dialer included). The exact math varies by tier and discount, but at mid-scale with outbound-heavy motion, Close almost always lands cheaper. Buyers feel this on renewal.

Where the two are roughly even

The decision does not hinge on these features.

Both HubSpot and Close have shipped mature CRM primitives over the last decade. For a lot of core jobs, the quality is close enough that your decision will not turn on these dimensions. If you are evaluating and someone in a vendor meeting leans hard on one of the categories below as a differentiator, discount the pitch.

Deal and contact basics

Both products do pipelines well.

Companies, contacts, leads, deals or opportunities, activities, custom fields, pipeline stages, kanban or list view, filtering, bulk edit, saved views, smart views. Both products ship these cleanly. The feature parity on the pipeline core is high enough that most reps feel at home in either tool within a day.

Email integration

Gmail and Outlook sync, tracking, templates.

Both products ship native Gmail and Outlook integrations, two-way sync, open and click tracking, templates, and sequences on their paid tiers. HubSpot gives slightly more send volume on free and lower tiers. Close gives a slightly cleaner inbox experience and inbox-inside-the-CRM for reps. Neither is going to be the reason you pick.

Mobile app

A pipeline in your pocket.

Both products ship competent iOS and Android apps. Pipeline view, log a call, log a note, create a deal, update a stage, offline support. HubSpot pulls slightly ahead on contact enrichment and the full Marketing surface. Close pulls slightly ahead on the dialer and lead-view speed. For most reps, either app is fine.

Workflow automation

Both have no-code builders.

HubSpot Workflows and Close Workflows both ship no-code visual builders with triggers, filters, actions, and delays. HubSpot is more powerful on multi-object triggers and marketing-side actions. Close is more approachable for a sales manager building outbound cadences. For sales-side use cases both can get the job done.

App marketplace

Real ecosystems on both sides.

HubSpot App Marketplace has over 1,500 integrations. Close has a smaller but focused marketplace covering the common sales stack: Slack, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, QuickBooks, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, DocuSign, PandaDoc, Calendly, LinkedIn Sales Navigator. For sales-only use cases, Close marketplace coverage is sufficient. For a broader stack with marketing and ops tools, HubSpot has more native options.

Basic reporting

Dashboards, deal reports, activity reports.

For the standard reports a sales manager runs (deals won by rep, pipeline by stage, activities logged, win rate by source, average deal size), both products are competitive. HubSpot pulls ahead on cross-object and attribution reporting. Close pulls ahead on activity-dense reports like calls per rep, call outcome mix, and sequence performance.

Permissions and roles

Role-based access on both sides.

Both products ship role-based permissions, visibility rules, team-level visibility, and admin controls. HubSpot gets more granular at Enterprise with field-level permissions and advanced visibility. Close handles 90 percent of mid-market sales cases without a certified admin, but tops out before HubSpot Enterprise does.

Data import and migration

CSV import, API, and dedicated migration tooling.

Both products ship CSV importers with field mapping, duplicate detection, and preview. Both ship REST APIs for programmatic data load. HubSpot has a slightly more polished migration experience and a larger ecosystem of partner migration shops. Close has a cleaner CSV flow and faster time to first import for small sales teams. If you are moving off a legacy CRM, both will do the job.

Common buyer scenarios

Which one wins for which team.

The honest answer to "HubSpot or Close" is almost always "it depends on your motion." Below are the archetypes we see repeatedly, with the honest verdict for each. If one of these describes your team, the right pick is the one in the title.

Outbound SDR team

Close wins for outbound-first SDR teams.

If SDRs and AEs source most of pipeline through cold calling, cold email, and SMS sequences, if the daily driver is a dialer and a call list, if marketing lives in a separate tool or does not exist yet, Close is cleaner, cheaper, and gets higher rep adoption. The marketing modules on HubSpot are not a feature if nobody uses them.

Inbound-heavy SaaS

HubSpot wins for inbound-led SaaS teams.

If marketing drives 60 percent or more of pipeline through content, SEO, paid, and lifecycle nurture, HubSpot is the stronger half. The shared contact record, native lifecycle automation, and attribution reporting matter more than the dialer at that motion.

High-velocity SMB sales

Close wins for high-velocity SMB sales teams.

For teams selling into SMB with deal cycles measured in days or weeks and reps running 50 to 200 touches a day, Close is designed for that specific motion. Dialer, SMS, sequences, smart views for lead prioritization, and a fast lead inbox beat a growth platform with heavier chrome.

Full-funnel marketing team

HubSpot wins when marketing owns revenue.

If the marketing team owns a revenue number, if attribution matters to the CEO, if lifecycle nurture is a core workflow, if the blog and SEO strategy sit alongside the pipeline, HubSpot is the right tool. Close will leave gaps that the marketing team will fill with other software.

Small team, no admin

Close wins when nobody owns ops.

A 5 to 15 seat sales team without a dedicated RevOps or marketing operations hire usually lands better on Close. HubSpot can be configured by a part-time admin, but the ROI on the Marketing Hub features depends on someone actually running them. If nobody is going to, you are paying for shelfware.

Growth stage startup

HubSpot wins pre-50 seats on inbound, Close wins on outbound.

HubSpot is the right call for many Series A and early Series B teams running inbound-led motion. Free tier buys early runway, marketing accelerates inbound, service rounds out the stack. Close is the right call for the same stage team running outbound-led motion. The decision tracks the motion, not the stage.

Mid-market services firm

Close usually wins for sales-heavy services firms.

Agencies, consultancies, and professional services firms running a per-seat outbound-led sales motion with a known deal flow usually land better on Close. The pricing math stays sane, the pipeline UX is familiar to reps, and the lack of a marketing hub is not a hole for teams whose marketing lives on LinkedIn and events.

E-commerce or retail

HubSpot wins when the funnel is content and email.

For e-commerce or retail-adjacent teams whose top-of-funnel is content and email, where abandoned-cart flows, win-back campaigns, and lifecycle messaging drive repeat purchases, HubSpot carries the heavier half of the stack. Close is a cleaner fit for B2B deal-based retail (wholesale, distribution, trade accounts) where the pipeline is the thing to manage, not the newsletter.

Service-business sales

Close wins for trade and local-service outbound.

For HVAC, roofing, home services, trades, and local-services sales motions where the job is call lists, voicemails, SMS follow-up, and a clean quote-to-close pipeline, Close almost always wins. Native dialer, SMS sequences, mobile pipeline for reps on the road, no marketing surface area that nobody will use.

Head-to-head

HubSpot vs Close: the honest feature-by-feature table

The table below is a side-by-side on the dimensions buyers ask about most. "Pricing basis" and "Admin burden" are the two rows that drive the most regret in migrations away from either tool, so read those first. "Service and ticketing" and "Native dialer" are the two rows that drive the most regret in picking the wrong one in the first place; if you need outbound-first execution and go with HubSpot, you will bolt on PowerDialer or Orum within six months. All values below reflect published feature sets as of 2026 and the public pricing shapes each vendor advertises.

Feature HubSpot Close
Pricing basis Per seat on Sales Hub, per marketing contact tier on Marketing Hub (steps every 1,000 or 5,000) Per seat across four tiers, no contact escalator, dialer included
Free tier Yes, a real free CRM with unlimited users, deals, contacts, meetings Free trial only, no permanent free tier
Native dialer Calling minutes on Sales Hub, high-volume dialing usually requires add-on Native power dialer, predictive dialer on top tier, voicemail drop included
SMS inside sequences Mobile messaging limited, SMS at scale usually third-party Two-way SMS and MMS native, step inside multi-channel sequences
Email marketing Native, deep (segmentation, A/B, send-time optimization, lifecycle) Bulk email and sequences, sales-first not a marketing engine
Lifecycle automation Workflows across contacts, deals, companies, custom objects, marketing + sales Workflows for outbound cadences, sales-scoped by design
Pipeline management Strong kanban + list, deals + stages + custom pipelines Strong smart views + lead inbox + pipeline, outbound-first UX
Reporting breadth Custom report builder with cross-object joins, attribution, funnel Sales reporting (call outcomes, sequence stats, win rates), lighter on cross-object
Service and ticketing Yes, Service Hub (tickets, knowledge base, SLAs, help desk) No native service module
Attribution reporting Native first-touch, last-touch, multi-touch on Pro+ Not native, teams rely on GA + UTM tagging
Mobile app Full CRM + Marketing surface on iOS/Android Pipeline + dialer-focused iOS/Android app
Custom objects Yes, available on Enterprise tier Limited, no equivalent custom object model
Integrations App Marketplace, over 1,500 apps Focused marketplace covering the common sales stack
Admin burden Weeks to configure well, benefits from a dedicated operator Days to configure, runnable by a sales manager
The third way

Strkr: both halves without the trade-off.

The honest frame of HubSpot vs Close is that each tool wins half of the buying question and loses the other half. HubSpot gives you native marketing, lifecycle automation, and a help desk but prices on contacts, which punishes exactly the growth signal the marketing engine is designed to produce, and ships a lighter dialer than Close. Close gives you native dialer, SMS, and outbound sequencing with predictable per-seat pricing but ships lighter on marketing, attribution, and service, which pushes teams into a split stack with sync tax. Strkr was built for the buyers who refuse to pick one half and refuse to pay the escalator. One data model across CRM, Marketing, Projects, Messaging, and Products, per-seat pricing on every tier, flat admin surface. Here is how it answers both sides of the question at once.

Native Marketing module (email, segmentation, lifecycle automation, lead scoring) built in, so marketing and sales share a record the HubSpot way.
Native Messaging module with SMS and MMS designed for sequence steps alongside email, BYO Twilio compatible so outbound and transactional messaging live on the record the Close way.
Dialer-ready architecture on the same contact record so call tasks, voicemail drops, and call outcomes attach to the deal timeline without a separate tool.
Per-seat pricing across every paid tier, no contact-tier escalator, so the bill scales with your team not your list.
Projects module native on the same record so the handoff from Closed Won to delivery is a stage change, not an integration project.
Products module native for quoting, line items, and renewal clocks so proposal and quote generation is first-class, not an add-on.
Flat admin surface designed to be configured by a sales manager in days, not by a certified admin in weeks.

See how Strkr prices and what it ships without the escalator or the bolt-on.

If HubSpot vs Close is really a question about pricing shape and whether you can get both halves, the fastest path forward is to see the Strkr pricing page and the CRM feature breakdown side by side. Both are linked below. No sales call required to read either one.

See Strkr pricing CRM feature tour
Common questions

HubSpot vs Close: what buyers ask.

Which is cheaper, HubSpot or Close?

At similar sales-focused functionality, Close is almost always cheaper, especially at mid-scale (10 to 50 seats with a growing contact list and an outbound motion). HubSpot is sometimes cheaper at the very bottom (free tier for a two-person team) or at the very top (Enterprise discounts can get aggressive for 200+ seat deals), but in the common mid-market zone Close wins the pricing comparison. The gap widens as your contact list grows because HubSpot Marketing Hub steps up every 1,000 or 5,000 marketing contacts while Close stays flat per seat. The gap widens again when you factor in the dialer: HubSpot teams running real outbound usually bolt on a PowerDialer-class tool, which adds another per-seat line item that Close bakes in.

Which is better for small outbound sales teams?

Close is the simpler pick for a 2 to 15 person outbound sales team: faster to set up, cleaner UX, dialer and SMS included, sequence engine designed for SDR work. For the same size team doing inbound-heavy marketing, HubSpot is the better pick despite the setup cost, because the marketing tools will carry weight you cannot get in Close. For a 2 to 5 person team that wants to use the free CRM for 6 to 12 months before paying anything, HubSpot free is a legitimate option Close does not match.

Should I switch from HubSpot to Close?

Switch if your motion has shifted from inbound-led to outbound-led, if marketing has moved to a dedicated platform and HubSpot has become the Sales Hub portion of a bigger stack, if the contact-tier bill has crossed into pain territory, and if your reps spend most of the day dialing or sequencing. Do not switch if lifecycle automation and attribution are core workflows, if marketing and sales share a contact record daily, or if you have invested heavily in HubSpot content, workflows, and reports. The migration is non-trivial and the ROI depends on how much of HubSpot you actually use.

Should I switch from Close to HubSpot?

Switch if your motion has shifted from outbound-led to inbound-led, if you have hired a marketing team that needs real email, lifecycle, and attribution tools, if you want sales and support on one record, or if you are crossing the 100-seat line and your RevOps needs more governance than Close ships. Do not switch if the outbound motion is still working, if your marketing is handled elsewhere, if you do not have a dedicated operator to run HubSpot. HubSpot can become shelfware fast if the Marketing Hub features are not actively run.

What if I need both marketing automation AND a native dialer?

This is the most common honest answer: you want both halves and neither tool is a clean fit. HubSpot gives you the marketing half with pricing math that can hurt at scale and a dialer that is lighter than Close for high-volume outbound. Close gives you the dialer half with a lighter marketing surface that may not be enough. Some teams split the stack (Close plus a dedicated marketing tool like Customer.io or ActiveCampaign); others accept the HubSpot bill plus a bolt-on dialer. There are also newer CRM platforms (Strkr is one) that ship both halves on per-seat pricing, which is the third-way answer when you want both without the escalator and without the bolt-on.

Which has the better mobile app?

Both are competent. Close is slightly faster for the pure dialer-and-lead-view loop, and reps who live in the call list usually prefer it. HubSpot is slightly stronger on contact enrichment, email tracking, and the marketing-side features inside the app. If your reps do most of their work from the car between site visits with a phone in one hand, Close is the lighter pick. If your reps also use marketing surfaces, HubSpot carries more weight on mobile. Both ship offline support, call logging, voice memos on activities, and native calendar sync. Close opens to the lead inbox or call list by default; HubSpot opens to a feed. Reps who want fewer taps between opening the app and starting a call usually report Close feels faster in the hand.

Which integrates better with my stack?

If your stack is standard SaaS (Slack, Zoom, Google Workspace or Microsoft 365, QuickBooks, Calendly, LinkedIn Sales Navigator, DocuSign, PandaDoc), both HubSpot and Close ship native integrations. HubSpot has more apps in the marketplace (1,500+ versus a smaller focused Close catalog) but Close covers the common sales cases cleanly. The real integration question is whether you need deep bidirectional sync with a product analytics tool, a billing tool, or a BI tool. HubSpot has deeper hooks on operations and reporting; Close has cleaner hooks on sales execution tools. Teams running Segment, Snowflake, or a dedicated data warehouse usually find HubSpot easier to pipe data out of because the Operations Hub ships two-way sync natively. Teams running a lean execution stack (dialer, scheduler, document signing, Slack) usually find Close easier to wire up because the integration points are fewer and simpler and the webhook surface is tight.

Also considering

Related comparisons.

HubSpot vs Pipedrive HubSpot vs Salesforce Salesforce vs Pipedrive Close vs Pipedrive Close vs Salesloft HubSpot vs Attio

Try it free. Bring your team next week.

No sales call, no migration consultant, no four-month implementation. Enter your card, get 14 days of the full Pro tier, cancel any time before day 14 with zero charge. Spin up a workspace, import your CSV, and have something useful before lunch.

Start free trial See pricing