CRM
Close
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Elastic Inc. (Close) · www.close.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Close is a CRM from Elastic Inc., a US entity at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, with four tiers priced publicly at $9/$35/$99/$139 per user/month (Solo, Essentials, Growth, Scale). The bench scores it highest on integrations and pricing transparency, crediting the REST API, webhooks and MCP server and the published per-seat numbers. Its weakest categories are sovereignty (0; the evidence records "no sovereignty attributes on record"), pipeline & forecasting (1–2 — evidenced only as a named module, with no stages or forecasting) and import, export & exit (1–2 — no import or export tooling on record). The one flagged disagreement is pricing transparency: the solo seller's 7 credits the no-credit-card trial, 30-day money-back guarantee and month-to-month changes, while the migrator's 4 holds that the "SAVE UP TO 50%" annual figure and unpriced Chloe AI-credit metering leave the real invoice incomputable. Automation is tier-gated — workflows are excluded from Solo and Essentials.
Speaks for it
- All four tiers carry published per-user/month prices — Solo $9, Essentials $35, Growth $99, Scale $139.
- Free trial requires no credit card, with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
- Documented developer platform — REST API, webhooks, and an MCP server — scored 4-6 on integrations.
- Built-in calling, email, and SMS channels rather than third-party inbox logging.
- Monthly subscriptions can be upgraded, downgraded, or canceled anytime.
Held against it
- The evidence records "no sovereignty attributes on record" for a US entity in Austin, Texas; sovereignty scored 0.
- Workflows are excluded from Solo and Essentials, gating automation behind the $99/user/month Growth tier.
- No import, export, or migration tooling is evidenced; the REST API is the only implied exit path.
- The pipeline is evidenced only as a named module, with no stages, forecasts, or reporting on record.
- The annual price is published only as "SAVE UP TO 50%", and Chloe's AI-credit and telephony rates are unpublished.
Best for
- You are a solo operator or small team paying from your own card and want published prices, a no-credit-card trial, and month-to-month terms.
- You have developers who can build on the REST API, webhooks, and MCP server rather than depend on a documented native app directory.
- You want calling, SMS, and email as built-in channels inside the CRM.
- You need unlimited contacts and leads from the Essentials tier upward.
Avoid if
- You are a European buyer whose rules require a DPA, EU hosting, or a published subprocessor list — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need forecasting, stage requirements, or report building from your pipeline.
- You need workflows without moving to the $99/user/month Growth tier.
- You must have a documented export or migration path for leaving the tool.
The scores
Contact & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Depth and hygiene of the core records — contacts, companies, deals, custom fields, deduplication.
0 — A flat address book; no relations between people, companies and deals.
3 — The standard three objects exist but customization is cosmetic: few field types, no required fields, duplicates accumulate unchecked.
5 — Custom fields across objects, basic dedupe on create, activity history on the record; complex models still need workarounds.
8 — Rich field types with validation, merge and dedupe tooling, relationships beyond the standard model, permissioned field access.
10 — A genuinely modelable system: custom objects or equivalent, bulk hygiene tooling, field-level history — the data model bends to the business, not the reverse.
The Solo Seller
Leads, contacts and a pipeline are named, with unlimited leads from Essentials up — but the evidence says nothing about custom fields, required fields, dedupe or merge tooling, and I have to read that silence as absence. That's the standard objects with no hygiene story. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence evidences leads/contacts and a pipeline and nothing more — no custom fields, no required fields, no dedupe or merge tooling. A CRM is a database of other people's personal data before it is a sales tool, and zero evidence of hygiene tooling means duplicates of data subjects accumulate unchecked; the objects exist, the model's depth is unproven. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Contacts, leads (capped at 10k on Solo) and a pipeline object are confirmed, but the evidence is mute on custom fields, required fields, validation, dedupe or merge tooling — and a 40-seat forecast dies on duplicate accounts and unenforced fields, so silence scores to the low anchor. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Contacts and leads are real objects (unlimited contacts on Essentials, 10k lead cap on Solo) with a pipeline beside them, but the evidence is silent on custom fields, dedupe, merge tooling, and any relationship model beyond the standard set. Silence on hygiene is information — this sits at the 'objects exist, customization cosmetic' anchor. 1 2
The Migrator
The evidence names contacts & leads and a pipeline, and that is all it names — no custom fields, no dedupe or merge tooling, no company-deal relations in evidence. A data model this undocumented is one where duplicates accumulate unchecked, which is exactly the mess I get hired to clean up. 1 2
The Skeptic
The evidence proves leads, contacts and a pipeline exist, then goes silent — not a word on custom fields, field types, dedupe, merge tooling, or company-to-contact relationships. Unevidenced means uncredited, so rubric level 3 is the ceiling the evidence reaches and I'm not confident it clears it. 1 2
Pipeline & forecasting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the pipeline enforces a process and produces reporting a finance department accepts.
0 — A kanban of deals with amounts; nothing is enforced, nothing rolls up.
3 — Multiple pipelines and stage probabilities exist, but no required fields per stage and only canned reports.
5 — Stage requirements, win/loss capture and standard forecast views; custom reporting is limited or an add-on.
8 — Enforceable process (required fields, stage gates, routing), custom report builder, forecast by team and period with quota tracking.
10 — Forecasting a CFO signs: weighted and commit-based views, historical snapshots, attainment tracking, and reporting composable enough to answer questions the vendor never anticipated.
The Solo Seller
"Pipeline" is listed as a core module and that's the entire evidence base — nothing on stage requirements, probabilities, win/loss capture, forecasts or any report builder. A pipeline that exists with nothing evidenced around it sits just above a bare kanban. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
A 'pipeline' channel is listed and an AI agent claims to 'update your CRM', but there is no evidence of stage requirements, win/loss capture, forecasting, or any report a finance department would recognize. I cannot credit forecasting or enforcement the evidence does not evidence, so this sits just above the bare-kanban anchor. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
A pipeline exists as a headline module, but nothing evidences stage gates, required fields per stage, win/loss capture, quota tracking or any report builder — there is not one fact here about forecasting, so I cannot credit a forecast my CFO would sign. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
Pipeline is named as a core channel and that is the entire evidentiary record — no stage requirements, no probabilities, no forecast views, no quota or reporting evidence. Nothing rolls up that a finance department would recognize. 1
The Migrator
A 'pipeline' is mentioned by name and nothing else — no stage requirements, no win/loss capture, no forecast views, no reporting of any kind on record. Nothing is enforced and nothing rolls up, because nothing is even evidenced. 1
Automation & workflows
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Triggers, sequences and routing that remove manual work without a consultant.
0 — No automation beyond email templates.
3 — Simple if-this-then-that on records; no multi-step sequences, no branching.
5 — Multi-step workflows with delays and branching, email sequences, basic lead routing — capped by tier or count.
8 — Full workflow builder across objects with webhooks as steps, round-robin routing, sequence analytics.
10 — Automation as infrastructure: versioned workflows, error handling, per-step logs, and limits generous enough that the feature is not its own upsell.
The Solo Seller
"Workflows not included" is printed on both Solo and Essentials, so the automation a one-person shop needs doesn't exist until $99/user/month — exactly the feature-hostage pricing I reject. Even on Growth, nothing evidences branching, delays or sequence analytics. 2
The Data Protection Officer
'Workflows not included' is stated flatly for Solo and Essentials, so automation exists but is a tier gate rather than a core tool — the exact upsell pattern the anchors penalize. The evidence never evidences multi-step sequences, branching, or delays, so I score at the simple-rules anchor with no depth credit. 2 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Workflows are explicitly excluded from Solo and Essentials and only appear as 'leveraging AI and automation' on Growth, which is tier-capping without any evidence of branching, delays, routing or sequence analytics; the credit-metered Chloe agent adds automation at an unknown meter. 2
The RevOps Integrator
Workflows are explicitly 'not included' on Solo and Essentials and only surface as Growth's 'AI and automation' tagline, while Chloe is genuine multi-step automation (calls, qualifies, books, updates CRM) but metered through AI credits. Automation exists, is tier-gated and credit-capped, with zero builder depth evidenced. 2
The Migrator
Workflows are a named feature but explicitly excluded from Solo and Essentials, so automation is tier-gated from day one, and their depth — branching, delays, routing — is entirely unevidenced. Chloe the AI agent ships on all plans but burns metered credits, which is automation priced as its own line item. 2 1
The Skeptic
Workflows are explicitly excluded from both Solo ($9) and Essentials ($35), and "automation" surfaces only as the Growth tier's pitch at $99/user — the feature is literally its own upsell. No branching, delays, routing or workflow limits are documented anywhere, so I can't credit even rubric level 5's depth; webhooks exist only as an API claim. 2 1
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Two-way email/calendar sync, native connections, and an API that treats external systems as first-class.
0 — No API, no sync; data enters by CSV and leaves never.
3 — One-way email logging (BCC), a handful of Zapier triggers, a read-mostly API.
5 — Two-way email and calendar sync for the major providers, a documented REST API with sane limits, a modest native directory.
8 — Deep native integrations for the revenue stack, webhooks, OAuth apps, API parity with the UI for core objects.
10 — An ecosystem: public API covering everything the UI does, event streams, a marketplace, and sync so reliable the CRM can be the system of record without being the only system.
The Solo Seller
A real REST API, webhooks and even an MCP server are on record, plus a native claim to connect sales/marketing/support tools out of the box. But no evidence of two-way calendar sync, OAuth apps or API parity with the UI, so this stops at a solid documented-API-plus-modest-directory level. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
A REST API, webhooks, and even an MCP server are on record, which is more first-class treatment of external systems than most US-default vendors show. But 'connects to your favorite sales, marketing, and support tools' is marketing copy with no named integrations, no email/calendar sync detail, and no documented API limits — good foundations, unproven depth. 1
The Sales Ops Lead
REST API, webhooks and even an MCP server are confirmed, plus a generic claim of native connections to sales/marketing/support tools — but no evidence of two-way email/calendar sync, OAuth apps or API parity with the UI, so it sits just above rubric level 5. 1
The RevOps Integrator
REST API, webhooks, and an MCP server is first-class developer connectivity, and calling/SMS/email are built-in channels rather than BCC logging. But the evidence never mentions two-way calendar sync — a must for me — and the native directory is one marketing sentence ('your favorite tools'), not a documented list, so it lands above the 5 anchor but well short of 8. 1
The Migrator
A developer platform with a REST API, webhooks, and even an MCP server, plus out-of-the-box third-party connections, is genuinely more than BCC-logging. But nothing evidences two-way email/calendar sync, documented API limits, or UI-parity coverage — and before I trust an API for exit, I need to see what it can actually pull. 1
The Skeptic
REST API, webhooks and an MCP server are concrete, checkable claims. But "Close connects to your favorite sales, marketing, and support tools. Out of the box" is a slogan — no named native directory, no two-way email or calendar sync, no rate limits on record. Solid platform claims plus zero ecosystem detail lands it mid-table. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where other people's personal data actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA.
0 — US entity, US-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad and undocumented.
5 — EU hosting selectable at signup, published DPA and subprocessor list; core processing still touches US entities.
8 — EU entity or EU-default hosting with published subprocessors, consent-friendly fields, retention and deletion controls; residual US exposure named and narrow.
10 — European entity, EU-only processing including subprocessors, deletion that provably deletes — sovereignty a DPO can sign off without a caveat file.
The Solo Seller
US entity at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, and zero sovereignty attributes on record — no DPA, no EU region, no subprocessor list. That is the anchor-0 situation precisely, even if it's not what decides my own purchase. 1
The Data Protection Officer
US entity at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas with no EU hosting, no DPA, no subprocessor list anywhere in the evidence — rubric level 0 by the letter. Worse for a DPO: Chloe is an AI agent that calls data subjects on metered credits with no processing terms in evidence, and the only retention statement is a vague 'limited period before deletion' applying to abandoned trials. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
US entity at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, and the evidence records no DPA, no EU hosting option and no subprocessor list anywhere — that is the anchor-0 state verbatim. 1
The RevOps Integrator
US entity at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, with 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no EU hosting option, no subprocessor list anywhere in the evidence. That is the anchor-0 condition precisely, and for European personal data it's disqualifying. 1 2
The Migrator
US entity at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, and 'no sovereignty attributes on record' — no DPA, no EU region, no subprocessor list, nothing. That is rubric level 0 almost verbatim: European personal data sits under US law with zero published exposure. 1
The Skeptic
Elastic Inc. sits at 111 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas, and the evidence carries "no sovereignty attributes on record" — no DPA, no EU region, no subprocessor list, nothing. That is rubric level 0 exactly, and for European buyers this is a one-line verdict. 1
Import, export & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting in with history intact, and out with everything — the anti-lock-in criterion.
0 — Import is a support ticket; export is contacts-only CSV missing notes, activities and files.
3 — Self-serve CSV import with mapping; export covers main objects but drops activity history, attachments or relations.
5 — Guided migration from major competitors, full-object CSV export, API access sufficient to rebuild the database elsewhere with effort.
8 — Complete export (all objects, history, files) self-serve in open formats, import with dedupe and dry-run, no API metering that prices exit out of reach.
10 — Exit as a feature: documented full-fidelity export, migration tooling both directions, and contractual data-return terms — leaving is a weekend, which is exactly why you can stay.
The Solo Seller
Not a single fact about import, export or migration tooling anywhere in the evidence — the only evidenced exit path is hand-rolling pulls against the REST API. Silence on export is the loudest thing here. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence is silent on import and export entirely; the only exit path evidenced is the REST API, with no object coverage or limits stated. Deletion appears only for abandoned trial data — no full-fidelity export, no migration tooling, no data-return terms; exit is unevidenced, and I score it accordingly. 1 2
The Sales Ops Lead
Not one fact covers import, export or migration tooling; the only implied exit path is the REST API, and the trial-retention fact confirms a deletion clock without any evidenced export remedy — for a system I'd move a team onto, that lock-in risk is priced in at the bottom. 1 2
The RevOps Integrator
The evidence is completely silent on import and export — no CSV tooling, no migration path, no export format is evidenced, and trial data just gets deleted after a pause period. The documented REST API is the only implied path out, which is a technical crawl, not an exit. 1 2
The Migrator
The only portability fact on record is that a REST API exists — no import tooling, no export coverage, no dedupe on the way in, no contractual data-return terms, and trial data is deleted after 'a limited period'. Silence on export is information: vendors this quiet about exit have cost me weekends before. 1 2
The Skeptic
Not one fact addresses import or export — no CSV tool, no migration path, no data-return terms; the only exit-adjacent statements are that your trial data is deleted after a grace period and that cancellations land at term end. A REST API exists so the data isn't beyond reach, but the vendor published no exit path, and silence on lock-in is a lock-in signal. 1 2
Pricing transparency
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per seat, per month, at renewal — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but the tiers most buyers need are unpriced, or per-seat maths is obscured by bundles, minimums or mandatory onboarding fees.
5 — Most tiers carry real numbers with billing period and VAT treatment stated, but at least one commonly needed capability hides in an unpriced tier or usage-metered add-on.
8 — Every tier priced publicly including annual/monthly split; limits, seat minimums and overage rules stated; only genuine enterprise contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: every tier, add-on, usage meter and renewal rule public, with a calculator or table that makes the invoice at 3 and 30 seats a two-minute exercise.
The Solo Seller
Every tier carries a real per-seat number ($9/$35/$99/$139), no seat minimums, trial without a card, 30-day refund and month-to-month changes — the honest 1-5 seat pricing I pay with my own card for. What keeps it shy of the top: the annual price is "SAVE UP TO 50%" rather than a computable figure, and Chloe's AI-credit and telephony metering has no published rates, so the true invoice still has fuzzy edges. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Four tiers carry real per-user monthly prices with change-anytime terms, so the sticker invoice is computable. But the annual price is only 'SAVE UP TO 50%' — the actual annual invoice is not — and Chloe's credit metering means the AI bill is unknown until it is rung up, while workflows sit behind the $99 tier. Usage-metered opacity caps this at the anchor. 2 1
The Sales Ops Lead
Four tiers carry clean per-user monthly numbers ($9/$35/$99/$139) with Solo limits and upgrade/downgrade rules stated, but the annual discount is only 'up to 50%' with no actual annual prices, VAT treatment is unstated, and Chloe's credit metering is a usage cost with no published rates — a real invoice is not computable from these pages alone. 2
The RevOps Integrator
All four tiers carry real per-user/month numbers (Solo $9 to Scale $139) with plan-change rules stated, but the annual figure is only 'SAVE UP TO 50%', Chloe and telephony run on credits with no published rates, and VAT treatment is unstated. The at-renewal invoice is not computable from the public page, which caps this at the 5 anchor. 2
The Migrator
All four tiers carry public per-user prices ($9/$35/$99/$139), which is more than most vendors manage. But 'SAVE UP TO 50%' annually makes the real invoice incomputable, Chloe's credit metering is unpriced, VAT treatment is unstated, and complex needs get routed to a custom demo. 2
The Skeptic
Four tiers carry real monthly per-seat numbers ($9/$35/$99/$139), which earns the baseline — but the annual price is "SAVE UP TO 50%", an adverb rather than a number, and Chloe runs on AI credits plus telephony whose rates appear nowhere, so the real invoice is not computable from public pages. rubric level 5 verbatim: real numbers with a commonly wanted capability hiding in an unpriced usage meter. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in US ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 21 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Entity name is taken only from the privacy policy; the site footer instead shows '111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500, Austin, Texas 78701, United States' and no trade register is cited anywhere.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 38 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 24 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Vendor pricing page www.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 15 Sep 2026, 21 Aug 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Contact & data model — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Contact & data model — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Pipeline & forecasting — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Automation & workflows — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Import, export & exit — found from sitemap help.close.com Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →