ConcordContract Management You Don't Have to Manage
vs
ProposifyProposal software that gives you control and insight into the close.
Comparison · Proposals & Contracts · weekly run Nov 2
Concord vs Proposify
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
Proposify is the stronger AI pick in Proposals & Contracts: it has a visibility score of 41.4 versus 3.6 for Concord, and ranks ahead in 100% of the answers that name both.
Choose Concord if…
- You need SOC 2 Type II or EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework with UK and Swiss extensions or CSA STAR Level One coverage
- free contract-focused tier with unlimited contracts and e-signatures
Choose Proposify if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (41.4 vs 3.6)
- You want a lower entry price ($49 vs $499)
- You need SOC 2 Type 2 coverage
- Visually rich, branded proposal design
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 2
| Metric | Concord | Proposify |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 3.6% | 41.4% |
| Change vs last week | New | New |
| Rank in Proposals & Contracts | #20 | #2 |
| Share of voice | 1.1% | 9.4% |
| Mentions this run | 6 | 49 |
| Positive in AI answers | — | 49% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
Concord 0pp · Proposify 0pp over 0 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
Proposify leads on 3 of 3 engines
ChatGPT
AI Mode
Perplexity
ConcordProposify
Head to head in AI answers
3 engine answers name both brands
0Concord ranked higher
3Proposify ranked higher
| Prompt | Engine | Concord | Proposify |
|---|---|---|---|
| How do I choose a proposal and contract tool for a mid-market team? | ChatGPT | #6 | #2 |
| Top proposal and contract tool options for B2B SaaS companies | ChatGPT | #10 | #2 |
| What is the typical pricing model for Proposals & Contracts software? | ChatGPT | #6 | #3 |
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | Concord | Proposify |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per seat | Per seat |
| Entry price | $499 per seat / mo | $49 per seat / mo |
| Free plan | No | No · 14-day trial |
| Deployment | Cloud-based | Cloud-hosted SaaS |
| Integrations | 5000+ | — |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework with UK and Swiss extensions, GDPR, CSA STAR Level One | SOC 2 Type 2, GDPR |
| Support | Self-serve knowledge base, Email support, Live training webinars, Priority customer support | Email and chat support, Phone and Zoom support, Dedicated success manager on Scale plan, Priority support |
| Founded | 2014 | 2013 |
| Headquarters | Austin, Texas, US | Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada |
| Employees | 51–200 | 51–200 |
| Funding | Later-stage VC · $39M raised | Growth Equity - II (CB Insights) |
| Best for | Mid-sized companies in healthcare, tech, professional services and financial services, especially those where business teams create and track contracts outside legal. | Busy sales teams that send proposals and quotes, such as consultants and service firms in landscaping, janitorial and construction. |
Plans side by side
Concord
Essentials$499month (paid annually), includes 5 users
Business$899month (paid annually), includes 5 users
Enterprise$1,299month (paid annually), includes 5 users
Proposify
Build$49user/month (monthly); $39/user/mo billed annually ($468/user/year)
Grow$65user/month, billed annually ($780/user/year)
Scale$12,800year platform fee, includes 10 users; extra users $780/user/year
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
Concord
- free contract-focused tier with unlimited contracts and e-signatures
- less proposal-oriented
Proposify
- Visually rich, branded proposal design
- Robust tracking and granular proposal analytics
- Well-regarded with strong user satisfaction
- Quotes and contracts with built-in approval workflows
- Discounted annual pricing lowers effective per-user cost
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “Concord vs Proposify”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/concord-vs-proposify, data of Nov 2, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.