6 alternatives to Close
Reviewed by Cheetah Systems Lab research team on 2026-09-24. Competitive set: Modern and developer-facing CRM. The reviewer profile includes the editorial and corrections policy.
Compare Close on price and setup. Check Close against 6 rivals on developer access, buyer fit and tradeoffs.
Why teams replace Close
Workflows are not included on the two cheapest plans (Solo and Essentials), and using Chloe in Workflows starts at Growth ($109 per user/month, or $99 billed annually), so teams wanting automated AI-agent outreach must skip past the entry tiers. Calling and SMS are passed through at cost on top of the subscription (most outbound calls around $0.02/minute, numbers from about $1/month), and Chloe's work consumes AI credits beyond each plan's monthly allotment, which can surprise teams budgeting only the listed seat price. The OpenAPI spec is labelled experimental with incomplete schema coverage, so teams building strict, fully typed API integrations should expect gaps.
Close current baseline
Close is a sales CRM that positions communication (calling, email, SMS) as native to the product rather than bolted on via integrations, and has added Chloe, an AI sales agent built into the CRM that works leads.
- Built-in calling, email, and SMS from within the CRM
- Chloe: an AI sales agent built into Close that calls leads, qualifies prospects, books meetings, and updates the CRM
- Chloe Chat (beta) for questions and actions in Close, plus Chloe batch calling and enrichment
- Auto Updates: AI fills call and meeting outcomes and custom fields from transcripts
- Pipeline management, reporting, and forecasting
- Published starting point
- $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly)
- Setup
- 1h setup assessment
- Developer access
- API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification
How each alternative compares with Close
Attio vs Close
Choose Attio when
Choose Attio over Close when these published constraints align more closely with the requirement: $0 (Free, up to 3 seats); 30m setup assessment; Attio's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification. The corresponding Close constraints are $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly); 1h setup assessment; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah comparison of published constraints
Keep Close in contention when
Keep Close when 1h setup assessment, $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly), and Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification are the more workable constraints for the team than Attio's 30m setup assessment, $0 (Free, up to 3 seats), and Attio's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
Key tradeoff
Attio versus Close on published starting price: Attio - $0 (Free, up to 3 seats); Close - $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly). On setup, Attio has a 30m setup assessment; Close has a 1h setup assessment. On developer access, Attio's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
For Attio versus Close, official pages checked 2026-09-24: Website used for Attio versus Close, Documentation used for Attio versus Close, Pricing used for Attio versus Close, API documentation used for Attio versus Close, OpenAPI specification used for Attio versus Close, MCP documentation used for Attio versus Close. These Attio sources inform comparison with Close, not every sentence individually.
Day.ai vs Close
Choose Day.ai when
Choose Day.ai over Close when these published constraints align more closely with the requirement: $0/month (Free); paid agents from $24/month per agent billed annually, or $30/month billed monthly; 1h setup assessment; Day.ai's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation. The corresponding Close constraints are $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly); 1h setup assessment; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah comparison of published constraints
Keep Close in contention when
Keep Close when 1h setup assessment, $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly), and Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification are the more workable constraints for the team than Day.ai's 1h setup assessment, $0/month (Free); paid agents from $24/month per agent billed annually, or $30/month billed monthly, and Day.ai's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation.
Cheetah assessment
Key tradeoff
Day.ai versus Close on published starting price: Day.ai - $0/month (Free); paid agents from $24/month per agent billed annually, or $30/month billed monthly; Close - $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly). On setup, Day.ai has a 1h setup assessment; Close has a 1h setup assessment. On developer access, Day.ai's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
For Day.ai versus Close, official pages checked 2026-09-24: Website used for Day.ai versus Close, Documentation used for Day.ai versus Close, Pricing used for Day.ai versus Close, API documentation used for Day.ai versus Close, MCP documentation used for Day.ai versus Close. These Day.ai sources inform comparison with Close, not every sentence individually.
folk vs Close
Choose folk when
Choose folk over Close when these published constraints align more closely with the requirement: $24/member/mo billed annually (Standard); $30/member/mo billed monthly; 30m setup assessment; folk's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification. The corresponding Close constraints are $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly); 1h setup assessment; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah comparison of published constraints
Keep Close in contention when
Keep Close when 1h setup assessment, $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly), and Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification are the more workable constraints for the team than folk's 30m setup assessment, $24/member/mo billed annually (Standard); $30/member/mo billed monthly, and folk's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
Key tradeoff
folk versus Close on published starting price: folk - $24/member/mo billed annually (Standard); $30/member/mo billed monthly; Close - $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly). On setup, folk has a 30m setup assessment; Close has a 1h setup assessment. On developer access, folk's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
For folk versus Close, official pages checked 2026-09-24: Website used for folk versus Close, Documentation used for folk versus Close, Pricing used for folk versus Close, API documentation used for folk versus Close, OpenAPI specification used for folk versus Close, MCP documentation used for folk versus Close. These folk sources inform comparison with Close, not every sentence individually.
HubSpot CRM vs Close
Choose HubSpot CRM when
Choose HubSpot CRM over Close when these published constraints align more closely with the requirement: $0 (free CRM tools, up to 2 users); 30m setup assessment; HubSpot CRM's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation. The corresponding Close constraints are $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly); 1h setup assessment; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah comparison of published constraints
Keep Close in contention when
Keep Close when 1h setup assessment, $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly), and Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification are the more workable constraints for the team than HubSpot CRM's 30m setup assessment, $0 (free CRM tools, up to 2 users), and HubSpot CRM's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation.
Cheetah assessment
Key tradeoff
HubSpot CRM versus Close on published starting price: HubSpot CRM - $0 (free CRM tools, up to 2 users); Close - $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly). On setup, HubSpot CRM has a 30m setup assessment; Close has a 1h setup assessment. On developer access, HubSpot CRM's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
For HubSpot CRM versus Close, official pages checked 2026-09-24: Website used for HubSpot CRM versus Close, Documentation used for HubSpot CRM versus Close, Pricing used for HubSpot CRM versus Close, API documentation used for HubSpot CRM versus Close, MCP documentation used for HubSpot CRM versus Close. These HubSpot CRM sources inform comparison with Close, not every sentence individually.
Pipedrive vs Close
Choose Pipedrive when
Choose Pipedrive over Close when these published constraints align more closely with the requirement: US$14 per seat/month billed annually (Lite; US$19 billed monthly); 30m setup assessment; Pipedrive's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification. The corresponding Close constraints are $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly); 1h setup assessment; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah comparison of published constraints
Keep Close in contention when
Keep Close when 1h setup assessment, $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly), and Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification are the more workable constraints for the team than Pipedrive's 30m setup assessment, US$14 per seat/month billed annually (Lite; US$19 billed monthly), and Pipedrive's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
Key tradeoff
Pipedrive versus Close on published starting price: Pipedrive - US$14 per seat/month billed annually (Lite; US$19 billed monthly); Close - $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly). On setup, Pipedrive has a 30m setup assessment; Close has a 1h setup assessment. On developer access, Pipedrive's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
For Pipedrive versus Close, official pages checked 2026-09-24: Website used for Pipedrive versus Close, Documentation used for Pipedrive versus Close, Pricing used for Pipedrive versus Close, API documentation used for Pipedrive versus Close, OpenAPI specification used for Pipedrive versus Close, MCP documentation used for Pipedrive versus Close. These Pipedrive sources inform comparison with Close, not every sentence individually.
Twenty vs Close
Choose Twenty when
Choose Twenty over Close when these published constraints align more closely with the requirement: $9/user/mo (Cloud Pro, billed yearly); $12/user/mo billed monthly; self-hosting the core is free; 30m setup assessment; Twenty's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation. The corresponding Close constraints are $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly); 1h setup assessment; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah comparison of published constraints
Keep Close in contention when
Keep Close when 1h setup assessment, $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly), and Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification are the more workable constraints for the team than Twenty's 30m setup assessment, $9/user/mo (Cloud Pro, billed yearly); $12/user/mo billed monthly; self-hosting the core is free, and Twenty's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation.
Cheetah assessment
Key tradeoff
Twenty versus Close on published starting price: Twenty - $9/user/mo (Cloud Pro, billed yearly); $12/user/mo billed monthly; self-hosting the core is free; Close - $9 per user/month billed annually (Solo; $19 billed monthly). On setup, Twenty has a 30m setup assessment; Close has a 1h setup assessment. On developer access, Twenty's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation; Close's checked sources link API documentation, MCP documentation, OpenAPI specification.
Cheetah assessment
For Twenty versus Close, official pages checked 2026-09-24: Website used for Twenty versus Close, Documentation used for Twenty versus Close, Pricing used for Twenty versus Close, API documentation used for Twenty versus Close, MCP documentation used for Twenty versus Close. These Twenty sources inform comparison with Close, not every sentence individually.
Close baseline sources
- Close Official website
- Close Official documentation
- Close Official API documentation
- Close Official machine-readable API specification
- Close Official MCP documentation
- Close Official pricing page
- Close Official changelog
- Close Official status page
- Close Official trust center
Verify before deciding
- Exact numeric rate limits per endpoint group (the docs give an illustrative example, not published hard numbers)
- Per-plan availability of each row in the pricing comparison table (the table marks plans with icons that did not come through in our text capture; only rows with printed values or plan-card bullets are recorded here)
Cheetah assessed Close buyer fit, setup and tradeoffs. Shortlist reviewed 2026-07-31.