Crunchbase Costs $29 in Our Record, With No Read Date

This site holds two Crunchbase prices and cannot date either of them.

entryMonthly: 29. perSeat: 49. No pricingVerifiedOn field. That is the record, in full.

Which is an unsatisfying answer to a query that 480 people a month put into Google, and it is the true one. Printing $29 with the confidence the rest of this site prints numbers would mean quoting a figure nobody here has confirmed on the vendor's page, on any date, ever. The site's whole claim is that its prices carry the day they were read. This one does not.

So the page you are on does three things instead: it states exactly what is held, it explains why an undated price is a different kind of object from a dated one, and it prices the job you are probably trying to do against vendors this site did check.

What does Crunchbase cost?

The honest answer is that this site does not know, and holds $29 as an entry price and $49 a seat from an unrecorded reading.

Annualised, $29 a month is $348 a year and $49 a seat is $588 [computed], and both inherit the same problem as the figures they multiply.

An undated price is a different object from a dated one

This is the distinction the whole site runs on, and it is worth stating rather than assuming.

A dated price is a claim with a falsifiable form: the vendor showed this figure, in this currency, for this period, on this day. Anyone can go and check whether it still holds. An undated price is a claim with no form at all, because it does not say when it was true, and a figure that was accurate eighteen months ago and a figure that was never accurate look identical in the record.

This site has written before about the several ways a number on a pricing page turns out not to be a price: currency selectors, billing toggles, hidden elements, structured data that contradicts the rendered page. The Apollo record here was corrected on 25 August 2026 for exactly that reason, when the figure recorded as monthly turned out to be the annual rate. Crunchbase's record has never been through that process.

Two of twenty-four data records carry no date, and this is one

Counted fresh over entities.ts on 29 August 2026.

The two without a date are Crunchbase and Ocean.io, and they fail differently. Ocean.io holds no price to verify, so the missing date costs nothing. Crunchbase holds two prices, which means the missing date is doing real damage: it is the difference between a figure you can act on and a figure you cannot.

This is published rather than quietly fixed because a site that grades vendors on whether their prices are readable has to grade its own records the same way.

The record's own shape is odd

$29 entry against $49 a seat.

Most per-seat products in this directory record the same figure in both fields, because the entry price is one seat. Lead411 holds $49 and $49. Apollo holds $69 and $69. Prospeo holds $49 and $49. Crunchbase holds a seat rate 69% above its entry price [computed], which describes a product with a cheap individual tier and a dearer team tier rather than a single per-seat ladder.

That is a perfectly ordinary shape for a product to have. It is not an ordinary shape for this repo's two fields to hold, and with no date and no review behind them there is nothing here that says which tier is which. Treat both numbers as unattributed.

The free tier could not be verified either

The entity record says freeTier: true. This site's audit of fifteen data tools' free tiers put Crunchbase in a row of its own with Apollo, labelled could not be verified.

That audit found the word free doing six different jobs across fifteen pricing pages: an allowance that renews monthly, credits granted once at signup, a time-boxed trial, no free tier stated plainly, a vendor contradicting itself across three of its own help articles, and two that could not be confirmed at all. The single true-or-false field this directory uses cannot carry six meanings, and the audit named one record it had outright wrong and three more marked free when the grant is one-time.

So a second field on the Crunchbase record is unconfirmed alongside the price. The audit now lives inside the cost-per-contact page, which absorbed it on 25 August 2026.

What Crunchbase actually sells, and why the price is not the issue

Company, funding and investor data. Not contact data.

The entity record's own caveat is the load-bearing one: you still need to find the person and their email. A funding round is a trigger, and a trigger without a contact is a research note. So the honest cost of the job most people buy this for is the Crunchbase subscription plus a contact vendor, and only the second half of that sum is a number this site can date.

Half of every row in that table is undated, which is the recurring problem with this vendor and not a criticism of the stack. The arithmetic is honest and one of its two inputs is not.

How to read any Crunchbase price you find elsewhere

Two records in twenty-four carry no date, and this is one

The argument of this page is not that $29 is high or low. It is that a price without a read date cannot be compared, and the only way to show what that costs a reader is to put the undated row next to the dated ones. Read date first, price second.

Every other tool in the category was read between 6 and 25 August 2026, a nineteen-day window inside which one vendor on this list rebuilt an entire price ladder. Ocean.io is the only other undated record, and it at least publishes nothing, so the absence of a date costs the reader less. Crunchbase carries two specific figures, $29 and $49, and that combination of precision and no provenance is the failure mode worth naming: a precise number invites arithmetic and an undated one cannot support it.

The rest of the table is the comparison the query really wants. Sixteen tools publish an entry price and seven do not, nineteen sell without a call and five require one, and fourteen run a free tier. Against the whole 264-tool directory, where 114 publish no rate and 108 need a sales conversation, this category is unusually forthcoming, which makes an undated record inside it stand out more rather than less.

Three tests, and they apply to every comparison page ranking for this query including the ones above and below this one.

Does the page say when it read the number? Most do not. A pricing roundup without a read date is a screenshot of an unknown moment, and the moment matters: this site rebuilt its Lusha ladder entirely between two readings a fortnight apart, and corrected an Apollo figure on 25 August 2026 because the number recorded as monthly turned out to be the annual rate.

Does it say which billing toggle it read? A rate quoted per month on an annual commitment and a rate you can pay monthly are different products with the same shape, and the difference is usually a quarter to a third.

Does the publisher sell something adjacent? This site found BetterContact's own savings chart stating that Hunter and Prospeo each grant 1,000 credits for $49, when both vendors' pages read the same week gave 2,000. That halves the allowance and doubles the apparent cost per email, in the direction of the party publishing the chart. It is not evidence of bad faith and it is a good reason to divide the numbers yourself.

Who is on the wrong tool

Anyone who thinks they are buying a contact database.

If what you need is an email address and a mobile number, the vendors that publish and date those rates run from four cents a complete record at Lead411 to about eighty-three cents at the top of the range, all set out on the cost-per-contact page. None of that is what Crunchbase sells, and buying it expecting contacts is the most common way this purchase disappoints.

Who it might genuinely suit

What breaks in the second quarter

Assume the price is fine and you bought it. Three things then decide whether the subscription survives the second quarter, and none of them is the price.

The trigger fires and the list is still empty of people. Company data is not contact data. A funding round tells you which account to work and nothing about who to call, so the real bill is this subscription plus a contact vendor, and the contact vendor is the one that scales with volume. Priced from this directory's dated records, a complete contact with an email and a mobile runs from $0.041 at Lead411 to $0.456 at Lusha. A hundred accounts a month at five contacts each is 500 records, which is between $20.50 and $228 a month on top [computed].

The seat count moves before the plan does. The record here holds $29 alongside a $49 per-seat figure and cannot say whether they are the same ladder. Whatever the answer, a per-seat meter behaves differently from a flat one the moment a second person needs the data, and that is usually month three rather than month one. Establish the seat rate in writing before the first renewal, not after.

And the price you never dated changes without telling you. This is the practical consequence of the whole page. A record with no read date cannot detect a rise, so the first evidence of one is an invoice. Diarise a re-read of the pricing page every ninety days and write the date next to the number each time; that is the entire discipline that separates a usable price record from a remembered one, and this site failed it here.

Teams whose trigger is a funding round or an investor relationship, where the timing signal is worth more than the contact record and you already have a way to find people.

That is a real motion and a good one. A company that closed a round has a budget, a mandate and a deadline, which is the same reason job-change alerts are the strongest trigger in outbound. The question is only whether $29 or $49 is what it costs, and this page cannot tell you.

The five-minute check that this page cannot do for you

• Open the pricing page and write down the date. That single act produces something this repo does not have, and everything else on this page is downstream of it.
• Read the billing toggle in both states. Two of this site's corrections in August 2026 came from a record holding the annual rate in a field meant for the monthly one.
• Check whether $29 and $49 are the same ladder or two different tiers, because the record here cannot tell them apart.
• Test the free tier against the export question, which is the test that halved this site's free-tier list: an allowance you cannot export from is a demo.
• Price the contact vendor at the same time. Funding data without people is half a workflow, and the second half has published, dated rates from four cents up.

So what should you do?

Do not take $29 from this page as a current price, and do not take it from anywhere else either unless the page tells you when it was read.

That is the whole recommendation and it is deliberately small. This site holds an undated figure, has no review of the vendor, and could not verify its free tier, so the responsible move is to say so at the top of a page that ranks for the query rather than to dress the gap up as research.

What this page can tell you with dates attached is what the rest of the job costs. A complete contact runs from four cents to about eighty-three across ten vendors this site priced and dated between 6 and 25 August 2026, and if a funding trigger is genuinely your motion, that second bill is the one that scales with the work.

What this page does not know