.d53b12e5.png&w=3840&q=75 "Trivas.ai")
by Trivas.aiNorthbeam doesn't publish pricing on its website. There's no plans page, no "starts at $X/month" banner, nothing you can screenshot and compare against a competitor. If you want a number, you book a demo and talk to sales first.
Any Northbeam pricing official figure you've seen floating around on Reddit or a review site is a secondhand estimate. It might be close. It might be outdated. It's not something Northbeam stands behind publicly.
The rest of this post covers why that's the model, what actually moves the number up or down, and what to ask before you sign anything.
This isn't unusual for attribution platforms built for mid-market and enterprise brands. Demo first, quote after, is the standard playbook once a tool starts selling to companies with real ad budgets and procurement teams. You see the same pattern with most enterprise analytics and marketing tech.
Part of it is genuinely practical. A static pricing page works fine when the cost is the same for everyone. It doesn't work when the price depends on how much a brand spends on ads each month, how many channels it's pulling data from, and how much volume the platform has to process. A single number on a page can't flex for all that.
Compare that to tools that do publish self-serve pricing, where you pick a tier and swipe a card. Neither approach is inherently better. It's a tradeoff: public pricing gets you speed and transparency, custom quotes get you (in theory) a price matched to your actual usage. Northbeam picked the second path. That's a buyer-experience choice, not a verdict on whether the product itself is good.
Ad spend is the big one. Attribution platforms that price around spend tiers generally charge more as your monthly ad budget climbs, since the assumption is a bigger budget means more value extracted from better attribution data. Northbeam's model follows that same logic from what's publicly known about how these quotes get built.
Past spend, a few other levers shape the final number:
None of this is a knock on Northbeam specifically. It's just how custom-quote software pricing tends to work once ad spend becomes the core pricing variable. If you're the kind of team evaluating multiple attribution tools side by side, it's worth seeing how these levers play out across vendors before you commit to a call with any one of them, something we break down in our Northbeam, Polar, and Trivas comparison.
Going into a sales call blind means you're negotiating against someone who does this every day and you don't. A few questions level the field.
Is the quote locked, or does it scale with spend automatically? This matters more than it sounds. If your ad spend grows 30% next quarter, does your bill grow with it mid-contract, or only at renewal? Get this in writing.
What's actually in the base tier? Ask specifically what counts as an add-on: extra integrations, API access, dedicated support, advanced attribution models. Sales reps don't always volunteer this unless asked directly.
What's the contract length and what happens if you want out? Custom-quote tools default to annual commitments more often than not. Know the cancellation terms before you sign, not after.
Can you get a written, itemized breakdown instead of just a total? A single number is easy to forget and hard to compare. A line-item breakdown lets you actually hold it up against another vendor's quote and see where the money's going.
Asking these up front doesn't guarantee a better price. It does guarantee you're not surprised six months in.
The sticker price only tells you half the story. The real question is what it replaces.
If a platform is cutting your reporting time from hours of manual spreadsheet work to a few minutes a day, that's worth something concrete, even if it's hard to put an exact number on. Weigh the quote against that, not just against a competitor's number in isolation.
Also check coverage. Does the platform actually support the channels and marketplaces you run? If you're selling on Amazon, running TikTok ads, and doing Meta and Google alongside Shopify, you need a tool that covers all of it well, not just the two biggest channels. A quote that looks reasonable for a platform that only covers half your stack isn't actually a good deal.
And for smaller teams especially, pricing transparency itself has value. If you're trying to build next year's budget and you can't get a straight answer on what your tool will cost at a higher spend tier, that's a planning problem, not just a pricing quirk. Teams running lean, where one person is managing ops, marketing, and finance decisions, tend to feel this more acutely than larger teams with dedicated procurement. If that's your situation, it's worth reading how pricing and workflow fit together for performance marketers specifically, since the calculus is different than it is for a larger in-house analytics team.
Trivas publishes its pricing structure instead of gating it behind a sales call. You can see what's included at each tier on the Trivas pricing page without booking anything first.
That's a structural difference, not a claim about which platform does more. If you're comparing options directly, the Northbeam, Polar, and Trivas comparison walks through how the tools line up feature by feature, pricing model included.
Before you book a call with any attribution vendor, it's worth lining up actual plan pages where they exist. You'll walk into the conversation with a sense of what's reasonable instead of negotiating blind.
If you want a transparent reference point while you're comparing, the Trivas pricing page is public and doesn't require a demo to view. And if you'd rather just get a straight answer on what Trivas would cost for your specific setup, ad spend, channels, and all, you can talk to a founder directly.
explore more insights
3 min read
3 min read
3 min read