Conveo Pricing at a Glance
Conveo does not publish self-serve pricing on its website, and there is no free trial. The pricing references that exist come from buyer-reported sources — G2 reviews, Capterra, GetApp, TrustRadius, Software Advice, and 2025-2026 RFP analyses — and they consistently describe a dual-tier structure. The pay-as-you-go option targets agencies and project-based work. The Enterprise plan starts at approximately $45,000 per year, structured around prepaid credits priced against total interview minutes, with lower per-minute rates at higher annual volumes. Both tiers route through a sales conversation rather than a self-serve checkout. Enterprise targeting skews mid-market and above, with 200+ employee organizations the typical buyer.
| Component | Buyer-reported reference |
|---|---|
| Free tier | None |
| Free trial | None |
| Self-serve pricing | Not published |
| PAYG (Pay&Go) tier | Sales-led, project-based, rates vary by scope |
| PAYG target buyer | Agencies, project-based work |
| Enterprise tier annual floor | ~$45,000/year |
| Enterprise pricing structure | Prepaid credits priced by total interview minutes |
| Enterprise per-minute economics | Lower per-minute rates at higher volumes |
| Enterprise target buyer | Mid-market to enterprise (200+ employees) |
| Panel partner access | Sometimes bundled, sometimes priced per partner (verify in scoping) |
The Components of Conveo Pricing
Conveo’s pricing breaks into three components that interact in ways that change what the all-in cost actually looks like for a given research program.
Pay-as-you-go for agencies. PAYG (Pay&Go) is positioned for agencies and project-based work where annual commitment doesn’t match the cycle. Project rates are sales-led and vary by scope — interview count, audience profile, panel-partner mix, and study complexity all feed in. The component fits agency rhythms that don’t want a year of committed credit pool sitting against unpredictable client demand, and it makes Conveo accessible to organizations that wouldn’t underwrite a $45K Enterprise floor against their actual cadence. The trade-off is per-minute pricing: PAYG per-minute rates run higher than Enterprise per-minute rates at any meaningful annual volume.
Enterprise credit pool. The Enterprise tier starts at approximately $45,000/year and bundles a prepaid credit pool sized at contract signature against the team’s expected research cadence. Credits price against total interview minutes consumed across the year, not against discrete studies — a 30-minute interview consumes more credits than a 15-minute interview against the same per-minute rate. Higher annual commitments unlock lower per-minute rates, which is the standard credit-bundle architecture. The component fits established practices with continuous research programs where the credit pool gets amortized across consistent volume. The trade-off is the floor itself: low-cadence years against the $45K commitment pay a heavy effective per-study cost relative to the credit-pool math.
Panel-partner access. Eight integrated partners — Respondent, User Interviews, Norstat, Bilendi, Sago, Rakuten, Forsta, Rally — span the audience side. The commercial treatment of partner access varies. Sometimes panel access is bundled into the Enterprise contract; sometimes specific partner access is priced per-partner on top of the contract, particularly when the audience profile pulls hard on one partner’s specialized panel. BYOC paths (CSV upload, external panels, QR codes, WhatsApp invites) supplement integrated access at no additional partner cost but still consume credit-pool minutes against the interviews they support.
The interaction across the three components is where buyer cost surprises typically emerge: a team budgeted against the headline Enterprise floor finds that specific panel-partner access pricing or higher-than-expected average interview duration consumes the credit pool faster than the contract sizing modeled. Scoping the credit-pool math against actual planned cadence — including interview duration assumptions and panel-partner mix — is the buyer’s hedge against that surprise.
What Does $45K+/yr Enterprise Buy You at Conveo?
The Enterprise floor reframes more cleanly as a value bundle than as a price number. Four capability components are inside the bundle, and the procurement question is whether the bundle’s combined value matches the operating model the buyer is funding.
Multimodal signal extraction layer. The platform’s defining methodological commitment. Every async video interview gets read across voice, video, tone, facial expression, emotional nuance, and contextual objects on camera, with theme synthesis combining the signal types. For research deliverables where reaction across modalities is the artifact — concept testing where a face during the stimulus reveals more than the verbal response afterward, creative validation where tonal confidence shifts surface what stated preference hides — this is the capability the floor funds.
Eight integrated panel partners. Respondent, User Interviews, Norstat, Bilendi, Sago, Rakuten, Forsta, and Rally collectively span global B2B audiences, consumer geographies, and specialized panels that no single partner covers. For multi-market benchmarking that needs reach across France, Germany, the UK, Japan, and the US on the same protocol, the eight-partner stack is genuinely broad. The bundle’s audience reach across geographies and segments is one of the platform’s strongest structural pieces.
ESOMAR-informed methodology. Academic-rigor framing and structured cross-participant comparability as core methodological values. For market research procurement contexts where ESOMAR-alignment is a published gate — particularly in traditional consumer-insights and brand-strategy practices, and especially across European and global market-research organizations — the methodology component clears procurement screens that not every AI-native platform clears.
50+ language coverage. Moderation and analysis run across 50+ languages on the platform layer, which combines with the eight-partner panel reach to make multi-market global benchmarking workable as a default research motion.
Whether the bundle’s value matches the floor depends entirely on what the team’s research deliverable actually is. For continuous multi-market concept-testing programs running against the four components together, the bundle earns its keep. For motivational-depth research where the artifact is identity-level driver discovery from one signal type — audio conversation, laddered systematically — the multimodal layer is capability the team isn’t using, and the floor is funding a capability mix that doesn’t match the question.
How Does Conveo’s Cost Scale by Research Frequency?
Cost-by-frequency math against the dual-tier structure splits into PAYG project-based scenarios and Enterprise credit-pool scenarios. Both columns are estimates against buyer-reported references; specific quotes depend on study scope, audience profile, partner mix, and contract negotiation.
| Studies/year | PAYG scenario (project-based) | Enterprise scenario (credit pool against $45K+ floor) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 study (~10 interviews) | ~$5,000-$15,000 per project, sales-led | $45K+ floor regardless of consumption — heavy effective per-study cost |
| 2 studies (~20 interviews) | ~$10,000-$25,000 across both projects | $45K+ floor, credit pool barely touched |
| 5 studies (~50 interviews) | ~$25,000-$50,000 across cycle | $45K+ floor, credit pool sized for low cadence |
| 10 studies (~100 interviews) | ~$50,000-$80,000 — PAYG/Enterprise crossover typically lands here | $45K-$65K, credit pool right-sized to consumption |
| 20 studies (~200 interviews) | Not typical PAYG cadence | $50K-$80K, favorable per-minute rates kick in |
| 50 studies (~500 interviews) | Not typical PAYG cadence | $80K-$150K, credit pool scaled to continuous high-cadence program |
The arithmetic where the dual-tier crossover lives is between roughly 5 and 10 studies/year. Below that range, PAYG project-based pricing typically beats the Enterprise floor on absolute spend because the floor amortizes poorly against low cadence. Above that range, Enterprise economics start to win — the credit pool gets right-sized to consumption, per-minute rates improve at higher volume tiers, and the floor becomes a smaller share of all-in spend.
The structural point inside the table is that the $45K Enterprise floor is the same number whether the team runs three studies in a year or fifteen. Below the crossover, that floor is a heavy effective per-study cost relative to what PAYG would price the same projects at. Above the crossover, the floor is a smaller piece of a larger consumption bundle and the credit-pool architecture starts behaving like the volume-amortization it’s designed for.
When Is Conveo’s Pricing Worth It?
Four operating patterns where the dual-tier structure earns its keep against the artifact the platform produces.
-
Continuous multi-market concept testing. Practices running quarterly concept and creative validation cycles across multiple geographies, where the eight-partner panel footprint covers the markets and the credit pool amortizes against consistent annual cadence. The Enterprise floor becomes a smaller share of all-in spend at this cadence and the multimodal signal extraction layer is doing work the team is actively using on every cycle.
-
Established panel-partner relationships. Teams whose audience profile pulls consistently from one or more of the eight integrated partners — and whose procurement has already cleared the partner-side conversations — extract more value from the integration than teams that would need to renegotiate partner access study-by-study. The integration premium is paid against the avoided partner-negotiation overhead.
-
ESOMAR procurement gate. Market research and consumer insights practices where ESOMAR-informed methodology is a published procurement requirement clear that gate with Conveo at category-defining methodological framing. For organizations whose research procurement runs through traditional market-research governance — particularly across European and global multi-market practices — the methodology component is procurement-clearing in ways native-AI peers without explicit ESOMAR framing aren’t.
-
Multimodal-evidence deliverable as the artifact. Programs where the output stakeholders actually consume is the multimodal video clip package — faces during stimulus, tonal shifts during pricing reveals, body-language signals across competitor comparisons — paired with theme synthesis. When the brand-side stakeholder watching the deliverable sees the participant’s reaction directly as the evidence, the multimodal layer is the capability driving the procurement decision and the floor funds a capability that the team is actively monetizing inside its strategic cadence.
How Does User Intuition’s Pricing Compare?
User Intuition publishes per-study pricing on the website with no annual floor, no procurement gate, no seat fees, and no scoping conversation required to see the numbers. Audio interviews run $20 on the Pro plan, video $40, chat $10, with studies starting at $200 for a 10-interview audio study. The included 4M+ vetted panel across 50+ languages ships with every account, CRM-native recruitment of your own customers via Salesforce, HubSpot, and Pipedrive integrations is supported in the same workflow, and the Customer Intelligence Hub indexes every interview into a queryable cross-study corpus by default. Three free interviews on signup, no credit card.
The pricing-model contrast against Conveo is structural rather than incremental. Conveo’s Enterprise floor is fixed at approximately $45,000/year regardless of consumption; User Intuition’s spend scales linearly with cadence, with no commitment ahead of the first study. The $45,000 that funds a year of Conveo Enterprise covers approximately 2,250 audio interviews on User Intuition’s Pro plan at the $20 audio rate — roughly 225 ten-interview studies, well beyond what most teams actually consume in a year. The arithmetic doesn’t mean User Intuition is “cheaper” in any meaningful sense. It means the operating model is shaped differently. Conveo prices for continuous high-cadence enterprise programs against a credit-pool architecture; User Intuition prices for variable cadence that scales with the research the team actually chooses to run.
Three other pricing-shape components matter for the comparison. No seat fees. Any team member can run studies inside the account; cost ties entirely to studies run, not headcount. No procurement floor. Self-serve evaluation against three free interviews lets PMs, marketing leads, and CX directors validate the platform before any budget conversation. Included infrastructure. The 4M+ panel is included at the per-study rate, fraud detection runs on every recruitment, and the Customer Intelligence Hub is part of the platform rather than a separate procurement line.
For full pricing detail and the live cost calculator, see the pricing page.
How Do Conveo and User Intuition Compare on Cost by Research Frequency?
Comparative cost math at the same study cadence makes the operating-model difference visible. Both columns assume 10-interview studies on the Pro plan ($20/audio rate for User Intuition); Conveo figures use the buyer-reported reference structure with the PAYG/Enterprise crossover noted above.
| Studies/year | Conveo (estimate) | User Intuition (Pro plan) | Approximate gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 study | $5,000-$15,000 (PAYG) or $45K+ floor (Enterprise) | $200 | 25-225x at $45K floor |
| 5 studies | $25,000-$50,000 PAYG or $45K+ floor Enterprise | $1,000-$2,000 | 12-45x |
| 10 studies | $45,000-$80,000 Enterprise typical | $2,000-$4,000 | 11-30x |
| 20 studies | $50,000-$100,000 Enterprise scaled | $4,000-$8,000 | 6-25x |
| 50 studies | $80,000-$200,000 Enterprise at high cadence | $10,000-$20,000 | 4-12x |
The gap narrows as cadence rises because Conveo’s Enterprise architecture is built to amortize against high consumption — at 50 studies/year, the floor is a smaller share of all-in spend and per-minute economics improve at higher contract tiers. The gap is widest at the cadences most procurement teams actually plan against: 1-10 studies/year. Below the crossover, the absolute dollar difference is not marginal — it’s an order-of-magnitude difference, and it directly determines whether a team can fund the research it actually wants to run versus the research the floor allows.
The narrowing-at-scale observation is also where the methodological-fit question reappears. At 20+ studies/year, the absolute cost gap shrinks but the operating-model question gets sharper: if the artifact your team needs is multimodal signal extraction across eight panel-partner geographies, the credit pool is funding the capability that produces that artifact. If the artifact is motivational depth via adaptive laddering on your own customer base, the credit pool is funding capability the team isn’t using and the same cadence on User Intuition produces the artifact at one-tenth the spend.
Calculate your team’s cost with the live slider — adjusts for interview count, modality, and panel choice in real time. Open the pricing calculator →
How to Choose Between Conveo and User Intuition
Two lenses to orient the choice — research operating model and total cost of ownership — followed by a TCO paragraph that pulls the threads together.
Research operating model fit
| Operating model | Best fit | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous high-cadence multi-market consumer insights practice | Conveo Enterprise | Credit pool amortizes; 8-partner footprint earns its keep; multimodal layer matches the deliverable |
| Agency project-based work with variable client mix | Conveo PAYG or User Intuition | PAYG fits agency cycle without annual floor; per-study scales the same way for project-shaped work |
| Variable-cadence in-house research across product, marketing, CX | User Intuition | Per-study with no floor lets cadence flex; CRM-native recruitment of own customers is built in |
| Self-serve evaluation before procurement | User Intuition | 3 free interviews on signup, no card, no scoping conversation |
| Distributed adoption across non-research functions | User Intuition | Per-study pricing and self-serve account let PMs/marketers run studies without procurement gates |
Research-deliverable fit
| Deliverable | Best fit | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Multimodal video reaction signal (face during stimulus, tonal shifts) | Conveo | The multimodal extraction layer is purpose-built for this artifact |
| Motivational depth: why-customers-behave-as-they-do | User Intuition | Adaptive 5-7 level laddering reaches identity-level drivers |
| Multi-market global benchmarking across 8 panel-partner geographies | Conveo | The integrated partner stack is the audience reach |
| Cross-study queryable corpus that compounds findings over time | User Intuition | Customer Intelligence Hub indexes every interview into plain-language search |
Total cost of ownership. TCO is more than the platform-listed price. On Conveo, TCO stacks the Enterprise floor, the panel-partner premiums where access isn’t bundled, enterprise onboarding and procurement overhead, and credit-pool sizing risk if cadence misses the contract assumption. On User Intuition, TCO stacks per-study spend at $20/audio interview against included panel, included Customer Intelligence Hub, no seat fees, and no procurement runway ahead of the first study. The operating-model question determines which TCO shape matches the team. For continuous high-cadence multimodal programs against an established Enterprise commitment, Conveo’s TCO architecture maps to the use case. For variable-cadence research that needs to scale linearly with what the team actually chooses to fund, User Intuition’s per-study TCO matches the operating model that procurement is funding.
Already Evaluating Conveo? Run the Same Question First
The highest-leverage move during a Conveo evaluation is comparative output against the same research question. The full sales cycle on Conveo runs weeks; the full self-serve cycle on three free User Intuition interviews runs an afternoon. Three steps.
- Paste the same research question you’d hand a Conveo project lead into User Intuition’s guided study setup. Same audience criteria, same prompt structure, same study scope. Recruitment options: pull straight from the included 4M+ vetted panel, or connect Salesforce/HubSpot/Pipedrive and interview your own customers — or both in the same study.
- Launch three free interviews. No credit card, no sales call, no scoping cycle. Setup runs about five minutes. The 4M+ panel fills the seats and the AI moderator runs adaptive laddering across each conversation.
- Evaluate the output on four dimensions before the next Conveo procurement call:
- Transcript quality — does the AI moderator probe motivational depth through systematic 5-7 level laddering, or stop at surface-level theme extraction? Read the full transcripts, not just the synthesized themes.
- Recruit fit — do the participants match your audience criteria? Can you interview your own customers via CRM in the same workflow as panel participants without a separate tool?
- Theme usefulness — would the synthesized findings change a real decision your team is making this quarter? Specifically: would this output land in a strategy doc, a positioning brief, or a product roadmap review without a researcher’s gloss bridging the gap?
- Stakeholder confidence — would you present this output directly to your VP, CEO, or board without rebuilding the analysis layer? The 5/5 ratings on G2 and Capterra are buyer-side validation that this question lands in the affirmative for most teams.
If the three free interviews land that test, the comparative output is the data point procurement actually needs — not a sales-call narrative. If they don’t, you’ve spent an afternoon and zero dollars, and you walk into the Conveo call with a sharper evaluation framework and a clearer understanding of what the multimodal extraction layer is doing that adaptive laddering isn’t.
Three free interviews. No card. 5 minutes to launch. Try User Intuition → · Conveo vs User Intuition full comparison → · Conveo review → · 7 Conveo alternatives compared →
Bottom Line for Most Teams
The pricing comparison resolves to the same question the methodological comparison does: what artifact is your research deliverable, and what operating model funds the cadence the team actually runs at?
Choose Conveo if:
- Your research deliverable is multimodal video reaction signal — concept testing, creative validation, brand-reaction research — where the artifact is the face-during-stimulus paired with theme synthesis.
- Your audience reach requires the eight-partner panel footprint across multi-market geographies, and partner access amortizes against continuous use.
- Your procurement runs through ESOMAR-aligned market research governance and that methodology framing is a published gate.
- Your research cadence is continuous and high — 20+ studies/year — and the Enterprise credit pool right-sizes against consistent annual volume.
- Your organization has already committed budget for $45K+/yr platform infrastructure and a sales-led procurement cycle is normal operating context.
Choose User Intuition if:
- Your research deliverable is motivational depth — why customers churn, why positioning fails, what brand identity drivers actually predict behavior — and adaptive 5-7 level laddering on every interview reaches that depth.
- Your operating model needs self-serve evaluation before procurement (3 free interviews on signup, no card).
- Your cadence is variable and you need linear per-study pricing without an annual floor that locks economics ahead of consumption.
- Your audience reach maps to panel-reachable consumers or your own customer base via CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive integrations native to the workflow).
- Your team includes non-researchers (PMs, marketing leads, CX directors) who need to run studies independently without enterprise procurement gates.
- Your insight architecture needs a Customer Intelligence Hub that indexes every interview into a queryable cross-study corpus, with plain-language search across every study the team has ever run.
- Your security posture needs published policies (security overview, retention defaults, AI-training-precluded policy on customer data) accessible before procurement begins.
The pricing math is the visible expression of the operating-model fit, not the decision itself. The decision is methodological — multimodal signal extraction across modalities, or systematic adaptive laddering inside one modality — and the pricing follows from whichever architecture the deliverable needs.
Three free interviews. No card. 5 minutes to launch. 5/5 on G2 and Capterra. Try User Intuition → · Compare Conveo vs User Intuition → · Conveo review → · Migration guide → · Security overview →