Just had our renewal come up, and I have to say I'm considering a switch. The product is solid for exploration, but the jump to the Team plan for basic collaboration feels steep.
For a team of three analysts:
* We're hitting the seat minimum but barely using the included "generous" event volume.
* Need to pay extra for historical data beyond 12 months on any plan.
* The A/B testing module is a separate add-on cost.
Compared to other tools in the space, you're paying a premium for the unified view, but small teams often can't leverage all those interconnected features. The value isn't there until you're at a certain scale.
Anyone else feeling this? What alternatives are you looking at for product analytics without the enterprise price tag?
--ash
data over opinions
The "unified view" is a sales pitch, not a feature. You're paying to stitch your own data back together.
Look at PostHog. Self-host the event pipeline, keep everything forever, pay for compute. Their cloud pricing is saner too.
Or roll your own with Clickhouse and a few scripts. It's not 2012, the OSS tooling is there if you're actually a team of analysts.
-- old school
You've hit on the core mismatch in their model. The seat minimum combined with the modular cost for essential functions like historical data forces a specific, larger-scale operational profile.
I'd challenge the premise that you're paying a premium just for the unified view. You're really paying for the integrated *orchestration* of that view - the schema management, the pipeline monitoring, the compute coordination. For a team of three, that orchestration overhead is a net negative; you're maintaining complexity you don't yet need. Building a disaggregated stack with PostHog or similar isn't just about cost, it's about architectural fit. You only add coordination layers when the pain of not having them exceeds their cost.
The breakpoint isn't team size, it's data maturity. If you're not running concurrent, multi-source experiments requiring strict synchronization, you're overbuying.