HubSpot alternatives
Updated ·ranked by independent user evidence
Why people look for alternatives to HubSpot
- Expensive and getting more so: long-time customers cite repeated price increases, and several moved to tools costing about half as much
- Key features sit behind higher tiers and seat types, so the bill can jump sharply (one user says it triples) when a team needs Pro seats, Operations Hub or Enterprise-only scoring
- Complex and increasingly bloated; small teams report abandoning it because it is too much to configure, and it gets messy without a dedicated owner
| Alternative | Score | Sentiment | Best for | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45/100 | Small startups setting up a first CRM | £27/user/mo | ||
| 32/100 | Small sales teams moving off spreadsheets | £14/seat/mo | ||
| 21/100 | Larger sales orgs with an in-house admin to own the system | $25/user/mo | ||
| Thin evidence | Small teams that want a free, self-hosted CRM | $9/user/mo | ||
| Thin evidence | Sales-led teams that want calling, email and SMS inside the CRM | $9/user/mo |
Top alternatives in detail
Independent users mostly like Attio as a clean, flexible first CRM for small teams, and several single out its Claude/MCP and API access and its automatic email and calendar logging. The detractors are specific: it lacks the day-to-day polish sales teams expect, and some found it limited beyond light use and left within months. Roughly 30 of 72 comments were promotional (rival CRMs and services pitching in the same threads, plus a few generic Attio endorsements), and another 20 repeat-promoter comments were removed before review, so only about 20 comments carry an independent opinion.
Independent users describe Pipedrive as a simple, sales-only pipeline tool that small teams actually keep updated, and some have run on it for years. The recurring trade-off is a ceiling: past about a dozen reps, or once marketing data needs to sit in the deal view, several teams moved to HubSpot, and add-ons push the real cost well above the base price. Opinion is genuinely split, and about a third of the 100 comments reviewed were promotional, mostly rival CRMs, custom-CRM builders and sync or lead tools pitching in the threads.
Independent users treat Salesforce as the most capable and customizable CRM but rarely as the right choice for small teams: of 24 non-promotional comments with an opinion, most describe it as overkill, expensive at the tiers that unlock automation and API access, and dependent on paid admins or consultants for routine changes. Its defenders are mostly people who have administered or implemented it alongside Dynamics or Zoho and found it easier or more complete, and several warn that leaving a heavily customized org is slow and costly. The corpus is heavily seeded: 39 of 100 comments were promotional, mostly agencies, freelance admins and rival CRM or custom-build vendors pitching in r/CRM threads from teams trying to leave Salesforce.
Independent discussion is thin: only seven non-promotional comments carry an opinion, all brief and all from r/CRM. Those users like it as a free, self-hostable open-source CRM that feels modern and HubSpot-like, with custom objects and an API that make it easy to extend, and none reported a concrete problem. That absence of criticism reflects how little has been written, not proven reliability; nobody discussed sales-team adoption at scale, quoting or call tracking, and two of ten comments read as promotional.
Independent discussion is very thin: only three Reddit comments give a first-hand or genuine opinion of Close, and all are brief. Those users describe it as a solid, sales-first CRM with calling, texting and bulk email built in, and one notes it is weak on marketing features. Six of the nine mentions were promotional (a Close employee, a HubSpot partner posting a Close referral link, a rival CRM founder, and comments plugging other CRMs), and the corpus filter had already removed six more from repeat promoters, so treat this review as a low-confidence read.