Lindy is the safest default at $29.99/user/mo with 3,000 credits — per-seat pricing that a finance team can forecast. Gumloop is better for pipeline-shaped work at $37/mo with 20,000 credits and unlimited seats, minus an 8% orchestration fee. Relevance AI no longer publishes self-serve pricing at all, which removes it from most shortlists.
No, and that is the most useful thing to establish before comparing prices. Lindy is a personal-assistant platform. Its unit is a person: you buy a seat, that person gets agents that live in their email, calendar and chat, and the work those agents do is that person's work done faster. The pricing follows the shape — $29.99, $99.99 and $199.99 per user per month with 3,000, 15,000 and 35,000 credits respectively. Gumloop is a pipeline platform. Its unit is a workflow: you design a node graph, it runs on a trigger or a schedule, and the output belongs to the company rather than an individual. The pricing follows that shape too — $37/mo for 20,000 credits with unlimited seats and unlimited teams, because seats are not the thing being consumed. Relevance AI positions itself as an AI workforce for organisations that want to decouple growth from headcount — multi-agent teams with custom actions, unlimited agents, calling and meeting agents, enterprise triggers and a dedicated account manager. Its pricing page publishes no self-serve tier at all. Comparing them on monthly price is therefore close to meaningless. Compare them on whether your automation belongs to a person, to a process, or to an org chart.
A five-person team on Plus is $149.95/mo and gets 15,000 credits in total — 3,000 each, not pooled. The same five people on Pro is $499.95/mo for 75,000 credits. On Max it is $999.95/mo for 175,000. The advantage of this model is forecastability, which is not a small thing. Finance teams can plan per-seat software; they cannot plan consumption-based software without a usage history. Lindy also states that when credits run low it pauses and tells you rather than charging an overage, so the monthly number is genuinely a ceiling rather than an estimate. The disadvantage shows up when the work is not personal. If one shared agent is doing a company-wide job — monitoring a mailbox, processing inbound applications, keeping a CRM clean — that agent still sits on a seat, and its credit budget is one person's allocation. Heavy shared workloads on a per-seat platform tend to end with one seat upgraded to Max while four sit on Plus, which is an awkward shape to defend in a budget review.
It is a percentage charged on top of usage on the Pro plan, with discounts available only at Enterprise. Gumloop publishes it plainly on the pricing page, which is more than many platforms do with their equivalent charges. Whether it matters is a question of scale. At the Pro plan's included 20,000 credits it is a small absolute number. At the volumes that make Gumloop's model attractive in the first place — thousands of runs enriching or summarising at scale — 8% of a growing usage bill is a growing bill of its own, and it should be in the model rather than discovered on an invoice. The offsetting number is unlimited seats. At $37/mo with unlimited seats and unlimited teams, a twenty-person company pays $37 where the same twenty people on Lindy Plus would pay $599.80. If your use case is genuinely shared pipelines rather than personal assistants, that difference swamps the orchestration fee several times over. The concurrency limits are the constraint to model instead: 5 concurrent workflow runs and 25 concurrent agent chats on Pro. A batch job that fans out across hundreds of items will queue, and queueing is the thing that turns a fifteen-minute pipeline into a four-hour one.
As of 23 August 2026, Relevance AI's pricing page publishes a single Enterprise tier — custom actions, custom vendor credits, unlimited agents and tools, unlimited users and projects, 2,000+ integrations, calling and meeting agents, enterprise triggers, and a dedicated account manager — with no monthly price, no credit allowance and no self-serve tier of any kind. Every path ends at 'talk to sales'. This is the same move Synthflow made in the voice category, and it is becoming the dominant pattern for AI agent platforms that find product-market fit upmarket. It is a rational business decision and it is a real problem for the buyer, because it means you cannot evaluate the product against alternatives without entering a sales process. The practical advice is unglamorous: do not start a Relevance AI evaluation unless you are genuinely willing to have a procurement conversation. If your process is 'trial three platforms this month and pick one', this is not one of the three, and knowing that on day one is worth more than any feature comparison. It also means that any article listing Relevance AI at a specific monthly price is quoting a tier that its own pricing page no longer shows.
You should not, at least not by dividing price by credits. A credit is a vendor-defined accounting unit and the three vendors define it differently. On Lindy, credits are consumed per action at rates the platform sets, and the allowance is per user per month. On Gumloop, credits are consumed per run with rates varying by model and action, and there is an 8% orchestration fee layered on top. Relevance AI describes its allocation as custom vendor credits with no published rate at all. The only meaningful comparison is empirical: define one representative task — 'triage fifty inbound emails and draft replies to the ten that need one', or 'enrich two hundred companies from a domain list' — run it on each platform's trial, and record how much of the allowance it consumed. That takes an afternoon and it is the only method that produces a number you can trust. The second thing to record while you are there is failure behaviour. Credit models make failed runs expensive in a way that per-seat models do not: a pipeline that fails on item 180 of 200 has usually consumed the credits for the first 179. Ask each vendor what happens to credits on a failed run before you commit, and test it.
Plus is $29.99/mo per user with 3,000 credits per user per month, Pro is $99.99/mo per user with 15,000 credits, and Max is $199.99/mo per user with 35,000. Enterprise is custom and adds HIPAA, a signed BAA, audit logs and SSO. Lindy pauses when credits run low rather than charging an overage.
Pro starts at $37/mo and includes 20,000 credits, 5 concurrent workflow runs, 25 concurrent agent chats, unlimited seats and unlimited teams, with an 8% orchestration fee on usage and a 14-day free trial. Enterprise is custom pricing with orchestration-fee discounts.
No. As of 23 August 2026 its pricing page shows only an Enterprise tier — custom actions, custom vendor credits, unlimited agents and users, 2,000+ integrations, dedicated account manager — with no monthly price and no credit figures. Every route ends at 'talk to sales'.
It depends on whether your seats or your runs are the scaling variable. A twenty-person company pays $37/mo on Gumloop Pro and $599.80/mo on Lindy Plus. But if each of those twenty people needs their own assistant acting in their own inbox, Gumloop does not do that job at any price. Compare on shape first.