Common Room Pricing: One Number and Two Custom Tiers

The entry-level budget to try Common Room is $2,500 a month on its Essential tier, billed annually, so a first year costs $30,000 for 5 seats, up to 100k contacts and two credit pools. The pricing page shows no monthly billing, no free trial and no self-serve checkout: Essential leads to a demo request, and the two tiers above it are quoted.

What's the Entry-Level Budget to Try Common Room?

$30,000 for the first year at the published entry rung, committed up front on annual billing. That is the whole of what the page prices; Advanced and Enterprise are quoted. On whether a month-to-month contract exists, the page is silent: it lists Essential only as billed annually and offers no monthly toggle. Warmly, by contrast, prints a quarterly price for each line so a team can try before an annual commitment, and Koala's paid plans are priced by the month.

One Published Number and Two Custom Tiers

Most signal platforms in this category answer the pricing question with a demo form. Common Room publishes one number on its own pricing page and quotes the two tiers above it, which makes the entry rung readable and the ceiling invisible.

That single published figure is worth more than it looks, because it comes attached to a set of entitlement numbers that decide whether the platform fits before anybody books a call. Seats, contacts and two separate credit meters all move between tiers, and the meters are the part a headline price hides.

What the pricing page publishes

As published on Common Room's pricing page, first read on 2 September 2026 and re-read on 19 September 2026, the ladder runs three tiers, now under the heading "Know your buyer. Pick your plan."

Essential is listed at $2,500 a month, billed annually. It includes 5 seats, up to 100k contacts, 5k RoomieAI research credits and 2.5k Prospector credits, with unlimited alerts, workflows and segments, select integrations and a shared customer success manager.

Advanced is quoted rather than listed. Its entitlements are published: 15 seats, up to 250k contacts, 7.5k RoomieAI research credits and 7.5k Prospector credits, the same unlimited alerts, workflows and segments, select integrations and a dedicated customer success manager.

Enterprise is also quoted, with 30 seats, up to 750k contacts, 10K RoomieAI research credits and 15K Prospector credits, comprehensive integrations and a dedicated customer success manager.

The shape there is unusual and useful. A vendor that keeps every figure behind a demo form tells a buyer nothing. A vendor that publishes every price invites a spreadsheet comparison it may not win. Common Room does a third thing: it prints the entry price and the full entitlement grid for all three tiers, so a team can work out which rung it lands on before it knows what the rung costs.

The two credit meters are the real axis

Read the entitlements again and the seat count is the least interesting number on the page.

Every tier carries two distinct credit pools. RoomieAI research credits feed the vendor's research and drafting layer. Prospector credits feed contact discovery. They are counted separately, they scale at different rates between tiers, and neither is a seat.

The rates are the tell. Between Essential and Advanced the research pool moves from 5k to 7.5k while the Prospector pool moves from 2.5k to 7.5k, so the prospecting meter triples while the research meter goes up by half. Between Advanced and Enterprise the research pool moves from 7.5k to 10K while Prospector moves from 7.5k to 15K. The vendor is pricing prospecting volume, not research volume, and a team whose usage is weighted the other way is buying the wrong axis.

The page also states that additional Prospector credits are available as an add-on, which means the meter is expandable without a tier change. That is the sentence to bring to a renewal conversation, because it separates a real capacity problem from a contract that simply landed on the wrong rung.

What is an add-on, and why that matters more than the tier

The feature comparison on the same page carries a column of values that never appear in a summary, and three of them change the total bill.

Product signals are add-on only on Essential. Product usage data is one of the things the platform is bought for, and on the published rung it is not included. A team evaluating on the entry price and expecting product-led signals is comparing a number against a capability it would have to add.

DataAgent renders as view only across all three tiers, with the page stating that DataAgent Actions are available as an add-on. The read is included everywhere. The write is not included anywhere.

In-product data exports and auto-recurring data exports are add-on only on Essential and Advanced. Exports appear as standard on Enterprise. So on the two lower tiers, getting data out of the platform on a schedule is a line item rather than a feature, which is the sort of thing that surfaces in month four rather than in the evaluation.

Three entitlements do carry published values that scale cleanly. Bombora Company Surge topics run 6, 12 and 25 across the three tiers. Premium phone number enrichment runs 100, 100 and 200 credits. Website activity runs 240k a year, 480k a year and 960k a year, and website deanonymisation runs 1k a month, 1k a month and unlimited. Note that the phone enrichment and deanonymisation allowances do not move between Essential and Advanced at all, so the middle tier buys seats, contacts and Prospector credits rather than a uniform uplift.

The comparison the vendor invites, and the one it does not

The pricing page's own FAQ answers a question about how Prospector pricing compares to ZoomInfo, and states that Prospector is a significantly more cost-effective alternative, often at around 20 percent of the cost, while going beyond standalone contact data. That is a vendor claim on a vendor page, and it is quotable as exactly that.

It is also worth reading for what it concedes. The comparison offered is against a contact database. Prospector is the contact discovery layer, and the vendor is positioning that layer on price against the market leader. The signal capture and the research agent are argued on capability instead, which is the honest shape: the part with a comparable unit gets a price argument and the part without one does not.

For what a contact database costs on its own terms, ZoomInfo pricing covers what that vendor publishes and what has to be asked for, which is the comparison the FAQ is inviting.

Who else in this category publishes a number

A buyer comparing Common Room is usually comparing signal platforms, and most of them publish nothing. Two adjacent vendors do, and their units sit far enough apart to be worth setting beside each other.

Another that publishes rather than quotes is UserGems, where three annual tiers and their one time fees sit beside a revenue guarantee that changes by tier.

Koala's pricing page, re-read on 19 September 2026, lists a free plan with 2 seats and 100 credits a month, Starter at $200 a month with 2 seats and 1,000 credits a month, Growth at $1,000 a month with 3 seats, and a custom Business tier. The page states that additional seats are available for purchase on the paid tiers.

Warmly's pricing page, read the same day, prices three product lines annually: AI Web-Deanonymization starting at $10,000 a year, Inbound Chat starting at $20,000 a year and AI Inbound Autopilot starting at $30,000 a year, each from 10K credits a month. The same page also prints a quarterly rate for each line, at $4,875, $6,500 and $9,750 respectively. Those quarterly figures multiply out to $19,500, $26,000 and $39,000 over four quarters, so the gap between the annual and quarterly routes is not one constant ratio across the three lines.

Setting the three vendors beside each other, the useful observation is not which is cheapest. It is that a credit means a different thing in each one, so a plan with more credits is not a bigger plan. Common Room counts research and prospecting separately, Koala counts a single pool, and Warmly counts a monthly floor per product line. The comparison only becomes real once your own monthly volume is modelled against each definition, and account-based marketing tools works through the same trap across eleven platforms in the category.

Where the platform being replaced is a predictive intent product rather than a signal capture product, 6sense alternatives separates which capability each option actually replaces, and is the closer comparison for a team leaving a quote-only platform.

Who the vendor says it sells to

The pricing question and the fit question are the same question at this price point, and the vendor's own pages answer the second one directly.

The solutions menu on commonroom.io names five audiences: account-based marketing, demand generation, revenue operations, sales for account executives, and sales development. The customers page states that the company helps go-to-market leaders drive business impact, and the roles attached to its customer quotes are pipeline operations, a revenue operations leader, a director of sales development, a director of revenue operations, a global account-based marketing manager and a vice president of sales.

That is a go-to-market buyer on every named surface. It matters here because the platform's origins are in community data, and a reader arriving from that history might expect a community management tool with a community management budget. The current pages do not position it that way. They now also present Common Room together with Zoom: the pricing page carries a Zoom tab beside Common Room, and the product menu sells Zoom Revenue Accelerator products, Dial, Engage, AI Coaching and Forecast. Each, the product page says, "works standalone or together, and sharpens further with Common Room buyer intelligence underneath."

The compliance line on the pricing page states SOC 2 certification and GDPR compliance, with the security documentation linked from the same section. Those are the vendor's statements about its own controls, and they do not transfer a lawful basis for contacting anybody to the buyer, which is a distinction worth keeping straight in any signal-based programme.

Where the number lands in a stack

At a published $2,500 a month billed annually for the entry rung, Common Room is priced as a platform rather than as a tool, and the comparison that decides it is rarely against another signal product.

The real alternative is usually a set of narrower purchases: a contact data provider, a visitor identification tool, an enrichment waterfall and whatever alerting the CRM already does. That stack costs less and produces a coordination problem, which is the trade the category exists to sell against. Waterfall enrichment sets out the provider ordering that makes the data half of it cheap, and 27 intent signal APIs covers the connection layer for teams assembling rather than buying.

The failure mode at this price point is buying coordination for a programme whose actual constraint is somewhere else. A platform that ranks accounts by signal strength does not help a team that cannot reach the buying group once it has ranked them, and it does not help a team with no capacity to work the list it produces. Cost per lead in B2B covers the arithmetic the whole purchase eventually reports into, and it is the number that exposes a coordination purchase made against a capacity problem.

The short version

Common Room publishes Essential at $2,500 a month billed annually with 5 seats, up to 100k contacts, 5k research credits and 2.5k Prospector credits, and quotes Advanced and Enterprise while publishing their entitlements. Two separate credit meters scale at different rates between tiers, and the prospecting meter climbs faster than the research one. Product signals, DataAgent actions and scheduled exports are add-ons at the published rung rather than included, which is where an entry-price comparison goes wrong.

Model your own volume against both meters before comparing this ladder to anything, and read the add-on column before treating the published figure as the bill.

If the constraint turns out to be the supply of qualified conversations rather than the supply of signal, see what a first campaign produces against a qualification standard agreed in writing before launch.

Plan names, prices and entitlements above were read from Common Room's own pricing page on 2 September 2026, and the Koala and Warmly figures from their own pricing pages the same day. Verify current terms with the vendor before relying on them.

Sources: Common Room pricing, Koala pricing, Warmly pricing