Two sides, both free to start

Not per-seat — because the purchase manager shouldn't need budget approval to add a colleague to the system. If the assistant GM wants to check a comparative, that's a feature, not a line item.

Not per-PO — because that creates anxiety about whether each requisition is "worth" running through the system. We want you to route everything through the agent, including the small stuff. The small stuff is where leakage hides.

Not a share of savings — because that requires both sides to agree on what the "savings" are before trust is earned. It also creates an incentive for us to inflate baselines, which is exactly the kind of opacity procurement doesn't need more of.

A flat band lets you run every requisition through the agent without thinking about cost. The pricing scales with your volume, not your vigilance. When your team stops asking "should we use it for this one?", the system is working.

Take the Growth plan at ₹15,000/month — that's ₹1.8 lakh per year.

If you route ₹4 crore in annual procurement through ThirdQuote and the additional competitive pressure saves you even 3.5% on average — a conservative estimate when you go from 2 quotes to 5 — that's ₹14 lakh in savings.

₹14 lakh in savings versus ₹1.8 lakh in subscription. A 7.8x return.

The break-even point is roughly 0.4% of routed spend. Most mid-corporates see savings well above that within the first quarter, even before factoring in the time your purchase team gets back.