Call Center QA Software Pricing: Real Figures

Last updated: September 12, 2026

What call center QA software costs

Two vendors in this category publish a figure. EvaluAgent lists from $35 and from $65 per user per month, and Voxjar lists $0, $90 a month, and $170 a month at the 5,000 credit tier. CallMiner, Observe.AI, MaestroQA, Scorebuddy, Balto, and CallSniper all price by quote. Every figure below was read on September 12, 2026.

Ask the internet what Scorebuddy costs and you get four answers that disagree, plus a fifth nobody can open. On September 12, 2026, SoftwareSuggest published $165, $380, and $640 a month against plans named Starter, Pro, and Pro Plus, on a listing whose own timestamp read 15 May 2026. GetApp published $24 per user per month for a plan called Foundation. Vendr published a median of $2,043 a year inside a $963 to $41,728 range. TrustRadius and ITQlick both refused an automated read, while the search summary above them quoted roughly $12 per user per month, a number nobody reading this can trace to a page.

Scorebuddy's own pricing page publishes no dollar figure at all.

Those figures sit on three different billing bases, so $24 per user and $165 a month are not answering the same question, and $2,043 a year is a median of other people's signed contracts. Any of them could be right for some buyer. Stacked in one search result, they tell you nothing.

MaestroQA runs the same way. Its own pricing page routes to a form, while SoftwareSuggest carried $15 per agent per month on a listing dated 18 May 2026 and a SourceForge listing surfaced $19 per user per month. Two directory numbers about a vendor who published none.

The rule this page follows

Four rules, and they are why this page exists rather than a tenth version of the table above.

A figure appears only with its source, the date it was read, and whether it came from the vendor's own page or from a third party directory. Where a vendor publishes nothing, the cell records exactly that, since a blank is information and a filled cell borrowed from a listing site is a guess wearing a suit. Directory figures stay labeled as directory figures and never get called the vendor's price. Pages that would not load are written down as pages that would not load.

There is a weakness in that, worth knowing before you use the table. A vendor who quotes might land cheaper for your volume than a vendor who publishes, and this method cannot tell you, since the only thing it can report is what somebody chose to put on a page. What you get is a map of who is willing to show a number, which correlates with sales motion more than it correlates with cost. Used that way it holds up. Treated as a ranking from cheapest to priciest, it will point you at the wrong vendor.

We make one of the products below, which you should weigh accordingly. The CallSniper row publishes nothing either, and says so in the same words as everybody else's.

What every vendor publishes

Nine products, read from each vendor's own pages on September 12, 2026. The same nine rows sit in the pricing table as a CSV if you want them in a sheet next to your own shortlist.

Two of those nine publish a number you could put in a budget. Another two publish a basis with no figure, which helps more than it sounds, since knowing Gong charges per seat plus a platform fee tells you the shape of the bill before anyone calls back. The rest publish the fact that a conversation is required.

One figure moved while this was being written. Voxjar's page led with $170 a month for 5,000 credits on September 8 and a $90 a month recommended plan on September 12, with $170 surviving as the calculator output at the 5,000 credit stop. Four days. That gap does not prove a price rose, since a page reorganization produces the same result, and calling it an increase would be the sloppiness this page argues against. It does show how long a pricing roundup stays accurate. The wider vendor picture sits in the nine QA tools on the same fields comparison.

Why the directory numbers disagree with each other

Four reasons, all of them visible in the Scorebuddy rows above.

Listings age quietly and nobody goes back to check. SoftwareSuggest's carried a May 2026 timestamp when it was read in September, so the figure is four months old before anybody quotes it in a buying discussion, and the vendor can rearrange its own page any week it likes.

Two products can share one name. Scorebuddy and ScorebuddyCX appear across these listings with different plan names attached, and a directory that picked up the older line describes something the vendor may no longer sell.

The bases are incompatible. Per user per month, per account per month, and annual contract value all get printed as "price" and then compared by readers with no way to know which is which.

Deal data medians describe other people's contracts. Vendr's $2,043 median inside a $963 to $41,728 range is probably an accurate summary of real signed deals, which makes it useless for predicting yours unless you happen to sit in the middle of that spread.

Seats, minutes, credits, or a quote

Three pricing models cover almost everything sold here, and they fail in opposite directions, which is the part that makes quotes impossible to line up.

Seat pricing bills for people. EvaluAgent's published floor is $35 per user per month, so three logins runs $105 a month at that rate and does not move when December doubles your call volume. What a user means decides everything about that figure, which is the second question in the list below.

Credit and minute pricing bills for audio. Voxjar publishes its consumption rates, which start at 1 credit per minute on base models, 2 per minute on advanced models, and 3 or more on reasoning models. Say an answering service board runs 12,000 recorded calls a month averaging 50 seconds each. That is 10,000 minutes, so roughly 10,000 credits on a base model and 20,000 on an advanced one, against a published example that covers 5,000 credits at $170 a month. Picking a model tier doubles the consumption before anybody negotiates, and the published slider stops at 2,500, 5,000, 20,000, 60,000, and 150,000 show the ladder you would be climbing. Where you land on it is the vendor's answer to give, covered in the Voxjar credit math.

Quote pricing bills whatever your shape is judged to be worth, which sounds cynical and mostly is not: one price list has to cover a 12 seat answering service and a 900 seat outsourcer. It leaves you one comparison tool, which is asking two vendors the same questions, in the same words, on the same volume.

How to get a number you can actually compare

Two quotes become comparable when the same six things are pinned down in both. Send these in writing rather than asking on a call, so the answers arrive in a form you can lay side by side.

• The unit. Seats, audio minutes, credits, tickets, or a flat platform fee. On credits, ask how many minutes one credit buys at the model tier you would actually run, since that conversion is where the price hides.
• What counts as a user. The reviewer logging in, the supervisor reading a weekly report, and every agent whose calls get scored are three different headcounts, and a quote silent on which one it means is not usable yet.
• Implementation, onboarding, and training fees, as separate line items. Directory listings report setup costs separately for several products here, so the monthly figure people repeat in forums is not the first year's cost.
• Minimum term, minimum monthly spend, and what happens to unused credits. A consumption plan with a monthly minimum behaves like a seat plan with extra steps, and credits that expire after a year change the math on buying a block up front.
• What happens when volume spikes. Run your worst month rather than your average, whether that is the annual enrollment period for a Medicare agency or a storm week on an answering service board, and ask what the bill does at triple volume.
• What the price does at renewal, and whether the rate you signed is protected if your seat count or audio hours grow inside the term.

None of them price by criterion, so the scorecard never appears in a quote while quietly driving the bill. Settle a weighted scorecard you can copy before the quotes come in, since twelve criteria and forty consume the same credits and produce very different amounts of usable coaching.

Our own answer to those six is incomplete, since CallSniper publishes no price and the figure lands in a proposal. What we can do meanwhile is run a batch of your own recordings against the scorecard you already use and show you exactly what failed and where, at a fixed pilot price.

Frequently asked questions

How much does call center QA software cost?

Two vendors publish figures. EvaluAgent lists from $35 per user per month and from $65 with conversation intelligence added, while Voxjar lists a free plan for up to three users, $90 a month, and $170 a month at the 5,000 credit tier. Everybody else here prices by quote, checked September 12, 2026.

Why do pricing sites show different numbers for the same QA tool?

Listings carry different dates, describe different product lines under one brand name, and mix billing bases without labeling them. Scorebuddy appeared at $24 per user per month on one directory and $165 to $640 a month on another the same day, while the vendor's own page published nothing. The product side of that shortlist sits in where Scorebuddy fits better than we do.

Is per seat or per minute pricing cheaper for QA software?

That turns on your ratio of reviewers to recorded minutes. A small quality team scoring a huge volume of short calls pays less on seats, and a larger team scoring fewer long calls usually pays less on consumption. Push your busiest month through both.

Is there free call center QA software?

Voxjar publishes a free plan capped at three users with a 120 credit allowance, checked September 12, 2026, and both Voxjar and Scorebuddy offer a 14 day trial. Free tiers here cap users and scored volume, so they suit testing a scorecard rather than covering a floor.

What does CallSniper cost?

No figure is published today. Pricing and evaluation terms get confirmed in a proposal, written as a fixed pilot price everywhere on this site until that changes. Platforms sold to revenue teams sit in a different band entirely, covered in conversation intelligence sold per seat.

Sources

• EvaluAgent pricing page. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026.
• Voxjar pricing page, including published credit consumption rates and the plan grid. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026, with the 5,000 credit figure also read September 8, 2026.
• Gong pricing page, stating per user licensing and a platform fee with no figure. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026.
• Scorebuddy pricing page at scorebuddycx.com, packages named with no figure. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026.
• MaestroQA pricing page, form based. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026.
• CallMiner pricing path, 302 redirect to the Eureka product page. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026.
• Observe.AI pricing path, HTTP 404. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026.
• Balto pricing path, HTTP 404. Vendor published. Read September 12, 2026.
• SoftwareSuggest listings for Scorebuddy and MaestroQA. Third party directory, unverified as vendor pricing. Read September 12, 2026, listings self dated 15 May 2026 and 18 May 2026.
• GetApp listing for Scorebuddy. Third party directory, unverified as vendor pricing. Read September 12, 2026, no listing date shown.
• Vendr marketplace listing for Scorebuddy. Third party buyer deal data, unverified as vendor pricing. Read September 12, 2026, no listing date or source method shown.
• TrustRadius and ITQlick listings for Scorebuddy. Not readable, HTTP 403 on September 12, 2026. The roughly $12 per user per month figure attached to ITQlick in search results is unverified and is not used as a figure on this page.
• SourceForge listing for MaestroQA at $19 per user per month. Third party directory, surfaced in search and not fetched directly. Unverified.
• CallSniper pricing status and proposal terms. Trinsic, verified internally. No figure approved for publication as of September 12, 2026.

Every product named here belongs to its owner, and none of them had a say in this page. The figures are public pages read on the dates printed, so check the ones that matter to you before a number goes into a budget.

Related industriesAll industries