Opinions expressed by Digital Journal contributors are their own.
Salesforce CPQ entered its End-of-Sale phase in March 2025, meaning Salesforce no longer sells it to new customers and has shifted innovation to its successor. Existing customers can still use and renew the product, but it receives no new features, and industry analysts project a likely end-of-life window around 2029–2030 — a partner estimate, not an official Salesforce date.
For teams running legacy CPQ systems, the evaluation landscape in 2026 has broadened. Salesforce’s recommended path forward is Agentforce Revenue Management, which runs on a fundamentally different data model than legacy Salesforce CPQ — meaning migration involves architectural decisions that extend beyond a standard version upgrade. Alongside ARM, a range of independent platforms have matured to cover the full quote-to-revenue lifecycle, each with different approaches to implementation, billing architecture, and commercial governance.
As these architectural choices become more consequential, revenue teams are applying a consistent set of evaluation criteria across the platforms they consider.
The platforms below are assessed against three criteria that commonly distinguish modern revenue management architectures: implementation speed, billing model flexibility, and commercial governance depth. Each profile includes a direct comparison on those dimensions.
The three criteria that define this decision
Implementation speed separates modern platforms from legacy CPQ architecture. A traditional enterprise CPQ implementation involves configuring a pricing engine, mapping product catalog logic, building approval workflows, and connecting to CRM and billing systems — each step requiring engineering involvement. Teams that have completed migrations report the difference between weeks and months is largely determined by whether the platform’s architecture requires a developer to execute operational changes, or whether a RevOps team member can handle them directly. Each platform below approaches this dimension differently, and teams should test specifically who can make pricing and workflow changes after go-live.
Billing model flexibility has become a central requirement as revenue motions have grown more complex. A platform that handles subscription quoting cleanly but requires a separate billing system to manage consumption tiers introduces a data handoff point — and every handoff is a potential reconciliation failure. Agentforce Revenue Management’s billing capabilities have expanded with the platform, but for teams running hybrid flat-fee and consumption billing, the question is whether those motions share a data model or sync across separate systems.
Commercial governance depth is the criterion that most directly separates AI-assisted tooling from platforms deployable in an enterprise compliance environment. A system that passes deal parameters through a language model and returns a recommendation is not governance — it is acceleration. Governance requires encoded policy, structured decision logs, and an audit trail that reflects not just what the system did, but what rule it applied and why. Agentforce Revenue Management’s agentic layer operates within the Salesforce ecosystem’s compliance framework, but teams with formal audit requirements should test the depth of that documentation against their specific requirements before committing.
Platforms B2B revenue teams are evaluating
1. DealHub AI
DealHub AI is an Agentic Quote-to-Revenue platform built for mid-market and enterprise B2B companies. The platform covers configure, price, and quote through contracts, subscriptions, and billing on a single unified data model, with quoting and billing drawing from the same commercial record.
Its AI execution layer, DealAgent, handles pricing decisions, approval routing, and deal actions within encoded commercial policy, producing a structured audit trail for every governed action. The no-code architecture allows sales operations and RevOps teams to update pricing rules and approval workflows without engineering involvement.
According to DealHub’s published customer case studies, Trintech reduced time-to-quote by 50 to 90 percent and cut annual CPQ spend by 40 percent on a like-for-like license basis after moving to the platform, and Zapier collapsed a 100-node approval workflow built in HubSpot to an ≤8-hour turnaround. As vendor-reported figures, they describe outcomes for those specific deployments rather than independently benchmarked results.
DealHub’s acquisition of Subskribe in November 2025 extended the platform’s billing capabilities to include subscription management and consumption metering, completing what the company describes as an agentic quote-to-revenue platform. Subskribe brought native consumption metering into the same data model as quoting and contracts, meaning usage events feed directly into billing without passing through an integration layer that loses context between systems. The combined platform processes flat-fee, usage-based, and services billing within a single data model.
Compared to Agentforce Revenue Management: DealHub AI’s no-code architecture is designed so RevOps teams can change pricing rules and approval workflows without engineering involvement, with quoting and billing on a unified data model. Buyers weighing the two should test how each handles ongoing configuration changes, multi-motion billing on a shared data model, and the depth of the audit trail each produces for governed actions — the dimensions where the architectures differ most.
DealHub is a high-satisfaction Leader on G2’s CPQ Grid and is placed in the Leader quadrant of the Nucleus Research CPQ Technology Value Matrix (2025). On G2’s CPQ category grid, Agentforce Revenue Management ranks as the at-a-glance Leader on market presence, while DealHub scores higher on user satisfaction — two different lenses worth distinguishing.
2. Conga
Conga has been repositioning itself as a connected commerce platform following its acquisition of PROS, integrating AI-driven pricing optimization into an existing CPQ and contract lifecycle management suite. At its 2026 customer conference, the company formalized a platform strategy centered on a connected chain spanning CPQ, price optimization, CLM, and document automation across CRM and ERP environments.
Conga’s established presence in Fortune 500 accounts gives it credibility in large enterprise evaluations, particularly where contract lifecycle management is a central requirement alongside quoting. The PROS acquisition strengthens its pricing science capabilities, which is a meaningful differentiator for organizations running complex pricing models across large product catalogs.
Compared to Agentforce Revenue Management: Conga offers a broader CLM capability out of the box, which is an advantage for organizations where contract workflow is as important as quoting. On implementation speed, both platforms carry significant configuration requirements for complex deployments. The integration depth between Conga’s combined product lines is an area teams should evaluate directly, particularly if their timeline is shorter than a multi-year platform consolidation cycle. Teams evaluating Conga should weight how the CPQ and CLM layers share data in the current product state.
3. Zuora
Zuora is the most established platform in the standalone billing and subscription management category. It handles subscription and consumption billing at enterprise scale and is typically evaluated alongside a separate CPQ tool rather than as a unified alternative — meaning the quote-to-billing data handoff remains an integration-dependent process.
Zuora performs well when the quoting layer is already stable and the primary requirement is improving billing accuracy or supporting consumption-based pricing. The main consideration in this configuration is the data handoff between quoting and billing systems: teams should evaluate how amendments and mid-contract changes are handled when the two systems operate on separate data models.
Compared to Agentforce Revenue Management: Zuora is not a direct ARM replacement — it addresses a different layer of the revenue stack. Teams evaluating it are typically pairing it with an existing or new CPQ tool. The advantage in this configuration is billing model depth for consumption-heavy revenue motions; teams managing this approach should account for the additional overhead of keeping two data models synchronized, particularly for amendments and mid-contract changes.
4. NetSuite Revenue Management
NetSuite’s revenue management and billing modules sit within its broader ERP architecture, making it a natural consideration for organizations already running NetSuite as their financial system of record. It handles revenue recognition, subscription billing, and invoicing within the same environment as general ledger and financial reporting.
For teams whose primary requirement is tightening the connection between commercial operations and financial reporting, particularly for ASC 606 compliance, NetSuite’s ERP-native position is a genuine advantage. The quoting capabilities are more limited than purpose-built CPQ platforms, and the platform is more naturally positioned as the back-office layer of a revenue stack than as a front-to-back commercial execution platform.
Compared to Agentforce Revenue Management: NetSuite is a stronger option when financial system integration and revenue recognition compliance are the primary drivers of the evaluation. It may be less suited when the evaluation is driven by quoting complexity, approval governance, or deal velocity. Teams considering NetSuite are typically doing so because they want to consolidate onto their ERP rather than manage a separate revenue platform, a valid architectural decision, but one with tradeoffs in CPQ depth and front-office flexibility.
Matching platform to buyer profile
The right platform depends on where the evaluation reveals the most meaningful differences for a specific operation.
Teams whose primary concern is implementation speed and ongoing operational flexibility, particularly those planning a move off legacy Salesforce CPQ before its eventual end-of-life, should weight the no-code architecture criterion heavily. How a platform handles ongoing configuration changes, and who can make them, affects steady-state operations as much as initial deployment.
Teams running complex billing motions across flat-fee, usage-based, and services contracts should test each platform against their most structurally complex deal type before committing. The quote-to-billing data model is the variable most likely to surface gaps that are not visible in a standard demo scenario.
Teams operating under formal compliance requirements should ask specifically how each platform documents pricing decisions and approval actions. A structured audit trail is a procurement requirement in a growing number of enterprise deals, and platforms vary significantly in how they document and surface that trail.
For teams whose evaluation spans all three criteria, the practical step is to weight the three dimensions against their own requirements and test the shortlist against the most structurally complex deals they run, the scenario where the differences between a unified architecture and an integrated stack tend to surface.