Priced by the size of your book, not the number of your staff
Two packaging shapes, one pricing principle, and an explanation of why we will not put a number on this page.
GoDravix is priced by portfolio size (active loans or assets under management) rather than per seat. Most of our users are lenders with many loans and few operators, and per-seat pricing punishes exactly that shape.
Two packaging options exist: a cloud subscription, and an enterprise engagement with one-time migration and setup. Neither has a published price.
Two shapes
Cloud subscription
For lenders who want the platform running without owning infrastructure.
- Subscription tiered by active loans or assets under management
- Configuration of schemes, rates, entities and users
- Onboarding and role-based user documentation
- Support included in the subscription
- Hosted on cloud infrastructure, region agreed per deployment
- Migration scoped and quoted separately
Deployed on our managed cloud. Other deployment shapes sit in the enterprise engagement.
Enterprise engagement
For institutions with deployment, workflow or integration requirements beyond the standard product.
- Custom pricing against a scoped requirement
- One-time migration and setup, quoted after a records assessment
- Workflow development where configuration is not sufficient
- Defined service levels
- Private cloud, on-premise or government cloud
- Development of specific gaps by agreement
On-premise and government cloud deployment, scoped with your infrastructure team.
Why there is no pricing table on this page
Because we do not have one yet, and inventing a number to fill a page is how a customer ends up renegotiating in month four.
GoDravix is being productised out of a live client build. There is one production deployment. We have not benchmarked competitor pricing, we do not have a validated cost-to-serve model across deployment sizes, and we have no discount policy. Publishing a price under those conditions would be a guess dressed as a commitment.
What we will do is scope your requirement, tell you plainly which parts are configuration and which are development, and quote against that. If the answer is that the development required makes this uneconomic for you, we will say so.
Start a scoping conversation| What drives the price | Why |
|---|---|
| Portfolio size | Active loans or AUM, as the primary variable. |
| Migration complexity | Record quality drives this far more than loan count. |
| Development required | Anything in the roadmap column that you need in the built column. |
| Deployment shape | Standard cloud, private cloud, or a packaging requirement that does not exist yet. |
| Service level | Support expectations and response commitments. |
About pricing
We do not publish price points and will not quote before understanding your book. Pricing is driven by portfolio size, migration complexity, any development needed to close a roadmap gap you depend on, and deployment shape. A number given before a scoping conversation would be a guess.
What we can commit to: pricing is by portfolio size rather than per seat, and the migration cost is quoted after a records assessment rather than estimated blind.
No. Pricing follows active loans or assets under management. Per-seat pricing systematically penalises the lenders we serve best, a cooperative society with four thousand small loans and six staff, or a finance board lending to a few hundred municipal bodies through a handful of operators.
It is quoted separately after a records assessment, because record quality drives the effort far more than loan count does. A portfolio with clean digital records of every disbursement and repayment is a fraction of the work of one reconstructed from paper registers with an undocumented interest convention.
Core loan management is the base, and the AI layer is priced as an addition to it. Because each capability is configured to your documents, your languages and your thresholds rather than shipped as one fixed version, the figure comes out of a scoping conversation rather than a rate card. Design partners who help shape a capability are priced differently from those who adopt it later.
No. A loan management system is not usefully evaluated through a self-serve trial. The value depends entirely on whether your lending rules can be configured, which is a conversation rather than a signup. What we offer instead is a walkthrough of the live production deployment on real data.
Get a number that means something
Tell us your portfolio size, record quality and the two requirements you are least willing to compromise on. We will scope from there.
45 minutes | On the live deployment | A straight answer on fit