The short version. Document360 pricing is no longer published. As of October 2026 the page is a three-step questionnaire opening with what challenge you are solving, and there are no figures on it. The quote is driven by document volume, reader count, how many separate knowledge bases you need and whether any of it is public. Price the vendors who still publish first, so you arrive at the call with a baseline rather than a blank page.
Document360 pricing is now a questionnaire
Worth stating plainly, because many comparison articles still list tier prices that no longer appear anywhere on the vendor’s site.
We checked on 17 October 2026. The page is titled around getting a custom plan tailored to your needs, and it opens with step one of three asking what challenge you are solving, offering options such as creating documentation, reducing support tickets and finding answers faster.
There are no currency figures on it at all. Any Document360 pricing you find elsewhere is second-hand, undated and describes a previous commercial model.
Guru made the same change during 2026 and Glean has no pricing page whatsoever, so this is a direction of travel in the category rather than a decision unique to one vendor.
Why vendors stop publishing
Not evasion, and understanding the reason tells you what the quote will turn on.
As these products add answering layers over the documentation, the cost to serve stops being a simple function of seats. It depends on document volume, how much gets indexed, how heavily the assistant is used and how much implementation work the deployment needs.
A rate card stops being meaningful to the vendor at that point, and a questionnaire is a reasonable response to genuinely variable pricing.
The cost lands on you as calendar time rather than money. A shortlist with three quote-based vendors is a multi-week procurement rather than an afternoon’s comparison, so decide early how many you will carry.
What drives the quote
Four variables, and knowing them makes the first call considerably shorter.
Document volume. How many articles, and how much structure they need. This is the main lever in a documentation platform, unlike in a wiki where seats dominate.
Reader count. How many people can read, which for internal documentation is usually the whole technical team and sometimes the whole company.
Number of knowledge bases. One internal set, or several separated by product, region or audience. Each adds configuration and usually cost.
Public or internal. Public documentation brings custom domains, reader-facing branding and search engine controls, none of which an internal-only team needs.
What to bring to the call
Five things, written down. Every quote-based vendor asks for the first three, and the last two change the conversation.
Your live document count, excluding drafts and superseded versions. Your reader count, separate from your writer count. Whether anything will be public.
Then a priced baseline from the vendors who still publish, and a stated timeline. Arriving with a baseline turns a discovery session into a comparison, and it is the step most teams skip.
Build the baseline from vendors who publish
Five publish openly, and pricing all of them takes about twenty minutes.
Helpjuice publishes by included users rather than per seat, at 249 per month for 30 users, 449 for 100 and 799 for unlimited. Its page carries no currency symbol anywhere, so confirm the currency before it reaches a budget.
Slab is free to 10 users, then Startup at $6.67 and Business at $12.50 per user per month, both billed annually.
Tettra publishes $8 per user per month on Scaling, with a ten user minimum and yearly billing, so the real floor is ten seats.
Notion is free, then $10 Plus and $20 Business per member per month.
Confluence is a configurator. At 25 seats Standard is $7.15 per user per month and at 300 seats it falls to $5.78, so a figure without its seat count describes a different company.
Whether you need a documentation platform
The question worth answering before the call, because the answer is often no.
Documentation platforms justify themselves on three capabilities: producing the version that was live on a given date, flagging content for review against a named owner, and reporting what people searched for and did not find.
If none of those is a real requirement, you are buying governance you will not use. Eight months later the approval workflow is switched off because nobody had time to approve things, and the category hierarchy holds two categories.
An internal team with eighty runbooks and two maintainers usually needs findability, an owner and a review date, which the lighter published options cover for considerably less and with no sales conversation.
The narrower option
If the documents are adequate and the problem is that nobody can get an answer out of them, there is a shape that is not a documentation platform.
An answering layer reads documents where they already sit and returns a sentence with a link to the source. No migration, no new editor, no questionnaire.
Matram is one of these, and it is owned by the same people who publish this site, which you should weigh against this section. It publishes flat pricing at $29, $69 and $199 per month with unlimited seats, which in a category where several vendors have stopped publishing is itself worth noting.
Its limits are specific. There is no free tier, only a 30 day trial without a card. It answers rather than actioning tickets, so it will state what the runbook says and will not run the procedure. And it is not an ITSM or service desk platform, so there is no ticket queue, routing or case management in it.
It also has no authoring or versioning. If your requirement is producing the version live on a given date, you need a documentation platform, possibly as well.
Questions for the first call
Six, and asking the first early tells you a great deal about the weeks ahead.
What is the range at our document count and reader count. How is the assistant priced relative to the documentation. What happens if we add a second knowledge base. What is the minimum term. How many weeks of our time does implementation take. And what happens when the documentation does not contain an answer, which is the question that separates these products and which almost nobody asks.
A vendor that gives a range in the first call is not necessarily cheaper, and it is reliably faster to evaluate.
Why can I not find Document360 pricing anywhere?
Because it is no longer published. As of October 2026 the page is a three-step questionnaire that opens by asking what challenge you are solving, with no currency figures on it. Guru made the same change during 2026 and Glean has no pricing page at all. Any tier prices you find in comparison articles are second-hand and describe a previous commercial model rather than what you would be quoted today.
What drives the quote?
Document volume first, since that is the main lever in a documentation platform rather than seats. Then reader count, which for internal documentation is usually the whole technical team. Then how many separate knowledge bases you need, since each adds configuration. And whether any of it is public, because public documentation brings domains, branding and search controls that an internal-only team does not need.
How do I budget without a rate card?
Price the vendors who still publish and use them as a floor. Helpjuice, Slab, Tettra, Notion and Confluence all list their rates openly and pricing all five at your headcount takes about twenty minutes. That gives finance a defensible number and it turns the vendor conversation into a comparison instead of an open-ended discovery call run on their terms.
Do we actually need a documentation platform?
Only if you need at least one of three things: producing the version of a document that was live on a given date, content that flags itself for review against a named owner, or reporting on what people searched for and did not find. If none is a real requirement you are buying governance you will not use, and a team with eighty runbooks and two maintainers is usually better served by a lighter published option.
How many quote-based vendors should we carry?
Two at most, alongside two or three you can price from a web page. Each quote-based vendor adds roughly two weeks of scheduling, demo and follow-up that nobody owns, and five of the eleven vendors we checked in this category now publish nothing. A shortlist heavy with them turns a tooling decision into a quarter-long procurement exercise with a real cost in calendar time.
Is the move to quote-based pricing a bad sign?
Not about product quality. It follows the category adding answering layers, where cost to serve depends on document volume and assistant usage rather than simply on seats, so a rate card stops being meaningful. It is a practical warning about your evaluation timeline rather than about the software, and it does make the vendors who still publish noticeably easier to compare, which is worth being conscious of as a bias.
