We read the pricing page of six equipment platforms on 14 October 2026. Not one publishes a figure. Every single page routes to a demo request, a contact form or an invitation to a conversation. That is the finding, and it changes how you have to buy.
TL;DR
- Six vendors checked against their own pricing pages. Zero published figures. This is a category-wide pattern, not one vendor being cagey.
- You cannot shortlist from a web page, so budget for calls with vendors you were never going to pick.
- With no public reference point, your only benchmark is other quotes for an identical specification.
- The cheapest quote is usually the one that excluded the most, because exclusions are invisible unless you ask.
- Decide your own comparison unit before asking. Cost per person per year, fully loaded, works across every model.
- Four things get left out routinely: retrieval, storage between holders, second-address shipping and existing devices.
What we actually found
The check was simple: open each vendor’s own pricing page, strip the markup, and look for a currency figure in the rendered text.
| Vendor | What the pricing page does |
| Workwize | Routes to a demo request. Domain is now goworkwize.com |
| Firstbase | No figure in rendered text |
| GroWrk | Page titled as an invitation to a conversation |
| allwhere | Consultation-led, no figures |
| Deel IT | No figure visible for the device product |
| RemoAsset | No figure, demo required |
Worth noting what went wrong on the first pass, because it is a trap. A naive scrape returned what looked like prices from several of these pages. Every one turned out to be a CSS value or an identifier inside a stylesheet. A figure without its label is not a price.
Disclosure: RemoAsset is owned by the same people who publish PeopleOpsHQ, and it is on the list above with the same result as everybody else. It publishes no price and requires a demo, it is weaker for hardware it did not supply, and it is not a device management system. The full set is compared in our laptop procurement platform comparison.
Why nobody publishes
It is tempting to read this as the category hiding something. The more accurate reading is that a published tier would mislead almost everybody who read it.
Country mix changes the cost more than headcount does. Two hundred people across three ordinary markets and two hundred across eleven awkward ones are completely different jobs, and no tier can span them.
Volume of movement drives the work. A stable team and a team with thirty per cent turnover generate different numbers of shipments, collections and storage months from the same headcount.
And the scope varies enormously. Procurement and shipping only, against a full lifecycle including storage and retrieval, is a different product sold under the same category name.
What this does to your buying process
Three practical consequences, each of which catches teams used to buying software with published tiers.
Shortlisting happens after the first call, not before it. You will spend hours on vendors you were never going to choose. Shorten it by sending a specification before the call so the first conversation is about your numbers rather than their deck.
Cheap carries different information than usual. With published pricing, cheaper normally means fewer features. Here it most often means fewer inclusions, and inclusions are invisible unless you ask about them by name.
You cannot benchmark externally. There is no public reference for what this should cost, so the only comparison available is between your own quotes, which makes an identical specification the entire basis of the decision rather than a nicety.
Getting quotes you can compare
What to do:
- Pick your unit first. Cost per person per year, fully loaded, is comparable across subscription, ownership and scoped models.
- Write one page: headcount by country including single-person countries, device standard as a spec not a model, last year’s real joiners and leavers.
- List the jobs and make each vendor mark them included, extra or not offered. Procurement, configuration, shipping, in-country stock, tracking existing devices, retrieval, storage, redeployment, repair, disposal.
- Describe your worst month rather than your average one, and ask what that month costs.
- Send the identical page to everybody. Tailoring per vendor feels helpful and destroys comparability.
- Normalise the answers yourself, adding each vendor’s extras at their stated rates using your real volumes.
Write down what you expect the total to be before any vendor replies. A quote far below your own estimate is usually excluding something, and having a prior makes that visible immediately rather than in month eleven.
The four exclusions to ask about by name
These recur across the category and all four are phrased as scope boundaries rather than exclusions, which is honest and easy to miss.
Retrieval, often a priced module. At a meaningful leaver rate this is not a rounding error. Storage between holders, billed monthly on every idle machine. Shipping to a second address, since people relocate and quotes assume one delivery per lifecycle. And devices the vendor did not supply, which are usually your oldest and nearest to replacement.
Each of those is defensible on its own. Together they are routinely the entire difference between the cheapest quote and the most expensive one, which is why a quote comparison that does not account for them ranks vendors on how much they left out.
What a good quote conversation sounds like
Since there is no page to read, the call is where the information is, and the shape of a good answer is worth recognising.
A good vendor asks you questions before quoting. Working out a realistic number requires knowing your countries, your volumes and your failure rate. Anyone who quotes without asking has not calculated anything and you will see a revised figure later.
A good answer names a weak country unprompted. Something like next working day from local stock in one market and a week from a hub in another, with a suggestion to hold a spare locally. A vendor telling you where they are weak before you find it is the strongest signal available.
And a good quote separates the recurring from the one-off. Platform fee, per-shipment costs, per-collection costs and hardware should be visible as separate lines, because a single blended figure cannot be stress-tested against a bad month.
Final thoughts
The absence of published pricing is not a reason to distrust this category. It is a reason to buy it differently from how you buy software with tiers.
Decide your unit, write one page, send it unchanged to four vendors, and normalise the answers yourself. That work takes a day and it is the only thing standing between you and a decision made on four numbers that were never comparable.
Frequently asked questions
Does any equipment platform publish its pricing?
None of the six checked on 14 October 2026. Every vendor page routes to a demo request, a contact form or an invitation to a conversation, which is a category-wide pattern rather than particular companies being cagey, and it means a web search cannot produce even a rough budget figure for this kind of purchase.
Why do these vendors refuse to publish a price?
Because a published tier would mislead most readers. Country mix changes cost more than headcount does, movement volume rather than team size drives the actual work, and the scope sold under one category name ranges from procurement and shipping alone to a full lifecycle with storage and retrieval included.
How do I budget for this without a public price?
Decide your own unit first, which for most teams is cost per person per year fully loaded, then write down what you expect the total to be before any vendor replies. That expected figure is the benchmark you otherwise do not have, and a quote far below it is usually excluding something rather than being generous.
What gets excluded from equipment platform quotes most often?
Four things, all phrased as reasonable scope boundaries: retrieval as a priced module, storage between holders billed monthly on idle machines, shipping to a second address when somebody relocates, and tracking of devices the vendor did not supply. The last one matters disproportionately because existing machines are usually your oldest and closest to replacement.
Why is the cheapest quote often the most expensive?
Because in a category with no published pricing, cheaper usually signals fewer inclusions rather than fewer features, and inclusions are invisible unless you name them. Ask every vendor to mark the same ten jobs as included, extra or not offered, then add the extras at their stated rates using your real volumes before comparing anything.
Can I trust figures I find scraped from a vendor page?
Not without the label attached. A first pass over these six pages returned several things that looked like prices and every one turned out to be a CSS value or an identifier inside a stylesheet, which is a trap worth knowing about if you are checking vendors programmatically rather than reading the page.