PandaDoc headquartered in San Francisco offers their eponymous electronic signature platform for sales teams, containing sales proposal automation and CPQ (configure, price, quote) features, and integration with CRMs.
$35
per month per seat
PROS Smart CPQ
Score 8.0 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
PROS Smart CPQ automates and simplifies the configuration, pricing and quoting process for a sales team, empowering them to instantly create accurate, personalized solutions for each customer. The vendor says what makes Smart CPQ different is the unique combination of dynamic pricing science with configuration and quoting capabilities. This solution enables sales teams to instantly provide tailored solutions with winning prices to deliver an exceptional buying experience for each…
$60
per month per user
Pricing
PandaDoc
PROS Smart CPQ
Editions & Modules
Starter
$35
per month per seat
Business
$65
per month per seat
Enterprise
Contact Sales
Essentials
$60
per month per user
Advantage
$75
per month per user
Ultimate
Contact Sales
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
PandaDoc
PROS Smart CPQ
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
Required
Additional Details
PandaDoc offers a free eSign plan and 3 paid packages for eSigning and document automation. All plans include unlimited documents and eSignatures. Evaluations start with a free 14-day trial. Up to a 46% discount for annual pricing.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
PandaDoc
PROS Smart CPQ
Considered Both Products
PandaDoc
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose PandaDoc
I find it easier to automate and create templates in PandaDoc. Specifically the templates. Also, connecting through API is easier (our IT team says so, I'm not qualified to evaluate that). Pricing is also something important, when we acquired PandaDoc it was cheaper so we were …
PandaDoc is equal to DocuSign in every significant way except for its level of adoption; however, the pricing of PandaDoc is so much better that it's clearly the best choice for our firm.
We used Dropbox back when it was still HelloSign. At the time, new templates were very hard to create. We had to upload a PDF and then add the fields from there. With PandaDoc, we are able to drag and drop the text, images, logos, and fields we need easily. This has saved our …
PandaDoc and DocuSign are very similar in functionality and design, but I prefer to use PandaDoc's interface. It is so easy to use and I prefer PandaDoc's interface and UI. It feels a little cleaner and a little more professional to me when compared with DocuSign's interface …
To be able to block certain fields within templates and contracts, so that the commercial team can negotiate the rest and adapt them but cannot change those purely legal clauses that should not be negotiated or changed without the approval of the legal department. I also find …
We briefly used Proposify, and it had some nice options for creating more ascetically pleasing proposals and contracts. However, it was far more time-consuming, and any gain in asceticism did not outweigh the significant loss in efficiency, simplicity, and reliability of using …
Conga was difficult to build template contracts and not as simple to set up templates, etc., for our sales contracts as Pandadoc has been (simple drag-and-drop in Pandadoc). The automation and integration between our Salesforce and Conga accounts were not working correctly, so …
We chose PandaDoc for its ease of use and tools that allow a professional feel. The convenience for our clients to review and sign agreements also helped us make the decision to go with PandaDoc.
We looked at DocuSign before PandaDocs, and while they are a well-known and good product, we felt their basic content was lacking compared to PandaDoc. We felt we got more bang for our buck, and the navigation seemed better. Plus, we get a dedicated rep with PandaDoc.
We still use Quickbooks for invoicing but are looking into other products that integrate with PD better than Quickbooks. That way we can quote and invoice from PD.
As an alternative to other electronic signature mechanisms, I can't recommend PandaDoc more highly. It works, plain and simple. It is less costly - by a lot - than most alternatives, stores signed documents online for easy access, is simple to use by both our staff and our clients, and makes our lives far easier.
Is my IT team ready to handle the challenges with data integration ? Are all the features offered by my current quoting tool being offered by Cameleon? Do I need a SaaS based quoting tool? Would it be easy and intuitive for my sales team (who,quite frankly, worship MS Excel) to use Cameleon ? Do I need a real-time/near-real-time quoting tool or would delays in data refreshes be acceptable
Integration with other onsite systems such as Oracle databases require the expertise of knowledgeable developers. Manual upload of flat files are always an option , but not necessarily the cleanest.
Better Cameleon CPQ Designer UI would go a long way. Currently UI is a stark contrast to the intuitive UI of SalesForce.com or similar SaaS based tools. Not too much to ask for , considering the fact that we work in the era of Facebook and Twitter.
Real time data availability is a long way to go for Cameleon CPQ. Updates to data pushed over as batches to Cameleon are reflected at Salesforce.com only after a 'versioning' process is launched. Current recommended frequency for this process is once a day (an upgrade to make it twice a day is in the works).
We have been using it for a few years now and find it vital to getting our bids out quickly and accurately to our customers. We can get a request for information from a customer and once we have their basic parameters create a professional bid in minutes. It's actually usually harder to find out what the customer wants than to use PandaDoc and create a document with it
There are a few features that we expected from the tool but Cameleon's CPQ has fallen short on these. Possible enhancements and product fixes should be made as soon as possible to change the perspective. Unexpected bugs in the tool have come up during the roll-out that has caught the implementation team off-guard
Once you get the hang of it, it's very easy to use. There can be a slightly steep learning curve to get fully in on the system. The new editor v2 has really improved usability and allows us to collaborate on documents simultaneously. Once the templates and library items are set up, a new document, whether it be a sales or HR document, takes very little time to complete.
As I mentioned earlier - performance is near perfect as I can create, send, adjust my documents. I love the tracking feature as well as I can tell when my documents have been seen and by whom. The only issue I have run into is with saving and formatting - occasionally the file document does not save with the newly assigned name or the content of the document does not stay formatted nicely.
Recently I could not upload a pdf to a contract - support was very responsive and easy to work with. They got back to me the next day with an apparent fix - however when I opened the document nothing had changed. I then could not respond to the rep who was helping me because it was a "no-reply address", the problem still has not been solved and we had to make alternate arrangements to get this to the client. Never had it happen before and was only with this one contract.
PandaDoc is a more polished, professional, and 'legitimate' software site than other solutions, since PandaDoc really specializes in creating professional proposals, quotes and invoices. The eSignature capacity and pricing table capacity embedded in the documents as well as fillable fields, pre-made, customizable and reusable templates also make PandaDoc stand out.
A salesforce.com -esque approach to CRM has a whole gamut of advantages. Cameleon CPQ complements this approach.
Expect down times , feature problems or general disagreement about Cameleon's capabilities initially. This is true for adopting any new tool or technology. Hold on and it will tide over.
As a person who has used Cameleon purely as a developer standpoint , I do not have anything more to add-on.