Glean pricing explained : costs, hidden fees, TCO & Workativ comparison

Glean is a popular enterprise AI search platform designed to help employees find information across tools like Google Drive, Slack, and Confluence. While its search capabilities are well regarded, Glean’s pricing is far less transparent than its product.

Glean does not publish public pricing or offer a self-serve plan. Instead, buyers go through a sales-led process with custom quotes, contract minimums, and bundled packages. According to reviews on platforms like G2, many organizations find that the total cost of Glean extends beyond the initial per-user quote.

Expenses related to AI add-ons, paid proofs of concept, support fees, integrations, and headcount-based scaling can significantly impact the total cost of ownership. For teams evaluating Glean, understanding how its pricing model works—and what drives long-term cost—is essential before committing.

Glean is an enterprise AI platform built to solve one core problem: employees can’t easily find information across the growing number of workplace tools. As organizations adopt more SaaS applications—Google Workspace, Slack, Jira, Confluence, GitHub, Notion, and others—knowledge becomes fragmented and difficult to access.

Glean addresses this by acting as a unified search layer across an organization’s internal systems. It indexes documents, conversations, tickets, and internal resources, then uses relevance ranking, permissions, and user context to surface results through a single search interface. Employees can ask natural-language questions and receive links, summaries, or AI-generated answers based on existing content.

More recently, Glean has expanded beyond traditional search to include generative AI features, positioning itself as a workplace assistant that summarizes information and highlights insights. However, its core value remains knowledge discovery, not workflow execution or task automation.

Glean is most commonly used by mid- to large enterprises where information sprawl is a productivity bottleneck.

Glean follows a sales-led, enterprise pricing model rather than a self-serve or publicly listed plan structure. Pricing is customized for each organization and typically finalized after demos, scoping discussions, and contract negotiations.

At a high level, Glean’s pricing works as follows:

• Per-user, per-month licensing is the foundation of the model, applied across the employee base.

• Contracts are annual or multi-year, often with minimum seat commitments.

• Pricing scales with headcount, not with search volume, AI usage, or business outcomes.

• Advanced AI capabilities are typically offered as add-ons and are not always included in base pricing.

• Support, onboarding, and enterprise services may be bundled or priced separately depending on the deal.

Because pricing is tied to headcount rather than the value the platform delivers, total spend can increase quickly as organizations grow. This model works well for large enterprises standardizing on a single search platform, but it also makes it harder to forecast ROI upfront.

Real cost drivers behind Glean pricing

Since Glean uses a per-user, per-month pricing model, the primary driver of cost is as organizations scale.

• Median reported price: ~$50 per user per month

This is widely cited by industry analysts and confirmed through customer conversations. Glean does not offer usage-based pricing, so costs increase strictly with headcount.

• AI and agent capabilities: often reported at an additional ~$15 per user per month

Generative AI and agent-style capabilities are not always included in the base license, which can drive per-user pricing higher.

Even if only a subset of employees actively use Glean, licenses are typically provisioned broadly, causing spend to rise without a proportional increase in value.

• Deployment size matters

Mid-sized enterprise rollouts frequently land in the $30K–$50K per month range, translating to $360K–$600K annually, depending on user count and add-ons.

Hidden costs buyers often underestimate

Beyond the headline per-user price, several non-obvious costs contribute meaningfully to Glean’s overall spend.

• Paid or restricted proofs of concept

Unlike self-serve tools, Glean evaluations often require scoped pilots or paid POCs before full rollout.

• Support and success fees

Enterprise support is commonly bundled as a percentage of contract value and scales as total spend increases.

• Integration and administration overhead

Connecting and maintaining multiple data sources—Slack, Jira, Confluence, Google Drive—adds internal effort that is rarely reflected in pricing discussions.

• Renewal uplift risk

As usage expands and AI capabilities are adopted more broadly, renewal pricing often increases unless tightly negotiated upfront.

These costs typically surface after adoption begins, not during initial sales conversations.

Glean’s total cost of ownership (TCO) in practice

When buyers look beyond per-user pricing, Glean’s total cost of ownership becomes significantly clearer and often higher than expected.

According to Vendr and procurement benchmarks:

• Median annual contract value: approximately $100K

• Upper range reported: $172K+ per year for larger or more complex deployments

TCO generally includes:

• Base per-user licensing (~$50/user/month)

• AI or agent add-ons (~$15/user/month)

• Paid pilots or POCs

• Support and success fees

• Integration, onboarding, and admin effort

• Annual price increases at renewal

For organizations with thousands of employees, these elements compound quickly, making Glean a six-figure annual investment even before factoring in internal operational costs.

What Glean’s pricing does not account for

A recurring theme in GoSearch’s analysis is that Glean’s pricing is not tied to outcomes.

You are not paying based on:

• Tickets resolved

• Requests automated

• Time-to-resolution improvements

• Cost savings delivered

Instead, pricing is anchored to access and discovery, not execution. As a result, many teams continue paying separately for ITSM, HR systems, and workflow tools to act on the information Glean surfaces—adding to overall spend without reducing tool sprawl.

Here’s a clear, buyer-focused section that spells out what’s included versus what typically costs extra—aligned with GoSearch and review-site analysis.

What’s included vs. what costs extra

Glean packages its offering as an enterprise platform, but not everything is included in the base price. Understanding this distinction is key to estimating total cost accurately.

Typically included in core pricing:

• Base enterprise search functionality, covering indexing and search across connected workplace tools such as Google Drive, Slack, Jira, and Confluence.

• Permission-aware results and relevance ranking based on user context.

• Core admin and governance controls required for enterprise deployment.

Commonly charged as add-ons or separate fees:

• Advanced AI and automation capabilities, including generative AI and agent-style features, which are not always bundled into the base license.

• Support and implementation services are often priced separately or bundled as a percentage of the contract value.

• Onboarding and custom integrations, especially when connecting complex systems or tailoring search behavior, typically require professional services engagement.

For many buyers, the gap between what’s included and what’s extra becomes clear only after scoping discussions—making upfront cost estimates harder without a detailed breakdown.

Why Glean pricing feels reasonable upfront but expensive over time

At first glance, $50 per user per month can appear reasonable for an enterprise search platform. The challenge emerges as adoption grows.

As more employees are licensed, AI add-ons are introduced, and support costs scale, organizations often realize they are paying a premium for finding information, while still absorbing the cost of executing work elsewhere.

This gap between search value and operational ROI is why many buyers reassess Glean’s pricing model after the first contract cycle, not because the product underperforms, but because the cost structure does not align with how value is ultimately measured.

What buyers often feel is missing from the plans

Glean delivers strong enterprise search capabilities, but reviews and third-party analysis consistently point to a few gaps in how its plans are structured and priced.

• No outcome-based pricing Glean’s pricing is tied to the number of users, not to measurable outcomes such as tickets resolved, requests automated, or time saved. As a result, buyers pay the same regardless of whether search insights translate into completed work, which makes ROI harder to quantify. (GoSearch)

• Limited trial visibility before commitment Glean does not offer a full self-serve or freemium trial. Many organizations must rely on demos or move into a paid proof of concept to evaluate real-world value, increasing upfront risk before long-term pricing is finalized. (GoSearch)

• Constraints around customization and result filtering Some G2 reviewers mention limitations in fine-tuning search results, filters, or relevance behavior for specific teams or use cases, which can affect usefulness in complex or highly specialized environments. (G2)

Together, these gaps don’t negate Glean’s strengths—but they do explain why some teams reassess value once pricing and adoption scale.

Glean is built around enterprise-wide knowledge discovery, with features focused on helping employees find information faster across distributed systems.

• Unified enterprise search: Searches across documents, messages, tickets, and internal tools like Google Drive, Slack, Jira, Confluence, GitHub, and Notion from a single interface.

• Permission-aware indexing: Respects existing access controls, ensuring employees only see content they’re authorized to view.

• AI-powered relevance ranking: Uses context, usage signals, and organizational relationships to surface the most relevant results first.

• Natural language search: Allows employees to ask questions in plain language instead of relying on exact keywords.

• Generative AI answers and summaries: Provides AI-generated summaries and responses based on indexed enterprise content, reducing the need to open multiple documents.

• Knowledge discovery and recommendations: Surfaces related documents, experts, and frequently accessed resources to improve information flow.

• Admin controls and governance: Includes analytics, permissions management, and controls required for enterprise security and compliance.

These features position Glean primarily as a search and knowledge access platform, rather than a system designed for workflow execution or task automation.

Like many enterprise-first platforms, Glean uses a pricing model designed for large-scale deployments rather than incremental adoption. While this approach offers structure and predictability for some organizations, it also introduces trade-offs that buyers should weigh carefully before committing. The pros and cons below reflect common themes from GoSearch analysis and customer reviews.

Pros:

• Predictable per-user structure: Glean’s per-user, per-month pricing is straightforward to understand at a high level, making it easy for large enterprises to budget based on headcount.

• Enterprise-grade packaging: Core pricing typically includes security, permissions, and governance features expected by large organizations, reducing the need for separate tooling.

• Scales well for standardized rollouts: For companies standardizing search across thousands of employees, the model supports broad deployment without usage caps or query limits.

Cons:

• Total cost can rise quickly at enterprise scale: Even a reasonable per-employee rate becomes a large annual number when applied across the full workforce, especially before adoption matures.

• Public pricing does not equal your final quote: G2 notes that final cost negotiations must be conducted with the seller, so pricing can vary by scope, services, and rollout requirements.

• Services can become part of the price, not optional: Higher editions reference white-glove services, which can improve outcomes but may increase dependency and overall spend.

• Harder to compare apples to apples across vendors: If your quote is shaped by integrations, workflow depth, and services, it becomes difficult to benchmark purely on license rate without a cost-to-outcome view.

Workativ and Glean follow very different pricing philosophies. While Glean prices primarily for access to search, Workativ prices for automation and outcomes, which significantly impact total cost, time to value, and long-term ROI.

Below is a breakdown of how this difference plays out in practice.

Transparent pricing with a low barrier to entry

Workativ publishes its pricing publicly, removing the need for lengthy sales cycles just to understand cost. Teams can evaluate plans upfront, compare tiers, and forecast spend without negotiation-heavy enterprise contracts.

Workativ openly lists its plans:

• Magic plan ($0) – Includes a generous number of sessions with core employee support capabilities, ideal for pilots and early adoption.

• Business plan ($349/month) – Comes with higher session limits, advanced integrations, analytics, and automation features needed for production use.

• Enterprise plan (custom) – Designed for large organizations requiring compliance, RBAC, SSO, and tailored deployment, without forcing unnecessary long-term lock-ins.

The key difference lies in how costs scale. Workativ prices by sessions, not employee count or opaque enterprise bundles. This means organizations pay based on actual usage rather than total workforce size—avoiding inflated costs when only a subset of employees actively use the AI agent. 

Glean, by contrast, does not publish pricing and requires a sales-led process with custom quotes, minimum seat commitments, and contract negotiations before buyers see real numbers.

Free trial vs paid proof of concept

Workativ offers a free trial, allowing teams to test real use cases, integrations, and workflows before committing financially. This reduces upfront risk and helps buyers validate value early.

Glean does not offer a full self-serve trial. Many organizations must rely on demos or move into a paid proof of concept, adding cost before ROI is proven.

Outcome-aligned pricing vs per-user licensing

Workativ’s pricing is designed around usage and automation value, not total employee headcount. Costs scale based on how much the AI agent is actually used—such as interactions handled, workflows executed, or requests resolved.

Glean uses per-user, per-month pricing, with reported starting costs of ~$50+ per user. As headcount grows, spend increases automatically, even if only a fraction of employees actively use the platform.

AI agents and automation are included by default

Workativ includes AI agents, workflow automation, integrations, and execution capabilities as part of its core packages. There are no separate AI add-ons required to move beyond answers into action.

With Glean, advanced AI and agent-style capabilities are often sold as add-ons, increasing per-user cost and making total pricing harder to predict as AI usage expands.

Faster time to market, lower deployment cost

Workativ is built for rapid deployment, often going live in weeks rather than months. Its no-code configuration reduces dependency on professional services and minimizes internal setup effort.

Glean deployments frequently involve longer onboarding cycles, data indexing, tuning, and support engagement—contributing to higher implementation and operational overhead.

Lower total cost of ownership (TCO)

Workativ’s pricing structure helps keep total cost of ownership predictable:

• No mandatory headcount-based scaling

• No paid POCs required

• Automation included without extra licensing

• Reduced reliance on professional services

Glean’s TCO often grows beyond the headline per-user price once AI add-ons, support fees, integration effort, and renewal uplifts are factored in.

Easier ROI justification for IT and HR teams

Because Workativ pricing is tied to requests handled and workflows completed, teams can directly map spend to outcomes such as tickets deflected, time saved, and operational cost reduction.

Glean’s ROI is harder to quantify beyond time saved searching, since execution still happens in downstream systems that are priced separately.

For organizations focused on measurable efficiency, predictable spend, and faster value realization, Workativ’s pricing model aligns more closely with how modern AI platforms are expected to deliver ROI.

Workativ and Glean are often evaluated in similar conversations, but they are built to solve very different problems. Comparing them feature-by-feature only makes sense when you also look at what value those features actually deliver.

Core product focus

Glean is designed primarily as an enterprise search and knowledge discovery platform, helping employees locate documents, messages, and information across tools like Slack, Google Drive, and Confluence. Its value lies in reducing time spent searching for information.

Workativ is built for end-to-end employee support automation, where AI agents not only answer questions but also resolve requests by executing workflows across IT, HR, and business systems. This shifts value from information discovery to operational efficiency.

AI answers vs AI execution

Glean uses AI to surface relevant links, summaries, and answers based on indexed content. Once information is found, employees still need to take action manually in downstream systems.

Workativ goes beyond answers by executing actions directly inside the conversation—creating tickets, updating requests, checking status, triggering approvals, and integrating with ITSM and HRIS tools—resulting in work getting completed, not just clarified.

Automation and workflow depth

Glean remains search-first, with limited automation capabilities that are often positioned as add-ons. Operational workflows typically continue to live outside the platform.

Workativ includes automation, workflows, and integrations as part of the core platform, allowing repetitive employee requests to be handled end to end without human intervention, which directly reduces operational workload.

Pricing alignment with delivered value

Glean’s features are priced on a per-user, per-month basis, causing costs to scale with headcount regardless of adoption or outcomes.

Workativ’s pricing aligns more closely with usage and outcomes, making it easier for teams to tie spend to requests handled, time saved, and efficiency gained.

Time to deploy and realize value

Glean deployments often involve longer onboarding cycles, indexing, tuning, and governance setup before meaningful value is realized.

Workativ is designed for faster time to market through no-code configuration and prebuilt integrations, enabling teams to see measurable results sooner.

Long-term operational impact

Glean improves knowledge access but still relies on people and downstream systems for execution, limiting its ability to reduce ongoing operational costs.

Workativ is purpose-built to reduce recurring work, making it better suited for IT and HR teams that need to demonstrate ROI through automation and sustained cost reduction.

When comparing Glean and Workativ in 2026, the deciding factor is no longer just productivity—it’s measurable outcomes and cost efficiency.

Glean remains a capable option for organizations whose primary goal is enterprise-wide search and knowledge discovery. However, its per-user pricing, add-on AI costs, longer time to value, and rising total cost of ownership make it harder to justify when teams are expected to show clear ROI.

Workativ is the stronger choice for IT and HR teams that need to reduce repetitive work, resolve requests end to end, and control costs as adoption scales. With transparent pricing, a free trial, AI agents and automation included by default, and faster deployment, Workativ aligns more closely with how modern organizations evaluate value in 2026.

Instead of paying to help employees find information, Workativ helps teams complete work automatically—from ticket creation to approvals and status updates.

If your goal is to move beyond answers and start delivering real operational impact, Workativ is the better long-term choice.

👉 See how Workativ lowers employee support AI costs—book a demo today.