Comparison
SugarCRM vs Efficy CRM
Side-by-side comparison of SugarCRM and Efficy CRM. See pricing, features, ratings, and more.
| Feature | SugarCRM | Efficy CRM |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 3.5 / 5 | 3.9 / 5 |
| Reviews | 1 | 1 |
| Categories | Sales CRM, CRM Reporting, Enterprise CRM | Enterprise CRM, CRM Customization, CRM Integrations |
| Pricing | From $59 | From $35 |
| Pricing Model | paid | paid |
| Pros | Forecasting and multi-stakeholder opportunity management fit real mid-market pipeline reviews, On-premises/private-cloud deployment via Sugar Enterprise is one of the few left in the category, Sugar Connect inbox sync genuinely reduces manual activity logging, Highly configurable data model, permissions and workflow with open REST APIs, Marketing automation (Sugar Market) includes unlimited users and prices by contacts instead | Genuinely European: data residency, local language coverage and on-premise or hybrid hosting options rarely offered by cloud-native rivals, Deep operational scope beyond sales — projects, timesheets, incidents, extranet and gamification in the Enterprise edition, Established vendor: founded 2005, Apax-backed since 2021, ~13,500 customers and 330,000 daily users reported at that time, High configurability (custom entities, fields, layouts, processes) with Outlook/Gmail integration and unlimited storage included, Local partner network across 15+ European countries for implementation and support |
| Cons | Fifteen-seat minimum on every Sugar Sell tier — roughly $10,620/year floor before anything else, The SugarAI rebrand has made pricing and edition documentation inconsistent across sources, Sell, Market and Serve are separate contracts with separate pricing models, not one bundle, Integration marketplace is modest next to Salesforce or HubSpot, Interface and admin workflows carry legacy weight; routine record management takes more clicks than it should | Expensive at the small end: €49/user/month with a five-user minimum before any implementation cost, No self-serve path to speak of — partner-assisted implementation is effectively assumed, G2 reviewers report extra charges for add-on features, pushing total cost above list tier pricing, Dense interface assembled through acquisitions; training effort is real and the design feels dated versus cloud-native rivals, Trial availability is contradictory in public sources (G2 says none; some third parties claim 15 days) — confirm with the vendor before planning an evaluation |
| Best For | Mid-market sales organisations with 15+ seats and real process complexity — especially those needing on-premises or private-cloud deployment control — who will configure the platform rather than just sign into it. | European mid-market organisations in services, insurance or the public sector that need a configurable, EU-hosted CRM with project and service workflows and have an implementation budget. |
| Launch Year | — | — |
| HQ Country | US | BE |