Fullcast

What it is

Fullcast is the plan-to-pay layer of a RevOps stack: territory design, quota and headcount planning, lead and account routing, forecasting, and commission payout in one system that writes back into Salesforce. The argument is that these are one problem rather than five. Change a territory and the quota, the routing rules, the capacity model and the commission credit all have to change with it — and at most companies each of those lives in a different spreadsheet owned by a different person, which is why the January plan and the June reality diverge and nobody notices until a rep disputes a payout.

Three products share one engine. Fullcast Plan handles territories, quotas, headcount and routing. Fullcast Revenue Intelligence handles forecasting and pipeline signal. Fullcast Pay handles commissions. The company calls the combination a Revenue Command Center; the useful way to read that is as a claim about state — one policy layer that every downstream system reads from, rather than four systems that reconcile nightly.

Why it shows up in RevOps stacks

• Territory is modeled as policy, not as a map. Rules evaluate continuously and write assignments through to Salesforce, so a new account lands in the right book on creation instead of at the next carve. That is the difference between a planning tool and an execution tool, and it is the reason Fullcast survives in stacks that already own a modeling platform.
• Fullcast Pay got a substantial release on May 5, 2026 adding Omni-Role Crediting and Transaction Management, Automated Roster and Territory Sync, a rep-facing dashboard for backlog commissions, and expanded compliance and audit logging. The capability to look at: payouts release automatically as products ship, even when shipment happens up to 24 months after the booking. Pure-SaaS commission tools handle that case badly, so this is the feature that decides the deal for hardware, milestone and usage-billed revenue.
• The data side is deep. Beyond Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics and HubSpot, the platform reads and writes Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift, Postgres, S3 and Azure storage, plus Workday for roster. A documented REST API is published at support.fullcast.com/api-docs. Planning data that can leave the vendor is planning data you can audit.
• Routing and roster sync are the same object as the plan. Most stacks lose that handoff: the territory changes in the planning tool, the routing rules follow three weeks later in a separate assignment product, and commission credit uses whichever roster finance exported last.

The roll-up is part of the evaluation

Fullcast bought four companies inside roughly twelve months: Atrium (sales analytics) in August 2025, Ebsta (revenue intelligence), Commissionly (incentive compensation), and Copy.ai (GTM AI execution) in October 2025. CEO Ryan Westwood previously scaled Simplus past $400M before its sale to Infosys, so acquisition is the strategy rather than opportunism. It also means the product surface you evaluate in 2026 is younger than the company — several modules are recently-purchased codebases wearing a shared name. That is both why the footprint grew this fast and why you should test the seams yourself.

Pricing reality

Nothing is published. The pricing page names three suites and three separate meters: territory, quota and headcount management priced on users; incentive and commission management priced on payee count and plan complexity; routing priced on volume and policy complexity. Premium support and a sandbox environment are add-ons, also unpriced.

Buyer data fills part of the gap. Vendr reports an average annual contract of $84,264 with a range from $32,000 to roughly $250,000 — but across only five analyzed purchases, so treat that as an order-of-magnitude signal rather than a benchmark. The floor is the useful number: this is a five-figure-minimum purchase before implementation. The three-meter structure also means headcount alone will not predict your quote. A 60-rep company with intricate routing and multi-component plans can land near a 200-rep company running simple geographic territories.

Best for

RevOps leaders at 200-to-2,000-person B2B companies standardized on Salesforce, where annual planning already consumes a quarter of someone’s year and the recurring failure is that quota coverage cannot be restated mid-year without a week of spreadsheet archaeology. It is the strongest pick when territory, routing and commission are already three disconnected systems and the reconciliation between them is a named person’s job.

Do not make it your first RevOps purchase. Under about 50 reps, a well-maintained territory design in a spreadsheet plus native Salesforce assignment rules does the job, and the platform’s cost is dominated by the coordination problem you do not have yet. Fix quota coverage math first; a platform does not supply the plan.

Versus the alternatives

Anaplan treats territory planning as one module inside a modeling environment that also runs FP&A, workforce and supply chain. Pick Anaplan when sales and finance are required to plan off the same numbers in the same system and scenario depth is the buying criterion. Pick Fullcast when the plan has to execute — routing firing in production Salesforce, not a scenario a human then implements by hand.

Varicent is compensation-first and built for global orgs with overlay reps, channel and distributor comp, and several product lines under layered territory hierarchies. Pick Varicent when comp complexity is the binding constraint and territory is downstream of it. Pick Fullcast when territory and capacity planning are the binding constraint and commission is downstream — the two products approach the same loop from opposite ends.

Lative is the fastest-growing entrant in capacity planning and the only one of the four with published pricing: a Starter plan from $5,000 per year covering up to 20 people, including target and quota planning, capacity models and simulations against a single CRM instance. Pick Lative when capacity is the entire question and you need an answer this quarter at a price you can approve without a committee. Pick Fullcast when routing and payout have to run on the same policy that produced the plan.

If none of them fit, the gap is ownership rather than tooling. A planning platform bought to settle an argument about who owns quota will lose that argument on a longer timeline and a larger invoice.

Watch-outs

• Four acquisitions in twelve months means integration risk sits inside the product, not outside it. Guard: ask, per module, whether it runs on the original acquired codebase or a rewrite, and get that in writing. Then pilot the specific seam you need — Commissionly-derived comp logic reading Fullcast Plan’s roster is the join most likely to be thinner than the demo suggests.
• The platform is Salesforce-first, and everything else is a second-class path. Dynamics and HubSpot appear on the integrations list, but the continuous write-back that makes territory-as-policy work is built around Salesforce objects. Guard: if your CRM is not Salesforce, get object-level read and write scope specified in the order form and run a proof of concept in your own sandbox before signing, not during onboarding.
• Three separate pricing meters, none of them published. Guard: demand all three quoted as separate line items with the rate card at the next volume tier, model the total against your 18-month headcount plan rather than today’s, and get sandbox and premium support priced before signature. Add-ons quoted after go-live are quoted without competition.
• Automatic payout release up to 24 months after booking is a compliance surface, not just a convenience. A rule that pays money without a human in the loop will eventually pay the wrong person. Guard: reconcile one full historical quarter inside the trial tenant and require an approval threshold above which release stays manual. If the vendor’s recalculation and your books disagree, that gap is your data, and finding it after go-live costs a payroll cycle.
• Copy.ai sits a long way from territory and quota. Bundled GTM content generation is a different budget line and a different buyer. Guard: price the planning modules standalone and refuse to let bundled Copy.ai seats carry the business case. If you would not buy that layer on its own, it is discount packaging rather than value.