Most comp plan debates happen with a spreadsheet nobody trusts and a gut feeling about "affordability." This tool runs the actual maths: it takes your team's quota mix and a realistic spread of attainment across the team, then prices out up to three plan designs: base/variable split, accelerator, payout cap, against the exact same team. You get total plan cost, cost as a % of the revenue that team generates, a payout histogram showing where people actually land, and a side-by-side comparison so you can see what a richer accelerator or a lower base really costs before you commit to it.
Enter your team's quota mix first: how many reps, and roughly what split between new/ramping, core, and senior/enterprise reps with their annual quotas. Then set the attainment mix you'd realistically expect (the four bands don't need to add to exactly 100%; they're normalised automatically). Fill in up to three plan variants (OTE, base % of OTE, accelerator above 100%, and an optional payout cap), leave a plan's OTE at 0 to drop it from the comparison. Use the "Show payout histogram for" selector to see where that specific plan lands people on pay, and check the comparison table underneath to see all filled-in variants costed side by side against the same team.
If AI already grades your people — calls, interviews, tickets, submissions — the odds are nobody has independently checked those scores, and they are deciding who gets coached, hired or managed. Send one item your AI has already graded: a trained assessor marks it blind against your own rubric, then we compare where we agree and where we do not. Free, and you keep the marking either way.
