One platform charges $14.99 a file, another charges $199 for the team

The AI-native coordinator platforms are not just competing on features. They are pricing on completely different axes, and at ordinary file volumes the gap between the two models runs to hundreds of dollars a month.

Key points

ListedKit publishes $14.99 per transaction credit with no subscription and no monthly fee.

Rebillion.ai publishes $199 and $499 monthly tiers, describing one usage-based price covering the whole team with no per-user fees.

DocJacket states its AI is included with every subscription.

Trackxi and Nekst do not publish an answer on whether AI is included or metered on the pages surveyed.

On the stated ListedKit rate, a desk running 14 files a month passes $199, which is where the two published models cross.

Feature comparison is the easy part of choosing a platform. The harder question, and the one that decides whether a coordination business works, is what the software costs at the volume you actually run.

On that question the AI-native cohort has quietly split into two camps, and they are not pricing the same thing.

Per file, or per team

ListedKit publishes a consumption model: $14.99 per transaction credit, with the explicit statement that there is no subscription and no monthly fee. Cost scales with the number of files.

Rebillion.ai publishes the opposite arrangement. Its material describes one usage-based price covering the whole team with no per-user fees, at $199 or $499 a month depending on tier. Cost is flat against file count and flat against headcount.

DocJacket sits in a third position, stating that AI is included with every subscription. Trackxi and Nekst, on the pages surveyed for this story, do not say either way.

Published pricing, as stated

ListedKit: $14.99 (Per transaction credit. No subscription, no monthly fees.)

Rebillion.ai: $199 or $499 (Per month, whole team, no per-user fees)

DocJacket: Included (With every subscription)

Trackxi: Not published (On the page surveyed)

Nekst: Not published (On the page surveyed)

Where the two models cross

The arithmetic is simple enough to do on the back of a closing statement. At $14.99 a credit, ten files a month is $149.90 and twenty files is $299.80. The published $199 tier is passed somewhere around the fourteenth file.

10 files a month: about $150 on the per-credit model.

14 files a month: about $210, roughly where the flat $199 tier becomes the cheaper of the two.

20 files a month: about $300.

40 files a month: about $600, which has passed the published $499 tier.

One assumption, stated plainly. This arithmetic assumes one transaction credit corresponds to one file. Neither the credit definition nor what exhausts one is set out on the material surveyed, and a credit that covers a document rather than a transaction would change every figure above. Confirm the unit before you model anything on it.

Which model suits which desk

A consumption price is genuinely better for a new or seasonal practice. Nothing is owed in a quiet month, the cost of trying the software is one file, and there is no annual commitment to argue about. For a coordinator building a book, that is a real advantage and not a marketing one.

It inverts at volume, and it inverts precisely when the business is going well. A per-file cost is a variable cost, and a coordinator charging a flat fee per file is taking that variable cost straight out of the margin on every transaction. A flat team price does the opposite: it is worst when you are quiet and best when you are busy.

The practical test is not which is cheaper today. It is which one behaves the way you want in the month when everything closes at once.

The number nobody publishes

What is missing across the category is the cost per file at a stated volume, which is the only figure that lets a coordinator compare two of these products in a single line. Two of the five surveyed do not publish pricing on the relevant pages at all, and where pricing is published the units differ enough that comparison requires the arithmetic above rather than a glance.

That is not a scandal. It is the ordinary condition of a young category, and it will resolve the moment a buyer with volume asks for it in writing.

Material surveyed

ListedKit

Rebillion.ai

DocJacket

Trackxi

Nekst

Sources cited

ListedKit

Rebillion.ai

DocJacket