Skip to content
effecthub

Crayon vs Waldo

Two fact sheets from our own research, side by side — pricing, platforms, API access and status re-checked by us rather than quoted from the vendors.

The short answer

Public API
Waldo has one; not confirmed by us for Crayon
Higher Trust score
Waldo — 91 vs 75 for Crayon
Best fit
Crayon: Product marketing teams running a formal competitive intelligence programme · Waldo: Agencies pulling together a new-business pitch on a deadline
Platforms
Crayon: Web, Slack app · Waldo: Web
Status
Both up at our last check — Crayon Oct 16, 2026, Waldo Oct 15, 2026

From our own records as of each tool's last check. Anything we have not confirmed is left out rather than guessed. How we verify

Side by side

FactCrayonWaldo
CategoryMarket & Competitive ResearchMarket & Competitive Research
Pricing modelContactPaid
Starts at—$49 once
Public APINot confirmedYes
Trust score75 / 10091 / 100
PlatformsWeb, Slack appWeb, API
CompanyCrayon, Inc.Curiosities, Inc.
Last verifiedOct 16, 2026Oct 15, 2026

What our research says

Crayon

Crayon is one of the established names in competitive intelligence, and its strength is distribution rather than collection: intel is useless if it stops at an analyst, so the product pushes battlecards into the CRM and Slack where reps actually are. Win-loss and influenced-revenue reporting give the programme something to justify itself with at renewal. The cost is opacity — nothing is priced publicly and there is no self-serve path in.

Pros

  • Monitors a broad set of public competitor signals and scores them by importance rather than volume
  • Publishes battlecards directly into Salesforce, Slack, Highspot and Gong
  • Win-loss analysis and influenced-revenue reporting are part of the platform
  • Integration list covers the surrounding sales stack including Gong and ZoomInfo

Cons

  • No published pricing at any tier and no self-serve signup
  • No documented public API on the marketing site
  • Sold as an enterprise programme, so onboarding is a project not a signup
  • Value depends on someone curating the intel; the tool does not replace an analyst

Waldo

Waldo is a data licence dressed as an agent: the value is the live social, ad, audience and trend feeds, and the connector that lets you query them from the chat window you already work in. Buying by pack and by deliverable suits agency work, where a pitch is a discrete cost you can bill on. The per-report price adds up if monitoring becomes routine.

Pros

  • Connector puts live social, ad, audience and trend data directly into Claude and ChatGPT
  • Pitch output is concrete: angles, proof points, stakeholder profiles and an honest go/no-go
  • Monitor briefs can be white-labelled for clients and delivered on any cadence
  • API exposes more than 200 endpoints for building your own tools
  • No subscription required — packs and per-deliverable pricing

Cons

  • $249 per pitch and per report gets expensive at any volume
  • API access is quoted by company size rather than listed
  • Credit consumption per query is not documented before purchase
  • Gemini support is still described as evolving

Which one fits

Choose Crayon if you need

  • Product marketing teams running a formal competitive intelligence programme
  • Sales organisations that lose deals to a known set of rivals
  • Companies that need to report competitive influence on revenue to leadership

Choose Waldo if you need

  • Agencies pulling together a new-business pitch on a deadline
  • Strategists who want live category data inside Claude or ChatGPT
  • Teams building internal marketing tools on a data API

Crayon vs Waldo: the questions people ask

Is Crayon cheaper than Waldo?

Waldo starts at $49 once; Crayon prices on request, so a quote is the only way to compare.

Which has a public API, Crayon or Waldo?

Waldo ships a public API, as of our last verification. A public API for Crayon is not confirmed by us — check its developer docs before you plan an integration.

All Crayon alternatives →All Waldo alternatives →Browse all Market & Competitive Research →