Productboard vs. Savio vs. Canny: three prices for the same job in 2026
Productboard, Savio, and Canny do the same job: centralize feature requests, tie them to customers, and rank them so the roadmap reflects demand. What actually separates them is how they charge for it — per maker seat, per admin with free collaborators, or per tracked customer — and which one is cheapest depends entirely on the shape of your team.
“export is broken for us”
“any update on SSO?”
“we hit the rate limit again”
Read + clusteredThe short version
| Productboard | Savio | Canny | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core model | Internal backlog scored with a prioritization framework | Internal feedback tracker tied to customer segments | Public or private voting board |
| Who pays | Every maker seat | Paid admin seats; contributors, viewers, and submitters free and unlimited | Tracked-user tiers, free tier then from $79/month |
| Customer-facing surface | Optional portal | None; internal only | The board is the product |
| Revenue awareness | Salesforce-tied opportunity values | Feedback linked to customer segments and revenue | MRR/ARR tags on posts |
| Best for | Product orgs running a scoring framework | Lean B2B teams where sales and support log feedback | Products whose customers will actually vote |
Productboard
Productboard is the heavyweight: feedback lands in an insights inbox, makers file it against features, and a prioritization framework scores the backlog before anything reaches a roadmap. Its capture surface is the widest of the three — forms, support tool sync, customer portals — and its Salesforce integration attaches deal value to features, which is the strongest revenue-aware view here.
The cost is per maker seat, and it climbs. Savio's own comparison puts Productboard at $60 per seat per month for a single roadmap, with segmentation and the Salesforce integration gated behind a custom-priced Scale plan — a vendor's framing of a competitor, but directionally consistent with Productboard's tiering. The other cost is labor: filing insights against features is manual, and it is where most teams leak. See our Productboard comparison for the fuller picture.
Savio
Savio is the lean B2B version. There is no public board and no framework apparatus: feedback gets logged (often by sales and support, from the tools they already use), linked to customer records, and ranked by counts and revenue per segment. Its pricing model is its argument: paid plans run from $39/month, and contributors, viewers, and submitters are free and unlimited, so the whole go-to-market team can log feedback without the bill noticing. There is a 14-day trial but no free plan.
The trade-offs are the flip side of the leanness: no customer-facing voting surface, lighter roadmapping than Productboard, and capture that depends on teammates logging things rather than on automated ingestion.
Canny
Canny approaches the job from the customer's side: requests are posts on a board, customers vote, and status changes notify voters automatically, which makes it the only one of the three that closes the loop without anyone drafting an email. Autopilot adds automated capture from support and call tools, and MRR/ARR tags let revenue outrank raw votes.
Pricing is by tracked user — a free tier, then paid plans from $79/month that climb steeply as tracked users grow. The board model's known costs apply: duplicate-post grooming is ongoing, and requests that never become posts never get counted. Our three-board comparison covers Canny against its direct board rivals.
Which one
- A product org of several PMs running a scoring framework into Jira: Productboard. You are paying for the framework and the integrations, and you have the headcount to do the insight-filing.
- A lean B2B team where feedback comes through sales and support people: Savio. Free unlimited submitters is the pricing model that matches how that feedback actually arrives.
- A product with an engaged user base that will vote in public: Canny. The board does capture, prioritization, and loop-closing in one surface — if your customers show up to it.
Where Modem fits in
We build Modem, so weigh this section with that in mind. Modem is not one of the three tools above and was not scored against them. All three depend on a human step somewhere: Productboard needs makers filing insights, Savio needs teammates logging feedback, Canny needs customers posting. Modem removes that step for conversational sources — it reads Slack, Discord, support tickets, email, and sales calls directly, dedupes and quantifies requests automatically, and files them as tracked issues in Linear, Jira, or GitHub with the customer's words attached. The automatic counting holds up because of the context graph underneath: the same ask merges into one topic across channels, and the same customer counts once however many places they said it. It has no public voting board and no PM scoring framework, so it does not replace Canny's customer-facing surface or Productboard's planning layer. If the manual step is where your current tool fails, that is the problem Modem exists for.
