Skip to main content

At a glance

  • Pipedrive scores 2.5/5 and RunMags scores 3.8/5 in Benchmark Grid's independent CRM solutions benchmark, both assessed on the same 11 criteria.
  • The widest gaps are order-to-invoice & ad server integration (Pipedrive 1.5, RunMags 4.7) and reader & subscriber relationship data (Pipedrive 2.2, RunMags 3.8); they are within 0.3 on 1 of 11 criteria.
  • Both are built for small and mid-market publishers.
  • On total cost of ownership Pipedrive scores 4.3 and RunMags 3.3 (higher means better value, not a lower price).
  • In our tracking 1 publishers use Pipedrive and 1 use RunMags.
  • Scores last verified 11 Nov 2026. Vendors cannot pay for a score or a position.

Where they differ

Pipedrive is stronger on sales team usability (4.6 vs 3.0).

RunMags is stronger on order-to-invoice & ad server integration (4.7 vs 1.5), reader & subscriber relationship data (3.8 vs 2.2) and media sales pipeline & proposals (4.6 vs 3.2).

Which one fits

Choose Pipedrive if…

  • You publish at small and mid-market scale.
  • You weight sales team usability, integrations and mobile & field sales heavily — Pipedrive leads on those in this benchmark.

Choose RunMags if…

  • You publish at small and mid-market scale.
  • You weight order-to-invoice & ad server integration, reader & subscriber relationship data and media sales pipeline & proposals heavily — RunMags leads on those in this benchmark.

Also weighing these

The nearest-scored tools to Pipedrive and RunMags in this benchmark, listed A to Z.

All 8 scored tools are in Best CRM Solutions for Publishers.

Who uses them

Publishers we have detected running each tool, from ads.txt, site code and published case studies. Agencies, brands and vendors are excluded.

Head to head

CriterionPipedriveRunMags
Media sales pipeline & proposals14% of capability3.24.6
Advertiser & agency account management12% of capability3.03.5
Integrations12% of capability4.53.2
Order-to-invoice & ad server integration12% of capability1.54.7
Reader & subscriber relationship data10% of capability2.23.8
Sales reporting & forecasting10% of capability3.52.8
Sales team usability8% of capability4.63.0
Workflow automation8% of capability4.04.5
Implementation & migration6% of capability3.84.0
Data security & permissions4% of capability3.03.5
Mobile & field sales4% of capability4.53.5
Capability45% of composite3.33.8
Publisher fit40% of composite1.04.0
Total cost of ownership15% of composite4.33.3

Cost of ownership

Sub-scorePipedriveRunMags
Pricing transparency4.83.5
Entry cost4.72.5
Implementation cost4.52.0
Hidden-fee risk3.54.5
Ongoing cost4.24.0

Pipedrive pricing

Lite from $14/month per seat. (vendor pricing page, verified 2026-08-06)

RunMags pricing

Pro plan EUR 399/month. (vendor pricing page, verified 2026-08-06)

What users say

Pipedrive

21 positive · 49 neutral · 13 negative

RunMags

3 positive · 0 neutral · 0 negative

Mentions we could not tie to a real user, and those flagged as promotional, are excluded. Sentiment is opinion, and is independent of the verified publisher adoptions above.

Pipedrive scores 2.5 and RunMags scores 3.8 in Benchmark Grid's independent Best CRM Solutions for Publishers benchmark (benchmarkgrid.com/vs/pipedrive/runmags, verified Nov 11, 2026)

Common questions

How do Pipedrive and RunMags differ?

Pipedrive is stronger on sales team usability (4.6 vs 3.0). RunMags is stronger on order-to-invoice & ad server integration (4.7 vs 1.5), reader & subscriber relationship data (3.8 vs 2.2) and media sales pipeline & proposals (4.6 vs 3.2). Neither is better in the abstract — which one suits you depends on which of those dimensions carries the most weight in your operation.

Which is cheaper, Pipedrive or RunMags?

On total cost of ownership — pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — Pipedrive scores 4.3/5 and RunMags scores 3.3/5. A higher score means better value, not a lower sticker price.

How are these scores calculated?

Each tool is assessed against its category's published criteria (11 in this benchmark), which make up Capability (45% of the composite), Publisher fit (40%) and Total cost of ownership (15%). Assessment is carried out by SODP's editorial team against a published methodology. Vendors cannot pay for inclusion, scores or positions.

Share:

Both tools are scored in Best CRM Solutions for Publishers. See alternatives to Pipedrive or alternatives to RunMags.

Weighing a third option? Add a tool to this comparison.

Related comparisons

Other head-to-heads publishers look at in Best CRM Solutions for Publishers.

Explore AlternativesWhich CRM options are better suited for smaller, independent...