Polsia AI Pricing: What It Actually Costs in 2026

Type 'polsia ai pricing' into Google and you'll land on at least four different numbers before you've read past the third result. That's not a coincidence. AI Weekly's writeup of Polsia's $30M raise at a $250M valuation describes a $49/month base fee stacked with a 20% revenue share on outcomes the AI produces. Findstack's own aggregation puts the wider category range at $0 to $99/month with a free trial bolted on, which tells you the vendor hasn't settled on one clean number to market against. That's the first flag worth noting.

The 20% cut isn't a rounding error. If Polsia's agents close $10,000 in outbound-driven revenue in a month, you're paying $2,000 on top of the $49 base, by the same funding coverage. A separate long-form review, the one titled 'Can Its AI Actually Run Your Cold Outreach,' breaks the base plan down further: it layers task credits on top of the flat fee, so heavy senders burn through their allotment and get pushed into overages. Two variable-cost mechanisms stacked on one product is unusual. Budget for neither.

Usually, yes. A revenue-share model looks cheap in the pricing table and expensive on the invoice, and that's exactly the trap. TryCook's head-to-head comparison against Polsia frames it well: TryCook charges a flat $97/month with no revenue cut, while Polsia's $49 plus 20% only stays cheaper than TryCook if the AI-attributed revenue it generates stays under roughly $240 that month. Cross that line and the flat-fee competitor gets cheaper, not the other way around. Do that math before you sign.

The mechanism matters more than the sticker price. A revenue-share fee only makes sense if you can cleanly attribute which dollars the AI actually generated versus dollars your own reps or existing pipeline would have closed anyway. Polsia's public materials, per the Product Hunt thread and the Preuve AI review, don't spell out the attribution model in detail, and that ambiguity is where disputes happen. If your finance team can't audit the revenue Polsia claims credit for, you're negotiating a percentage you can't verify.

Stedral runs on flat subscription tiers billed through Stripe, with a genuinely free Origin plan that needs no card, so there's no revenue-share line item to reverse-engineer. Current tiers live on the pricing page rather than being pieced together from three review sites, which is worth something on its own when you're trying to budget a quarter out.

Where Polsia wins: pure outcome alignment. If a founder genuinely believes 20% of incremental revenue is a fair trade for zero fixed cost until results land, that structure removes the upfront risk entirely. Stedral doesn't offer a pay-on-results tier at all. Every paid plan is a flat monthly fee whether the agents close deals that week or not. If you have no working capital and no revenue yet, Polsia's model is the more honest fit for that specific moment.

The breakeven math is simple once you write it out: 20% of X equals the gap between $49 and a flat-fee competitor's price. Solve for X and you get the revenue level where Polsia stops being the cheap option. Using TryCook's $97/month as the anchor, that crossover lands around $240 of AI-attributed monthly revenue, per the comparison piece cited above. Most operators running real outbound blow past that number in the first full month. Then the meter never stops.

Our take: Polsia's structure fits a narrow buyer, someone testing whether AI-run outreach works at all, with close to zero fixed budget and no problem handing over a revenue cut for a few months. Once you have any predictable close rate, a flat-fee tool, Stedral included, gets cheaper fast and keeps your P&L boring. If you're past the testing phase, run the breakeven math with your own numbers before you renew anything.