Comparison
Refik and Re:amaze, read on the same day.
One is billed by the head: every team member who logs in adds to the invoice, and the machine-answered part of the work is metered a second time on top of that. The other is billed by the conversation, costs the same whether one person or six watch the console, and only exists inside a Shopify storefront. That is the whole comparison, and the rows below are the evidence for it — each one dated, each one from a page you can open yourself.
Method
Two sides, two dates, and an empty cell that means something.
The right-hand side of every row was read out of Re:amaze’s own pages on 10 October 2026 — the pricing page and the home page, nothing else. No analyst report, no review site, no round-up article written by somebody selling one of the two. The quotes are theirs, word for word, including one line we left untidy on purpose because tidying it would have meant printing a number their page does not actually print.
The left-hand side was read out of our own source code on 4 October 2026, and the plan figures come from the pricing page in this same directory, which fails its build if a price in the code changes without the page changing with it. That is a narrower claim than it sounds: it says the code produces this behaviour, not that a live shop was watched doing it.
An empty cell is a third state and it is on purpose. It does not mean “they do not have it”. It means we did not read it on that day, so printing a dash there would turn a gap in our reading into a claim about their product. Where a cell is empty, the reason is written underneath, by name.
Three things are missing from this page by design. There is no verdict row and no score: a price per team member and a price per conversation are not the same unit, and dividing one by the other would produce a figure that looks like a measurement and is not one. There is nothing here about how well either assistant answers a shopper, because we did not measure that on either side. And there is no audience figure in either column — their own fact sheet marks traffic and search metrics as unmeasured, and we did not measure ours either, so the column stays out rather than being filled from a guess.
The rows
What each side charges for, and where it runs.
Read the first six rows together. They are the reason the rest of the table looks the way it does. One side counts people and then counts machine answers on top; the other counts conversations once and stops. A shop with one owner and a busy storefront, and a shop with six people in a shared inbox and a quiet storefront, will come out on opposite sides of that line — and nothing in the feature list changes which side you are on.
Re:amaze read from reamaze.com/pricing and reamaze.com; Refik read from this repository and the pricing page.
| What the row measures | Refik | Re:amaze |
|---|---|---|
| What you are billed for | ||
| The billing unit | Conversations in a billing period, counted for the shop and not for the person reading them. Three bands: 300, 1,000 and 3,000. | Team members, by the month. “Basic $29 per Team Member per Month”. |
| Entry tier, list price in USD | Starter, $39 a month or $390 a year, for the whole shop, with a band of 300 conversations. | “Basic $29 per Team Member per Month”. |
| Upper tiers, list price in USD | $99 and $249 a month, for bands of 1,000 and 3,000 conversations. | “Pro $49 per Team Member per Month” and “Plus $69 per Team Member per Month”. |
| Paying for a year instead of a month | $390, $990 or $2,490 for the year, against $39, $99 or $249 a month. The per-conversation charges in the next row do not apply on yearly billing at all. | The pricing page carries a monthly view and an annual view. In the annual view the entry line reads “$29 $26 .10 per Team Member per Month billed Annually” — quoted the way the page renders it; see the note below. |
| Charges on top of the subscription | On monthly billing, $0.15, $0.12 or $0.10 for a conversation above the band, capped at one band’s worth. On yearly billing, none. | “$0.85 per additional resolution.” |
| Machine answers included in the price | One meter, not two. Every conversation inside the band is answered by the assistant, and there is no separate allowance for the machine-answered part of it. | A second meter, sized per person: “Re:amaze AI Agent 5 resolutions per month per user included.” The upper tiers read “10 resolutions…” and “20 resolutions…”. |
| Trial length | 14 days, on every plan. | |
| What the trial opens up | “Start your trial now and choose your Plan later.” · “Trials include all Plus plan features”. | |
| Where it runs, and who works in it | ||
| Platforms it connects to | Shopify only. The catalogue, the stock, the policies and the order lookups all come from one store’s Admin API, and there is no second platform anywhere in the code. | Several, named on the home page: “Integrations Re:amaze for Shopify Re:amaze for Bigcommerce Re:amaze for WordPress…” |
| Channels a shopper can use | The web storefront, and only that. WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger, email and SMS are not built, and that is written on the integrations page rather than left to be discovered after the invoice. | |
| Working across more than one store | A merchant can hold more than one store under one login and move between them — but one at a time. There is no combined view: you read one store, switch, then read the next. | |
| How each side describes itself | A shopping assistant on the storefront: it recommends, it looks up an order, and it hands a hard question to a person. | “Re:amaze - AI-Powered Customer Service and AI Agent Platform Designed for eCommerce and Online Businesses”. |
- The annual line is quoted untidily, on purpose. On their pricing page the cents sit in a separate element from the dollars, so the annual entry price comes out of the page with a space in the middle of it. We print it the way the page renders it rather than joining it into a figure the page does not itself print. If you want the clean number, read it on their page, not on ours.
- What the trial opens up, our cell is empty. On 4 October we read how long our trial runs out of the plan figures. Whether it holds anything back by plan was not read that day, so there is nothing honest to put in the cell.
- Trial length, their cell is empty. The two pages read that day say a trial exists and say what it includes, but not how many days it runs. That is a gap in our reading, not a statement about their product.
- Channels, their cell is empty. Their channel list was not among the lines read. Ours is written out because a missing channel is the kind of thing a shop finds out after it has paid.
- More than one store, their cell is empty. Not among the lines read either. Our own cell is in the table because it is a limit, and a limit belongs in the row rather than in a paragraph further down.
- Three of the four empty cells are on their side. That is a fact about our reading and not about their product: we read two of their pages, and we read our own source code. A longer read of their site would fill those cells; it would not change the first six rows.
- Neither side’s answer quality is here. Not theirs, not ours. Measuring it would need the same shoppers asking the same questions of both, on a real catalogue, and that has not been done.
The difference that matters
Two meters against one, and they are measuring different things.
Their pricing page, in its own words, bills a team member by the month and then includes a fixed number of machine resolutions per month per user, with a stated price for every resolution past that. Read as a shape rather than as a price, that is two meters: one that follows your headcount and one that follows how much of the work the machine took off your hands. Both of them move when your team changes size, which is the part that surprises people — hire a second person for the inbox and the included machine allowance moves with the seat, not with the number of shoppers writing in.
Ours is one meter and it follows the shoppers. A conversation is a conversation whether the assistant closed it or a person did, whether one owner is watching the console or six people are, and the band is the same number for the shop. The honest cost of that choice sits in the same table: on monthly billing a conversation above the band is charged, and if your storefront has a loud month you pay for the loudness. We did not hide that row behind this paragraph.
That is also why the two are not really alternatives for the same job. A shop whose support arrives through several doors and is answered by several people has a shared-inbox problem, and a storefront assistant does not solve it: our channel list is one channel long. A shop whose owner is the only person answering, and whose pain is the same nine questions arriving before anyone decides to buy, has a storefront problem — and buying team members for it means paying for a queue nobody is standing in.
There is a case where both are true at once, and it is common: a shop with a shared inbox already in place that wants the storefront to stop sending it the easy questions. For that case the handover matters more than the price, and here is the honest state of ours. The server can open a ticket in one help desk, and that one help desk is not the product on the right of this table; the settings screen for choosing a target is not built either. So a shop already working out of this inbox cannot wire the handover up from our panel today. The integrations page lists what is connected and what is not, in the same words.
Who each one fits
Where we would tell you to buy the other one.
A multi-channel inbox fits you if support arrives through more than one door — email, a social inbox, chat on a site that is not your Shopify storefront — and more than one person answers it. If you sell on Shopify and somewhere else at the same time, that settles it on its own: the row above says their integrations list names more than one platform and ours names exactly one. If you need a shared queue, assignment between people, or anything that lives after the sale for weeks, that is an inbox’s job and not ours.
We fit you if the questions that cost you money arrive before the order exists: which of these two is right for me, is this in stock in my size, where is the order I placed on Friday, can I send this back. Those are storefront questions, they arrive on a product page, and answering them needs the catalogue, the stock and the policies of one shop rather than a ticket queue. We also fit you better when the person answering is one person — because on our side adding a second pair of eyes to the console does not change the invoice, and on a per-team-member price it does.
Price it on your own numbers, not on ours. Two quantities decide this and only you have them: how many people need to be in the tool, and how many shoppers start a conversation in a month. One team member and three hundred conversations lands in a different place from six team members and three hundred conversations, and the table above has everything needed to work out both — without a comparison chart telling you which way it came out.
Neither of us fits you if what you actually need is a person. Both products put a human at the end of the path; ours does it by opening a handover and telling the shopper a person will pick it up, and it is told never to say a refund is approved. If there is nobody to pick it up, no assistant on either side of this table fixes that.