Cal.com
Loops
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Free / from $12/mo | Free / from $49/mo |
| Free Plan | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.4 / 5 |
| Best For | developers, startups, agencies, privacy-conscious-teams | saas-companies, startups, product-led-growth, developers |
| Founded | 2021 | 2022 |
| Scheduling | ✓ | ✗ |
| Self Hosting | ✓ | ✗ |
| Api | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webhooks | ✓ | ✗ |
| Round Robin | ✓ | ✗ |
| Collective Scheduling | ✓ | ✗ |
| Embed | ✓ | ✗ |
| Email Campaigns | ✗ | ✓ |
| Automation Loops | ✗ | ✓ |
| Transactional Email | ✗ | ✓ |
| Audience Segments | ✗ | ✓ |
| Analytics | ✗ | ✓ |
| Templates | ✗ | ✓ |
✓ Cal.com Pros
- Open-source and self-hostable
- Unlimited event types on free plan
- Full API and webhook access
- White-label and embed options
✗ Cal.com Cons
- Self-hosting requires technical setup
- Fewer integrations than Calendly
- UI less polished than Calendly
✓ Loops Pros
- Purpose-built for SaaS (not retrofitted from marketing)
- Beautiful default templates and editor
- Transactional and marketing in one platform
- Free plan with 1,000 contacts
✗ Loops Cons
- Newer platform with fewer integrations
- Limited advanced segmentation compared to mature tools
- Not suited for non-SaaS businesses
The Verdict
Cal.com is built for developers and startups, with a focus on scheduling and self-hosting. Loops targets saas companies and startups and leads with email-campaigns and automation-loops.
On pricing, Cal.com is the clear winner for budget-conscious users — starting at $12/mo compared to $49/mo for Loops. That $37/mo difference adds up quickly for growing teams.
Both offer free plans, so you can test each with your real workflow before committing to a subscription.
Both tools are a solid fit for developers, startups — in those cases, the decision often comes down to workflow style and how your team prefers to organize work.
This is a genuinely close comparison. If you can, sign up for both free trials (where available) and run a one-week test with your actual team tasks before deciding.