Crisp
Zendesk
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Free / from $25/mo | From $55/mo |
| Free Plan | ✓ Yes | ✗ No |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Best For | startups, small-businesses, saas-companies, e-commerce | enterprise, customer-support-teams, saas-companies, e-commerce |
| Founded | 2015 | 2007 |
| Live Chat | ✓ | ✓ |
| Chatbot | ✓ | ✗ |
| Shared Inbox | ✓ | ✗ |
| Knowledge Base | ✓ | ✓ |
| Campaigns | ✓ | ✗ |
| Status Page | ✓ | ✗ |
| Video Chat | ✓ | ✗ |
| Ticketing | ✗ | ✓ |
| Ai Bots | ✗ | ✓ |
| Automations | ✗ | ✓ |
| Analytics | ✗ | ✓ |
| Omnichannel | ✗ | ✓ |
✓ Crisp Pros
- Very generous free tier (2 seats included)
- Per-workspace pricing instead of per-seat
- Built-in chatbot builder with no-code
- Clean and modern interface
✗ Crisp Cons
- Limited advanced automation compared to Intercom
- Chatbot AI less sophisticated than competitors
- Fewer integrations than larger platforms
✓ Zendesk Pros
- Industry standard for support teams
- Omnichannel — email, chat, phone, social
- Powerful automation and triggers
- Extensive marketplace of integrations
✗ Zendesk Cons
- Expensive for small teams
- Complex setup and configuration
- UI can feel outdated
The Verdict
Crisp is built for startups and small businesses, with a focus on live-chat and chatbot. Zendesk targets enterprise and customer support teams and leads with ticketing and live-chat.
On pricing, Crisp is the clear winner for budget-conscious users — starting at $25/mo compared to $55/mo for Zendesk. That $30/mo difference adds up quickly for growing teams.
Crisp has a free plan, which gives it a meaningful edge for individuals and small teams exploring their options. Zendesk requires a paid subscription from day one.
Both tools are a solid fit for saas companies, e commerce — 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.