Price Range and How Novata’s Offer Is Usually Structured
Why Does Novata’s Cost Vary So Much?
4 Factors That Influence Novata’s Price
3 Challenges When Analyzing Novata’s Price
Recommendations Before Requesting a Proposal from Novata
Why Dcycle Is the Comprehensive Alternative for Your ESG Management
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Talking about Novata’s pricing is inevitable when considering a solution to manage ESG data.
There are no public rates or fixed plans, since the final cost depends on factors such as company size, volume of data to collect, and the specific use cases to be covered.
In practice, we are dealing with a customized pricing model, where each organization receives a proposal adapted to its needs.
There is no “single package”, but rather a quote adjusted to what you really want to measure, report, or communicate in ESG.
What does exist is a free version and also a trial option at no cost, although their limitations are not openly detailed.
These modes serve as a first contact, but do not show the full scope of the solution.
From here, we will go deeper into how this pricing works, what we should consider before requesting a proposal, and how to assess whether the price matches the value it can bring to the company’s strategy.
When we talk about Novata’s price, we must understand there is no single fee.
Its model is subscription-based, with variations depending on whether licenses per user are contracted, modular packages, or a combination adapted to the company’s size and needs.
This approach allows adjusting the cost to each organization’s reality, but also makes it harder to have a clear reference without requesting a proposal.
The base price usually includes the essential functions to collect and organize ESG information: data upload, basic dashboards, and limited access to standard reports.
From there, value-added extras are usually added, such as integrations with other solutions, advanced reporting modules, or specific features for regulatory frameworks like CSRD, Taxonomy, ISOs, or even sustainable finance frameworks.
Before requesting a proposal, it is advisable to prepare internal data well.
We need to be clear on what ESG information we collect today, which systems we use to manage it, and which priority use cases we want to cover.
Having this initial map speeds up the process, avoids unnecessary costs, and gives us more clarity when comparing Novata with other alternatives.
The volume of information we want to process is a key factor.
It is not the same to upload general metrics once a year as to work with granular data, updated monthly, with the traceability of evidence required in an audit.
The greater the frequency and depth, the higher the cost.
The price also changes depending on the level of support requested.
Basic access to the platform does not cost the same as a plan that includes personalized training, strict SLAs, or even extra guidance to structure the data.
Another factor that increases cost is process automation.
When the platform needs to manage internal workflows, integrate validation controls, and facilitate automated reporting for different regulatory frameworks, the price goes up.
The difference lies in whether we want a basic operational use or a solution that saves time and avoids manual errors.
The size and structure of the company also weigh in on the budget.
A multinational with operations in several countries requires greater configuration, more users, and reporting adapted to different regulations.
In contrast, a local company with a single market may need a simpler deployment and therefore a lower cost.
In summary, Novata’s price spans a wide range because it responds to many variables.
To make the most of the investment, the important thing is to have clear ESG goals, define what we want to measure and communicate, and prepare the information before negotiations.
That preparation will make the difference between an inflated budget and a proposal aligned with what we truly need.
When we talk about Novata, we refer to a platform positioned as one of the options to manage and report ESG data.
Its proposal is aimed at companies that need to centralize information and align with different reporting frameworks.
It is not a generic solution, but a tool designed to provide support in an increasingly demanding regulatory environment.
Normally, it is considered for use in impact reports, in compliance processes, or when a company wants to manage social and governance metrics, in addition to environmental ones.
The main goal is to have a central repository that makes it easier to prepare information in an organized way, usable in different contexts.
However, when evaluating its cost, we must keep in mind that we are talking about a flexible model with clear limits.
There is no single price nor a standard scope.
The real value will depend on how we define the use, which regulatory frameworks we need to cover, and the level of customization we require.
The price is directly affected by the regulatory frameworks to be covered.
It is not the same to focus only on an EINF or a carbon footprint report, as it is to expand the scope to CSRD, EU Taxonomy, SBTi, or ISOs.
The more frameworks we include, the greater the configuration needed and the higher the associated cost.
Another critical point is the number of users who will have access.
It does not cost the same to limit usage to a small team as it does to extend it to a large network with differentiated roles, hierarchical permissions, and presence in international offices.
Each access level adds complexity, and therefore, the price rises.
The detail of the metrics also makes a difference.
We can work with standard indicators already defined, or go further with custom metrics and advanced configurations tailored to the company’s internal model.
This flexibility adds value, but it also brings additional costs.
Finally, the price varies according to the need to integrate the platform with systems already in use.
Connecting with an ERP, procurement systems, HR systems, or even data lakes allows for automation and time savings, but requires development and technical support that increase the budget.
In short, Novata’s price cannot be analyzed in isolation.
It depends on the ESG strategy we want to implement, the regulatory frameworks we need to cover, and the capacity we are looking for to connect and automate internal processes.
That is why preparing this information before requesting a proposal is key to obtaining a realistic budget aligned with our needs.
The first point to consider is whether the platform helps us comply with regulations clearly and without repeating the same effort every year.
The advantage lies in centralizing ESG information once and reusing it in different frameworks such as CSRD, EINF, or Taxonomy, avoiding duplicated processes.
Another key aspect is report automation.
If the solution reduces manual tasks and makes audits or external reviews smoother, the return on investment becomes visible quickly.
The ability to generate updated reports in different formats represents a time saving that weighs heavily in the decision.
The price must also be assessed from the perspective of efficiency.
If the platform reduces the time teams spend on data collection and organization, we are freeing resources to focus on strategic tasks.
This operational saving is part of the real value that justifies the investment.
It is not only about today’s needs.
A solution must be able to adapt to new regulations and accompany expansion into new markets.
If the tool scales with us, we avoid the need to switch platforms every time new requirements appear.
One of the main challenges is that pricing is not transparent, making it difficult to compare options directly.
This complicates the decision if we do not have clarity on the criteria that truly matter for our ESG strategy.
With modular packages, there is a risk of contracting more than we use.
If we do not define our needs clearly from the beginning, we may end up paying for features that are underutilized and do not provide real value.
Another point to watch out for is hidden costs.
Integrating the platform with existing systems and training teams requires time and money.
If we underestimate this part, the initial budget can skyrocket.
One major trend impacting ESG solution pricing is the growing demand for traceability and transparency.
There is increasing pressure to provide detailed data, with evidence supporting each metric.
This implies more granularity and therefore, a higher level of technological requirements in the platform.
Another clear trend is the rise of interoperability with financial systems and supply chain tools.
Companies do not want to work with information silos, but with tools that integrate directly into their business workflows.
The broader and more complex the integration network, the more resources are needed, and this is reflected in the cost.
Regulatory pressure is another key factor.
Frameworks like CSRD, EU Taxonomy, or SBTi not only expand the amount of information to report but also raise the required level of precision.
That extra complexity has a direct impact on pricing models.
The first recommendation is to clearly define the regulatory scope we want to cover.
It is not just about fulfilling a punctual obligation, but about anticipating which other frameworks we will need in the short and medium term.
It is also crucial to evaluate how many users and profiles will work on the platform.
If we know in advance which teams will be involved and what roles they will have, we can better adjust the cost.
Another essential point is identifying the systems that need integration.
An ERP, a procurement system, or an HR system can make a difference in efficiency, but also in the budget.
Finally, it is advisable to estimate the total cost of ownership, including not only licenses, but also support, integrations, and implementation.
This way we avoid surprises and have a realistic view of the value we will obtain from the investment.
At Dcycle, we are clear that the key is to collect all your ESG information and distribute it across different regulatory frameworks automatically.
It makes no difference whether we are talking about CSRD, EINF, Taxonomy, SBTi, ISOs, or any standard that may come in the future.
Our approach is simple: centralize the data once and reuse it in all the reports you need.
We offer a complete platform, with no hidden pricing frictions or unexpected costs.
We know that transparency is as important as functionality, which is why we designed a solution that is clear in both what it offers and what it costs.
Our proposal is designed to save time and reduce complexity.
We automate processes that would otherwise consume weeks of manual work, and we facilitate any audit by maintaining the traceability of evidence in an organized and accessible way.
But we do not stop at the operational side.
Our focus is strategic: we turn your ESG data into a competitive advantage.
Every metric you collect with us can become useful information to enter new markets, anticipate regulations, and demonstrate solidity to investors, clients, or partners.
At Dcycle, we are not auditors or consultants, we are a Solution for companies that need to manage their ESG impact in an agile, reliable, and forward-looking way.
Because in the end, measuring properly is not just about compliance, it is the lever that defines whether you will compete on equal terms or fall behind.
The base price usually covers access to the platform, with essential functions to upload and organize ESG data.
However, extras such as integrations, advanced modules, or specific reports are usually billed separately.
That is why it is crucial to review carefully what is included from the start to avoid surprise costs.
The number of users and their assigned roles have a direct impact on the price.
It is not the same to give access to a small team as it is to enable multiple profiles with different permissions across various offices.
The more users involved and the more granular the control, the higher the cost.
Before requesting a proposal, it is advisable to define the regulatory scope, the number of users and teams involved, and the systems that require integration.
If we bring that information clearly, we avoid delays and obtain a budget more aligned with our real needs.
Comparing is not easy because pricing models are not transparent.
The key lies in identifying:
Only in this way can we make a fair comparison.
If you are looking for a frictionless option, at Dcycle we have created a Solution for companies, not an audit or consulting service.
Our platform collects all your ESG data and adapts it to any use case: EINF, CSRD, SBTi, Taxonomy, ISOs, or whatever framework you need.
We do it with a clear pricing model and no hidden costs, designed to save time, reduce complexity, and turn your data into a strategic lever for your competitiveness.
.png){kind=small}
Carbon footprint calculation analyzes all emissions generated throughout a product’s life cycle, including raw material extraction, production, transportation, usage, and disposal.
The most recognized methodologies are:
Digital tools like Dcycle simplify the process, providing accurate and actionable insights.
Some strategies require initial investment, but long-term benefits outweigh costs.
Investing in carbon reduction is not just an environmental action, it’s a smart business strategy.
.png)
.png)
