Primer
Three types of CRM, and the honest case against each
Most CRM decisions start in the wrong place: with a vendor demonstration, before deciding which type of CRM you actually need. There are three fundamentally different types of CRM, and they differ far more from each other than Salesforce differs from HubSpot. Read all three before you look at a single platform.
The mainstream vendor platform is the most common answer. It is not automatically the right one.
TYPE 01
Mainstream vendor platforms
Salesforce · HubSpot · Dynamics · Zoho · etc
What it is
A general-purpose commercial platform, configured rather than built. The vendor owns the roadmap, the hosting and the upgrade path; you own the configuration. Every organisation using the product runs the same underlying software.
Who it suits
Organisations whose commercial process is recognisable - leads, opportunities, accounts, renewals - and who want the security of a large installed base, a competitive partner market and an active roadmap. Also the right answer where internal appetite for owning software is low.
Advantages
- Cost and capability are known in advance and comparable across vendors
- Large integration marketplaces remove most bespoke plumbing
- Improvements arrive without you paying for development
- Skills are plentiful - you can recruit someone who already knows it
- If a partner underperforms, another one can pick it up
Disadvantages
- You adapt to the vendor's model of how business works, not the reverse
- Per-seat pricing rises with headcount and with every renewal
- Modules for marketing and service are usually separate purchases
- Heavy configuration recreates the cost of a bespoke build, with the licence still to pay
- Exit cost grows every year you configure it further
Licence cost
£5 - £135 per user / month
Typical setup cost
£3k - £15k
Time to value
2 weeks - 4 months
Ongoing overhead
Part-time system admin on larger rollouts
TYPE 02
Vertical solutions
Pre-configured for one industry
What it is
A CRM built or pre-configured for a specific industry - recruitment, financial advice, construction, care, professional services. Sometimes an independent product, sometimes a packaged configuration sitting on Salesforce or Dynamics. The industry's process, terminology and compliance requirements are already built in.
Who it suits
Organisations in a regulated or highly structured sector where the industry process is the process, and where a general-purpose (mainstream) CRM platform would need substantial configuration to reach the same starting point. Particularly strong where compliance evidence and audit trails are mandatory.
Advantages
- Much of the configuration you would pay for is already done
- Terminology matches how your people already speak, which lifts adoption
- Regulatory and reporting requirements are usually anticipated
- The vendor understands your sector and can benchmark you against peers
- Faster to value than a general platform of comparable depth
Disadvantages
- Smaller vendors, thinner balance sheets and real acquisition risk
- Narrow integration ecosystems - expect custom connectors
- Little competitive tension: often only two or three credible suppliers
- Awkward if you diversify beyond the sector the product assumes
- Roadmaps move slowly, and general-purpose platforms out-invest them on AI and mobile
Licence cost
£50 - £150 per user / month
Typical setup cost
£5k - £10k (vendor-led only)
Time to value
4 weeks - 3 months
Ongoing overhead
Low - vendor carries more of it
TYPE 03
Bespoke, custom-built CRM
Built for you, owned by you
What it is
Software commissioned specifically for your organisation, whether written from scratch or assembled on a low-code / AI foundation. You own the specification, the data model and the intellectual property. You also own everything that goes wrong.
Who it suits
A narrow set of organisations: those whose commercial process is a genuine competitive differentiator and does not resemble a standard pipeline; those with data-sovereignty requirements no vendor will meet; and those at a scale where per-seat licensing has become the dominant cost. If you are considering it because platforms feel expensive, the arithmetic may disappoint you.
Advantages
- Exactly your process, with nothing you do not use
- No per-seat licence, so cost does not scale with headcount
- Complete control of data location, retention and access
- Can encode genuinely proprietary methods a competitor cannot buy
- Integrates on your terms with whatever else you run
Disadvantages
- Relatively higher upfront cost and the longest time to value, though low-code and AI tooling is narrowing both
- Maintenance never ends - budget 15 - 20% of build cost annually
- You are dependent on the developer, or on being able to replace them
- No marketplace: every integration is a project, though middleware can cut much of the effort and cost
- Nobody improves it while you sleep, and requirements you did not foresee become change requests
- Key-person risk sits with you, not a vendor
Licence cost
None - hosting only
Time to value
4 weeks - 3 months
Ongoing overhead
Permanent development relationship
NOTE
The four figures given for each option are broad brush and expressed in general, relative terms. They describe what an SME should expect rather than an enterprise, and setup cost is what an external consultant would typically charge if engaged, not an unavoidable fee. Treat them as a sense of scale for comparing the three options, not as a quotation.
How to choose between the three
Two questions settle it more often than any feature comparison. First: is our commercial process genuinely unusual, or does it only feel unusual from the inside? Second: who will own this system twelve months after go-live, and how much of their week does it get? Honest answers to those two normally eliminate two of the three types before any vendor is contacted.
For most SMEs the answer is a mainstream platform - but the right one, at the right tier, with the total cost understood. That is what the comparison table is for.