Directus License Revision: Community Feedback Requested

Announcements
41

That’s a fair point, and I agree that sustainability and predictability are important. I also understand that a one-size-fits-all free model isn’t realistic long-term, and I’m not suggesting everything should remain free.

My concern is more about adoption during the early growth phase. While startups with ~25 people often have funding, that funding is usually tightly allocated toward product development, hiring, and runway. At that stage, teams are also still evaluating tools, and introducing licensing risk early may discourage them from adopting Directus in the first place — especially when there are alternative tools without similar constraints.

Also, headcount doesn’t necessarily correlate with value received. A 25-person company might only have 3–5 people actively using Directus. In that case, using company-wide headcount as a threshold can feel somewhat disconnected from actual usage or benefit.

Regarding the 75 headcount suggestion — I agree the exact number is debatable. My intention wasn’t to argue for a specific number, but rather to highlight that 25 feels quite low given how quickly startups scale today. Even raising it moderately could help reduce friction without compromising sustainability.

I also understand the concern about time-based free periods potentially being seen as long trials or loopholes. My thinking there was mainly around encouraging adoption — many companies hesitate to commit to infrastructure early, and giving them room to grow into paid usage can help long-term sustainability as well.

Ultimately, I fully agree that Directus needs a sustainable model. My main concern is just ensuring that early-stage adoption and community growth aren’t unintentionally limited by thresholds that may feel restrictive to startups.

43

I get your point in a theoretical example. A 20-24 headcount startup isn’t using Directus yet. They receive funding and grow past 25 headcount, let’s say 30. They didn’t allocate enough budget for tools when they raised money. That’s a shame. At this point I think the problem is solved by a good entry level tier, that’s not 1k USD per month. Somewhere they already ballparked it to “hundreds, not 1k per month”. Not an exact quote. Would they be able to absorb 200-300 USD per month? Probably, especially if they could use Directus creatively for multiple purposes (eg. simple CRM, client file request utility). Could they absorb 600-800 USD? Perhaps not. But that’s not a licensing issue, it’s a pricing issue. And if you don’t use SSO and a few other enterprise-ish features you can still use it for free. Since these limits should also be clarified soon (I hope), they could go in knowing the rules and work with that, knowing the can break free from those limits when they can absorb the “hundreds USD per month” cost. Reasonable to me.

This is a highly specific theoretical example. Let me give you another one that I think is way more likely.

A startup with 1-10 headcount. They find Directus at some point, falls in love with it. They use it creatively as they backend and all-around information hub. They know how the grant works, and the licensing costs when they pass the 25 headcount. They make a budget, that includes the Directus licensing costs. They either grow organically and bootstraps their startup, or they raise money based on their budget that includes Directus. Makes sense?

(Posted this before but forgot to click reply)

1 Like
44

Ben, I really think the flowchart could be helpful. Especially if it could include limits of the free tier and the pricing of non-free tiers :slight_smile: It would basically be a “map” for discussions, to narrow down theoretical examples and ask “Does this make sense?”

1 Like
45

I understand your perspective, and I agree with some of your points — especially around having a sustainable pricing model and a reasonable entry-level tier. I also agree that a few hundred dollars per month is much more reasonable than jumping straight to $1k.

However, I’d like to respond to your examples point-by-point based on my experience.

On budgeting during funding (“That’s a shame” scenario):
In reality, startups rarely allocate detailed budgets for tooling during funding rounds. Most of the focus is on hiring, product development, and runway. Tool adoption usually happens organically as teams evolve. So while budgeting sounds ideal, it’s often not how things actually work in early-stage companies.

On the “hundreds per month” assumption:
I completely agree that a few hundred dollars per month is reasonable. In fact, this is something I personally discussed with the Directus sales team as well. We explored whether we could start with a smaller budget tier. However, that wasn’t possible in our case, and we ended up paying around $1k/month.

That said, I don’t have an issue with that. The organization I work with is a billion-dollar company, and I was actually happy that I could help support Directus financially. I genuinely want Directus to succeed and grow.

On convincing clients:
One important point from my experience is that it’s not always easy to convince clients to pay for new infrastructure. Even when the cost is reasonable, it still requires internal discussions, approvals, and justification. In our case, it worked because the organization had the budget — but that won’t always be true for smaller startups or growing companies.

On early startup adoption (1-10 headcount example):
I agree this scenario is likely. But even in that case, startups often choose tools with the least friction and risk. If they know there’s a relatively low headcount threshold, they may hesitate — especially when there are alternative tools without similar constraints.

Just to be clear, I’m not against paid tiers at all. I’ve already contributed to Directus adoption and encouraged clients to support it financially. My goal here is simply to help shape a structure that encourages broader adoption first, especially among startups and growing teams — because those often become long-term paying customers later.

Ultimately, I think we both want the same thing: a sustainable Directus that continues to grow. My concern is just making sure the structure supports both sustainability and community growth.

2 Likes
46

I’ve only world in/with startups the last 10 years, but it’s totally reasonable that our perceptions differ a bit. I think it’s back to the one size fits all issue, is there a perfect set of numbers that will work for the grant? Or is it reasonable to look at the full picture of pricing and free tier limitations.

I would say that not including tools in you budget is bad homework though, not Directus fault :stuck_out_tongue: But yes, we definitely want the same thing.

PS. It sounds like the ”hundreds” tier could solve most this? In your example you mentioned you had to pay 1k/month but that was due to size anyway…? And you said it was reasonable in that same case?

1 Like
47

That’s fair — and I agree there probably isn’t a perfect number. My point wasn’t about a specific number, but that 25 feels quite low based on my experience. Even the smaller startups and clients I’ve worked with are usually around 30–50 people, so many teams may cross that threshold before even evaluating Directus.

I also often see clients being cautious about adopting new tools. If there’s early licensing uncertainty, they usually prefer sticking to their existing stack. So my concern is mainly about keeping adoption friction low.

Also, when we procured Directus, the only threshold was the $5M revenue cap — headcount wasn’t part of it. We did explore a smaller tier, but ended up around $1k/month.

That said, I agree that a clear “hundreds” tier could address many of these concerns.

2 Likes
48

I think yet another license discussion can be as harmful for the product as it could be helpful.

At the end of the day, it often comes down to enforcement, with all the implications that come along with it. And no matter how the rules are shaped, as long as they become more restrictive, there will always be people who feel pushed away or frustrated.

So instead of going further down that path, I’d like to offer a different perspective — maybe it’s worth thinking about relaxing things and focusing on monetizing the more obvious opportunities first:

  1. Marketplace Beta™
    There are so many extensions out there, and some of them are incredibly useful. At the same time, many seem to become abandoned — probably because they require ongoing effort to maintain, much like Directus itself.
    Why not give developers the option to monetize their work, and take a fair share in the process?

  2. AI-whatever
    What are you waiting for? :slightly_smiling_face:
    It feels like a Directus AI plan would be much easier to communicate and sell than a license whose cost is hidden behind a “Contact support” button.

Just my two cents — I truly hope you find a sustainable future for Directus without alienating the community.

2 Likes
49

this is a strawman - evaluation and developement for free is not a “tier” that is sensible for a decision beforehand - if the final product would be too expensive to run, why even invest time and money in the developing a system? this is what is happening right now for us: we simply go a different path

Most software uses trials to evaluate software, but because our software is foundational, we want to give people more time to understand the value. Regardless of production pricing, it seems ideal for the end customer to NOT have to pay for the software while developing.

I don’t really understand what you’re arguing for or against here. You don’t like that we’re offering a free tier?

this could be interresting: it depends on the features it has - the current dealbreaker for the cheaper options (especially the cloud version) is first privacy and compliance issues from the customer and second, that the cloud versions can’t use custom endpoints

just bind it to sensible features, that can be added (modular) at a cost - i’m not talking about 5 $ per month tiers, i’m talking about the current huge gab between 0 and 1k+ per month - if there would be a sensible tier in the middle, that is actually useful, this might be the solution

This is the “hundreds per month” middle tier, as described on Reddit:

Free Grant / Paid Tier

:backhand_index_pointing_right: This is the tier almost everyone would use

  • Free for almost all our users…

    • Free: Individuals and small orgs <$5M + 25 headcount (our “Innovation Grant”)

    • Heavily Discounted: Non-profits, NGOs, OSS projects, and educational institutions

    • Paid: Governments and larger for-profit companies above $5M/year + 25 people

  • Requires basic software key registration after X weeks

  • What’s missing:

    • SCIM, Offline Mode, and Annual Invoicing

  • Generous limits for real production projects (eg: hundreds of collections max)

You would be surprised by how much money you are throwing away because you have no valid options for customers that are willing to pay a sensible amount of money but can’t and then decide to use a different product

as i said: in virtually any project we use directus with, the customers pay zero money, because they fall way below the treshold - and in the past 3 years were not able to make projects with directus happen for customers that are above this threshold, with a more sensible pricing structure, you would have a great potential for a lot of smaller customers

Glad you’re in favor of the new pricing model with the middle tier.

50

Of course! Glad this new model works well for you… excited to dive into pricing next and keep the chat going.

Thanks for all the support over the years!

1 Like
51

I think the headcount limit should be increased. Most startups today cross 25 employees fairly early, especially after initial funding, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are financially stable. Many of these teams are still in a growth and experimentation phase, and taking on new recurring costs at that stage can feel risky.

What headcount would you recommend? Keeping in mind that profitable/stable companies are getting smaller due to AI.

I’m also concerned that this could discourage startups from using Directus altogether. Many teams know that crossing 25 employees is relatively easy, and during their struggling period they may avoid adopting tools that could later introduce licensing costs or compliance concerns. This could unintentionally reduce adoption among startups, which are often key contributors to community growth and long-term ecosystem success.

Yes, hopefully the companies/startups cross ANY threshold we set. That means they are growing and hopefully becoming more stable — which is good for them.

As for a company “struggling”… there are 2-person unicorn startups FAR from struggling, and 10k headcount multi-billion dollar companies that ARE struggling.

I think this is a perception issue. If Directus were ONLY paid, and small companies paid $10/month for the value it provides, there would be no issue. We have chosen to give that usage away for free. So our initial paid price point will be “a few hundred dollars per month”. So WHEN (headcount or annual revenue) do you think a company can typically afford that for a valuable tool?

Also, I don’t understand what “compliance” has to do with any of this. Using software, and moving from free to paid doesn’t really affect compliance (AFAICT). I might be missing something… let me know!

Additionally, headcount doesn’t necessarily reflect usage. In a company with 25+ employees, only a small subset of teams may actually use Directus. There are multiple teams — frontend, backend, mobile, design, product, marketing, etc. — and not everyone interacts with the CMS directly. Charging based purely on company size rather than actual value received may feel disproportionate.

We are not charging based on company size.

We are charging based on software features and project scale (users, collections).

What we ARE doing is offering our paid/proprietary software completely free for all individuals and small orgs via a grant. If you have a SMALL project at a BIG company… then you pay hundreds per month. If you have a BIG project at a BIG company, you’d pay thousands per month.

There’s also a broader ecosystem consideration. If CMS tools, frontend frameworks, and other core infrastructure tools start charging at very small company sizes, it could create friction for startups trying to grow. The open-source ecosystem thrives because many foundational tools — like Node.js packages and npm libraries — are freely accessible, even though they require significant effort to build and maintain. That accessibility is what enables innovation and growth.

Are you saying that all CMS tools, frameworks, and core infra tools are free for small companies? Are you saying that we’re the only ones charging small companies for our CMS/platform?

To me, it’s the opposite. Many of the CMS out there paid, even at smaller levels. And we’re offering the software for free (no limits) to individuals and small orgs.

To be clear, I’m not against monetization — everyone deserves to earn and sustain their work. But to earn, companies should also be given a fair opportunity to adopt, grow, and derive value first.

I agree completely. That’s why we’re adding a free tier and a free grant and keeping a free trial.

Sorry, just a bit lost in all the responses this week… but where are we not doing that?

Instead, I think lowering the revenue threshold from $5 million to around $1 million could be a more balanced approach. Companies generating ~$1M revenue are typically in a better position to contribute financially, while still keeping Directus accessible to early-stage startups.

I’ve mentioned this in a bunch of posts, but let me reiterate:

Do you know Directus’ revenue? No… it’s not public info. And we don’t get visibility into our user’s company revenue either. It is a very hard thing to use as a sole threshold, because most employees don’t even know it… or aren’t allowed to share it.

That’s why we’re adding something that is FAR easier to know and talk about.

Nothing is perfect. In other comments someone was talking about a company that made MILLIONS in revenue, but had a LOW margin, so revenue isn’t a good indicator for them. There will always be those edge cases that any model won’t work for… we’re just trying to find something that is fair for most people, and the rest can come talk to us about discounts. We are very fair.

Alternatively, if the revenue threshold remains the same, increasing the headcount limit to at least 75 employees would better reflect how startups scale today.

There we go. This is super helpful! I guess you answered my first question already!

If we pick “25”… we’re asked to defend why. To that end, can you give me some insight into why you feel that 75 headcount is a better representation of stability and scale?

Another approach worth considering is a time-based model. For example, allowing companies to use Directus freely for the first 1–2 years, and then applying licensing requirements afterward. This would allow teams to experiment, adopt, and validate Directus internally before committing financially. Many companies follow similar approaches by offering generous startup-friendly periods to encourage adoption and long-term loyalty.

I personally have NO clue how this would work. To spend our resources trying to get people excited about our platform… but then to wait years for revenue would be the end of our company.

Anything less than a year and you’re really just messing with trials (which we are doing, and figuring out how long they should be).

Ultimately, I believe a slightly more startup-friendly approach would help maintain strong adoption, grow the community, and still ensure that financially capable companies contribute back over time.

I completely agree.

I’m trying to find something where:

  • Most people have ZERO blockers to using the software (free, unlimited)
  • Established companies pay based on the value/size of their project
  • There’s a fair delineation between the two

That last part is what we need to solve.

When does a company start paying for the value they get… and how much?

1 Like
52

Just to be clear, are you saying the headcount threshold is silly… or increasing it to 75?

If the latter, do you have thoughts on what the threshold should be?

Thanks!

53

Appreciate this follow up.

We can look into what that headcount threshold is, but do y’all agree that revenue + headcount SEEMS like a path forward here? Are there other models to discuss?

And again, we do not charge based on company size… we charge based on features/value. This threshold is just to carve out who can use Directus for free.

So if you pass the threshold, it doesn’t mean we price gouge you. Just that you need to start paying for your value.

1 Like
54

Your example in the end is exactly how we’re imagining (hoping?) things can go for startups… I appreciate you outlining that.

1 Like
55

I agree! I’m on it… :raising_hands:

1 Like
56

I appreciate the clarity here!

I’m literally on a call with 8 other stakeholders here at Directus and we’re discussing how we can improve based on this and other feedback. We’ve already agreed on a few changes.

More to come soon…

2 Likes
57

Marketplace Beta™

We’ve looked into this, and based on the data we have from Enterprises, don’t feel that this would be a sustain able CORE revenue model. Yes, we want to do it (offer commercial options for extension builders) but it doesn’t move the needle in terms of company ARR.

AI-whatever
What are you waiting for? :slightly_smiling_face:

Haha, we aren’t waiting at all!

https://directus.io/blog/directus-11-16-release
https://directus.io/blog/directus-11-15-release
https://directus.io/blog/directus-v11-14-release
https://directus.io/docs/guides/ai/assistant

We aren’t trying to gate this behind enterprise… the value of AI is huge, especially for individuals and smaller orgs. But we’re excited to have it as part of the thinking on how we commercialize our platform.

1 Like
58

Someone should tell Wordpress :thinking:

Why the hell would you gate this instead of selling 20$+ Directus plans to a substantial amount of your users out there? :roll_eyes:

1 Like
59

I’m 100% onboard with 25 headcount. I wrote that as a response to a user suggesting the increase to 75 headcount.

For reference, the only other model I can think of as a ”small or big company” profiling, works like the following. It’s used for deciding financial reporting requirements (small vs big companies). You have 3 thresholds:

  • Balance sheet size
  • Top line revenue
  • Employees

Each has a set number. If you exceed 2 of them, your basically a big company. It’s used to handle the different combinations of factors, that from a financial reporting interest makes sense. If you have a big balance sheet but no revenue and almost no people, your small (or, have less requirements). Or if you have a huge revenue top line but low on balance sheet and employees, etc. Not saying this fits you, since you said revenue only wasn’t working well due to lack of information. Just wanted to share the ”angle” of flexibility on a conceptual level. What you proposed is fine for us.

1 Like
60

Maybe this is the issue? Maybe you should always charge for value? And just scale with the user’s scale? Just an idea.

Anyway, I really appreciate you trying to map the pricing to the size of the client. It is actually where “proof of ability to spend” is (and feels anti-capitalist, which I like :P). That’s one of the reasons I loved the previous licence.

But the headcount is harder to swallow since some orgs (like mine) might have some people employed but are non-profit, etc. With that said, I am calmer now and realise that we can chat about a discount, and still pay a fair price! :slight_smile:

Sorry for lashing out so much, it was probably my fear of a rug pull. I’ve only been “here” for a few months, but have a lot of hours poured into this, and a lot of members’ expectations waiting to be met :stuck_out_tongue:

61

I don’t really understand what you’re arguing for or against here. You don’t like that we’re offering a free tier?

Glad you’re in favor of the new pricing model with the middle tier.

I’m not sure if we talk about the same thing - i still think it is a strawman

in my world an infinite trial period (while this is great and better than most 14 day trials nowadays) for dev purposes cannot be considered a “tier” for production use.

Also your assumption that i am “in favor of the new middle tier” is a bit odd here - the middle tier is not useful in most cases - my customers are mostly not non-profit, NGOs, OSS project or education projects (with a few exceptions)

most of them are commercial entities with a certan revenue that exceeds the 5 million dollar or 25 employee treshold and the current (aswell as the future) pricing way exceeds any sensible budget compared to other systems available, which why we can’t use directus for such projects (and also can’t use it in the future) with the “middle tier” that is not applicable to them

so in reality - as far as i’m understanding, nothing really changed - you have still 2 tiers

1 free tier for everybody below (the new) treshold and 1 “enterprise” tier above that (new) treshold

the new middle tier is (at least for our puposes) not a real tier - it is still a showstopper for most projects that we could use directus for