Nobody in freight voice AI publishes a price list, so the useful question is not what it costs, it is how you are billed. There are four models in this category and they behave very differently once volume shows up.
Before you compare quotes
Minutes, calls, callers, seats, or nothing. The meter decides whether success makes your bill go up or leaves it flat.
Voicemails, hang-ups, wrong numbers, and transfers. Ask which of those are billable before you sign, not after.
TMS integration is the expensive engineering. Find out whether it is included, one-time, or an ongoing platform fee.
Model your worst week, not your average one. Metered pricing is priced on the average and paid on the peak.
This compares structures, not vendors. Freight voice AI vendors quote privately, so anyone publishing a competitor's exact rate is guessing. Take these questions into your own quote calls.
| Model | How it works | Where it hurts | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Per minute | You pay for connected talk time, often rounded up | Long calls are the valuable ones. A driver explaining a breakdown is exactly the call you get billed most for | Very low volume, or a pilot you intend to keep small |
| Per call | A flat charge per handled call regardless of length | Wrong numbers, hang-ups, and repeat callers can all bill. Define what counts before signing | Predictable, low-variance call volume |
| Per seat or per user | Priced like software, by how many of your people it touches | It has nothing to do with call volume, so you pay for growth in headcount rather than value delivered | Platforms your team operates rather than a service |
| Flat monthly | One price for the workflows and volume band you agreed | Requires a real scoping conversation up front rather than a signup form | Brokerages that want to automate more calls without the bill moving |
| Human answering service (hourly or per minute) | People reading a script, billed by time | No system access, so every call becomes a task for the morning, and the worst nights cost the most | Message-taking only, which is not dispatch coverage |
Not total call volume. Pull a week and split it: carrier calls on posted loads, check calls, after-hours driver calls, paperwork chasing, appointment scheduling. Most brokerages find that three call types make up the large majority of the volume, and that is what you are buying coverage for.
Where it wins
What to check first
Verdict: Without this number every quote you get is unanchored and every vendor sounds equally reasonable.
The comparison is not against zero. It is against what the phone costs you now: the after-hours coverage you pay for, the loaded hourly cost of the reps taking repetitive calls, and the loads you lose to voicemail. That last one is the biggest and the least measured.
Where it wins
What to check first
Verdict: A brokerage that has done this arithmetic negotiates much better, whoever they end up buying from.
Metered pricing looks cheapest in the quote and costs the most in the month you needed it. Take your worst week, multiply it out, and ask each vendor what that month invoices at. The answers get noticeably less comfortable.
Where it wins
What to check first
Verdict: If a vendor cannot tell you what a peak month costs, you do not have a quote, you have an estimate.
Flat monthly, scoped to your call volume band and the workflows you want covered, with the TMS integration work included in the build rather than sold as a separate platform fee. No per-minute meter and no per-seat licensing, because both punish you for the exact behaviour you are trying to encourage. We quote after a scoping call, not from a form.
Where it wins
What to check first
Verdict: Built for brokerages that intend to automate the phone properly rather than dabble.
There are brokerages that should keep their money this year, and it is better to hear that now than after an implementation.
Because deployments genuinely differ. A brokerage automating check calls on 200 loads a month and one automating an entire carrier sales desk are buying different amounts of work, and integration depth varies enormously by TMS. That said, a vendor should be able to give you a real number after one scoping call. If it takes three meetings and a procurement process to learn the shape of the pricing, that tells you who they are built for.
Not always. At very low volume it can be the cheapest option and it lets you start without a commitment. It becomes a problem at exactly the point automation starts working, because your bill grows with your success and you end up quietly discouraging the calls you should be encouraging.
That depends entirely on your platform. A documented public API like Alvys is a straightforward build. A system with no public API means EDI work or a structured handoff design, which is more effort for a less complete result. We scope it before quoting, and we tell you when the integration is not worth what you would pay for it.
Cost per handled call at your realistic peak volume, what happens to that number if you double automation, whether integration is included, and what the vendor writes back to your TMS. Those four turn very different pricing structures into one comparable figure.
We scope the build and quote it as part of the engagement rather than as a surprise line item. What we will not do is quote a low monthly and then bill the integration work separately once you are committed.
The honest answer is that it depends on which call type you automate first, which is why we start with the one where your own numbers make the case. After-hours coverage and check calls tend to be the clearest, because both have a measurable current cost. We will not quote you an industry payback figure we cannot substantiate with your data.
What we build: carrier sales, check calls, after-hours dispatch, written into your TMS.
Read moreThe vendor landscape, compared on structure rather than invented prices.
Read moreThe step-by-step guide, including what vendors leave out of the demo.
Read moreAPIs, webhooks, MCP, EDI, and the honest limits of each.
Read more