Best Conga alternatives for HubSpot teams (2026)

Conga is a powerful platform — but it was built for Salesforce, not HubSpot. Its document generation, CLM, and CPQ products all assume Salesforce is your CRM. Teams on HubSpot find the integration awkward, implementation costs high, and the product more complex than what a sales-led team actually needs. If your goal is to send a proposal, get it approved, and collect a signature without leaving HubSpot, Conga asks you to configure a lot of capability you'll never use — and pay for it by the module.

I work at Portant, so I'll be transparent about that. But I also spend a lot of time in customer HubSpot portals, and the frustrations I hear about Conga are consistent: no native HubSpot integration, a Salesforce-centric data model, and a total cost that climbs fast once you add Sign, CLM, and professional services. This article evaluates 10 alternatives honestly, including where each one beats Portant and where it doesn't. I scored each tool on HubSpot integration depth, template flexibility, pricing for a five-user team, and end-to-end eSign workflow.

Why HubSpot teams look for Conga alternatives

Conga's problems for HubSpot teams start at the platform level. Conga Composer, Conga Sign, Conga CLM, and Conga CPQ are all built around Salesforce as the underlying CRM. The data model, template storage, workflow triggers, and out-of-the-box integrations all assume Salesforce is where your deals live. There is no certified Conga app in the HubSpot App Marketplace — connecting the two requires custom middleware or API work, which adds time, cost, and an ongoing maintenance burden.

The second problem is scope. Conga's revenue lifecycle platform is designed for enterprise compliance use cases: complex contract negotiation, multi-party CLM, and CPQ configuration with intricate approval chains. That capability is valuable if you need it. But if your team's use case is "generate a proposal from this HubSpot deal, route it for one internal approval, then send it to the customer for signature," you're paying for and maintaining infrastructure that was designed for something much larger.

The third problem is total cost. Conga Composer starts at around $39 per user per month for document generation alone. E-signatures require Conga Sign as a separate module. CLM, CPQ, and analytics each add further per-user costs. A five-person team gets to $390+ per month in licensing before any implementation or professional services fees. Most Conga implementations also involve a partner or professional services engagement to get templates configured correctly in Conga's merge syntax, which is a project that takes weeks, not days.

Quick comparison

Tool	Best for	HubSpot integration	Starting price	Free plan	G2
Portant	HubSpot-native doc automation	Native (certified app)	$42/mo workspace	Yes	4.7/5
PandaDoc	Editor-first proposals + eSign	Integration (sync)	$49/user/mo	No	4.7/5
Proposify	Polished visual proposals	Integration (sync)	$49/user/mo	No	4.6/5
Juro	Legal-led contract workflows	Integration (sync)	Custom pricing	No	4.7/5
Ironclad	Enterprise CLM	Integration (sync)	Custom pricing	No	4.5/5
DocuSign	Enterprise eSign compliance	Connector (envelope sync)	$45/user/mo	No	4.5/5
GetAccept	Sales engagement + docs	Integration (sync)	Custom pricing	No	4.6/5
Nintex	Process automation + docs	Via connector	Custom pricing	No	4.3/5
HubSpot Quotes	Free native quotes	Native (built into HubSpot)	$0 with Sales Hub	Yes	4.4/5
Oneflow	Interactive digital contracts	Integration (sync)	$35/user/mo	No	4.6/5

G2 ratings as of May 2026. Prices shown are billed annually where applicable — check each vendor's site for current rates.

1. Portant — best for HubSpot-native document automation

G2: 4.7/5  ·  From $42/mo workspace  ·  Free plan: Yes

Portant is purpose-built for teams that use HubSpot as their primary system of record and want documents to live there too — not in a separate Salesforce-centric platform that needs custom integration work to connect. It's the #1 HubSpot-certified document automation app, used by over 920,000 people, and it addresses every core frustration that drives teams away from Conga.

The most fundamental difference is platform fit. Conga assumes Salesforce. Portant was designed for HubSpot from day one — it installs from the HubSpot App Marketplace in minutes, not weeks. Every document generated by Portant is saved back to HubSpot as its own record, with full status tracking, so deal timelines, workflow automation, and pipeline reports all reflect document status without anyone opening a second tab or maintaining a custom integration.

Templates stay in the formats your team already uses. Google Docs, Slides, Word, PowerPoint, and existing PDFs all work as source files. Conga uses Microsoft Word-based templates stored in Salesforce with a proprietary merge syntax — teams moving from Google Workspace to Conga have to rebuild every template in an entirely different format. With Portant, your legal-approved Google Docs templates go straight to work. Merge tags pull in HubSpot deal, contact, company, line item, and custom property data automatically.

The pricing model is also structurally different. Conga charges per user per module — Composer, Sign, CLM, and CPQ are each separate line items. A five-person team using Composer plus Sign lands at $390+ per month in licensing before any implementation costs. Portant's Team plan is $125 per month flat for the whole team, covering document generation, eSignatures, approval workflows, and full HubSpot sync. There are no modules to add and no implementation partners required.

For teams that want a step closer to Conga's enterprise CLM scope, Portant's approval workflows cover sequential multi-step review and one-click approve/reject from inside HubSpot. That covers the vast majority of sales-led document approval needs without the complexity of a full contract lifecycle platform. Conditional content logic lets you show or hide document sections based on HubSpot field values — deal size, product type, territory — so a single template can produce correctly structured documents for different scenarios.

Key features

• Generates documents from live HubSpot deal, contact, company, and line item data
• Templates in Google Docs, Slides, Word, PowerPoint, or PDF — no proprietary editor or template syntax
• Every document saved back to HubSpot as its own record with full status history
• Sequential approval workflows with one-click approve/reject from inside HubSpot
• Built-in eSignature on paid plans — signing status updates HubSpot at each step
• Automation triggers: generate documents from deal stage changes, form submissions, or HubSpot workflows
• Conditional content logic — show/hide sections based on HubSpot field values
• Dynamic line item tables pulled directly from HubSpot products

Pros

• No native HubSpot integration issue — Portant is HubSpot, certified and installed from the Marketplace
• No template migration — your existing Google Docs and Word files work from day one
• All features in one flat-rate workspace plan — no modules, no per-seat compounding
• Fast to set up — most teams are generating real documents within a day, not weeks

Cons

• No visual drag-and-drop layout builder — if reps want to design rich bespoke layouts from scratch inside the tool, the template-file approach is less visual than Conga's document designer
• No CPQ or complex revenue configuration logic — teams with multi-tiered pricing models and complex quoting rules will find Portant less capable than Conga CPQ

For a detailed side-by-side, our Portant vs Conga comparison page covers features, pricing, and integration depth in full.

2. PandaDoc — best for editor-first proposals and eSign

G2: 4.7/5  ·  From $49/user/mo  ·  Free plan: No

PandaDoc is the dominant alternative in the proposal and document automation space for teams coming from Conga. Where Conga was built for Salesforce, PandaDoc has genuine HubSpot integration: deal data flows into PandaDoc templates, and document status, view events, and signing milestones sync back to HubSpot deal records. If you're switching from Conga specifically because of the HubSpot integration gap, PandaDoc closes that gap meaningfully.

The core product centres on a visual block-based editor. Reps design proposals using drag-and-drop sections, reusable content blocks, an interactive pricing table, and embedded media. That editor experience is PandaDoc's biggest differentiator against tools that use external template files — teams that want to create rich, branded documents inside the tool itself will find PandaDoc's builder strong and polished.

Documents live in PandaDoc, not in HubSpot. Activity and status sync back to the CRM, but reporting on what's happening with proposals means going into PandaDoc's own dashboard rather than running a HubSpot report. For teams where HubSpot is the genuine source of truth for the whole pipeline, this is a real limitation.

Key features

• Visual drag-and-drop editor with reusable content library and brand controls
• Interactive pricing tables, e-signature, payment collection, and video embedding
• HubSpot integration: deal data in, activity, status, and events back out
• Approval workflows and real-time viewer tracking

Pros

• Genuine HubSpot integration — a major step up from Conga for HubSpot teams
• Polished editor that makes creating and updating templates easy for non-technical reps
• All-in-one: editor, approvals, eSign, and analytics in one platform

Cons

• Per-seat pricing at $49/user/mo — a five-person team pays $245/mo on the Business plan
• Templates must be rebuilt inside PandaDoc's editor — existing Google Docs or Word files don't transfer directly
• Documents live in PandaDoc, not HubSpot — pipeline reporting still requires leaving the CRM

Best for: teams switching from Conga who want a purpose-built proposal editor with a proper HubSpot integration, and who are comfortable with per-seat pricing and rebuilding templates in a new tool.

3. Proposify — best for polished visual proposals

G2: 4.6/5  ·  From $49/user/mo  ·  Free plan: No

Proposify is a dedicated proposal platform built around a visual block editor, content library, and collaborative review workflow. It sits in the same category as PandaDoc and addresses many of the same use cases — polished, brand-forward proposals sent to prospects with eSign and engagement tracking. For teams that came to Conga for its document generation capabilities but found the Salesforce dependency too limiting, Proposify offers a modern proposal experience with a real HubSpot integration.

The HubSpot integration syncs deal data into proposal templates and logs activity and document status back to HubSpot records. Documents live in Proposify, so managers checking on the proposal pipeline need to visit Proposify's dashboard, not HubSpot, for the detailed view. Compared to Conga's lack of any native HubSpot connection, that is a meaningful improvement.

Key features

• Visual block-based editor with drag-and-drop sections and a reusable content library
• E-signature, interactive pricing tables, and collaborative review built in
• Approval workflows and real-time viewer notifications
• HubSpot integration: deal data in, activity and status back out

Pros

• Polished editor that most reps find easier to use than enterprise document tools for layout-heavy proposals
• Strong content library for teams that need consistent branded sections across many proposals
• Solid engagement analytics — time spent per section, scroll depth, signer activity

Cons

• Per-seat pricing at $49/user/mo means a five-person team pays $245/mo — same as PandaDoc Business
• Documents live in Proposify, not HubSpot — managers need to leave the CRM for document status
• Not a native HubSpot app — deeper reporting requires switching tools or manual export

Best for: teams that want a polished, editor-first proposal experience and have admin time to maintain a well-structured content library. Not a replacement for Conga's CLM or CPQ modules.

4. Juro — best for legal-led contract lifecycle management

G2: 4.7/5  ·  Custom pricing  ·  Free plan: No

Juro is the CLM alternative on this list that most directly competes with Conga's contract management capability — for teams that genuinely need contract lifecycle management but want it on a platform that works properly with HubSpot rather than assuming Salesforce. Juro is built around a browser-based collaborative editor where sales, legal, and counterparties can negotiate directly in the same document, with real-time redlining and a pre-approved clause library.

The HubSpot integration lets you generate contracts from deal data and sync signed contract status back to HubSpot records. For pure sales-led teams sending standard, non-negotiated agreements, Juro's CLM feature set adds overhead. For legal-commercial teams where legal is an active participant in every deal, Juro offers the right level of control without Conga's Salesforce dependency.

Key features

• Browser-based collaborative editor with real-time redlining and clause negotiation
• Pre-approved clause library for legal teams to standardise contract language
• Full contract lifecycle tracking — drafts, in review, out for signature, signed, renewals
• eSign with detailed audit trail and signer verification
• HubSpot integration: generate from deals, sync contract status back

Pros

• Best-in-class collaborative redlining — counterparties can negotiate directly in the document
• Clause library gives legal genuine control over what language leaves the building
• Strong for teams managing large contract volumes with renewals, amendments, and version tracking

Cons

• Custom pricing and a sales-led process — not suitable for small teams or self-serve evaluation
• More complexity than most HubSpot sales teams need if contracts are standard and rarely negotiated
• Documents live in Juro's platform, not as HubSpot records — pipeline reporting still requires switching tools

Best for: companies with active legal involvement in commercial deals and a genuine need for contract negotiation, version control, and renewal management — a like-for-like CLM replacement for Conga that works natively with HubSpot rather than Salesforce.

5. Ironclad — best for enterprise contract lifecycle management

G2: 4.5/5  ·  Custom pricing  ·  Free plan: No

Ironclad is an enterprise CLM platform built for legal and commercial teams that manage high volumes of complex contracts. It's one of the few tools that genuinely competes with Conga's CLM capability in terms of depth — workflow configurability, counterparty collaboration, AI-powered contract review, and enterprise-grade audit and compliance features. Where Juro excels at collaborative negotiation, Ironclad is more focused on workflow orchestration and process governance for legal operations teams.

The HubSpot integration covers contract generation from deal data and bidirectional status sync. Legal teams at companies already on HubSpot who have been evaluating Conga CLM for its enterprise capability will find Ironclad covers similar territory without the Salesforce requirement. The trade-off is complexity and cost — Ironclad is not a self-serve product and requires a proper implementation engagement.

Key features

• Configurable contract workflow automation with approval routing, conditional logic, and SLA tracking
• AI-assisted contract review and clause identification
• Counterparty collaboration with redlining, negotiation, and version history
• Centralised contract repository with full-text search and metadata tagging
• HubSpot integration: contract generation from deals, status sync back to CRM

Pros

• One of the deepest enterprise CLM feature sets available — genuinely comparable to Conga CLM in scope
• Strong AI features for contract review, obligation extraction, and risk flagging
• Works with HubSpot rather than requiring Salesforce — a direct advantage over Conga for HubSpot teams

Cons

• Custom pricing, enterprise sales process, and implementation requirements — not accessible for SMB or self-serve evaluation
• Overkill for teams that just need to generate, approve, and sign standard sales agreements
• Like Conga, the feature depth adds configuration complexity that requires legal ops or IT involvement

Best for: enterprise legal teams that need a full CLM platform — workflow governance, AI-assisted review, and a compliant contract repository — and want something that integrates with HubSpot rather than mandating Salesforce.

6. DocuSign — best for enterprise eSignature compliance

G2: 4.5/5  ·  From $45/user/mo  ·  Free plan: No

DocuSign is the category standard for electronic signatures. For teams that moved to Conga partly because they needed Conga Sign — an eSignature layer bolted onto Composer — DocuSign is a cleaner, better-recognised pure-eSign alternative. It doesn't generate documents from CRM data, but for signing compliance, audit trail depth, and enterprise buyer recognition, no other product on this list matches it.

The HubSpot connector syncs envelope events — sent, viewed, completed, declined — back to deal and contact records. It's a narrower integration than a full document automation platform, but for teams where the document generation step is already solved and eSign is the specific capability gap, DocuSign is the most trusted choice.

Key features

• Industry-standard eSign with SOC 2, ISO 27001, eIDAS, and ESIGN Act compliance
• Granular audit trail — IP address, timestamp, and signer identity for every action
• HubSpot connector: envelope events sync back to deal or contact records
• In-person signing, SMS-based identity verification, and bulk send on higher plans
• Widest enterprise recognition — almost every procurement team expects a DocuSign envelope

Pros

• The most widely recognised eSign platform — enterprise buyers and procurement teams trust it
• Best-in-class compliance certifications for regulated industries
• Mature platform with a broad integrations ecosystem well beyond HubSpot

Cons

• Does not replace Conga as a document generation or CLM tool — it only covers eSign
• HubSpot integration is connector-level: envelope status syncs but documents don't become HubSpot records
• Expensive relative to capabilities if the primary use case is straightforward sales contract signing

Best for: enterprise teams in regulated industries where buyer recognition, audit trail depth, and compliance certification matter — and where document generation is handled separately by another tool.

7. GetAccept — best for sales engagement plus documents

G2: 4.6/5  ·  Custom pricing  ·  Free plan: No

GetAccept combines document automation with sales engagement features — video messaging, live chat embedded in proposals, and buyer-side engagement tracking throughout the deal cycle. It's positioned for mid-market sales teams where the challenge isn't just generating and signing documents but keeping prospects engaged between touchpoints. That makes it a different kind of Conga alternative: less about compliance and CLM, more about sales effectiveness.

The HubSpot integration is solid: deal data flows into document templates, and activity, engagement data, and document status sync back to HubSpot records. Pricing is custom and requires a demo rather than self-serve signup, which reflects its more enterprise-leaning positioning. For teams replacing Conga's basic document generation and eSign capability, GetAccept covers both while adding engagement tools that Conga doesn't offer.

Key features

• Document editor with embedded video, live chat, and real-time engagement notifications
• Contract management with clause library and basic redlining
• Built-in eSign with full audit trail
• Buyer-side engagement tracking — see when, how long, and what they reviewed
• HubSpot integration: deal data in, activity and document status back out

Pros

• Unique combination of engagement tools (video, live chat) alongside document automation and eSign
• Strong for complex, multi-stakeholder deals where buyer engagement is uncertain between calls
• HubSpot integration that functions well and covers the key bidirectional data flows

Cons

• Custom pricing means no self-serve — you need a sales conversation to get to a number
• The engagement feature set adds complexity that's overkill for teams sending standard contracts or simple quotes
• Documents live in GetAccept, not HubSpot — pipeline reporting still requires leaving the CRM

Best for: mid-market sales teams with long deal cycles and multiple stakeholders where buyer engagement tracking between touchpoints adds meaningful value — not for teams replacing Conga's CLM or enterprise compliance features.

8. Nintex — best for process automation with document generation

G2: 4.3/5  ·  Custom pricing  ·  Free plan: No

Nintex is a process automation platform that includes document generation as one of its capabilities. Like Conga, it's designed for enterprise environments where document creation is part of a larger automated business process — onboarding workflows, approval chains, compliance documentation, and contract generation triggered by upstream system events. Teams evaluating Nintex as a Conga alternative are typically doing so because they need document generation to sit inside a broader workflow orchestration layer rather than as a standalone sales productivity tool.

Nintex's HubSpot integration is not native — it connects via connectors and middleware rather than a certified HubSpot App Marketplace integration. This means setup is more involved than tools built specifically for HubSpot. For teams with a HubSpot-centric workflow, the integration overhead makes Nintex a less natural fit. For teams with complex cross-system processes where HubSpot is one of multiple connected platforms, Nintex's broader orchestration capability may justify that overhead.

Key features

• Process workflow automation with conditional branching, parallel approvals, and SLA tracking
• Document generation from templates with data from connected systems
• Forms, mobile workflow, and robotic process automation (RPA) in the broader platform
• Connects to HubSpot via connector integrations rather than a native app
• Enterprise governance, audit trails, and compliance reporting

Pros

• Broad process automation scope — document generation is one capability in a wider platform
• Strong for teams where document creation must be embedded in complex multi-system workflows
• Enterprise-grade governance and compliance features across the platform

Cons

• No native HubSpot integration — connecting to HubSpot requires additional setup and middleware
• Lower G2 rating than most alternatives on this list — users cite implementation complexity and cost
• Heavy implementation overhead: not a tool teams can set up independently without IT or admin resources

Best for: enterprise IT and operations teams that need document generation embedded in complex multi-system process automation — not sales-led HubSpot teams looking for a lightweight Conga replacement.

9. HubSpot Quotes — best for free native quoting

G2: 4.4/5 (Sales Hub)  ·  $0 with Sales Hub  ·  Free plan: Yes

HubSpot Quotes is the built-in quoting tool inside HubSpot Sales Hub. It doesn't need a third-party integration because it is HubSpot — quotes pull in deal and line item data, generate a shareable link or PDF, and record acceptance back to the deal record natively. For teams that were using Conga purely to generate simple quotes from CRM data and want to eliminate that tool entirely, HubSpot Quotes costs nothing extra and requires no setup beyond what's already in the portal.

The limitations are real: no complex custom templates, no advanced approval routing, no support for non-quote document types like proposals, contracts, or NDAs, and no built-in eSign unless you add HubSpot's separate eSign add-on. It's quoting functionality, not document automation. But for teams whose Conga usage was lightweight — generating a standard quote format and emailing it — HubSpot Quotes handles that workflow for free.

Key features

• Pull deal, contact, and line item data directly — no field mapping required
• Branded quote templates with your company logo and colours
• Quote acceptance recorded on the HubSpot deal record natively
• Payment collection via HubSpot Payments (US) or Stripe integration
• Included with HubSpot Sales Hub Starter, Professional, and Enterprise

Pros

• Zero additional cost if you're already on HubSpot Sales Hub
• Deepest HubSpot data connection of any tool on this list — it's built in
• No setup, no integration to maintain, no second platform to manage

Cons

• Templates are limited — no support for your own Google Docs or Word layouts
• Quotes only — not suitable for contracts, proposals, SOWs, or NDAs
• No built-in eSign without an additional HubSpot add-on purchase
• No multi-step approval routing beyond basic HubSpot workflow logic

Best for: HubSpot teams that need simple quotes only and want a free, zero-setup option before investing in dedicated document automation. Use it as a starting point, then move to Portant when you need full templates, approvals, contracts, or proper eSign workflows.

10. Oneflow — best for interactive digital contracts

G2: 4.6/5  ·  From $35/user/mo  ·  Free plan: No

Oneflow takes a different approach to contracts: instead of generating and emailing a PDF, it creates a live digital contract that exists as a web page. Counterparties sign, accept, and can even edit their own data fields directly in the browser. The format itself becomes part of the experience — the contract is interactive, trackable, and doesn't require downloading anything. For teams moving from Conga who want a modern contract experience rather than a PDF workflow, Oneflow offers something architecturally distinct.

The HubSpot integration syncs deal data into Oneflow contracts and sends acceptance, signing, and activity events back to HubSpot records. Pricing is published and per-user, which is a notable contrast to the custom pricing of most enterprise CLM alternatives. At $35 per user per month it's one of the more affordable per-seat options on this list, though still more expensive than Portant's flat workspace pricing for teams of five or more.

Key features

• Live digital contract format — interactive web page rather than a static PDF
• In-browser editing: counterparties can fill their own fields without downloading or uploading
• eSign with full audit trail and signer identity verification
• Contract lifecycle tracking — draft, sent, opened, signed, expired
• HubSpot integration: deal data in, contract events and status back out

Pros

• Modern interactive format that stands out against PDF-based competitors
• Clean, intuitive interface with a lower learning curve than enterprise CLM tools
• Published, transparent pricing — easier to evaluate cost before committing to a demo

Cons

• Not all buyers or procurement teams accept web-based contracts — some require a PDF for internal records
• Documents live in Oneflow, not as HubSpot records — pipeline reporting requires switching platforms
• Per-seat pricing — a five-person team pays $175/mo, compared to $125/mo flat on Portant Team

Best for: sales teams that want a modern, interactive contract format and transparent pricing — a good middle ground between a simple eSign tool and a full enterprise CLM platform like Conga or Ironclad.

How to choose the right tool

The fastest way to narrow this list to two or three candidates is to answer three questions directly.

Do you actually need CLM, or do you need document automation? Conga's CLM suite is designed for teams with active legal involvement in every deal — counterparty negotiation, redlining, clause management, and obligation tracking. If you genuinely need that, Juro or Ironclad are the right alternatives. If your use case is "generate a proposal or contract from HubSpot data, get an internal approval, send it out, collect a signature," that's document automation — and Portant, PandaDoc, or Proposify cover it without the CLM overhead.

Where does your team's source of truth live? Conga's core problem for HubSpot teams is that it was built for Salesforce. If you want a document tool where HubSpot is genuinely the system of record — where document status, signing events, and approval states all live as HubSpot properties that workflows and reports can act on — you need a tool that writes back to HubSpot natively. Portant and HubSpot Quotes do this. Tools like PandaDoc, Proposify, Juro, and GetAccept sync status back, but documents live in their own platforms.

How does your team size affect pricing? Conga's modular per-user pricing gets expensive fast. Per-seat alternatives like PandaDoc, Proposify, and DocuSign follow a similar pattern. At five users: PandaDoc Business ($245/mo), Proposify ($245/mo), DocuSign Standard ($225/mo), Oneflow ($175/mo) vs Portant Team ($125/mo flat). At ten users the difference is dramatic. If the team is growing, flat-rate workspace pricing is significantly more predictable.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best Conga alternative for HubSpot teams?

Portant is the strongest Conga alternative for HubSpot-first teams. Conga was built for Salesforce and has no native HubSpot integration — using it with HubSpot always requires custom integration work. Portant is a certified HubSpot App Marketplace app that generates documents from your existing Google Docs or Word templates, writes every document back to HubSpot as a real record, and costs a fraction of what Conga charges for a comparable workflow.

Why do teams switch from Conga?

The most common reasons are platform mismatch and total cost. Conga's document generation, CLM, and CPQ products are all architected around Salesforce CRM. Teams on HubSpot find there is no native integration — connecting Conga to HubSpot requires custom development. On top of that, Conga's modular pricing means eSignatures, CLM, and CPQ are each separate line items. Teams that just need to generate a proposal, get it approved, and collect a signature inside HubSpot end up paying for and configuring capabilities they'll never use.

Is there a free Conga alternative?

Yes. Portant has a free plan (30 credits per month, covering basic document generation and a single eSignature per document) and HubSpot Quotes is free with any HubSpot Sales Hub plan. Conga has no free tier. For teams just getting started with document automation in HubSpot, Portant's free plan is the easiest way to test the workflow before committing to a paid subscription.

What is the cheapest Conga alternative?

Portant is the cheapest full-featured Conga alternative for HubSpot teams. Portant Pro is $42/month for the entire workspace — not per user. Conga Composer starts at approximately $39 per user per month for document generation alone. A five-person team using Conga Composer plus Conga Sign would pay $390+ per month in licensing before any implementation costs. The same team on Portant Team pays $125 per month flat, including eSignatures, approvals, and full HubSpot sync.

Is Portant better than Conga for HubSpot teams?

For HubSpot teams, yes. Conga is built for Salesforce — its data model, template storage, and automation triggers all assume Salesforce is the CRM. There is no certified Conga app in the HubSpot App Marketplace. Portant is a certified HubSpot integration, installs in minutes, uses your existing Google Docs or Microsoft templates, and writes every document back to HubSpot as a real record. For a Salesforce team with enterprise CLM and CPQ requirements, Conga is the better fit. For a HubSpot team that needs to send documents and get signatures, Portant is purpose-built for that workflow.

Does Conga integrate with HubSpot?

Not natively. Conga is designed for Salesforce CRM and there is no certified Conga integration in the HubSpot App Marketplace. Some teams connect Conga to HubSpot using third-party middleware or custom API integrations, but this requires developer work and ongoing maintenance. Tools like Portant, PandaDoc, and Juro have genuine HubSpot integrations that sync data bidirectionally without custom development.

What is the best Conga alternative for small businesses?

Portant is the best Conga alternative for small businesses using HubSpot. Flat-rate workspace pricing means a growing team doesn't face compounding per-seat costs, and the free plan covers getting started without a credit card. For small businesses that only need basic quotes and are already paying for HubSpot, HubSpot Quotes is a free built-in option that requires no additional setup. Conga's enterprise-focused pricing and implementation complexity make it poorly suited for smaller teams regardless of CRM.