GovSpend Pricing 2026: We Asked GovSpend and Fed-Spend the Same Question

Most comparison posts in this category are feature grids, and feature grids are

useless because every vendor checks every box. So we did it differently. We took

one question, the question that actually decides whether a quarter goes well, and

ran it through both platforms.

The question:

Booz Allen Hamilton holds a task order at GSA. It expires inside twelve months.

Can I win it, and what should I bid?

That is the job. Everything else is a feature.

The 155 number

On August 24, 2026 we pulled the live Fed-Spend company file for six of the

largest federal services primes. Not a forecast, not an analyst note. The

contract records themselves, with their period-of-performance end dates.

**155 contracts worth $39.14 billion, held by six companies, coming up for

rebid inside twelve months.** That is the actual addressable pipeline sitting

in front of anyone who competes with those six names.

Every platform in this market can show you that list. That is table stakes.

The question that decides your year is the next one, and it is the question

none of them answer: which of those 155 can you actually win?

What GovSpend costs in 2026

GovSpend lists at roughly $15,000 a year, billed annually, with the number

moving on seats, modules, and whether you take the full federal plus state and

local footprint. Like most of this category, the real price comes from a quote

rather than a pricing page, and there is no month-to-month option.

Fed-Spend annual billing is $39/mo, so $468 a year. The free tier is 10 searches

a month with no expiry. Competitor prices are publicly advertised list figures

and real quotes move with seat count, modules, and negotiation. Confirm your own

renewal number against your invoice before you quote ours against it.

"Annual only" is the term that deserves more attention than the dollar figure.

It means the smallest unit of commitment you can make is twelve months. If the

tool turns out to be wrong for your market in week three, you own it until next

year. That is a very different risk profile from a $49 month you can stop.

Question one: can I win it?

GovSpend's answer. You will find the award. You will see the obligated

amounts, the agency, the vehicle, the dates, and the purchase history around it.

On the state and local side you will see actual purchase orders, which is real

and which we will come back to. What you will not get is a probability. There is

no field that says "your company, against this incumbent, on this contract,

scores X."

Fed-Spend's answer. A pWin score, computed from six signals rather than

asserted: the incumbent's CPARS performance record, their protest history, how

concentrated they are in that agency, the competition profile on the original

award, the contract vehicle type, and how much runway is left on the recompete

clock. One number, with the inputs shown so you can argue with it.

The reason this matters is that the incumbent's own record is the single most

predictive thing available to you, and it is sitting in public data that almost

nobody scores. Booz Allen's live file reads **$29.25B in federal obligations

across 99 tracked awards, 29 of them expiring inside twelve months worth

$8.31B, GSA as the lead relationship, and a CPARS performance signal at the

exceptional end.**

Read that last part carefully, because it cuts against us as much as for us. An

exceptional CPARS record on the incumbent is a reason your pWin goes down. A

verdict engine that only ever told you good news would be a marketing tool. The

value is that it tells you to walk away from three of the 155 so you can put real

money behind the two you can take.

Question two: what should I bid?

GovSpend's answer. Historical spend, which is genuinely helpful context. You

can see what the agency has paid and build a picture from purchase history.

Fed-Spend's answer. A price-to-win band derived from awarded values in that

NAICS and agency, so you are pricing against what has actually won rather than

against your cost model plus a hopeful margin.

This is the most expensive gap in federal contracting and almost nobody prices it

correctly. The two failure modes are symmetric and both fatal. Bid high and you

lose on price to somebody who knew the band. Bid low and you win an

unprofitable contract you now have to staff for five years, which is worse than

losing. A band from real awards makes both of those failures avoidable, and no

amount of historical spend browsing produces one on its own.

Retrieval is not a verdict

Here is the distinction the entire category avoids, because the entire category

is priced on the wrong side of it.

Retrieval answers "what exists?" You type a name, you get rows. Awards,

agencies, dollar values, NAICS codes, expiration dates, points of contact. Every

tool here does retrieval, and the free government sites do a surprising amount of

it for nothing. USASpending.gov and SAM.gov are genuinely good at retrieval.

A verdict answers "what should I do?" It takes the same rows and returns a

number you can defend in a bid/no-bid meeting: your win probability against this

specific incumbent on this specific contract, the price band that has actually

been winning in this NAICS and agency, and how many months you have before the

solicitation drops.

The gap between the two is where every wasted proposal dollar lives. A capture

team with a $40,000 subscription and no verdict still walks into the gate review

with an opinion. Somebody senior says "I think we can win this," somebody else

says "I think that incumbent is too strong," and the loudest person in the room

sets the bid list. You paid $40,000 to make that argument better informed. You

did not pay to end it.

The comparison scorecard

What the incumbents genuinely do better

An argument that concedes nothing is marketing. Here is where the money you are

paying today is buying something real, and where switching would actually cost

you something.

GovWin IQ is the only one with a human analyst desk. Deltek staffs people who

call program offices and write up opportunities twelve to thirty-six months

before anything hits SAM.gov, including things that never appear in contract data

because they do not exist yet. If your capture cycle starts three years out and

you have a team large enough to work analyst leads, that desk is the product and

no data platform replaces it. We do not have it and we do not pretend to.

GovSpend owns state, local, and education purchase orders. Fed-Spend is

federal. If a meaningful share of your revenue comes from school districts,

municipalities, or state agencies, GovSpend sees transactions we structurally do

not have. Switching would blind you. Do not switch.

Bloomberg Government owns the legislative side. Appropriations markup,

committee activity, member positions, and a real newsroom. If your job involves

telling an executive what Congress is about to do, that is BGOV's home field and

contract data is not a substitute for it.

GovTribe has the best people graph at its price. Contracting officers,

program managers, and who moved where. That relationship layer is genuinely

useful for BD and it is cheaper than GovWin.

Now the part that is also true: none of those four things is a win probability.

If you are paying for one of them and using it mainly to look up contracts and

guess at bids, you are paying analyst-desk prices for retrieval.

The honest recommendation, by who you are

This is where most comparison content lies, so let us be specific and accept

losing some of these readers.

**If more than about a quarter of your revenue is state, local, or education:

keep GovSpend.** We do not have SLED purchase-order data. Switching would remove

visibility you are actively using, and no price argument makes that a good trade.

Add Fed-Spend for the federal verdict layer if you want it at $588, but do not

drop the tool that sees your actual market.

**If you are federal-only and using GovSpend to look up awards and expirations:

you are paying $15,000 for retrieval.** Run the parallel test below. This is the

largest group of people reading this post and the clearest switch case.

If you are federal-only and using GovSpend mainly for pricing research: the

price band is the specific thing to compare. Take three contracts you priced in

the last year, pull the band, and check it against what you bid and what the

award came in at. That comparison will settle it in an afternoon, one way or the

other.

If you are pre-revenue or a solo consultant: start on the free tier. Ten

searches a month is enough to work a real pipeline, and $15,000 annual-only is

not a defensible first software purchase.

The parallel test

here than with a monthly tool.

federal incumbents.

already in your capture deck.

to what you actually bid and what actually won. This is the test that decides

it.

and the $588 line is trivial next to the $15,000 one.

Verify all of this in sixty seconds, without paying anyone

Do not take the argument on faith. The reason we can publish these numbers is

that the free tier computes them for you.

competitor platform. The company whose contract you want.

how many expire inside twelve months, which agency leads the relationship, and

the CPARS performance signal.

No account, no credit card, no sales call, no trial clock. Ten searches a month

are free and permanent.

That last part is the whole argument in one sentence: **you can see more about

your incumbent in the next sixty seconds, for free, than a $40,000 GovWin

contract will show you before you get on a call with a salesperson.**

When you want the ranked recompete calendar, the win probability, and the price

band behind those numbers, that is the paid tier. $49 a month, month to month,

cancel any time, full refund inside thirty days. Not $40,000 and a twelve-month

signature.

GovSpend pricing: frequently asked questions

How much does GovSpend cost?

Roughly $15,000 a year at list, billed annually, moving with seats and modules.

There is no published pricing page and no month-to-month option, so your number

comes from a quote.

What is GovSpend used for?

Its strongest use is state, local, and education procurement: actual purchase

orders from school districts, municipalities, and state agencies, which do not

appear in federal award data. It also covers federal awards.

Is GovSpend better than Fed-Spend?

For SLED purchase-order visibility, yes, clearly, and we do not compete there.

For a federal recompete verdict, a win probability, and a price-to-win band, no.

They are different products aimed at different questions.

Is there a free version of GovSpend?

No self-serve free tier. Access runs through a demo and a quote. Fed-Spend has a

permanent free tier at 10 searches a month, which is why you can check our

federal claims yourself before spending anything.

Can I use both?

Yes, and for SLED-heavy contractors that is usually the right answer. GovSpend

for the purchase-order layer, Fed-Spend at $588 for the federal verdict.

The bottom line

One question, two answers. GovSpend at $15,000 annual-only returns the records

and owns the SLED data we do not have. Fed-Spend at $588 month-to-month returns

the pWin score, the price band, and the recompete date.

If your market is SLED, keep GovSpend. If your market is federal and you are

using it as a search box, the 155 recompetes worth $39.14B above are the pipeline

and the verdict is the thing you are missing.

Type your incumbent's name into the box above and see which one you needed.