You already know what your renewal costs. What you probably don't know is how much of your document setup actually has to be rebuilt — so this page is about that, not about how great we are. Portwood is free, native and Apache 2.0. The migration is the part that takes real work, and we'd rather you see it clearly before you start.
Nobody migrates document generation in an afternoon. Merge syntax differs between vendors, so templates get rebuilt, not imported — there is no converter, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. What carries over is your Salesforce data model, which is the part that took you years.
The trade is straightforward: a one-off rebuild against a bill that repeats every year. If you have four templates, that's a short project. If you have four hundred, it's a real one, and we'll tell you so on the call rather than after the invoice.
We've filled in our own column. The other one is for you to fill in — we're not going to characterise another company's product on their behalf, and your contract is the only authority on what you're actually getting.
| Question | Portwood | Your current vendor |
|---|---|---|
| What does it cost per user, per year? | $0. Unlimited users, no per-seat tier | Check your renewal quote |
| What happens to the price at renewal? | Nothing. Apache 2.0 can't be revoked on the version you have | Ask for the uplift cap in writing |
| Does my record data leave the Salesforce org? | No. 100% Apex and LWC, zero external callouts | Ask which endpoints it calls |
| Are e-signatures included or billed per envelope? | Included. No envelope fees, guest-user signing portal | Ask for the per-envelope rate |
| Is there a document or generation cap? | No cap. Unlimited documents | Ask what happens when you exceed it |
| How many child records fit in one document? | 50,000+ via Giant Query, governor-safe | Ask for the tested ceiling |
| Can I read the source and audit it myself? | Yes. Apache 2.0 on GitHub | Usually no — confirm |
| Does it still work during a vendor outage? | Yes. Nothing to be down but Salesforce itself | Ask for their status page and SLA |
| If I stop paying, do my templates keep running? | Yes. They live in your org and stay yours | Ask what happens on termination |
If your vendor answers all nine the way we do, stay where you are — genuinely. This page is for the teams where the answers don't match.
Public AppExchange reviews, unedited, pulled live from Salesforce's review API. These are the ones that name an incumbent — every review we've had is here, including any that aren't flattering.
Looking at you Pandadoc, Conga, S-Docs... this tool not only has the ability to replace you... it's already happening. This tool is worth a look for any company out there paying for document generation. Easy to install and the support documentation is very clear and helpful.
Thanks Dave and Portwood for creating a phenomenal tool and giving it away! We have already used it to replace Conga for one client and certainly will use it for many more going forward!
Most orgs discover they have far fewer live templates than licensed ones. Pull the last twelve months of generated documents and see what actually gets used — the dead ones don't get rebuilt, and that's usually where the project shrinks.
Install Portwood into a sandbox alongside your current tool — nothing conflicts. Rebuild your single most complex document first, not your simplest. If the hard one renders, the rest are arithmetic.
Repoint the Flows, buttons and scheduled jobs at Portwood's actions. This is usually faster than the template rebuild, because the triggering logic and the data model don't change.
Keep the incumbent live until the renewal date and run in parallel. There's no cost pressure to rush the cutover, because the thing you're moving to doesn't bill you for the overlap.
Templates and the automation around them — flows, bulk runs, e-signature rollout, integrations — are quoted per project. We don't publish a flat rate because the work genuinely differs: a one-page receipt off a single record and a board packet that walks four levels of your schema are not the same build, and a single price would either overcharge you for the first or leave the second half-finished. We scope it, then quote it. Everything is built against real records from your org and delivered working, not as a draft you finish.
If you'd rather use an implementation partner, or you already have one in the org, we'll point you at vetted ones instead — and if your own team wants to take it in house, we'll support them through it.
A 30-minute call, and here's the agenda so you know what you're booking:
If the answer is "stay on what you have," we'll say that. We have no seat quota to hit.
It costs nothing and it answers the only question that matters: does your worst document render correctly? Everything else about this decision follows from that.
