Modash alternative: Modash pricing, and what $199 a month actually buys

Modash publishes three tiers on a monthly or annual toggle, and unusually for this category it publishes a floor for the enterprise tier too. Essentials is $199 a month, shown against a struck through $299, and includes 2 team members, 300 opened profiles, 150 unlocked creator emails, 100 tracked creators and 3,000 influential fans. Performance is $499 a month, shown against a struck through $599, and includes 5 team members, 800 opened profiles, 400 unlocked emails, 250 tracked creators, 6,000 influential fans, and adds creator payments and affiliate management with 0% fee on payouts up to $10,000 a year. Enterprise starts at $14,700 a year, is customizable on every quota, and moves the 0% payout band up to $100,000 a year.

There is a 14-day free trial with no credit card, and it is a genuine trial rather than a demo request. It is capped at 20 profile views, 6 email unlocks and 10 tracked creators, which is enough to judge the data quality and not enough to run a campaign. Being able to test a creator database before paying for it is a real advantage over the demo-gated half of this market, and we will give Modash full credit for it.

One piece of arithmetic is worth doing before you pick a billing cycle. Annual billing is $2,388 for Essentials and $5,988 for Performance. Divide either by twelve and you get $199 and $499, exactly the monthly rate. The percentages advertised next to the annual option are measured against the former list prices, not against what you would otherwise pay this month, so committing to a year does not currently lower your monthly cost. Stay monthly unless procurement needs the single invoice. All figures verified on modash.io on 19 August 2026 and re-verified unchanged on 2 September 2026. That makes Modash one of only four platforms in this lane that publish a price at all, which we set out in our roundup of influencer marketing platforms.

Lookups, not output. This is the whole story of the page and it is worth being precise about it, because the meter is unusually far from the thing you want.

On Essentials you may open 300 creator profiles and unlock 150 creator email addresses in a month. Opening a profile means viewing its audience data. Unlocking an email means Modash gives you a way to contact that person. Neither action produces a video, and neither commits the creator to anything. After you have spent the unlock you still have to write to 150 strangers, agree a rate with each one who replies, agree what they will film, agree what you may do with the result, ship them product, wait, review, and ask for changes. Modash is explicit that this is the shape of the product, and its inbox sync with Gmail and Outlook exists precisely because that correspondence is your job.

So the useful question is not what the plan costs. It is what the plan costs per video that eventually lands. That depends entirely on how many of your 150 unlocks turn into a delivered asset, which is a number about your brief, your product and your outreach, not about Modash. Here is the arithmetic across a realistic spread, using the Essentials fee only.

Read that table the fair way and it argues for Modash, not against it. Even at a poor 2% conversion the software costs $66 a video, and at any competent hit rate it is under $15. The subscription is not the expensive part of this route and nobody should pick a creator database on its sticker price.

The expensive part is the column the table cannot contain. Creator pay sits entirely outside the plan, Modash publishes no rates for it because content is not what it sells, and your own team's hours on outreach and coordination sit outside it too. Those two lines dominate the total, and neither one is where a database subscription or a brief generator can save you money by itself. What actually moves the outcome is whether the 150 people you write to receive a brief specific enough to say yes to. A vague ask gets ignored; a brief that states the objective, the hook and the shot list gets a reply. That is the one line item in this stack we can shrink, for $29 a month once the first one is free. We set out the full cost stack of a creator program in UGC platform fees.

No, and it does not claim to. We read modash.io and modash.io/pricing end to end on 19 August 2026 and found no mention of usage rights, content licensing, whitelisting permissions, a brief, a revision round or a delivered file anywhere on the public site. The tracking feature collects published content and its metrics, reach, engagement, views and earned media value, which is measurement of what a creator posted, not a grant of permission for you to run it.

This matters more than the price difference between any two plans in this comparison. A video you have paid for and are not licensed to put media spend behind is not an asset, it is a liability with a nice thumbnail. If you source creators through a database, the license is something you have to raise, draft, agree and record yourself, individually, with every single creator, and then store somewhere your media buyer can find it in eleven months when someone asks whether a particular asset was cleared for paid social in Canada.

That is genuinely doable and plenty of in-house teams do it well. It is simply work, and it is work that scales linearly with the number of creators, which is the opposite of what you want when the whole point of buying a database with 380 million profiles was scale. The clauses that decide whether footage can legally carry ad spend are on our UGC usage rights page, and we would suggest reading it before you unlock the first email rather than after the fortieth.

UGCMarketplace does not change that negotiation, because we are not a party to it. What our brief does is state the usage scope you need in plain language before you ever contact a creator, so the license conversation starts from a clear ask instead of an afterthought. That is not the same as a license shipping with a deliverable. It is one less thing you have to draft from scratch.

Not on the entry plan. Payments and affiliate management are not included on Essentials at $199 a month. They start on Performance at $499, with 0% fee on payouts up to $10,000 a year, and the Enterprise tier lifts that band to $100,000 a year before tiered fees apply.

That detail changes the shape of the entry plan considerably, and it is easy to miss on a feature grid. Essentials is a search and contact tool. You can find creators, check whether their followers are real, get their email addresses and track what they post. You cannot commission them, you cannot pay them inside the platform, and you have no rights framework. If your plan was to run a small program on the cheap tier, the actual cost of that plan is $199 plus whatever payment rail you already use plus every hour of admin the missing features would have absorbed.

The 0% payout fee on Performance deserves credit, though, because it is genuinely better than the norm. Most of the marketplaces in this category clip a percentage of creator pay: Influee takes 10%, Insense takes 7% to 20% depending on plan, Collabstr takes 5% or 10%, JoinBrands takes 8% to 15%. Modash charging nothing on the first $10,000 of payouts is a real saving for a brand that is already committed to the $499 tier. Whether the tier is worth reaching for that reason alone is a different question, and the answer depends on how much you were going to pay creators anyway.

They are not really competitors, and the comparison only makes sense once you see why. Modash sells you the search: an index, audience analytics, a contact route and a tracker, and it expects you to convert all of that into content through your own effort, starting with a brief you have to write yourself. UGCMarketplace sells you that brief. Neither one replaces the other, and neither one alone gets you to a finished video.

The selection question Modash answers well is audience quality: who follows this person, are those followers real, do they overlap with your customers, what engagement do their posts get. Every one of those questions is about distribution, and Modash answers them better than we ever will, because we do not run a creator index at all.

The question we answer is different: what should the creator actually film, and how do you describe that clearly enough that a stranger you found through Modash, or anywhere else, says yes and delivers something usable. A hook in the first three seconds, a benefit in one clean sentence, a shot list that survives contact with a real filming location, all of that has to be decided before outreach, not after. That is what the brief generator writes, for free on the first one.

The consequence is budgetary, and it is the reason brands end up overpaying regardless of which database they search. A vague brief gets a vague video, and a vague video that misses the mark costs the same creator fee as one that lands. Fixing the brief is the cheap lever in this whole stack, which is exactly why it is worth doing before you spend a single unlock on Modash. We wrote out the fuller version of the database-versus-marketplace question, without a vendor attached to it, in UGC creator database vs marketplace.

This is the comparison that makes the category legible, and almost no roundup runs it. Every vendor here publishes a monthly number, but they are counting completely different objects, and the useful measure is how many steps sit between the thing being metered and a video in your drive.

The pattern is the point for the nine platforms above us. The further left a vendor's meter sits from the finished file, the less its published price tells you about your total, and the more of the budget lives in a number nobody has quoted you yet. That is not a ranking of quality. Twirl metering videos does not make it better software than Modash, and Modash's index is far larger than anything a production marketplace maintains. It is a ranking of how much of your spend you can see before you commit.

UGCMarketplace sits outside that ranking rather than at the good end of it, because we are not metering a path to a delivered video at all. We are the document every one of those nine paths still requires before the first message goes out. Whichever platform you land on, the brief is unpriced work you were going to have to do anyway, and ours costs nothing for the first one.

If you are shortlisting across the nine production and discovery lanes, the honest advice is to stop comparing monthly fees and start comparing cost per delivered, licensed asset, which is the only figure that is the same object across those rows. The full field is compared in our roundup of the best UGC platforms, and the two closest neighbours to Modash on this table have their own breakdowns on our GRIN alternative and Upfluence alternative pages.

Modash is the right buy when finding people is the actual problem. If you are recruiting an ambassador roster, running a gifting program at scale, looking for creators in a niche you do not know, or trying to identify which of your existing customers already has an audience, a 380 million profile index with real audience analytics is exactly the right tool and a brief generator does not replace it. The influential fans feature in particular, matching creators against your own customer list, is a genuinely good idea.

It is also the right buy if measurement is what you are short of. Automatic collection of published content with reach, engagement, views and earned media value, tracked per creator over time, is the reporting layer that makes a standing influencer program defensible internally. And the fake follower checker has a good reputation for a reason: audience fraud is real and expensive, and checking for it before you pay someone is straightforwardly worth $199.

Use UGCMarketplace before you spend that $199, or alongside it, when the constraint is what to tell the 300 profiles you open once you have found them. When the paid social account needs eight fresh variations before a launch, when nobody on the team has ten hours a week to turn a product into a shot list, or when you want a written creator profile to filter Modash's own search against instead of guessing. Describe the product, get the brief and script for free on the first one, and $29 a month for unlimited after that.

These two are complements, not substitutes, and it is worth saying so plainly. A brand using Modash to find the ambassador roster and a brief generator to tell every one of them what to film is a completely sensible setup, and it is a more accurate picture of the workflow than either product on its own.