One storyboard vendor publishes exact prices, its rival withholds them

The picture

Two storyboard tools sit at opposite ends of price transparency as retrieved on 16 September 2026. Boords' pricing page states exact figures for every plan: Solo at $39 a month or $26 a month billed annually, Pro at $75 or $50, Team at $125 or $85, and Agency at $250 or $165, with Enterprise by quote. FrameForge, whose own domain now redirects to a page titled "Explore FrameForge's Affordable Prices", names a Core Edition and a Professional Edition but states no dollar figure for either; every call to action reads "Get Pricing" rather than showing one.

What the documents show

Boords' own page is a complete, dated, first-party price list, checkable against itself at any time. FrameForge's own page, by contrast, structurally withholds a number: a visitor cannot read a Core or Professional Edition price without submitting a request. That single fact explains why any third-party roundup naming a FrameForge price is reporting a figure the vendor's own retrieved page does not state - the number may be accurate on the day it was quoted, but it cannot be checked back against the source the way Boords' figures can. This entry cites only what each vendor's own page states, and reports FrameForge's absence of a public figure as a finding in its own right rather than repeating an unverified number from elsewhere.

What it is allowed to decide

Pricing transparency is a procurement and disclosure question, not a technical authority, so neither tool's price list decides an image's fidelity. What it does bear on is Auditability in a broader sense: a published, dated, first-party price is independently checkable by anyone later, while a quote obtained through a sales conversation is not reproducible by a different buyer without repeating that conversation. Boords' page holds that checkability; FrameForge's retrieved page does not, for price specifically, whatever FrameForge's software itself may support technically.

The disclosure label

A budget comparison citing storyboard software costs, dated 16 September 2026, should disclose which figures came from a vendor's own published page and which came from a quote, a reseller, or a third-party roundup not checked against the vendor directly. A production coordinator assembling a tools budget would be the plausible party asserting that distinction.

• Is this storyboard software price drawn from the vendor's own current page, or from a roundup that may be out of date?
• If a vendor requires a quote request, has that quote been dated and recorded for future comparison?
• Does the roundup comparing tools have a commercial relationship with any vendor it ranks favourably?

The inconsistency in this category is not evidence that any single reported figure is wrong; it is evidence that only a directly checked, dated, first-party page - not a competitor's summary of it - should be trusted for a number that matters to a budget.