--- title: "Lever vs Ashby: The CTO's Technical Architecture Guide" slug: lever-vs-ashby-the-ctos-technical-architecture-guide date: 2026-06-18 author: Raaj categories: [Ashby, Lever] excerpt: "Technical architecture comparison of Lever vs Ashby. Data models, API limits, pricing, migration routing, and operational bottlenecks for TalentOps leaders." tldr: Lever wins on outbound sourcing with native CRM nurture. Ashby wins on analytics and scheduling. The Opportunity-to-Application data model gap is the top migration risk. canonical: https://clonepartner.com/blog/lever-vs-ashby-the-ctos-technical-architecture-guide/ --- # Lever vs Ashby: The CTO's Technical Architecture Guide Lever uses an **Opportunity-centric data model** where a single Contact record spawns multiple Opportunities, each representing a distinct candidacy with its own notes, feedback, and interview schedule. Ashby uses a **relational Candidate-Application-Job hierarchy** designed for real-time analytical querying. This architectural difference shapes every downstream decision about reporting pipelines, candidate deduplication, API extraction, and migration complexity. If your bottleneck is sourcing-pipeline depth and passive-candidate nurture, evaluate Lever. If your bottleneck is recruiting operations velocity and consolidated analytics, evaluate Ashby. For teams already committed to switching between these platforms, see our [Lever to Ashby migration guide](https://clonepartner.com/blog/blog/lever-to-ashby-migration-the-ctos-technical-guide/) for the exact API extraction methods and data mapping rules. ## 1. Overview and Core Intent > [!NOTE] > **Liftable Summary:** Lever is an Opportunity-centric ATS/CRM where passive prospects and active applicants coexist in a single fluid record. Ashby is a relational, all-in-one recruiting platform (ATS + CRM + scheduling + analytics) built around a queryable data model optimized for real-time reporting and operational speed. ### Ideal Customer Profile **Lever (LeverTRM for Enterprise):** - Teams hiring 20–100+ roles/year with a heavy outbound sourcing motion - Organizations that treat passive candidate nurture as a first-class workflow - Mid-market to enterprise companies (200–5,000 employees) with dedicated sourcers running multi-touch email campaigns - TalentOps teams comfortable with basic built-in reporting or willing to pay for advanced analytics as an Enterprise add-on **Ashby (All-in-One tier):** - Engineering-heavy, data-oriented TA teams at growth-stage and mid-market tech companies - Teams that want ATS, CRM, scheduling, and analytics in one contract without layering Gem + Calendly on top - Organizations where recruiting leaders present pipeline conversion rates and interviewer calibration scores to leadership - TalentOps teams with mature reporting requirements who need a native query builder rather than waiting on RevOps or BI every week **Verdict:** Lever uses an opportunity-focused model that lets you manage active and passive candidates in one pipeline and nurture them over time, making it strongest for sourcing-heavy recruiting teams. Ashby is an all-in-one recruiting platform combining ATS, CRM-style sourcing, scheduling, and analytics with built-in AI, designed for scaling teams needing developer-friendly APIs and rich reporting, making it strongest for analytics-driven recruiting operations. ## 2. Architecture and Data Model Constraints > [!NOTE] > **Liftable Summary:** Lever treats every candidacy as a fluid Opportunity tied to a Contact. Ashby enforces a strict Candidate-Application-Job hierarchy with structured interview plans. This difference determines how you build custom reporting pipelines, handle candidate deduplication, and map data during migrations. ### Lever: The Opportunity Model On Lever's data model, a "Contact" will have independent Opportunities for each of their Applications. This means that any current Candidate with multiple Applications will be split into several candidateIds, and represented as Opportunities and opportunityIds via new Opportunities endpoints. A "Contact" is an object that Lever's application uses internally to identify an individual person and their personal or contact information, even though they may have multiple opportunities. Each Opportunity can have their own notes, feedback, interview schedules, and additional forms. The practical impact: a single person who applied to three roles exists as three Opportunity records sharing one Contact ID. Going forward, the contact field is the unique identifier for an individual person in Lever, so all integrations should be built and updated using the contact field as the unique person identifier and opportunityId as a specific candidacy. This design is recruiter-friendly. A sourced lead becomes an active applicant without leaving the same object family. It is less friendly when you build downstream models — person-level facts and candidacy-level facts blur easily if your ETL is careless. ### Ashby: The Relational Hierarchy Ashby separates data into distinct **Candidate**, **Application**, and **Job** records. Applications link Candidates to Jobs through structured interview plans. The reporting vocabulary is explicit: Candidate is the person, Application (or Job Consideration) is the candidate's record on a specific job, and Interview Schedules are separate reporting subjects. Custom reports can segment across all of these dimensions. The Ashby API is an RPC-style API, where endpoints follow the form /CATEGORY.method. Most endpoints take POST requests, even for what in a REST-style API would typically be a GET request. This relational structure is purpose-built for analytical querying. You can run reports that join across candidates, applications, interview stages, and feedback without flattening records. The trade-off: migrations from Opportunity-centric systems require explicit splitting and remapping work. ### Impact on Reporting, Deduplication, and Scheduling | Concern | Lever | Ashby | |---|---|---| | **Candidate deduplication** | Contact ID unifies a person across Opportunities. If a match is found, Lever creates a new Opportunity linked to the existing Contact rather than a new person record. | Candidate records are deduplicated at import. Ashby flags potential duplicates during bulk import. | | **Custom reporting** | LeverTRM gives you basic metrics with 20+ reports covering pipeline and source tracking. Data warehouse sync, custom API access, and AI-powered analytics are Enterprise-only. | Native query builder ships with the All-in-One plan (Plus tier and above). Custom dashboards and funnel reporting are core to the product. Note: Ashby documents that notes on a candidate's feed are not reportable in custom reports. | | **Interview scheduling** | Calendar integration with Google and Outlook. Functional but basic panel scheduling. | Bi-directional calendar syncing, self-serve scheduling links for direct booking and availability requests, communication templates, automation, and more. | > [!WARNING] > Treat **Lever `contact`** as the person key and **Lever `opportunityId`** as the candidacy key. In Ashby, the closest split is **Candidate** for the person and **Application / Job Consideration** for the job-specific candidacy. Collapsing those layers is where most ATS migrations go wrong. ## 3. Operational Limits and Bottlenecks > [!NOTE] > **Liftable Summary:** Lever rate limits its REST API at 10 requests per second per API key with bursts to 20 req/sec. Ashby enforces 1,000 requests per minute on standard endpoints and a strict 15 requests per minute, 3 concurrent operation limit on its reporting API. Both constraints bottleneck bulk data extraction and real-time reporting integrations. ### Lever Bottlenecks **API rate limits:** By default, Lever allows a steady state number of 10 requests/second per API key. When possible, they allow bursts of requests up to 20 requests/second. Application POST requests have a stricter limit of just 2 requests per second, and Lever warns this limit may be changed. Sustained bursts above the threshold will result in 429 responses with a Retry-After header. Best practice is to implement exponential backoff on 429 responses. **Visual Insights reporting:** Reporting in Lever is often described as clunky and hard to customize. Users struggle with limited options, data inconsistencies, and a non-intuitive interface. The latest analytics layout is difficult to use in practice. Getting to the data needed for day-to-day decision-making isn't always intuitive, and reporting requires more effort than expected unless you invest in higher-tier options. There are concrete blind spots. Lever documents that confidential job data is excluded from dashboard charts, some pipeline charts do not support filtering or returning secondary locations, and advanced dashboard pages require the Advanced Analytics add-on. That is where most enterprise teams start exporting data instead of living in Visual Insights. **Custom data models:** Lever does not expose a general-purpose query builder on the standard tier. Building complex custom reports requires exporting data to an external BI tool or upgrading to Enterprise for data warehouse sync and the Data Explorer. ### Ashby Bottlenecks **Synchronous report API:** Rate Limiting (Per Organization): Request limit: 15 requests per minute per organization. Concurrent limit: Maximum 3 report operations at once per organization (shared with report.generate). Timeout: 30 seconds. If a report is timing out, use the asynchronous report.generate instead. **Standard REST API:** Ashby enforces 1,000 requests per minute per API key, with a separate Report API limit of 15 requests per minute. For large migrations (50K+ candidates), the load phase alone can take several hours due to this budget. If several integrations share the same API key, you still need concurrency control. **Incremental sync limits:** Ashby caps incremental syncs at 100 pages, and expired `syncToken` values force a fresh full sync. If you only run deltas occasionally, you will hit this sooner than expected. **Search and filtering friction:** Dropdown-based filtering replaces boolean search strings in Ashby. Fluent boolean users who've spent years building custom search strings find this slower and less flexible. If your sourcing workflow depends on complex boolean queries, this is a significant friction point. Boolean search exists inside Full Text Resume Search, but day-to-day sourcing feels more visual and nested than Lever's field-specific approach. > [!WARNING] > Ashby's API returns HTTP 200 status codes even for failed requests, with a `success: false` flag in the JSON response body. Migration scripts that only check HTTP status codes will silently skip failed writes. Always validate the `success` field in every response. > [!TIP] > If you need Ashby report data on a schedule, use `report.generate` for long-running jobs and keep `report.synchronous` for fast lookups. Polling a started report with `requestId` bypasses the start-generation limits. ## 4. Feature-by-Feature Systems Comparison | Category | Winner | Technical Rationale | |---|---|---| | **CRM and Nurture Campaigns** | Lever | Native multi-touch nurture sequences, persistent candidate profiles, Chrome extension for sourcing. Ashby requires third-party sourcing tools at scale. | | **Automated Scheduling** | Ashby | Bi-directional calendar sync, AI auto-scheduling, interviewer load balancing, and training programs built into the platform. | | **Custom Analytics** | Ashby | Native query builder with custom dashboards included in the All-in-One plan (Plus+). Lever gates advanced analytics behind Enterprise. | ### Candidate Relationship Management **Winner: Lever** This is where Lever's CRM heritage shows up most clearly. You can build talent pipelines for roles that don't exist yet, tag and segment candidates by skill set or geography, and run multi-touch email nurture sequences. It doesn't just track active candidates but also allows teams to nurture passive talent via automated, multi-touch email campaigns. Ashby includes CRM-style sourcing with email sequences, but it is not as mature for high-volume passive recruiting. Ashby is an ATS, not a sourcing tool. Teams running aggressive outbound sourcing on Ashby consistently supplement with Gem or LinkedIn Recruiter. **Caveats:** Despite Lever marketing itself as an ATS+CRM, some advanced CRM capabilities cost extra. The CRM sourcing and nurture add-on runs $5,000–$10,000/yr. Lever Nurture is also opinionated — candidates need an email address, an Opportunity in the Lead section, no other active Opportunities outside New Lead, and they cannot already be in another active campaign. ### Automated Interview Scheduling **Winner: Ashby** Rescheduling an interview from Google Calendar will now sync back to Ashby automatically. New invites will be sent out and the agendas for the meeting will update to reflect the new times. Ashby's core scheduling includes bi-directional calendar sync, self-serve booking links, interviewer limits, interviewer pauses, alternates, scheduling keywords, and communication templates across all plans. The Advanced Scheduling Automation add-on extends this with AI-powered auto-scheduling, interviewer load balancing, training program management, and scheduling request queues. Automate recommended schedules across complex panels. Slot in alternate interviewers automatically when declines happen. Lever integrates with Google Calendar and Outlook for interview scheduling. Coordinators can send scheduling links, manage interviewer availability, and handle multi-panel interview logistics. The scheduling tool is functional but not exceptional. **Caveat:** Ashby interviewer limits are **not** applied when using Manual Schedule, and the coordinator load report is described as high-level rather than perfectly accurate on reschedules. Some advanced scheduling functions sit behind an add-on. ### Custom Analytics and Data Visualization **Winner: Ashby** The Advanced Analytics Builder is Ashby's crown jewel. It allows you to build custom dashboards that would normally require a separate BI tool. The native query builder lets operators work across jobs, applications, candidates, interviews, and custom lists without leaving the app. Lever's reporting, though solid, is not as customizable as some enterprise-focused ATS platforms. Lever's reporting has fewer customization options compared to tools like Greenhouse or SmartRecruiters. Teams needing board-level pipeline analytics on Lever typically need the Enterprise tier or an external BI pipeline. **Caveat:** This win depends on plan level. Ashby Foundations includes default dashboards and report templates, but custom reports require Plus, Enterprise, or Legacy Plus. The Advanced Analytics module typically adds 10–30% to the base subscription. ## 5. True Total Cost of Ownership and Hidden Scaling Costs ### Lever Monetization Model Lever pricing starts at roughly $6,000 per year for small teams and climbs past $144,000 for enterprise organizations with 1,000+ employees. Like most mid-market ATS platforms, Lever doesn't publish its rates. Lever charges six categories of hidden fees that surface after you sign: implementation ($5K–$25K), data migration ($3K–$8K), CRM/analytics add-ons ($5K–$16K/yr), API access fees, renewal increases (8–15% above new-customer rates), and auto-renewal traps. Together, they push total ownership 40–60% above the base subscription. Implementation is quoted at $15,000–$25,000, but negotiated rates typically land between $5,000–$8,000 according to Vendr (2025). OutSail (2025) flags API access as a significant hidden cost that catches buyers off guard. Custom API integration is locked behind the Enterprise tier. ### Ashby Monetization Model Ashby's Foundations plan costs $400/month billed monthly or approximately $360/month billed annually (10% discount), covering companies up to 100 employees. Plus and Enterprise plans require custom quotes, with Vendr (2025) reporting that 100–300 employee companies pay $30,000–$70,000/yr and 300–500 employee companies pay $60,000–$120,000/yr. Ashby primarily uses a headcount-based pricing model, meaning the cost is tied to the total number of employees in your organization, not the number of people using the ATS. **Hidden Ashby costs:** - Email lookup caps (200/month on Foundations), paid AI Notetaker and Advanced Scheduling add-ons, and per-employee true-ups mid-contract. - If you want the deep data that Ashby is famous for, it usually costs extra. For many mid-market buyers, the "Advanced Analytics" module is a mandatory add-on that adds 10 to 30 percent to the base subscription. - High-volume passive sourcing teams will need Gem or LinkedIn Recruiter layered on top, adding $15,000–$40,000+/yr depending on team size. ## 6. Data Portability and Complex Migration Routing > [!NOTE] > **Liftable Summary:** Lever exposes bulk candidate data via its REST API at 10 req/sec with cursor-based pagination. Ashby exposes data via its RPC-style API at 1,000 req/min. Both support extracting candidates, applications, interview feedback, and notes. The hard part is mapping Lever's fluid Opportunity records to Ashby's strict Candidate-Application hierarchy without losing historical context. ### Extraction from Lever Lever uses cursor-based pagination. List endpoints return a next cursor token and a hasNext boolean. To fetch the next page, pass the next value as a query parameter in your subsequent request. Page size is configurable between 1 and 100 items (default 100). Key extraction endpoints: `/v1/opportunities` (with expand parameters for applications, stages, sourcedBy, contact), `/v1/opportunities/{id}/feedback`, `/v1/opportunities/{id}/interviews`, `/v1/opportunities/{id}/notes`. At 10 req/sec with pagination capped at 100 records per call, extracting 50,000 candidates takes a minimum of ~8 minutes for the primary pass, longer with nested expand calls. Even Lever's own instance-to-instance migration is a paid, manual service with extra-cost objects and hard exclusions for integrations, automations, surveys, and EasyBook links. ATS portability is rarely as clean as sales demos imply. ### Extraction from Ashby Ashby endpoints like `candidate.list`, `application.list`, and `interviewSchedule.list` use POST-based pagination with cursor tokens. Ashby enforces 1,000 requests per minute per API key, with a separate Report API limit of 15 requests per minute. Ashby officially supports **API migration**, **file-based migration**, and **self-serve bulk import**. For supported Lever migrations, Ashby's documentation states the API route can complete in two to three days depending on volume. The self-serve import is narrower and not a comprehensive view of the candidate lifecycle. ### The Mapping Problem: Lever to Ashby The core challenge is translating Lever's Opportunity model to Ashby's Candidate-Application-Job hierarchy: 1. **Splitting Opportunities:** Each Lever Opportunity must become an Ashby Application linked to the correct Job. The Lever Contact maps to an Ashby Candidate. 2. **Deduplication:** Multiple Lever Opportunities sharing a Contact must resolve to a single Ashby Candidate with multiple Applications. 3. **Historical email nurture threads:** Lever stores nurture campaign interactions within the Opportunity timeline. These do not have a direct equivalent in Ashby and must be written as notes or activity records. In practice, historical outreach maps better as reference history than as live sequence enrollments on day one. 4. **Interview scorecards:** Lever feedback forms are freeform with optional structured fields. Ashby expects feedback tied to specific interview stages in a structured format. 5. **Point-in-time delta migrations:** For zero-downtime cutover, you need a delta migration capturing records created or modified between the initial bulk export and go-live. Lever provides `updatedAt` on opportunities and webhooks. Ashby provides `syncToken` on list endpoints. Use both — but remember Ashby caps incremental syncs at 100 pages and expired tokens force a full resync. For the detailed technical migration pathway, object-by-object mapping, and edge cases, see our [Lever to Ashby migration guide](https://clonepartner.com/blog/blog/lever-to-ashby-migration-the-ctos-technical-guide/). For broader ATS migration risks, see [5 "Gotchas" in ATS Migration](https://clonepartner.com/blog/blog/ats-migration-gotchas/). > [!TIP] > At ClonePartner, we've executed ATS migrations across fundamentally different data models. The Lever-to-Ashby path is one of the more complex routes because of the Opportunity-to-Application translation. If your team needs fast turnaround with zero data loss, [talk to our engineers](https://cal.com/clonepartner/meet?duration=30). ## 7. Core Strengths and Dealbreakers ### Lever: Non-Obvious Strengths - **Nurture-first architecture:** Unlike many ATS vendors that added CRM features as an afterthought, Lever was built with candidate relationship management as a first-class concept. The persistent candidate profile, interaction timeline, and nurture campaign tools are well-integrated into the core workflow. - **Hiring manager adoption:** Lever's UI is consistently praised in user reviews. The Kanban-style pipeline board, candidate profile layout, and navigation patterns are intuitive. Hiring managers tend to find Lever less intimidating than competitors like Greenhouse or iCIMS. - **Feedback isolation by design:** The decision to hide other interviewers' feedback until you submit your own is a small design choice with meaningful impact on reducing bias during panel reviews. ### Lever: Dealbreakers - **Analytics gating:** Data warehouse sync, custom API access, and AI-powered analytics are Enterprise-only. Vendr data suggests the Enterprise tier runs roughly 2–3x the base LeverTRM rate for the same headcount. - **Reporting rigidity:** Limited customization in reporting restricts advanced recruitment data analysis. Teams that need custom funnel reports will hit a wall on the standard tier. - **Opportunity model complicates downstream work:** The Opportunity-centric data model makes downstream data modeling and ATS migrations harder. Person-level and candidacy-level facts blur together, adding ETL complexity for any team building a recruiting data warehouse. ### Ashby: Non-Obvious Strengths - **Analytics as a standalone product:** Ashby Analytics is available as a standalone add-on for teams using a different ATS who want Ashby's reporting layer without switching their core system. You can evaluate the analytics before committing to a full platform switch. - **Developer-friendly API design:** Engineering or data teams that want a developer-friendly ATS will find Ashby's API and webhooks make custom automations practical. Sync tokens make delta extraction cleaner than relying on repeated full pulls. - **Implementation speed:** Teams report full implementation in 2–4 weeks including HRIS integration, significantly faster than most enterprise ATS deployments. ### Ashby: Dealbreakers - **No boolean search:** Dropdown-based filtering replaces boolean search strings. Fluent boolean users find this slower and less flexible. If your sourcing workflow depends on complex boolean queries, this is a significant friction point. - **English-only interface:** English-only interface and career pages limit Ashby's global reach as of 2025. Multi-language hiring teams need workarounds. - **Headcount-based pricing at scale:** Ashby prices by total company headcount, not just recruiters. If your company doubles its staff, your Ashby bill will likely double at renewal. ## 8. FAQ for TalentOps Administrators ### Which platform is better for outbound-heavy sourcing teams, Lever or Ashby? Lever. Its CRM was built as a first-class module with multi-touch nurture campaigns, sourcing Chrome extension, and segmented talent pipelines. Ashby includes basic sourcing sequences, but high-volume passive recruiting teams consistently layer Gem or LinkedIn Recruiter on top to match what Lever offers natively. If outbound sourcing is your primary motion, Lever removes a tool dependency. ### What are the primary API integration differences when extracting custom reporting data from Ashby versus Lever? Lever exposes a REST API at 10 requests per second with cursor-based pagination. Custom reporting extraction requires Enterprise-tier access for data warehouse sync. Ashby's report API is limited to 15 requests per minute per organization with a maximum of 3 concurrent report operations. Ashby's standard endpoints run at 1,000 req/min and support sync tokens for incremental extraction. Ashby gives richer native reporting extraction, but the concurrency cap is tight. Lever's Opportunity-centric model requires more downstream transformation work. ### Which system requires less technical overhead to migrate historical interview scorecards and candidate tags into? Ashby is typically the easier target. Its relational structure provides clear slots for candidate data, application records, and structured interview feedback. Ashby's file-based migration pathway supports importing historical interview feedback, stages, and tags as part of structured onboarding. Lever carries more historical ambiguity because notes, interviews, feedback, and tags cluster around the Opportunity. For either direction, preserving scorecard fidelity requires custom scripting. See our [Greenhouse to Ashby migration guide](https://clonepartner.com/blog/blog/greenhouse-to-ashby-migration-apis-mapping-rate-limits/) for comparable mapping complexity. ### Does Ashby include custom reports on every plan? No. Ashby Foundations includes default dashboards and report templates, but native custom report building requires Plus, Enterprise, or Legacy Plus plans. The Advanced Analytics module that most data-driven teams want typically adds 10–30% to the base subscription. ## 9. Final Operations Decision Matrix **Choose Lever if:** - Your recruiting motion is outbound-heavy and you need native multi-touch nurture campaigns - You prioritize hiring manager adoption and need a UI that non-technical stakeholders will actually use - You are already invested in Lever's integration ecosystem (300+ connectors) and switching costs are high - Your reporting needs are standard (pipeline, source, time-to-fill) and you do not need a custom query builder **Choose Ashby if:** - Your TalentOps team treats recruiting as a data operation and needs native analytics without a separate BI tool - You want to consolidate ATS + CRM + scheduling + analytics into a single vendor contract - Your engineering team builds custom integrations and needs a developer-friendly API with webhook support - You are scaling rapidly and want faster implementation (2–4 weeks) with less configuration overhead The platforms serve different operational philosophies. Lever is the stronger choice when your competitive advantage comes from sourcing and relationship-building with passive candidates. Ashby is the stronger choice when your competitive advantage comes from operational speed, consolidated data, and analytics-driven hiring decisions. If you pick against your operating model, the failure shows up quickly — as reporting debt, coordinator overload, or top-of-funnel leakage. If you are migrating between the two, the Opportunity-to-Application data model translation is the single highest-risk technical decision. Get that mapping right, and everything else follows. > Migrating between Lever and Ashby? Our engineering team has mapped the Opportunity-to-Application translation across dozens of ATS migrations. We handle the API extraction, data model translation, and delta sync so your recruiting team never misses a candidate. > > [Talk to us](https://cal.com/clonepartner/meet?duration=30) ## Frequently asked questions ### What is the difference between Lever and Ashby data models? Lever uses an Opportunity-centric model where a single Contact can have multiple Opportunities (candidacies), each with its own notes and feedback. Ashby uses a relational Candidate-Application-Job hierarchy optimized for analytical querying, where Applications link Candidates to Jobs through structured interview plans. ### Which platform is better for outbound sourcing, Lever or Ashby? Lever is stronger for outbound-heavy sourcing teams. Its CRM includes native multi-touch nurture campaigns, a sourcing Chrome extension, and segmented talent pipelines. Ashby includes basic sourcing sequences, but high-volume passive recruiting teams typically need to add third-party tools like Gem or LinkedIn Recruiter. ### What are the Lever and Ashby API rate limits? Lever enforces 10 requests per second per API key with burst capacity up to 20 req/sec. Application POST requests are limited to 2 req/sec. Ashby allows 1,000 requests per minute on standard endpoints but caps its synchronous report API at 15 requests per minute with a maximum of 3 concurrent operations. ### How much does Lever vs Ashby cost? Lever starts at roughly $6,000/year for small teams and climbs past $144,000 for enterprise, with hidden fees pushing TCO 40-60% above the base. Ashby Foundations starts at $400/month for companies up to 100 employees, with custom-quoted Plus and Enterprise tiers ranging from $30,000 to $120,000/year. ### Does Ashby include custom reports on every plan? No. Ashby Foundations includes default dashboards and report templates, but native custom report building requires Plus, Enterprise, or Legacy Plus plans. The Advanced Analytics module typically adds 10-30% to the base subscription.