RevOps planning stack — from territory carve to forecast commitment

The annual GTM plan is one chain with four links: carve the territories, set the quotas, fund the comp plan, commit to a forecast. Most companies run it as four projects, owned by four people, in four systems. The seams are where the money leaks — a rep paid on a territory they no longer own, a quota table that sums to 118% of the board number, a forecast rolled up against targets nobody re-synced after the March re-carve.

This stack closes the seams. Salesforce holds the transaction record. Fullcast holds the policy — territory, quota, capacity, routing. CaptivateIQ turns attainment into a payable, explainable number. Clari holds the commitment and measures it against the quota Fullcast published. Four systems, one roster, one set of quota records.

It is an expensive stack, and it carries an overlap problem that has to be resolved before either contract is signed. Do not buy it because the diagram looks tidy.

How the pieces fit

• Salesforce is the system of record for the transaction. Accounts, opportunities, closed-won, product line items. Every other tool here reads from it and writes back to it. It is not the planning system — native territory management holds a static hierarchy, not continuous policy — but it is the arbiter of what actually closed, and every number downstream traces to an opportunity ID living here.

• Fullcast is the policy layer. Territory design, quota assignment, headcount and capacity modeling, and lead/account routing sit in one object model. The distinction that earns its place in the stack: rules evaluate continuously and write assignments through to Salesforce, so an account created in July lands in the right book on creation rather than at the next carve. Fullcast Plan owns the carve; its roster and territory sync keeps the assignment current when a rep transfers or leaves.

• CaptivateIQ is the calculation and explanation layer. Closed-won lands from Salesforce, quota from Fullcast, roster from Workday, BambooHR or ADP. SmartGrid runs the plan logic and produces the two outputs that matter: a payable number finance can sign, and a statement the rep can interrogate line by line. The second one prevents the dispute cycle — Statement Explainer decomposes a payout, Plan Docs Explainer answers “what is my rate on this.”

• Clari is the commitment layer. Rep commits roll to manager, manager to CRO, and the rollup is measured against the quota Fullcast published rather than a spreadsheet copy of it. Since the Salesloft merger closed on December 3, 2025, Clari Forecast and Clari Inspect sit next to Salesloft execution: as of the April 14, 2026 release a manager creates a Salesloft task or an AI follow-up email from inside Clari Inspect, and the same release shipped an MCP server exposing pipeline movement, call transcripts, product usage and payment history to an external AI client.

Named handoffs

1. Carve approved → assignment live. Territory rules published in Fullcast → account owner and territory fields written to Salesforce on record create, not at the next batch job.
2. Quota published → two downstream reads. Fullcast quota records → CaptivateIQ as the attainment denominator, and → Clari as the target the rollup is measured against. One publish, two consumers, no re-keying.
3. Roster change → credit change. HRIS termination or transfer → Fullcast roster and territory sync → CaptivateIQ payee seat and crediting. This is the handoff that breaks first when the stack is assembled loosely, and it is the one that produces overpayments.
4. Closed-won → payable. Salesforce opportunity closes → CaptivateIQ credits the payee per plan → statement available to the rep before the payout run, not after the dispute.
5. Commit gap → coverage action. Clari shows a segment committing under quota → because that quota traces to a Fullcast territory, the remediation is a modeled coverage or capacity change instead of a spreadsheet argument.

The overlap you have to resolve first

Fullcast and CaptivateIQ overlap at both ends. Fullcast Pay does commissions — Fullcast acquired Commissionly for that engine, and shipped a Pay release on May 5, 2026 adding omni-role crediting, transaction management and automated roster and territory sync. CaptivateIQ sells a Planning module for territories and quotas, and announced a Revenue Planning Agent in limited beta at its May 14, 2026 user conference. Each vendor can credibly quote you the other’s job.

Buying both without a written boundary produces two quota tables, two rosters, and a quarterly argument about which one finance trusts. The boundary that holds:

• Fullcast owns the plan and the roster. Territory, quota, capacity, routing, and who sits on which team as of which date. It is the upstream publisher.
• CaptivateIQ owns the calculation and the payee-facing artifact. Plan logic, crediting mechanics, statements, ASC-606 reporting, and the audit trail finance signs.
• Neither owns the transaction. Salesforce does.

Write that down before either contract is signed, and enforce it by making quota records read-only in CaptivateIQ.

If you cannot defend running both, run one. The honest default for most companies is a single vendor across plan and pay. Run both only when comp plan complexity and territory policy churn are both binding constraints — multi-component plans with split and omni-role crediting, plus a carve that moves more than twice a year. That pairing is a mid-market-and-up problem, not a Series B problem.

Cost reality

Salesforce is the only published number in the stack. Sales Cloud lists at $25 (Starter Suite), $100 (Pro Suite), $175 (Enterprise), $350 (Unlimited) and $550 (Agentforce 1 Sales) per user per month billed annually. A 150-seat org on Enterprise is $315K/year — and it is already in the budget before this project starts, so treat it as the platform you are extending rather than a line this stack adds.

The three planning layers are all custom-quoted with nothing published:

• Fullcast prices on three separate meters: territory, quota and headcount management on users; incentives on payee count and plan complexity; routing on volume and policy complexity. Vendr reports an average annual contract of $84,264 across a $32,000-$250,000 range — but across only five analyzed purchases, so read the floor rather than the average. This is a five-figure-minimum purchase before implementation.
• CaptivateIQ prices per seat, where a seat is every admin plus every payee managing compensation on the platform. Vendr reports a median annual contract of $36,120 across 305 purchases, a $12,021-$100,181 range, and average savings of 22% off the opening quote. A one-time setup fee sits outside that band.
• Clari is custom-quoted. Customer-side reports place mid-market deployments at $300-$700 per seat per year, with 500-seat deployments negotiating into the $200-$400 range on multi-year commits.

For a 150-payee org the three layers land at roughly $165K-$215K/year using the median and average anchors above, on top of whatever Salesforce already costs. Both ends of the published ranges are live: a lean configuration reaches about $90K, an intricate one clears $450K.

Implementation is the cost nobody budgets. A first-year carve migration plus comp plan build is a 10-16 week project, and the roster-sync handoff alone earns a named integration owner for the duration.

Common variations

• Drop CaptivateIQ; run Fullcast Pay. One vendor, one roster, no boundary document to maintain. The swap rule: take it when plans are single- or two-component and dispute volume is low. Fullcast Pay’s decisive case is revenue that pays out long after booking — payouts release as products ship, including shipments up to 24 months after the booking — so hardware, milestone-billed and usage-billed businesses should evaluate it head-on rather than assuming the compensation specialist wins by default.

• Drop Fullcast; run CaptivateIQ Planning plus native Salesforce territory management. Take it when the carve is stable (annual, geographic or named-account) and comp complexity is the hard half of the problem. What you give up is continuous routing, which native Salesforce territory management does not do — assignment becomes a batch event again.

• Swap Clari for Sales Cloud forecasting. Take it when the forecast call covers fewer than 25 quota carriers and one RevOps lead can hold the pipeline in their head. You lose activity-grounded deal scoring and save a six-figure line.

• Enterprise substitution: Anaplan or Varicent. At $1B+ scale where FP&A already owns a connected-planning platform and the comp team reports into finance, quota and comp consolidate there instead of arriving as two more vendors. The rule: evaluate the incumbent planning platform before signing either specialist.

What this stack does NOT replace

• The plan itself. Segmentation, coverage model, and the board number are decisions. These tools execute a strategy and measure it; they do not choose one. See territory design and quota coverage.
• FP&A’s headcount and budget model. Fullcast models selling capacity; it does not own the P&L, and capacity planning still starts with a number finance sets.
• The HRIS. Workday, BambooHR or ADP stays the roster system of record. Fullcast syncs it, CaptivateIQ consumes it, neither replaces it.
• Data hygiene in Salesforce. Territory rules evaluate the fields you actually have; a null industry or employee-count field routes an account to the wrong book silently and no dashboard flags it.
• Legal review of the comp plan. The statement CaptivateIQ generates is not the contract the rep signed.
• Sales methodology and enablement. Nothing here makes a forecast honest. It makes one measurable, which is a different thing.

Match rules

Use this stack when:

• You pay 100+ commission-eligible people and the carve changes more than once a year. Both halves matter — headcount alone justifies compensation software, not a planning layer.
• A payout correction or quota dispute has already cost you a quarter of RevOps time. That is the trigger event to buy on.
• Salesforce is the CRM and will stay the CRM. Fullcast’s continuous write-back is the assumption the whole chain rests on.
• Someone owns the boundary between plan and pay. A stack with two planning vendors and no named owner regresses to spreadsheets within two quarters.

Do not use this stack when:

• You are under $20M ARR with one sales team and an annual carve. The planning layer costs more than the error it prevents; run compensation plans off a maintained model instead.
• HubSpot is your CRM. Both vendors support it, but the depth argument here — continuous write-back, custom object modeling, opportunity-level crediting — is a Salesforce argument.
• Comp is flat-rate commission with no accelerators, tiers or split credit. CaptivateIQ’s calculation depth goes unused and Fullcast Pay covers the case.
• The roster handoff is unowned. Buying the stack before HRIS-to-roster sync has an owner reproduces the overpayment problem at higher cost, with more systems to reconcile.