Softwr

Proposals · head to head

Cone vs Ignition

Cone logo

Cone

Proposals

Proposal to payment software for accounting and bookkeeping firms, with engagement letters and direct debit

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Ignition logo

Ignition

Manufacturing

Industrial automation platform for SCADA, HMI and MES

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Cone the product is shaped around accountancy engagements, so a freelancer or agency outside professional services pays for engagement letter and compliance features they will never open.; Ignition requires real engineering to implement; it is a platform rather than a finished application
  • They diverge on capability: Cone covers Engagement letters, Ignition covers Unlimited-client licensing.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Cone and Ignition actually diverge.

Attributes where Cone and Ignition differ
AttributeConeIgnition
Pricing modelquotePer-server licensing with published module pricing; unlimited clients and tags
PlatformsWebWindows, Linux, macOS, Web
CategoryProposalsManufacturing

Identical on both: starting price (On request), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Cone

  • Engagement letters
  • Electronic signature
  • Recurring billing
  • Direct debit collection
  • Scope creep flagging
  • Service line templates
  • Client onboarding tasks

Only in Ignition

  • Unlimited-client licensing
  • SCADA and HMI
  • Historian
  • MES modules
  • Web-based clients
  • Wide PLC support

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Cone

  • A bookkeeping practice moving clients from ad hoc invoicing onto signed recurring fee agreementsnot Ignition
  • An accountancy firm that needs engagement letter wording attached to every proposal for compliance reasonsnot Ignition
  • A practice losing revenue to out of scope work that is never billed because nobody notices itnot Ignition
  • Standardising pricing across a firm so that partners stop quoting the same service at different ratesnot Ignition

Ignition

  • Plants where per-tag licensing has made expansion a budget conversationnot Cone
  • Replacing installed operator terminals with browser-based clientsnot Cone
  • Connecting plant floor data to SQL and business systemsnot Cone

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Cone

  • The product is shaped around accountancy engagements, so a freelancer or agency outside professional services pays for engagement letter and compliance features they will never open.
  • Recurring collection depends on which payment rails are supported in your country, and direct debit coverage varies enough that the headline benefit may not apply to your client base.
  • Practice management integration is shallower than the incumbents, so client records often exist in two systems and have to be reconciled.
  • Pricing is not published, which makes it hard to compare against a general proposal tool without entering a sales process first.
  • As a younger vendor in a market that consolidates through acquisition, roadmap continuity carries more risk than choosing an established practice software supplier.

Ignition

  • Requires real engineering to implement; it is a platform rather than a finished application
  • Steep learning curve, and Inductive Automation runs its own training programme because of it
  • Self-hosted and self-supported by default, so plant IT carries the availability burden
  • Module-based pricing means the entry figure is rarely the final one

Pricing, plan by plan

Cone

On request
  • Cone$undefined/year
    • Proposals and engagement letters
    • Electronic signature
    • Recurring billing and direct debit mandates

Ignition

On request

No published plan breakdown. See the Ignition review.

Which should you pick?

Choose Cone if

  • You need engagement letters.
  • You also want electronic signature.
Cone review

Choose Ignition if

  • You need unlimited-client licensing.
  • You work on Windows, Linux, macOS, Web.
  • You also want scada and hmi.
Ignition review

Questions people ask

Is Cone or Ignition better?
Neither clearly leads. Cone starts at On request and Ignition at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Cone or Ignition?
Cone starts at On request and Ignition at On request.
Does Cone or Ignition run on more platforms?
Cone runs on Web. Ignition runs on Windows, Linux, macOS, Web.
What is Cone best used for?
Cone is most often used for a bookkeeping practice moving clients from ad hoc invoicing onto signed recurring fee agreements, an accountancy firm that needs engagement letter wording attached to every proposal for compliance reasons, a practice losing revenue to out of scope work that is never billed because nobody notices it, standardising pricing across a firm so that partners stop quoting the same service at different rates. Of those, a bookkeeping practice moving clients from ad hoc invoicing onto signed recurring fee agreements and an accountancy firm that needs engagement letter wording attached to every proposal for compliance reasons are not what Ignition is typically brought in for.
What can Cone do that Ignition cannot?
Cone covers Engagement letters, Electronic signature, Recurring billing, Direct debit collection. Ignition covers Unlimited-client licensing, SCADA and HMI, Historian, MES modules.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Cone: Is this only for accountants?

It is designed for accounting and bookkeeping firms. Other professional services firms use it, but general freelancers will find most of it irrelevant.

Ignition: What does Ignition cost?

It publishes per-server module pricing with unlimited clients, tags and connections, so cost does not scale with how many people use it.

Cone: Does it handle recurring fees?

Yes, and that is the main reason firms adopt it. Acceptance creates the fee schedule and the collection mandate together.

Ignition: Why does unlimited-client licensing matter?

Traditional SCADA is licensed per tag or per screen, which turns adding an operator terminal into a purchase. Ignition removes that ceiling.

Cone: How are payments collected?

Through supported card and direct debit providers, whose processing fees apply on top of the subscription.

Ignition: Is it a finished application?

No, it is a platform. Screens, tags and logic are built for the specific plant, which is real engineering work.

Cone: What is scope creep flagging?

It compares work performed against the scope agreed in the proposal and surfaces the difference so it can be billed rather than absorbed.

Cone: Is pricing published?

Not in a form that can be quoted reliably. Expect a sales conversation before you can compare it on cost.

Share

Related pages

More on Cone

More on Ignition

Keep looking

Other head to heads