```json
{
    "title": "Route optimization API pricing: 2026 comparison",
    "url": "https://kardinal.ai/route-optimization-api-pricing-2026-comparison/",
    "datePublished": "2026-09-18",
    "dateModified": "2026-09-25",
    "language": "en-GB",
    "description": "Which route optimization APIs publish their pricing? A comparison of 11 solutions, with rates, free tiers, and worked examples.",
    "author": "Kardinal",
    "publisher": "Kardinal"
}
```

# Route optimization API pricing: 2026 comparison

# Route optimization API pricing: 2026 comparison

> **In short:** Of the eleven APIs compared in this guide, only four publish a pricing grid you can actually use without talking to sales. Kardinal is one of them, billing per optimized stop starting at €0.012, with a 1,000-stop free tier.

- **11** APIs assessed on pricing transparency
- **4/11** publish a usable price with no quote required
- **€0.012** Kardinal's rate, among the lowest in the panel at equivalent functional coverage

The price shown on a website is almost never the price paid. Most route optimization APIs sell on quote, with a rate that depends on volume, sector, and the buyer's negotiating leverage. This guide gathers what's publicly verifiable, flags what isn't, and explains where to look for a real pricing signal before picking up the phone.

> **This guide complements the [full functional comparison](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api/)**, which scores every solution against 149 real-world constraints. Price and functional coverage never read well in isolation: a low rate on a solution that doesn't cover your critical constraints always ends up costing more.

## What "free to test" actually means

Almost every vendor in this comparison puts a phrase like "free tier" or "free trial" on their homepage. That phrase covers three very different realities:

- **A real self-serve free tier**: a defined volume (stops, requests, or vehicles) accessible with no credit card and no sales conversation, with the same features as the paid plan.
- **A time-limited trial**: full access for 14 or 30 days, then a mandatory switch to a negotiated paid plan.
- **A demo on request**: access that only exists after a sales contact, often labeled "free" even though it's a standard sales cycle.

Only the first category lets you validate a use case without committing budget or sales time. That's the criterion that actually separates the pricing models in this comparison.

## Publicly verifiable pricing

**Kardinal** — Billed per optimized stop, starting at **€0.012 per stop**, with volume discounts. The first 1,000 stops are free to cover the integration phase, with no time limit. A stop is billed only once, no matter how many times it's re-optimized within a 24-hour window: recalculating a plan several times a day costs nothing extra. No per-vehicle, per-user, or per-API-call charges.

**GraphHopper** — Published tiered pricing by monthly requests, with a limited free level. Open source at its core: a self-hosted version remains an option for anyone who'd rather host the engine themselves than pay a subscription, at the cost of infrastructure and maintenance carried by the operator.

**Routific** — Monthly subscription pricing based on active vehicle count, published on the website. Clearly positioned as entry-level, consistent with its limited functional coverage (23% in our benchmark).

**Timefold** — The underlying solver exists as an open source, self-hostable Community Edition. The commercial offering (managed API, support, advanced features) goes through a quote.

**Mapbox** — Published usage-based pricing across the whole Mapbox platform, of which route optimization is one module among others. The real cost depends heavily on which other Mapbox services an operator already uses.

## Quote-only pricing

**Solvice, LogisticsOS, HERE, Google, NextBillion AI, and Verso** don't publish a usable pricing grid for route optimization at this level of detail. Going through a sales contact is required to get a number, which makes any public comparison approximate by construction. A few markers based on their positioning:

- **HERE and Google** build on already-public mapping pricing grids (API calls, monthly credits), but route optimization itself is billed separately, generally on quote for professional volumes.
- **Solvice and LogisticsOS** target enterprise accounts and negotiate case by case, with cost structures that can include fixed integration fees on top of usage-based pricing.
- **NextBillion AI** publishes pricing for part of its mapping platform, but not for the route optimization module specifically.
- **Verso** shares no public pricing indication to date.

## How to compare per-stop pricing to a fixed subscription

Billing models aren't all expressed in the same unit, which makes a direct comparison misleading unless you bring everything down to the same denominator.

**Worked example.** An operator running 20 vehicles at roughly 150 stops per vehicle per day, over 22 working days, processes around 66,000 stops a month.

- At Kardinal, at €0.012/stop: roughly **€792 a month**, re-optimizations included.
- On a fixed per-vehicle subscription, that same volume can cost more or less depending on whether the per-vehicle price includes a request cap, and whether mid-day re-optimizations count as extra calls.

The point to check systematically before comparing two offers: **does re-optimizing an already-planned route cost anything?** Under a per-request or per-API-call billing model, recalculating several times a day can multiply the real bill well above the headline rate.

## Our verdict

**You want to test before any budget commitment**
Kardinal, GraphHopper (self-hosted), and Timefold (Community Edition) are the only three solutions in the panel that allow a full test with no sales contact and no credit card.

**You run a small fleet on a tight budget**
Routific and Mapbox remain the most predictable entry-level options on price, with the caveat already flagged in the [full guide](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api/) about their limited functional coverage.

**You need to trade off coverage against price**
This is where price alone isn't enough: a cheap subscription on a solution that doesn't cover your critical constraints (see our [sector-by-sector comparison](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api/)) ends up costing more in manual rework hours than the price gap suggests.

## Run the numbers on your own volumes

Create a free account, send your real data, and see the exact price before you commit to anything.

**[Start with the free tier →](https://console.kardinal.ai/)** · **[Read the documentation](https://developers.kardinal.ai/)** · **[See the full benchmark](https://kardinal.ai/benchmark-route-optimization-api-2026/)**

## FAQ

### Which route optimization API is the cheapest?

It depends on volume and the billing model chosen. For small fleets, Routific or Mapbox remain competitive on a fixed subscription. For larger volumes with frequent re-optimizations, per-stop billing like Kardinal's (starting at €0.012/stop, re-optimizations included) generally becomes more favorable, since it doesn't penalize recalculating a plan mid-day.

### Is there a free route optimization API?

No solution in this comparison is free for unlimited professional use. GraphHopper and Timefold offer self-hostable open source versions with no license cost, but infrastructure and maintenance remain the operator's responsibility. Kardinal offers a self-serve free tier of 1,000 stops, enough to validate a full integration without spending a cent.

### Why do some route optimization APIs not publish their pricing?

Vendors positioned on the enterprise market (Solvice, LogisticsOS, HERE, Google, NextBillion AI) often bill on quote because the price depends on factors negotiated case by case: guaranteed volume, support level, contract length. The absence of a public grid is a signal worth weighing: it mechanically extends how long it takes to know whether a solution fits your budget.

### How does per-stop billing compare to a per-vehicle subscription?

A per-vehicle subscription charges a fixed amount regardless of how many stops are actually processed, which can disadvantage low-density routes. Per-stop billing, like Kardinal's, aligns cost with actual usage, provided you check whether re-optimizations are included or billed separately.

## Going further

- [Full guide to the best route optimization APIs](https://kardinal.ai/best-route-optimization-api/) — The functional comparison across 149 constraints, all sectors.
- [2026 Benchmark](https://kardinal.ai/benchmark-route-optimization-api-2026/) — Raw data and full methodology.