Pricing
₹1,499 a plant lead, ₹799 a planner. Nothing per robot.
Not per robot, not per task, not per plan, not per kilowatt-hour. Priced on the people who plan the floor, because that is the number somebody can state without going to count machines — and because charging by the robot would put a price on coordinating one more of them.
Per plant lead
₹1,499per lead / month
For the people whose decision sends a plan to the robots. Everything in the product, every adapter, and the release step that nothing reaches the floor without.
- Fleet coordination across vendors: allocation, shared resources, replanning
- Production planning, materials, maintenance and energy-aware scheduling
- Simulation against your own layout before anything is released
- Releasing production plans and fleet-wide coordination changes
- Enabling an adapter to send tasks, per vendor and per site
Per planner seat
₹799per seat / month
The same workspace for everyone doing the planning. The same planner, the same simulation and the same floor view — and simply cannot release a plan to the floor.
- Manufacturing orders, schedules and materials
- The live fleet view, with the reason behind every assignment
- Simulating a plan or a coordination change against the layout
- Equipment monitoring, maintenance predictions and bottleneck reports
- Energy forecasts and schedules checked against the demand limit
What it comes to
A worked example, so nobody has to model it
Two plant leads and six planners — one plant running a mixed fleet — comes to ₹7,792 a month, or ₹77,920 a year billed annually.
Priced on people, not on machines
Coordinate as many robots, cells and lines as the floor has; the price does not move. A per-robot charge would put a price on adding one more machine to the plan, and a product whose case is that the whole floor should be planned at once cannot charge more for the floor being bigger.
Every module on every plan
No adapter, no simulation and no safety-related rule sits behind a higher tier. Putting simulation-before-release or the provenance of a dispatched task on an upgrade path would be indefensible in a product whose case is that an unreviewed plan on the floor is the thing it prevents.
A worked example
Two plant leads and six planners is ₹7,792 a month, or ₹77,920 a year billed at ten months. That sits inside a plant manager’s discretion rather than in a capital budget.
What this is competing with
Mostly a whiteboard, three vendor screens and a radio
Most plants with a mixed fleet are not choosing between two orchestration platforms. They are running each vendor’s fleet manager on its own screen, a production schedule in a spreadsheet, and a shift lead whose actual job is resolving the conflicts between them by radio. That is the incumbent, it appears on no budget line, and that is exactly why it survives.
| Legosphere Industrial — plant lead | ₹1,499 / lead / month | GST inclusive, billed in rupees |
|---|---|---|
| Legosphere Industrial — planner | ₹799 / seat / month | For the people who plan but do not release |
A product that is obviously worth more than it costs is the only way past a free incumbent. Pricing it as though it were competing with enterprise manufacturing suites would lose to the whiteboard every time.
- Seats are prorated when the team changes size, so a quiet quarter does not mean keeping dormant logins.
- Every module included at both tiers. No edition withholds simulation, the release step or task provenance.
- Unlimited robots, cells, tasks, plans and meters. Nothing is metered per machine or per kilowatt-hour.
- Annual billing is charged at ten months rather than twelve.
- Prices are inclusive of GST and shown in rupees; international billing is available in dollars.
- Past fifty seats, or for an on-premises deployment, the conversation is procurement and a site security review rather than a card form.
Questions
What people ask about the price
Mostly two: why not per robot, and what else will you charge for. The second answer is nothing.
No. A plant coordinating six robots and one coordinating six hundred pay the same per seat. The cost of serving them is not identical, but pricing on fleet size would reintroduce exactly the incentive the seat price exists to remove — a plant deciding to leave a machine out of the plan because adding it costs more. Past fifty seats the conversation becomes procurement rather than a card form, which is where the genuinely large operations land.
It would be the easier sell and it is the wrong incentive. A share of savings gives us an interest in baselines being generous and savings being large, and it means our fee falls exactly when your own operation improves. It also makes the price unpredictable in a month when the plant simply runs well. A seat price is boring, and it stays the same on the month the floor runs to plan, which is the month it has done its job.
Authority, not features. A planner gets the same planner, the same simulation, the same floor view and the same reports. What they cannot do is release a plan to the floor or enable an adapter to send tasks. Those boundaries are enforced where the query is built regardless of billing, so pricing them honestly costs us nothing — and pricing planners at the lead rate would push a plant into sharing logins, which in this product breaks attribution because a release is recorded against a named person.
No. Not robots, not tasks dispatched, not plans simulated, not adapters connected, not meter readings stored. The reason is behavioural rather than generous: the moment a simulation costs something, somebody skips one before a release, and that is precisely the change that needed simulating.
Neither, and for the same reason. Connecting to a production floor means a plant’s layout, volumes and equipment list sitting in an account — commercially sensitive data in an account nobody is paying for and nobody has had a conversation about. Every deployment starts with a call covering which vendors are on the floor and what their interfaces allow, because that decides the configuration before anything connects to a production network.
We do, and it is part of the price rather than a module. Vendors change their interfaces with firmware releases, and an adapter that has quietly fallen behind is worse than none, because it still reports a confident state. Keeping adapters current against the vendors on your floor is a standing cost with an owner and a review cadence.
Get in touch
Talk to the people building it
No chatbot and no ticket queue. Tell us what your floor actually looks like — the robots and who supplies them, the systems they already report to, and what you would like coordinated first — and someone who works on the software will reply.
info@legosphere.com