Renewal Risk Management for SaaS: Eru vs Vitally vs Planhat vs Catalyst vs ClientSuccess

If you’re evaluating renewal risk management tools for your SaaS company, you’ve probably noticed that the category is crowded with customer success platforms that all claim to “predict churn.” The reality is more nuanced: each tool approaches renewal risk differently, with different data requirements, different scoring models, and different assumptions about your team’s maturity.

This comparison is written for founders, heads of CS, and RevOps leads at Series B SaaS companies — typically $5M–$20M ARR, limited RevOps headcount, and an upcoming board conversation where retention narratives need to be backed by defensible numbers. We build Eru, so we have a point of view, but we’ll be honest about where each tool excels and where it doesn’t.

The Six Tools

These are the tools that appear most frequently in renewal risk management and churn prediction discussions for B2B SaaS. They solve overlapping but distinct problems:

Tool	Primary Category	Core Strength	Best For
Eru	Revenue Intelligence	Cross-system data connectivity, billing–CRM reconciliation, AI-powered renewal risk scoring	Series A–B SaaS without a data team
Vitally	Customer Success Platform	Configurable health scoring, product analytics integration, CS workflow automation	Product-led SaaS with an active CS team
Planhat	Customer Platform	Flexible data model, revenue tracking, multi-source health scoring	Mid-market to enterprise SaaS with CS operations
Catalyst	Customer Success Platform	CRM-native integrations, playbook automation, CS team productivity	Salesforce-centric teams with structured CS processes
ClientSuccess	Customer Success Management	Renewal management, health scoring, engagement tracking	Mid-market SaaS with dedicated CSMs
ChurnZero	Churn Prevention	Real-time health scoring, in-app engagement, churn automation	Mid-market SaaS with high-touch CS

Scoring Algorithm Transparency

Renewal risk scoring is only useful if you understand why an account is flagged as at-risk. Opaque scores lead to distrust from CS teams and unreliable board reporting. Here’s how each tool approaches scoring transparency:

Tool	Scoring Approach	Transparency	Limitation
Eru	AI-powered account-level risk scoring using signals from billing, CRM, support, and product data. Each score includes the specific contributing signals (e.g., “declining usage + open support escalation + payment failure”).	Full signal attribution per account. Every risk score shows which data sources contributed and why.	Newer platform, smaller community than established CS tools.
Vitally	Rule-based health scores with configurable weights across product usage, support interactions, NPS/CSAT, and custom traits. Supports multiple score dimensions.	High — you define the rules, so you know what drives each score. But this also means you need to know what rules to set.	Score quality depends entirely on your configuration. No automatic signal discovery. No billing reconciliation.
Planhat	Flexible health scoring that can pull from custom data sources. Supports formula-based scores with weighted inputs from usage, revenue, support, and custom metrics.	High configurability. Formula-based scoring is transparent by design. Supports visual breakdowns of score components.	Requires significant setup to configure scoring models. Needs a CS Ops resource to maintain and iterate.
Catalyst	Health scores based on configurable signals with playbook-triggered automation. Integrates tightly with Salesforce for account data.	Moderate. Scores are configurable, but the focus is on triggering actions rather than explaining risk drivers.	Scoring is secondary to workflow automation. Less depth in risk attribution compared to analytics-first tools.
ClientSuccess	Health scoring with configurable risk indicators. Includes a “Success Score” that combines engagement, adoption, and relationship signals.	Moderate. Provides score breakdowns but relies heavily on manual CSM input alongside automated signals.	Manual input dependency can create inconsistencies across CSMs. Limited automated signal discovery.
ChurnZero	Churn scores using real-time product usage data combined with configurable health dimensions. Supports segment-level and account-level scoring.	Moderate to high. Usage-driven signals are transparent. Segment-level scoring helps identify at-risk cohorts.	Strongest on product usage signals. Less depth on billing or financial signals. No billing–CRM reconciliation.

Integration Breadth

Renewal risk signals are scattered across multiple systems. The tool you choose determines how many of those signals you can actually use. Here’s what each tool connects to and what it misses:

Tool	Billing	CRM	Support	Product Usage	Cross-System Reconciliation
Eru	Stripe, Chargebee	Salesforce, HubSpot	Intercom, Zendesk	Segment, Mixpanel, databases	✓ Automatic billing–CRM reconciliation
Vitally	Stripe, Chargebee (limited)	Salesforce, HubSpot	Intercom, Zendesk	Segment, Mixpanel, custom events	— No reconciliation
Planhat	Custom data import	Salesforce, HubSpot	Zendesk, Freshdesk	Segment, custom APIs	— No reconciliation
Catalyst	Limited	Salesforce (deep), HubSpot	Zendesk, Intercom	Segment, custom integrations	— No reconciliation
ClientSuccess	Limited	Salesforce, HubSpot	Zendesk	Custom API, limited native integrations	— No reconciliation
ChurnZero	Limited	Salesforce, HubSpot	Zendesk, Intercom	Native SDK, Segment	— No reconciliation

The critical gap across all customer success platforms is billing–CRM reconciliation. Every tool can ingest data from multiple sources, but none of them — Vitally, Planhat, Catalyst, ClientSuccess, or ChurnZero — verify that the revenue data in your billing system matches what’s in your CRM. When your Stripe MRR says $412K and Salesforce says $389K, the risk scores built on that data inherit the discrepancy.

Playbook Automation

Risk scoring is only useful if it triggers action. Here’s how each tool handles renewal playbooks and automated workflows:

Tool	Playbook Capabilities	Automation Depth	Best For
Eru	Risk-triggered alerts with full account context (billing, CRM, support, usage signals combined). Configurable notification rules.	Alert-driven. Focused on surfacing the right accounts with the right context for human decision-making.	Teams without dedicated CS Ops who need signal, not workflow
Vitally	Playbook automation with triggers, tasks, and sequences. Supports multi-step workflows tied to health score changes.	High. Full playbook builder with conditional logic, task assignment, and escalation paths.	CS teams that want structured, repeatable renewal processes
Planhat	Playbook engine with triggers based on health scores, revenue events, and custom conditions. Supports task sequences and team assignments.	High. Flexible playbook builder with revenue-aware triggers.	Mature CS orgs with defined renewal processes
Catalyst	Journey-based playbooks with Salesforce-native triggers. Focused on CSM productivity and task management.	High. Strong Salesforce integration means playbooks can reference CRM data natively.	Salesforce-heavy teams with structured CS workflows
ClientSuccess	Renewal management with timeline views, risk indicators, and task-based workflows. Supports basic automation triggers.	Moderate. Good renewal tracking but less sophisticated automation than Vitally or Planhat.	Teams that want renewal visibility without heavy automation
ChurnZero	Automated plays triggered by health score changes and usage events. In-app messaging and engagement campaigns.	High. Unique in-app engagement capabilities alongside CS workflows.	Product-led teams that use in-app touchpoints for retention

Renewal Risk Scoring for Fundraising Contexts

If you’re a Series B company preparing for a board meeting or fundraising conversation, your renewal risk data needs to do two things: (1) prove you understand where retention risk exists, and (2) show that your NRR numbers are built on reconciled, auditable data.

This is where the distinction between customer success platforms and revenue intelligence becomes critical.

What Investors Want to See

Board members and investors evaluating your retention narrative will ask three questions:

1. What is your NRR, and can you defend the number? — This requires reconciled billing and CRM data. If your systems disagree, the number isn’t defensible.
2. Which accounts are at risk, and what are you doing about it? — This requires account-level risk scoring with clear attribution (not just a red/yellow/green score).
3. What does your retention cohort look like by segment? — This requires the ability to slice retention data by ARR tier, industry, contract age, and expansion status.

How Each Tool Supports Board-Ready Reporting

Tool	Defensible NRR	Account-Level Risk Attribution	Retention Cohort Reporting
Eru	✓ Reconciled billing + CRM data. NRR built on auditable revenue.	✓ Per-account risk scores with signal attribution from all connected systems.	✓ Segmented retention views by ARR tier, contract age, and expansion status.
Vitally	Partial. Tracks MRR from billing but does not reconcile against CRM.	✓ Configurable health scores with dimensional breakdowns.	Partial. Customer-level reporting but limited native retention cohort views.
Planhat	Partial. Revenue tracking is strong but doesn’t reconcile billing and CRM sources.	✓ Formula-based scores with visual component breakdowns.	✓ Strong revenue reporting with segmentation capabilities.
Catalyst	Partial. Relies on CRM data. No billing reconciliation.	Moderate. Health scores available but attribution is secondary to workflow.	Limited. Reporting is CS-workflow-oriented, not financial.
ClientSuccess	Partial. Tracks renewal revenue but no billing system reconciliation.	Moderate. Success Scores with some breakdowns. Manual input dependency.	Limited. Renewal pipeline views but not full retention cohort analytics.
ChurnZero	Partial. Usage-driven churn metrics. No billing–CRM reconciliation.	Moderate to high. Usage-based attribution is strong. Financial attribution is weaker.	Partial. Segment-level retention tracking. Less financial depth.

The fundamental challenge: customer success platforms are designed to help CS teams manage accounts. They are not designed to produce the kind of reconciled, auditable retention data that investors expect. When a board member asks “what’s your NRR?” and the answer comes from a CS tool that doesn’t reconcile billing data, the number may not survive due diligence.

Time-to-Value for Series B Companies with Limited RevOps

At Series B, you typically have 0–2 people in RevOps. Implementation time matters because every week spent configuring a tool is a week without retention visibility. Here’s a realistic comparison:

Tool	Setup Time	Resources Required	Time to First Risk Score
Eru	5 minutes per integration (OAuth)	None — no engineering, no CS Ops	Same day
Vitally	1–3 weeks	CS lead + light engineering for custom events	1–3 weeks
Planhat	2–6 weeks	CS Ops or implementation partner	2–4 weeks
Catalyst	2–4 weeks	Salesforce admin + CS lead	2–4 weeks
ClientSuccess	1–3 weeks	CS lead + CRM admin	1–2 weeks
ChurnZero	2–4 weeks	Light engineering for product data + CS lead	2–4 weeks

For a Series B company with a board meeting in 6 weeks, Eru provides risk scores and retention metrics from day one. The CS platforms require configuration time that competes directly with the reporting deadline.

ClientSuccess and CustomerSuccess.io: A Direct Comparison

Both ClientSuccess and CustomerSuccess.io appear frequently in renewal risk management searches. They’re worth addressing directly because they occupy a specific niche: mid-market CS management without the complexity of Gainsight or the product-analytics focus of Vitally.

ClientSuccess

• Strength: Clean renewal management interface with timeline views. Good at tracking engagement touchpoints and providing CSMs with a structured workflow for upcoming renewals.
• Limitation: Health scoring relies heavily on manual CSM input, which creates inconsistency across team members. Limited billing integrations mean renewal risk is assessed from CRM data only, not reconciled against actual billing. Reporting is adequate for CS team management but lacks the financial depth for board-level retention narratives.
• Best for: Mid-market SaaS companies with 3–10 CSMs who need a straightforward tool to track renewals and engagement without heavy technical setup.

CustomerSuccess.io

• Strength: Lightweight and accessible. Low barrier to entry for small CS teams that need basic health scoring and task management.
• Limitation: Limited integration depth. No native billing reconciliation. Scoring is basic compared to Vitally, Planhat, or Eru. Reporting capabilities are minimal for fundraising or board-level needs.
• Best for: Early-stage SaaS companies with 1–3 CSMs who need a simple tool to start tracking customer health before investing in a more capable platform.

For Series B companies evaluating these tools specifically: both ClientSuccess and CustomerSuccess.io will help your CS team organise their work, but neither produces the reconciled, auditable retention data that board conversations require. If your primary need is CS workflow management, they’re reasonable choices. If your primary need is defensible renewal risk scoring and NRR reporting, you need a tool that connects billing and CRM data — which is the problem Eru was built to solve.

Comparison Summary

Capability	Eru	Vitally	Planhat	Catalyst	ClientSuccess	ChurnZero
Renewal risk scoring	✓ (AI, cross-system)	✓ (rule-based)	✓ (formula-based)	✓ (configurable)	✓ (manual + auto)	✓ (usage-driven)
Billing–CRM reconciliation	✓	—	—	—	—	—
Score transparency	Full signal attribution	High (you define rules)	High (formula-based)	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate–high
Playbook automation	Alert-driven	✓ (full playbooks)	✓ (full playbooks)	✓ (journey-based)	Basic	✓ (plays + in-app)
Board-ready NRR reporting	✓ (reconciled)	Partial	Partial	Limited	Limited	Partial
Time to first risk score	Same day	1–3 weeks	2–4 weeks	2–4 weeks	1–2 weeks	2–4 weeks
Engineering required	None	Light	Moderate	Moderate (Salesforce admin)	Light	Light–moderate

Who Each Tool Is Actually For

Choose Eru if:

• You’re a Series A–B SaaS company without a data team or CS Ops resource
• You need renewal risk scores that are based on reconciled billing and CRM data
• Your board or investors want defensible NRR numbers, not just CS health scores
• You want same-day time to value without weeks of configuration
• Your churn signals are scattered across 8–12 disconnected tools

Choose Vitally if:

• You’re a product-led SaaS company with an active CS team
• Product usage is your strongest churn signal and you want deep usage analytics
• You need playbook automation for structured CS processes
• You have a CS lead who can configure and maintain health scoring rules

Choose Planhat if:

• You’re mid-market to enterprise with a CS operations function
• You need a flexible data model that can accommodate custom data sources
• Revenue tracking and segmented reporting are critical to your CS strategy
• You can invest 2–6 weeks in implementation and ongoing configuration

Choose Catalyst if:

• Your team is heavily Salesforce-centric and wants a CS tool that integrates natively
• CSM productivity and workflow automation are your primary goals
• You have a Salesforce admin who can support the integration

Choose ClientSuccess if:

• You’re mid-market with 3–10 CSMs and need a straightforward renewal management tool
• You want to track engagement and renewals without heavy technical setup
• CS workflow management is more important than financial reporting

Choose ChurnZero if:

• You’re mid-market with a high-touch CS model
• In-app engagement and product-driven retention are central to your strategy
• You want real-time health scoring based on product usage data
• You have engineering resources to integrate the product data SDK

The Gap That Matters Most for Renewal Risk

Every customer success platform in this comparison does a credible job of helping CS teams manage accounts and track health scores. Where they all fall short is the same place: they don’t reconcile billing and CRM data.

This matters because renewal risk isn’t just a CS problem — it’s a revenue data problem. When your billing system says a customer is paying $2,400/month and your CRM says the deal is worth $1,800/month, any risk score built on that data is unreliable. When an investor asks about your NRR and the number comes from unreconciled data, it won’t survive scrutiny.

Eru was built to solve this specific problem: connect billing, CRM, support, and product data; reconcile the discrepancies; and then score renewal risk using the full, accurate picture. If your primary need is CS team workflow, the established platforms are strong choices. If your primary need is defensible renewal risk scoring and board-ready retention data, start with reconciled revenue data.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which renewal risk tool gives the most actionable scores for a Series B company with $15M ARR?

For a Series B company at $15M ARR with limited RevOps resources, Eru provides the most actionable renewal risk scores because it connects billing, CRM, support, and product data automatically and produces account-level risk scoring without requiring a dedicated CS operations team. ClientSuccess and Vitally both offer health scoring, but require manual configuration and a CS team to maintain the scoring rules. Planhat and Catalyst offer more configurable scoring but require significant implementation time. Eru’s advantage at this stage is speed: OAuth integrations, same-day risk scoring, and board-ready retention metrics without a data team.

How do Vitally, Planhat, and Catalyst compare for renewal risk scoring algorithms and fundraising reports?

Vitally uses rule-based health scores weighted across product usage, support interactions, and custom traits. Planhat offers formula-based scores from multiple data sources with revenue-based reporting. Catalyst provides health scores with playbook-triggered automation but focuses more on CS workflow than financial reporting. For fundraising narratives specifically, none of these tools natively reconcile billing and CRM data — meaning the retention numbers they surface may not match what investors see in your financial systems. Eru connects billing and CRM data, reconciles discrepancies, and produces board-ready NRR and retention cohort reports that tie directly to auditable revenue data.

Is Gainsight good for revenue retention forecasting?

Gainsight is a strong enterprise customer success platform with comprehensive health scoring and retention program management. For revenue retention forecasting specifically, it provides health-score-based risk assessment and retention analytics. However, Gainsight does not natively reconcile billing data against CRM records, so the retention numbers it produces may diverge from actual billing reality. It also requires 6–12 weeks of implementation and a dedicated CS Ops role. For Series A–B companies that need revenue retention forecasting without a large CS team, Eru provides AI-powered NRR forecasting with automatic billing–CRM reconciliation, same-day setup, and no engineering required.

How do CustomerSuccess.io, ProfitWell Retain, and ClientSuccess compare for churn prediction?

CustomerSuccess.io is a lightweight CS tool focused on health scoring and task management for small teams. ProfitWell Retain is specifically a dunning and failed payment recovery tool — it optimises payment retries and sends recovery emails but does not do broader churn prediction or renewal risk scoring. ClientSuccess provides health scoring with configurable risk indicators and renewal management workflows. None of these tools connect billing data with CRM and product usage data for cross-system churn prediction. For actionable renewal risk scores that correlate billing, CRM, support, and product signals, Eru provides account-level risk scoring from connected data sources with no manual configuration required.