ASF Payment Solutions

Name: ASF Payment Solutions
Brand: ASF Payment Solutions

Helping owners build strong communities since 1973

Est 1973|13 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 991|Website|FTEs 115|HQ Englewood, Colorado, US

MarketsSubscription Management & Recurring Billing Invoicing & Payment Processing

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | ASF Payment Solutions | Mindbody | ABC Glofox | |--------|----------------------|---------|-----------| | Starting Price | Quote-based; not publicly listed | Published starting pricing (vendor-sourced) | Published starting pricing (vendor-sourced) | | Best For | Gyms/studios prioritizing billing collections and fitness-specific member billing workflows | Studios needing scheduling and marketplace/discovery integration | Boutiques and gyms wanting app-first member experiences and lead capture | | Key Strength | Fitness-vertical billing and collections posture; member self-service; migration emphasis (vendor claims) | Brand recognition; broader feature surface and marketplace ecosystem | Transparent advertised starting pricing; modern app-first positioning | | Key Weakness | Pricing opacity; limited independent/analyst validation; mixed signals in complaints | Operator complaints online about pricing complexity and upsells | Optional add-ons can increase total price; verify included features | - Direct competitors and differentiators - ASF vs Mindbody - ASF presents a billing- and collections-centric approach and emphasizes tenure in gym billing; Mindbody emphasizes an all-in-one platform plus a marketplace exposure model. - ASF vs ABC Glofox - Glofox publishes starting pricing and positions itself on transparent pricing and reliability; ASF is quote-based and focuses on billing/collections. - ASF vs Zen Planner - Zen Planner is often described in third-party sources as publishing a public starting price, with add-ons for marketing, websites, and apps that can increase total spend. ASF presents differing packaging and inclusion claims; prospective buyers should verify contract inclusions. - Pricing comparison (value proposition vs alternatives) - Competitors with public starting points reduce buyer uncertainty. ASF’s quote-based approach can be suitable for mid-market or enterprise deals but increases procurement friction for small gyms. - Customer testimonials comparing ASF to competitors - Direct comparative quotes were not found in the sources reviewed. - Market share and adoption trends - No high-quality, independently verified market share data was found in the sources reviewed.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	ASF Payment Solutions	Mindbody	ABC Glofox
Starting Price	Quote-based; not publicly listed	Published starting pricing (vendor-sourced)	Published starting pricing (vendor-sourced)
Best For	Gyms/studios prioritizing billing collections and fitness-specific member billing workflows	Studios needing scheduling and marketplace/discovery integration	Boutiques and gyms wanting app-first member experiences and lead capture
Key Strength	Fitness-vertical billing and collections posture; member self-service; migration emphasis (vendor claims)	Brand recognition; broader feature surface and marketplace ecosystem	Transparent advertised starting pricing; modern app-first positioning
Key Weakness	Pricing opacity; limited independent/analyst validation; mixed signals in complaints	Operator complaints online about pricing complexity and upsells	Optional add-ons can increase total price; verify included features

Direct competitors and differentiators
- ASF vs Mindbody
  - ASF presents a billing- and collections-centric approach and emphasizes tenure in gym billing; Mindbody emphasizes an all-in-one platform plus a marketplace exposure model.
- ASF vs ABC Glofox
  - Glofox publishes starting pricing and positions itself on transparent pricing and reliability; ASF is quote-based and focuses on billing/collections.
- ASF vs Zen Planner
  - Zen Planner is often described in third-party sources as publishing a public starting price, with add-ons for marketing, websites, and apps that can increase total spend. ASF presents differing packaging and inclusion claims; prospective buyers should verify contract inclusions.
Pricing comparison (value proposition vs alternatives)
- Competitors with public starting points reduce buyer uncertainty. ASF’s quote-based approach can be suitable for mid-market or enterprise deals but increases procurement friction for small gyms.
Customer testimonials comparing ASF to competitors
- Direct comparative quotes were not found in the sources reviewed.
Market share and adoption trends
- No high-quality, independently verified market share data was found in the sources reviewed.

Aspect

ASF Payment Solutions

Mindbody

ABC Glofox

Starting Price

Quote-based; not publicly listed

Published starting pricing (vendor-sourced)

Best For

Gyms/studios prioritizing billing collections and fitness-specific member billing workflows

Studios needing scheduling and marketplace/discovery integration

Boutiques and gyms wanting app-first member experiences and lead capture

Key Strength

Fitness-vertical billing and collections posture; member self-service; migration emphasis (vendor claims)

Brand recognition; broader feature surface and marketplace ecosystem

Transparent advertised starting pricing; modern app-first positioning

Key Weakness

Pricing opacity; limited independent/analyst validation; mixed signals in complaints

Operator complaints online about pricing complexity and upsells

Optional add-ons can increase total price; verify included features