OnBoard

Name: OnBoard
Brand: OnBoard

We believe board meetings should be simple, secure, and effective.

Est 2003|Valuation $35M|Raised $118.2M|120 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 15K|Web traffic 145K|FTEs 244|HQ Indianapolis, Indiana, US

MarketsBoard Management Board Management Software

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- OnBoard vs Diligent: OnBoard is positioned to be easier to trial and potentially less expensive, with a focus on user experience and customer support. Diligent is presented as an enterprise governance platform with broader suite integration and typically higher total cost of ownership. - OnBoard vs Boardable: Boardable’s advantages are transparent pricing and rapid self-serve onboarding. OnBoard’s advantages include certification claims and a focus on director usability. - OnBoard vs Convene (Azeus): Convene uses quote-based pricing on its official pages, though third-party listings sometimes cite lower nonprofit pricing. OnBoard differentiates on usability and North American mid-market presence.

Customer commentary comparing competitors

Vendor comparison materials reference reviewers who switched from larger enterprise portals to OnBoard for cost and usability reasons; these statements should be evaluated in context.
Community feedback suggests some nonprofits prefer lower-cost portals based on perceived value.

	OnBoard	Diligent Boards	Boardable
Starting Price	Not fully public; vendor materials present a leadership package at a low-thousands price point for small boards; many sources describe quote-based annual pricing	Public pricing is generally not listed; costs vary widely depending on size/features	Public, transparent per-user pricing (billed annually)
Most suitable for	Mid-market to enterprise organizations seeking certified security posture and director-oriented UX	Larger enterprises and public companies with complex compliance needs and larger budgets	Nonprofits and smaller organizations seeking transparent pricing and self-serve onboarding
Key Strengths	Usability for directors; documented security certifications; board book and governance workflows	Broad governance suite and enterprise scale; integration with larger governance ecosystems	Transparent pricing, quick start, accessible feature set
Key Weaknesses	Price sensitivity and renewal/billing complaints reported; some admin workflow gaps (RSVP); integrations not always complete	Cost and implementation complexity; may be more than needed for smaller organizations	May lack some enterprise governance features and certification disclosures compared with larger portals

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

OnBoard vs Diligent: OnBoard is positioned to be easier to trial and potentially less expensive, with a focus on user experience and customer support. Diligent is presented as an enterprise governance platform with broader suite integration and typically higher total cost of ownership.
OnBoard vs Boardable: Boardable’s advantages are transparent pricing and rapid self-serve onboarding. OnBoard’s advantages include certification claims and a focus on director usability.
OnBoard vs Convene (Azeus): Convene uses quote-based pricing on its official pages, though third-party listings sometimes cite lower nonprofit pricing. OnBoard differentiates on usability and North American mid-market presence.

Customer commentary comparing competitors

Vendor comparison materials reference reviewers who switched from larger enterprise portals to OnBoard for cost and usability reasons; these statements should be evaluated in context.
Community feedback suggests some nonprofits prefer lower-cost portals based on perceived value.

	OnBoard	Diligent Boards	Boardable
Starting Price	Not fully public; vendor materials present a leadership package at a low-thousands price point for small boards; many sources describe quote-based annual pricing	Public pricing is generally not listed; costs vary widely depending on size/features	Public, transparent per-user pricing (billed annually)
Most suitable for	Mid-market to enterprise organizations seeking certified security posture and director-oriented UX	Larger enterprises and public companies with complex compliance needs and larger budgets	Nonprofits and smaller organizations seeking transparent pricing and self-serve onboarding
Key Strengths	Usability for directors; documented security certifications; board book and governance workflows	Broad governance suite and enterprise scale; integration with larger governance ecosystems	Transparent pricing, quick start, accessible feature set
Key Weaknesses	Price sensitivity and renewal/billing complaints reported; some admin workflow gaps (RSVP); integrations not always complete	Cost and implementation complexity; may be more than needed for smaller organizations	May lack some enterprise governance features and certification disclosures compared with larger portals