Most comp plan debates happen with a spreadsheet nobody trusts and a gut feeling about "affordability." This tool runs the actual maths: it takes your team's quota mix and a realistic spread of attainment across the team, then prices out up to three plan designs — base/variable split, accelerator, payout cap — against the exact same team. You get total plan cost, cost as a % of the revenue that team generates, a payout histogram showing where people actually land, and a side-by-side comparison so you can see what a richer accelerator or a lower base really costs before you commit to it.
Enter your team's quota mix first — how many reps, and roughly what split between new/ramping, core, and senior/enterprise reps with their annual quotas. Then set the attainment mix you'd realistically expect (the four bands don't need to add to exactly 100%; they're normalised automatically). Fill in up to three plan variants (OTE, base % of OTE, accelerator above 100%, and an optional payout cap) — leave a plan's OTE at 0 to drop it from the comparison. Use the "Show payout histogram for" selector to see where that specific plan lands people on pay, and check the comparison table underneath to see all filled-in variants costed side by side against the same team.
Tools like this describe good practice. They can't tell you which of your reps actually have the skill, or in what order to build it. That's what The Mastery Standard does: 27 frameworks, 54 competencies, every rubric cell written, every assessment human-signed-off.