Build a tier map first
List each required behavior and mark whether Ace Grid Core, Pro, or Enterprise provides it. Core is MIT licensed; the Ace Grid pricing page currently lists Pro at $249 per developer per year and Enterprise at $699 per developer per year. Verify current terms before procurement.
Calculate three-year cost
Include paid developer seats, minimums, support, implementation, custom renderers, migration testing, training, renewal assumptions, and the cost of missing behavior. Apply the same worksheet to AG Grid using its current official quote or pricing terms.
Use cost as a constraint, not the conclusion
The cheaper option is not cheaper if it creates a rewrite, lacks a required row model, or increases operational risk. Choose the least expensive option that passes the workflow proof and ownership requirements.
Include commercial uncertainty
Vendor plans, prices, support, and terms can change. Record the date, quote, seat assumptions, renewal model, and deployment scope for every number. Run sensitivity scenarios for team growth and renewal increases. Avoid publishing an unsourced competitor total as permanent fact. The decision record should link to current vendor terms and state which assumptions require confirmation during procurement.
Run scenario analysis
Calculate a base case, team-growth case, renewal-increase case, and migration-overrun case. Include the possibility that the team stays with AG Grid for some screens while adopting Ace Grid for new workflows. Sensitivity analysis prevents one uncertain assumption from controlling the decision. It also shows which commercial or engineering facts must be confirmed before approval.
Connect cost to delivered value
Compare the workflows each option enables, the time required to deliver them, and the operational risk of each path. A lower price has little value if a critical workflow remains custom or unreliable. A more expensive option may be justified when it materially reduces engineering ownership or migration risk. Keep cost, capability, and evidence in the same decision record.
Use a three-year total-cost worksheet
Create rows for required tier, paid developer seats, minimum commitments, support, implementation, custom cells, migration, parity testing, training, procurement, annual renewal assumptions, and expected feature work. Add best, expected, and overrun scenarios. Apply the same worksheet to both vendors and keep links plus verification dates beside every commercial input. This makes price changes easy to update without rewriting the technical evaluation.
Calculate the migration break-even point
Estimate one-time migration and verification cost, then compare the annual difference between the two viable implementations. Divide the one-time cost by the expected annual saving only after both options pass the same workflow proof. If the payback period exceeds the product horizon, or migration introduces material delivery risk, staying with AG Grid can be financially rational even when Ace Grid has a lower listed license price.
Keep commercial inputs dated
Record vendor URL, review date, edition, currency, paid seats, minimums, support, deployment scope, renewal assumptions, and taxes or regional terms where relevant. Separate confirmed values from estimates. Ace Grid currently presents a free MIT Core plus paid Pro and Enterprise plans, but the pricing page remains the authoritative source. Use AG Grid's current official pricing or quote for the comparison.