Xurrent IMR Pricing Overview

Free Trial

Xurrent IMR Pricing Key Insights

Last updated on Apr 09, 2026

Xurrent IMR offers 3 pricing editions, starting from $5 to $15 . Xurrent IMR pricing tiers are designed to support different usage levels and team sizes. Xurrent IMR also offers a free trial. Compare the Xurrent IMR pricing table below to figure out the best fit for your needs. Some plans may require you to contact Xurrent for custom pricing.

Growth — $15 / per user per month

Starter — $5 / per user per month

Rated 4.5 / 5

*Pricing information is supplied by the software provider or retrieved from publicly accessible pricing materials. Final cost negotiations must be conducted with the seller.

Enterprise

Custom

Single Sign-on, custom Incident priorities, SLA alerts, enterprise integrations, premium support

Growth

$15

per user per month

Incident management for advanced teams with end-to-end incident command system, playbooks, custom alert routing, roles, SSO and priority support

Starter

per user per month

Incident alerting and escalation with automated comms and superior context.

Xurrent IMR (formerly Zenduty) offers end-to-end incident alerting and management capabilities at a fraction of the cost of our competitors. Zenduty is perfect for small and large teams looking to scale their operations while maintaining reliability and meeting their SLAs.

Pricing information for Xurrent IMR is supplied by the software provider or retrieved from publicly accessible pricing materials. Final cost negotiations to purchase Xurrent IMR must be conducted with the seller.

Pricing information was last updated on December 03, 2025

Xurrent IMR Pricing FAQs

Generated using AI

According to G2 reviewers, Xurrent IMR's pricing is best suited for mid-market companies in technology-adjacent industries such as computer software, information technology, financial services, and healthcare. The $5 Starter tier appeals to small businesses needing reliable alerting without complexity, while the $15 Growth tier is frequently praised by mid-market engineering and DevOps teams managing on-call rotations and escalation policies. G2 reviews of Xurrent IMR indicate enterprise users with large-scale monitoring needs and compliance requirements gravitate toward the custom Enterprise tier. Teams migrating from PagerDuty or OpsGenie and seeking cost savings without sacrificing core incident management functionality are particularly well-served by Xurrent IMR's pricing structure.

Xurrent IMR does not offer a permanent free tier but provides a free trial for evaluation. The entry-level Starter plan at $5 includes incident alerting, escalation, automated communications, and contextual insights. Upgrading to Xurrent IMR's Growth plan at $15 unlocks an end-to-end incident command system, playbooks, custom alert routing, defined roles, SSO, and priority support. G2 reviewers note that free plan limits around call and SMS usage can feel restrictive, and several users mention that advanced features like custom routing and escalation policies require paid tiers. Xurrent IMR's Enterprise plan adds custom priorities, SLA alerts, enterprise integrations, and premium support via custom pricing.

G2 reviewers of Xurrent IMR consistently highlight competitive pricing as a key strength, with multiple users noting it costs significantly less than alternatives like PagerDuty and OpsGenie. The $5 Starter tier is praised for delivering solid alerting and escalation capabilities, while the $15 Growth tier is frequently cited as offering strong value for advanced teams needing playbooks, custom routing, and SSO. Some reviewers mention that advanced features are gated behind higher tiers, and a few note per-user pricing can feel steep for larger teams. Overall, Xurrent IMR's pricing is viewed favorably, especially for mid-sized teams seeking a cost-effective PagerDuty alternative.

Top-Rated Alternatives

SolarWinds IT Incident Response (Squadcast)

Jira Service Management

4.3/5

(959)

View All Alternatives

Xurrent IMR Pricing Reviews

(2)

Ryan S.

System Administrator

Small-Business (50 or fewer emp.)

8/14/2025

"Easy to implement into existing workflows."

5/5

What do you like best about Xurrent IMR?

The support was super useful with generally under 5 minute response times. There is lots of documentation to help me implement automatic incidents. The UI is simple and generally easy to navigate around and its something where you can just configure once and then only need to access again when an incident occurs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Xurrent IMR?

Schedules are confusing to implement, especially with staff in different countries (had to make a schedule per country). For example setting a 9-5 schedule requires both setting shift length and restricting the layer to specific times of the day. Additionally don't like how some features are restricted to higher tired plans. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Raghav A.

DevOps Engineer

Mid-Market (51-1000 emp.)

5/27/2026

"Reliable Core Alerting, but Integrations and Customization Need Work"

2.5/5

What do you like best about Xurrent IMR?

We’ve been using Xurrent mainly for incident alerting and on-call management, somewhat similar to PagerDuty. Overall, the platform is reliable for receiving alerts, and the UI/UX is definitely one of its stronger points — the interface feels modern, clean, and easy to navigate compared to many traditional ITSM tools.

From an integrations perspective, there’s still room for improvement. Connecting with newer MCP servers, AI tooling, and DevOps agents was more challenging than expected. We especially struggled while trying to integrate with our DevOps agent workflows. The payloads being sent also contain limited contextual information, which reduces flexibility for automation and troubleshooting.

Performance-wise, alert delivery itself has been stable and timely, so we haven’t faced major issues with missed alerts. However, advanced conditional alerting, templating, and customization capabilities feel limited right now. For teams with more complex routing or automation requirements, this can become restrictive.

Support and onboarding have been positive overall. The support team is responsive and helpful whenever issues are raised, which definitely improves the experience.

On the AI/intelligence side, the current capabilities still feel fairly basic. AI-driven insights, automation intelligence, and contextual recommendations are not yet at the level we expected, especially compared to newer AI-first operational platforms.

Overall, Xurrent works well for core alerting use cases and offers a good user experience, but it could improve significantly in integrations, alert customization, and AI-driven intelligence to better support modern DevOps environments.

Pricing wise it is good, compared to other competitors, but again that is coming on the cost of less features others are offering. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What do you dislike about Xurrent IMR?

One area where Xurrent could improve is outbound integrations and alert customization capabilities. While using outgoing webhooks, we noticed that important attributes like alert priority are missing from the payload. This limits the ability to build richer automations and makes downstream integrations less effective for incident routing and escalation workflows.

We also faced challenges with the Slack integration. Features like postmortem updates and incident communication do not fully support Slack thread-based workflows, which creates fragmentation in discussions and makes collaboration harder during active incidents.

Another limitation is the lack of advanced conditional alerting and incident segregation. Currently, we are unable to properly group or route alerts into incidents based on custom conditional statements or logic. For teams handling large alert volumes, this can create operational noise and increase manual effort for incident management.

It would be helpful if Xurrent enhanced webhook payload customization, added stronger Slack thread support, and introduced more flexible conditional rules for alert grouping and routing. These improvements would significantly improve automation, reduce operational overhead, and make the platform more effective for modern DevOps and SRE workflows. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What problems is Xurrent IMR solving and how is that benefiting you?

Before using Xurrent, we were handling incident notifications and on-call alerting through a mix of manual processes and multiple disconnected tools. It was difficult to maintain visibility across incidents, and the response process was inconsistent, especially during high-priority production issues.

After implementing Xurrent, we were able to centralize alert management and improve incident visibility for the team. The platform helped us streamline alert delivery and reduce the chances of missing critical notifications. The UI also made it easier for engineers and support teams to quickly understand incident status and ongoing actions.

One of the biggest improvements was having a more structured incident workflow compared to our previous setup. Instead of manually coordinating alerts and escalations, alerts now reach the right teams faster, which has improved response coordination during outages and operational incidents.

That said, while Xurrent solved the core alerting and incident management problems for us, we still see limitations around advanced automation, conditional routing, and AI-driven insights. For organizations with simpler or mid-level incident management requirements, the platform works well, but more advanced DevOps workflows may require additional customization or external tooling. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.