Why did Evernote’s business price jump

Evernote Team plan ending in 2026: what are the new Enterprise costs, and which Evernote alternatives fit SMEs?

Evernote’s 2025–2026 price shock: what it means, who it hits, what to do
A reader flagged a sharp Evernote price change at the end of December 2025. The increase is not a routine adjustment. In the reported case, renewal pricing moved from a manageable annual team fee to a number that can disrupt budgets overnight. If Evernote sits in a core workflow—documentation, knowledge retention, shared notebooks—this kind of shift becomes an operational risk, not just a line item.

What Evernote is (and why pricing matters)

Evernote is a cloud note platform used to capture and retrieve notes, documents, and images across devices. Many teams rely on it as a lightweight knowledge base: searchable archives, shared notebooks, and quick collaboration without running internal servers. That convenience is exactly why pricing stability matters. Once a tool becomes the “memory” of a company, switching costs rise fast.

What changed in 2025

Reports indicate Evernote adjusted plans and pricing in 2025, including replacing older individual tiers with new ones (examples cited online include “Starter” and “Advanced”). Some users describe a steady squeeze: higher monthly fees while competing tools stay free, bundled, or cheaper. That dissatisfaction alone is common in SaaS. The critical issue is the scale and structure of increases for teams and business accounts.

The reported business case: 17× renewal pricing

A small company using Evernote for documentation and knowledge archiving reported the following:

• Previous cost: €1,199.94 per year for 6 users
• Renewal notice (for February 2026): €17,900
• Effective change: roughly 17×

They also stated Evernote is discontinuing the Team license and moving customers toward an Enterprise license with two variants:

• Flexible: about €5,810.24 (as of December 2025), billed by usage (notebooks, storage, uploads)
• Unlimited: presented as the higher tier, reportedly auto-applied in a way the reader viewed as unreasonable given the cost gap

Even if exact totals vary by region, contract, or seat structure, the pattern is clear: plan migration plus auto-renewal can create extreme renewal outcomes if not caught early.

Why this happens (practical, not speculative)

These jumps typically come from contract mechanics rather than a simple “price per seat” increase:

• Forced plan migration (Team → Enterprise) with different packaging
• Minimum commitments or bundles that do not map to small teams
• Usage-based billing that adds volatility to forecasts
• Auto-renewal defaults that select the highest tier unless the customer intervenes

For a small integrator or SMB, that combination breaks predictability—the real damage is not only cost, but planning.

What to do next (action steps that reduce risk)

Stop renewal risk first

Verify renewal date, auto-renew toggle, and the exact SKU name tied to renewal (Team vs Enterprise Flexible vs Enterprise Unlimited). Save PDFs/screenshots of plan terms and quoted totals.

Demand a written breakdown

Ask for a line-by-line quote: seats, minimums, storage, notebook limits, upload caps, overage rates, and any migration fees. If “usage-based,” request the meter definition and a sample invoice model.

Negotiate the migration path

Request one of these outcomes in writing:

• Renewal at legacy Team pricing for 12 months while you transition
• Migration to the lower tier (e.g., Flexible) with a hard annual cap
• A smaller-business plan aligned to your current seats and usage
  In negotiation, anchor on continuity: same seats, same use case, no surprise multipliers.

Prepare an exit plan before you need it

Export notebooks, validate attachments, test re-import, and define a “minimum viable archive” (what must remain searchable, what can become PDF). Treat this as continuity planning, not a rage-quit.

Alternatives teams actually mention (and why they choose them)

In the comments and follow-ups referenced in your source, one user switched to Joplin (including self-hosted use). That choice usually signals two priorities: cost control and data control. Other common replacement directions (depending on workflow) include:

• Self-hosted notes/knowledge base (predictable cost, more admin effort)
• Document-centric systems (better governance, heavier setup)
• Bundled note tools inside existing suites (lower incremental spend, mixed migration experience)

The right pick depends on whether you need: shared notebooks, offline-first access, strong search, compliance controls, or internal hosting.