OpenPhone is now Quo, and the comparison pages have not noticed
OpenPhone changed its name and its domain. Type the old pricing URL today and two redirects later you are on quo.com, reading a page whose own subtitle says 'formerly OpenPhone'. This is the one change a comparison page cannot survive: a price move leaves a page wrong by a number, but a rename leaves it wrong by a subject. Here is what the redirect does, what Quo charges now, and the one thing we deliberately will not tell you — whether the prices changed, because we never read OpenPhone's.
Ask for openphone.com/pricing and you do not get a page. You get a 301 to quo.com/pricing, which is itself a 301 to www.quo.com/pricing, which finally answers 200. The root of the domain does the same thing: openphone.com sends you to quo.com, www.openphone.com to www.quo.com. Nothing is broken and nothing 404s. The old name simply hands you to the new one, quietly, every time, and the page you land on introduces itself as 'formerly OpenPhone'.
That is a clean rename, done properly. The problem it creates is not the vendor's. It belongs to every page that wrote the old name down and stopped looking.
Consider what a redirect does to a comparison article. A price change makes a page wrong by an amount: it says $33 where the vendor now says something else, and a reader who checks discovers a stale number. Annoying, ordinary, survivable. A rename is different in kind. The page is not wrong by a number, it is wrong about who it is discussing. Its title names a company that no longer trades under that name; its link resolves, because the vendor was considerate enough to keep the redirect alive, so nothing looks broken from the outside. Nobody's link checker fires. The page just slowly becomes a period piece that still ranks.
So here is the current record, read at the vendor on 2026-09-03. Quo prices per user per month, on three plans. Month to month it is $19 for Starter, $33 for Business and $47 for Scale. Paid annually the same three become $15, $23 and $35 a month, billed at $180, $276 and $420 a user a year.
The savings the page advertises are $48, $120 and $144 a year, and all three reconcile exactly against the month-to-month rate times twelve. That sounds like faint praise until you have read enough pricing pages to know how often a page's own advertised saving does not survive contact with its own arithmetic. Quo's does, on all three rungs.
There is a second number, and a headline figure hides it. Quo's AI agent, Sona, is metered in credits at a hundred credits per call. Every plan includes a thousand of them, which is ten calls. Past that it is a separate monthly line — $25, $49, $99 or $199 a month — each with its own per-call overage running from $1.00 down to $0.45 as the tier climbs. A Quo quote is two numbers. Anyone comparing one number against a rival's one number is comparing the wrong thing.
And the per-user framing is worth saying out loud, because it is the most reliable way to misread this ladder: $33 is not what Business costs. Three people on Business is $99 a month, and the number that goes in a budget is the one with the seat count already in it.
Now the part we will not tell you. Our record holds no reading of OpenPhone at all — the first time we read this vendor, it was already Quo. So we cannot say whether the prices moved when the name did, and we are not going to reason our way to an answer from someone else's stale page, which is precisely the failure this article is about. What we have is a first reading, dated, with both billing states. The comparison that matters will exist the next time we read it.
While reading Quo we read its nine nearest competitors the same morning, and the wider finding is worth more than the rename. Ten business-phone vendors; two published a plan ladder a reader can actually read. Three published no price at all — every tier on Dialpad, 8x8 and GoTo Connect ends in 'Contact Sales' or 'Request a Quote', with feature lists in full and the figures withheld. Two sat behind bot walls that a real browser did not clear. RingCentral puts its plans behind a user-count selector that renders nothing until you interact with it, though its add-ons publish freely at $39 and $25. Grasshopper publishes exactly one figure, $14 a month billed annually, and it appears in the page title rather than in a plan card.
Put those two findings together and the category looks like this: the one where a vendor's name has just changed is also the one where the fewest vendors will tell you a price. Both facts push in the same direction, which is that a business-phone comparison you read anywhere is more likely than usual to be furniture — assembled once, never re-read, and now describing a market that has moved underneath it.
What the redirect actually does
openphone.com/pricing returns 301 to quo.com/pricing, which returns 301 to www.quo.com/pricing, which returns 200. Two hops, not one. The bare domain behaves identically. Verified 2026-09-03, and independently on 2026-08-30. Because it resolves cleanly, no automated link check will ever flag a page that still says OpenPhone.
What Quo charges, both ways
Per user per month. Month to month: Starter $19, Business $33, Scale $47. Billed annually: $15, $23 and $35 a month, or $180, $276 and $420 a user a year. Both states are in the page's own HTML — the toggle is decorative in the sense that matters here, since it hides nothing from a careful read.
The advertised savings hold
$48, $120 and $144 a year against the monthly rate times twelve. All three are exact. We check this because a page that advertises a discount its own two figures do not produce is telling you something about how carefully the rest of it was written.
The credits are the second number
Sona runs at a hundred credits a call, with a thousand credits — ten calls — on every plan. Beyond that: $25, $49, $99 or $199 a month, with per-call overage from $1.00 at the bottom tier to $0.45 at the top. Heavy AI use is bought twice: once in the tier, once in the calls past it.
Why a rename outlives a price change
A stale price is wrong by an amount and a reader who checks finds out. A stale name is wrong about its subject, and the vendor's own redirect keeps it looking healthy. The page ranks, the link works, and the only way to notice is to re-read the vendor — which is the whole job, and the reason a dated record exists.
What we could and could not read
Ten vendors, one morning, 2026-09-03. Two published a readable ladder: Quo and Nextiva. Three published no price anywhere on the pricing page: Dialpad, 8x8 and GoTo Connect. Two were behind bot walls a real browser did not clear: Ooma and Vonage. RingCentral's plans sit behind a user-count selector; Zoom Phone's table did not render. Grasshopper gave one headline figure. Every one of those states is written into our record as what it is, because an unread price recorded as unread is worth more than a guess.
Questions people actually search
Is OpenPhone gone?
The name is. The service is not — it is Quo, at quo.com, and the pricing page says 'formerly OpenPhone' in as many words. Every openphone.com address we tried redirects rather than fails, so an old bookmark still works. That is the vendor being careful, and it is also why so little downstream has updated.
Did the prices change when the name did?
We do not know, and we would rather say so than guess. Our record has no reading of OpenPhone: the first time we read this vendor it was already Quo. Reconstructing an old ladder from someone else's un-re-read comparison page is exactly the mistake this article describes, so we are not doing it. What exists is a dated first reading with both billing states, and a second reading will make the comparison real.
Is annual billing actually cheaper on Quo?
Yes, and by the amount the page claims. Business is $33 month to month or $23 a month billed annually, which is $276 a user a year and a $120 saving. Starter saves $48 and Scale $144 on the same arithmetic. What you give up is the ability to stop paying mid-year, which on a per-seat product is the thing worth weighing.
Why do so many comparison pages still say OpenPhone?
Because nothing tells them not to. The redirect returns a clean 301 and the destination returns 200, so link checkers pass, analytics look normal and search engines follow the hop. A rename is invisible to every automated signal a publisher usually relies on. It is visible only to someone re-reading the vendor's own page, on purpose, on a date.
Which business-phone vendors publish a price at all?
Of the ten we read on 2026-09-03: Quo and Nextiva publish full ladders. Grasshopper publishes a single floor, $14 a month billed annually. RingCentral publishes add-on rates — $39 for its AI receptionist, $25 for the SMS booster — while keeping the plans themselves behind a selector. Dialpad, 8x8 and GoTo Connect publish none. Ooma and Vonage would not let us read the page. In a category sold on transparent per-seat pricing, that is a striking distribution.
How does Quo compare with Nextiva on price?
They are the two in this category with ladders you can read, so it is the only comparison this record honestly supports. Entry level, month to month, is $19 against $23 a user. Billed annually it is $15 against $15 — the same figure, from two different starting points, which tells you more about how each vendor discounts than about what either costs.
Read at the vendors on 2026-09-03 between 04:00 and 04:20 CEST, over plain HTTPS with a browser User-Agent and, where that returned nothing, again in headless Chrome. Redirect chain re-verified the same morning; first recorded in this repo on 2026-08-30. Every figure on this page is resolved from our record at build time rather than typed, so if a price moves and the record is re-read, this page moves with it. Where a vendor published nothing, the record says nothing — the walls and the 'Contact Sales' buttons are written down as what they are. All ten vendors were read from a Swiss egress (Zurich), not from the United States. The pages that served prices served them in USD without a geo-redirect, so these are list prices shown to a European reader; what a US-located visitor sees has not been verified. The record carries that caveat on every one of these vendors. The method →
Found a price that no longer matches the vendor’s page? Tell us — corrections are dated and stay on the page.