Chat on WhatsApp
Enterprise · 2026 edition

Adobe Commerce vs Salesforce Commerce Cloud: enterprise e-commerce compared

Two enterprise e-commerce platforms with very different price tags and very different ecosystems. Salesforce Commerce Cloud (SFCC, formerly Demandware) goes deep into the Salesforce stack — Marketing Cloud, Service Cloud, CRM. Adobe Commerce sits inside the Adobe stack — Analytics, Target, AEM, Sensei AI. The right platform usually comes down to which ecosystem you already live in.

  • 5–10× license cost gap — when does SFCC actually pay for itself?
  • Customization model — SFRA + Sandboxes vs Magento module system
  • Multi-region multi-store — both strong, different patterns
Vendor-neutral — neither vendor pays me to push them Numbers from 200+ enterprise discovery projects
The four axes that actually decide it

License cost, ecosystem fit, customization ceiling, and time-to-launch — the rest is downstream of these

Most "Adobe Commerce vs Salesforce Commerce Cloud" content lists 30 features. In practice four numbers settle the call for 90% of enterprises. Here are those four, with the ranges that matter.

  • 5–10× License cost gap

    SFCC starts ~$200k/yr (entry tier) and runs $500k–$2M+ for typical enterprise on revenue-share pricing. Adobe Commerce sits at $30–200k. The gap typically only earns its keep if you’re already deep in the Salesforce stack.

  • Stack Ecosystem integration is the deciding factor

    If you already have Salesforce CRM + Marketing Cloud + Service Cloud, SFCC gives you a single org / login / data flow. If you have Adobe Analytics + Target + AEM, Adobe Commerce wins the same axis. Anyone outside both ecosystems usually picks Adobe Commerce on TCO.

  • SFRA Customization ceiling

    SFCC uses Storefront Reference Architecture (SFRA) on top of the Demandware platform — sandboxed customization, ISML templates, controllers. Adobe Commerce uses the full PHP module system. SFCC is more contained, AC is more flexible — pick your tradeoff.

  • 6–24 mo Time-to-launch

    Adobe Commerce implementation from contract to live: 6–12 months typical. SFCC: 12–24 months typical (more discovery, more architecture, more SI involvement). Implementation cost on SFCC also runs higher per-month due to specialist talent rates.

Feature-by-feature

Six dimensions where the platforms genuinely differ

Skipping the "Adobe Commerce has Cloud, SFCC has Einstein" preamble. Below: the six places real enterprise differences show up — and which platform wins each.

  • Pricing model & TCO

    SFCC tiers (Starter / Growth / Plus) sit on revenue-share + a per-order fee, plus B2C Commerce platform fees. Entry ~$200k/yr; typical mid-enterprise $500k–$1M; large enterprise $1–2M+. Adobe Commerce license is $30–80k/yr at $50M GMV, $80–150k at $200M GMV, $150–250k at $1B GMV (plus Adobe Commerce Cloud infra ~$30–80k/yr). 3-year TCO at $200M GMV: Adobe Commerce ~$1.2M all-in vs SFCC ~$3.5M+. The gap narrows above $1B GMV but rarely closes.

  • Ecosystem integration

    SFCC sits inside Salesforce: native data sync to Service Cloud (cases / returns), Marketing Cloud (Journey Builder, Email Studio), CRM (Account 360), MuleSoft (integration), Tableau (BI), Einstein (AI personalization). Single Salesforce org, single login, shared data model. Adobe Commerce sits inside Adobe: Analytics (web data + attribution), Target (A/B + personalization), AEM (CMS for content), Sensei AI (product recommendations + smart search), Workfront (project ops), Real-Time CDP. The deciding question is which stack already runs your business.

  • Customization model

    SFCC = SFRA on Demandware multi-tenant SaaS. You write JavaScript controllers, ISML templates, and reference-architecture cartridges. Customization is sandboxed — no DB schema changes, no PHP extensions, limited backend logic. Powerful for a 90% case, constrained at the edges. Adobe Commerce = full PHP module system on dedicated Adobe Commerce Cloud (or self-hosted). DB schema, observers, plugins, GraphQL extension, headless. Anything is technically possible. SFCC trades flexibility for guardrails; AC trades guardrails for ceiling.

  • B2B features

    Adobe Commerce ships native B2B: Companies (parent-child accounts), Negotiable Quotes (multi-step approval), Requisition Lists, customer-segment catalogs, Net-30 / payment terms per customer, shared catalogs, sales-rep impersonation. SFCC has B2B Commerce as a separate product line (not the same engine as B2C SFCC) — solid enterprise B2B with company accounts, contract pricing, MyAccounts portal. Capable but feels like two platforms stitched together. AC integrates B2B + B2C in one codebase.

  • Multi-region / multi-site

    SFCC is strong on multi-site: sites + locales + currencies share product data via Master Catalog, with per-site overrides. SI partners specialise in this — large enterprise multi-site SFCC builds are routine. Adobe Commerce uses websites → stores → store views with separate pricing rules per region, separate currency, separate language, separate tax. Different model, same outcome. SFCC scales easier to 50+ locales; AC scales easier to 5–20 distinct stores with very different catalogs. Both ship hreflang correctly.

  • Implementation talent

    SFCC implementation is dominated by specialist agencies — Capgemini, Accenture, Cognizant, Publicis Sapient, Astound — at premium rates ($200–400/hr for senior, $150–250/hr for mid). Talent pool is small and concentrated in tier-1 cities. Adobe Commerce has a wider talent pool: tier-1 SIs (Wunderman, Vaimo, Born), mid-tier agencies (50–200 staff), full-stack freelance specialists. Rates: $80–200/hr depending on tier and geography. Pool depth matters when scaling teams or replacing partners.

Decision flow

Five questions to lock in your enterprise platform pick

Run through these in order. By question 5 the answer is usually obvious. If you’re still tied at the end, the form below gets you a written architecture note in 24 hours.

  1. 01

    Existing stack

    What runs your business today? Salesforce CRM + Marketing Cloud + Service Cloud → SFCC gives you a single-org data flow. Adobe stack (Analytics + Target + AEM) → Adobe Commerce wins the same axis. Neither stack → Adobe Commerce on TCO. This single question settles 60% of decisions.

    Anchors the platform
  2. 02

    GMV check

    Annual GMV calibrates the TCO math. Under $50M → Adobe Commerce almost always wins (SFCC license floor unjustifiable). $50–500M → either; depends on stack alignment. Above $500M → SFCC viable if you’re already a Salesforce shop, otherwise AC still wins on TCO.

    Sets TCO ceiling
  3. 03

    Implementation team

    Who’s building? SI partner ready (Accenture, Capgemini, Publicis Sapient) → SFCC implementation viable. In-house dev team or mid-tier agency → Adobe Commerce — talent pool wider, ramp-up faster, day-to-day extension cheaper. Talent gravity matters more than features here.

    Maps delivery model
  4. 04

    Time-to-launch

    How fast do you need live? 6–12 months → Adobe Commerce. 12–24 months acceptable → SFCC viable. SFCC implementations rarely beat 12 months because of the discovery + architecture + SFRA cartridge build cycle. AC’s implementation pattern is more iterative.

    Picks delivery cadence
  5. 05

    Decide + roadmap

    Lock the decision and build a multi-year roadmap. SFCC commitments are typically 5-year (license + SI + ops); AC commitments are typically 3-year (license + agency retainer + infra). Migration costs back out of either are real but recoverable.

    Locks in a path
Decision shortcuts

Three scenarios — pick the one that sounds like you

If your context matches one of these closely, you can skip the deep dive and go straight to roadmap planning. The re-platform scenario is more common than vendors admit.

  • Choose Salesforce Commerce Cloud

    Choose SFCC if…

    • Already in Salesforce ecosystem (CRM + Marketing Cloud + Service Cloud)
    • Enterprise B2C with $200M+ annual GMV
    • Multi-site, multi-region, multi-locale complexity (10+ markets)
    • In-house Salesforce architecture team or SI partner ready
    • 12–24 month implementation timeline acceptable
    • Premium SaaS reliability (~99.99% uptime SLA) is non-negotiable
    • Comfortable with $500k–$2M/yr platform spend
  • Re-platform SFCC → AC

    Re-platform from SFCC to Adobe Commerce

    • Growing pattern at sub-$500M GMV: hitting SFCC license cliffs
    • Typical trigger: $1M+/yr SFCC fees no longer justifiable
    • TCO reduction of 30–50% on Adobe Commerce + extensions
    • Migration project: 6–12 months, $250k–$1M
    • Catalog, customers, orders, content portable (not SFRA cartridges)
    • Run parallel for 60–90 days before DNS cutover
    • Most common motivator: customization roadmap blocked by SFCC
Free enterprise consult

Get a written platform-fit recommendation in 24 hours

Fill in the basics. I’ll send a written platform-fit note by email and include a 30-min calendar link if a deeper architecture call would help. No upsell, no follow-up funnel.

We will get back to you shortly.

Past clients say

What working with me on platform decisions actually looks like

The same framework on this page has informed the platform pick on 20+ migrations and re-platforms. Public reviews on Upwork — links on each card.

Fantastic person, very knowledgeable, honest and reliable.

Fantastic person, very knowledgeable, honest and reliable. Sorted out my issue within an hour! I cannot wait for the next project to work with Kishan

SZ

Steve Zed

Kishin is an extremely hard worker with a lot of knowledge about Magento2!

Kishin is an extremely hard worker with a lot of knowledge about Magento2! I would highly recommend

RW

Rob Wildenborg

Internet services

Kishan is surely the best freelancer I worked with on upwork.

Kishan is surely the best freelancer I worked with on upwork. Always there to use his knowledge to help and sort any issue you may have in a pleasant and professionnal

NC

Nicolas Chevillot

Ecofone

Great from start to finish, Kishan has went above and beyond, helping at all hours of the day.

Great from start to finish, Kishan has went above and beyond, helping at all hours of the day. I would highly recommend him, and will always consider him for future

YA

Yavuz Arik

CEO, PostaCarda

Kishan is surely the best freelancer I worked with on upwork.

Kishan is surely the best freelancer I worked with on upwork. Always there to use his knowledge to help and sort any issue you may have in a pleasant and professionnal

NC

Nicolas Chevillot

CEO, Ecofone

Kishan was very helpful in helping set up my magento site, theme, installing my extensions, and fix any errors.

Kishan was very helpful in helping set up my magento site, theme, installing my extensions, and fix any errors. He is very trustworthy and I highly recommend hiring

SE

Sarah Ehling

Advising enterprises across

  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Germany
  • France
  • Netherlands
  • India
FAQ

Twelve questions enterprise leaders actually ask

SFCC vs Adobe Commerce TCO at $200M GMV — what are the concrete numbers?

3-year all-in TCO at $200M GMV, comparable scope (B2C with light B2B, 3 regions, mid-complexity catalog):

Adobe Commerce 3-year TCO at $200M: license $80–150k/yr → $240–450k. Adobe Commerce Cloud infra $30–80k/yr → $90–240k. Implementation (mid-tier or tier-1 SI) $400k–$800k one-time. Ongoing engineering retainer $30k–$80k/mo → $1.08M–$2.88M over 3 years. Adobe Marketplace extensions $50k–$150k. Total: ~$1.9M – $3.7M.

Salesforce Commerce Cloud 3-year TCO at $200M: license / revenue-share $500k–$1M/yr → $1.5M–$3M. Implementation (tier-1 SI: Capgemini, Accenture, Publicis Sapient) $800k–$2M one-time. Ongoing SI retainer $50k–$150k/mo → $1.8M–$5.4M over 3 years. Cartridges + integrations $100k–$300k. Total: ~$4.2M – $10.7M.

The TCO gap at $200M GMV typically lands at 2–3× in favor of Adobe Commerce. The gap narrows above $1B GMV but rarely closes — SFCC’s revenue-share pricing scales linearly with GMV; AC’s license tiers cap out.

When does SFCC’s license cost actually pay for itself?

SFCC pays for itself when the value of native Salesforce ecosystem integration exceeds the 5–10× license premium. In practice, that means:

  • You already run on Salesforce. CRM (Account 360), Marketing Cloud (Journey Builder + Email Studio), Service Cloud (cases + returns), Mulesoft (integration), Tableau (BI). The data flows into a single Salesforce org with no middleware.
  • Your CX is data-flow-driven. Personalization comes from CRM data (segments, lifetime value, service interactions). SFCC + Einstein AI plugs into that natively. Replicating it on Adobe Commerce requires significant integration engineering ($300k–$1M).
  • Your Service Cloud reps need order context. SFCC orders surface inside Service Cloud with one click. Replicating on AC requires a custom integration that’s never as smooth.

If you don’t check those three boxes, SFCC’s license premium is a tax you’re paying for ecosystem features you don’t use. The break-even GMV where pure-economics tip toward SFCC is ~$2B+ — and even then, only when you’re Salesforce-native.

Is SFCC really 5–10× more expensive than Adobe Commerce?

Yes — and the gap is wider on smaller-mid enterprises, narrower on $1B+ ones.

License floor comparison:

  • Adobe Commerce: ~$22k/yr (Pro tier, <$1M GMV) → $190k/yr (Pro tier, $25M+ GMV).
  • SFCC: ~$200k/yr entry tier (Starter or B2C Commerce). Realistically closer to $300–500k/yr at any meaningful scale because SFCC pricing is partly revenue-share (typically 0.3–0.5% of GMV).

At $50M GMV: AC ~$60k/yr license, SFCC ~$300k/yr → 5×.

At $200M GMV: AC ~$120k/yr, SFCC ~$700k/yr → ~6×.

At $1B GMV: AC ~$200k/yr (tier cap), SFCC ~$3M/yr (revenue-share keeps scaling) → 15×.

The ratio gets worse at scale because Adobe’s pricing tiers cap out while Salesforce’s scales linearly. License-only TCO is one of the strongest arguments to migrate off SFCC at $1B+ GMV.

Salesforce ecosystem integration — what specifically does SFCC give that AC can’t replicate?

The native integrations that are genuinely hard to replicate on Adobe Commerce:

  • Account 360 + Order History. SFCC orders show up inside Salesforce CRM Account 360 with no middleware. Sales reps see commerce + service + marketing in one view. AC requires a custom Salesforce Connector ($150k–$300k build).
  • Marketing Cloud Journey Builder triggers. SFCC events (cart-abandon, order-placed, return-requested) drop into Journey Builder out-of-the-box. AC integration needs MuleSoft or Patchworks middleware.
  • Service Cloud case-from-order. Customer service rep clicks an order in Service Cloud → sees full order context, can issue refunds / RMAs. AC equivalent requires custom integration.
  • Einstein AI personalization. SFCC + Einstein uses Salesforce’s data lake (CRM + commerce + marketing). AC + Sensei AI uses Adobe’s data lake. Different gravity wells.

The "AC can replicate this with a custom integration" answer is technically true but practically expensive — typical replication of native SFCC + Salesforce stack via AC + middleware runs $500k–$1.5M up-front + ongoing middleware fees. If you’re fully Salesforce-native, SFCC’s premium starts to make sense.

SFRA customization vs Magento module system — what’s the ceiling on each?

Different architectural philosophies, very different ceilings.

SFRA (Storefront Reference Architecture) on SFCC: JavaScript controllers, ISML templates, reference-architecture cartridges. You extend by adding cartridges to the cartridge-path; you can’t change the Demandware platform itself. No DB schema changes, no PHP, no custom services running on the server. Pros: guardrails, security, multi-tenant safety, easier upgrades. Cons: hard ceiling — anything outside the SFRA model requires either a workaround or escalation to Salesforce. Examples that get blocked: custom ERP write-paths, deep custom checkout flows, non-standard payment routing logic, complex B2B approval chains.

Magento module system on Adobe Commerce: full PHP modules with DB schema (db_schema.xml), observers, plugins (interceptors), GraphQL extensions, headless-API extensions, custom services. You can change anything — the platform is the framework. Pros: no real ceiling, extensions ship to Adobe Marketplace as products. Cons: more rope to hang yourself with; bad extensions slow the store; upgrades require regression testing.

Verdict: 80% of common features fit SFRA fine. The 20% that don’t are the reason enterprises re-platform from SFCC to AC.

B2B on SFCC vs Adobe Commerce — feature comparison?

Adobe Commerce wins on B2B depth + cost — it’s a single codebase. SFCC B2B is a separate product line with its own gaps.

Adobe Commerce B2B (native): Companies (parent-child accounts), Negotiable Quotes (request → negotiate → convert, with multi-step approvals), Requisition Lists, customer-segment catalogs (different products visible per customer group), tier prices per SKU per group, sales-rep impersonation, Net-30 / Net-60 / custom payment terms per customer, shared catalogs across stores. All in one codebase.

Salesforce B2B Commerce: separate product from B2C SFCC. Companies + multi-buyer accounts, contract pricing, MyAccounts portal, reorder workflows, quote requests. Capable but feels like a parallel platform — UX differs from B2C SFCC, admin is split, migration between B2B and B2C SFCC is non-trivial. Enterprise B2B is solid but you’re effectively running two SFCC instances if you have B2C + B2B.

Practical pick: if B2B is >25% of revenue and you want one platform serving both, AC wins. If B2B is the only line and you’re committed to Salesforce stack, SFCC B2B is fine. If B2B is <25% and bolted onto B2C, AC’s native B2B beats SFCC’s B2B-as-a-separate-product hands-down.

Multi-region on each — implementation complexity?

Both handle multi-region well, with different patterns.

SFCC multi-site model: sites + locales + currencies share product data via a Master Catalog. Per-site overrides for content, pricing, and merchandising. SI partners specialise in this — large enterprise multi-site SFCC builds are routine. Strengths: scales smoothly to 50+ locales sharing a base catalog. Weaknesses: per-region completely-different catalogs are awkward; you end up managing exclusion rules.

Adobe Commerce multi-store model: websites → stores → store views, with each axis able to override catalog, pricing, currency, language, tax, payment methods, shipping. Strengths: scales to 5–20 distinct stores with very different catalogs (different brands, different product mixes). Weaknesses: scaling to 50+ locales sharing a catalog needs more configuration discipline; not as turn-key as SFCC.

Implementation complexity:

  • SFCC: 4–8 months for 5-region multi-site, $400k–$1M with tier-1 SI.
  • AC: 3–6 months for 5-store multi-region, $150k–$500k with mid-tier agency.

Both ship hreflang correctly. SFCC wins on scale + locale density; AC wins on cost + per-store catalog flexibility.

Performance / Core Web Vitals — does SaaS multi-tenancy matter?

Both can hit excellent CWV with engineering discipline. SaaS multi-tenancy is mostly neutral — it’s the architecture choices on top that matter.

SFCC defaults: SFRA-based stores hit Lighthouse mobile 75–85 out of the box. CDN edge is included (Salesforce’s eCDN), so static assets are fast globally. Performance ceiling: 90+ Lighthouse mobile with a clean SFRA cartridge stack and disciplined third-party tag management. Watch out: SFCC’s page generation is server-rendered and can be slow under heavy load if cartridges aren’t optimised.

Adobe Commerce defaults: Magento Luma sits at 45 Lighthouse mobile. With Hyvä theme (Tailwind + Alpine.js, ~95% less JS), it hits 95+. Adobe Commerce Cloud includes Fastly CDN, so static assets are also fast globally. Performance ceiling on AC + Hyvä is genuinely higher than SFCC defaults — but requires the Hyvä re-theme commitment ($25k–$80k).

Practical comparison: SFCC out-of-box > AC Luma out-of-box; AC + Hyvä > SFCC tuned. If CWV is a top-3 priority, AC + Hyvä is the strongest play. If you want fast defaults without a re-theme project, SFCC ships closer to that.

SLA — SFCC 99.99% guarantee vs Adobe Commerce Cloud SLA?

Both offer enterprise-grade SLAs but with different shapes.

Salesforce Commerce Cloud SLA: 99.99% uptime guarantee on the platform layer. Multi-tenant SaaS — Salesforce manages the entire stack, including Black Friday auto-scale. Service-credit refunds if uptime drops below 99.99% in a billing period. In practice: SFCC platform incidents are rare; when they happen, all SFCC customers are affected simultaneously.

Adobe Commerce Cloud SLA: 99.95% uptime on the standard tier; 99.99% on Pro tier (the one most enterprises run). Adobe manages infra, you manage application code. Auto-scale happens via Fastly + auto-scaling Magento application servers. Service-credit refunds if uptime drops below the threshold. In practice: AC Cloud incidents are usually customer-specific (your code bug, your extension regression) rather than platform-wide.

Self-hosted Adobe Commerce / Magento OSS: SLA is whatever you negotiate with your hosting provider (Cloudways, AWS, Hetzner). Typical: 99.9–99.99% depending on tier.

Verdict: SFCC and AC Cloud Pro are roughly equivalent on SLA. Self-hosted Magento needs more ops discipline to match. SLA differences are not the deciding factor — both are credible enterprise platforms.

Migration: SFCC → Adobe Commerce, AC → SFCC — feasibility, cost?

Both directions are feasible. The economics + timelines differ significantly.

SFCC → Adobe Commerce (more common):

  • Timeline: 6–12 months for a typical mid-enterprise re-platform.
  • Cost: $250k–$1M for the rebuild + integration work.
  • What migrates: catalog, customers, orders, content (CMS pages), redirects.
  • What doesn’t migrate: SFRA cartridges (architecture is incompatible — must be rewritten as Magento modules), Einstein AI training data (can’t be exported in usable form).
  • Driver: typically license-cost reduction (30–50%) + customization roadmap freedom.

Adobe Commerce → SFCC (less common):

  • Timeline: 12–18 months. Discovery + architecture takes longer.
  • Cost: $1M–$3M for the rebuild + tier-1 SI engagement.
  • What migrates: catalog, customers, orders, content.
  • What doesn’t migrate: custom Magento modules (must be rebuilt as SFRA cartridges), Sensei AI configuration.
  • Driver: typically Salesforce ecosystem consolidation (acquired company brings them under group’s SFCC standard).

Both directions are well-trodden paths. The business case must be clear because the project costs are 7-figure regardless of direction.

Implementation partners — SFCC’s tier vs Adobe Commerce’s ecosystem?

Different talent gravity. Affects both initial cost and ongoing ops.

SFCC partner ecosystem: dominated by tier-1 SIs — Capgemini, Accenture, Cognizant, Publicis Sapient (formerly Sapient), Astound Commerce, Tata Consultancy Services. Rates: $200–400/hr for senior, $150–250/hr for mid, $80–150/hr for offshore. Partner tiers (Strategic, Crest, Ridge) reflect Salesforce certification depth + book-of-business. Pros: deep Salesforce stack expertise, enterprise change-management capability. Cons: high day-rates, slow turnaround on small changes, premium "you must work with us" gating.

Adobe Commerce partner ecosystem: tier-1 SIs (Wunderman Thompson, Vaimo, Born Group, Diconia), mid-tier agencies (50–200 staff, e.g. Bounteous, Inviqa, Atwix), full-stack freelance specialists. Rates: $80–200/hr depending on tier and geography. Adobe Solution Partner program tiers (Specialized, Gold, Platinum) reflect certification + portfolio. Pros: wider pool, easier to swap partners, mid-tier agencies offer excellent value. Cons: tier-1 SI capability for very large transformations is thinner than Salesforce’s.

Talent supply matters because: when you need to scale from 6 to 12 developers, AC’s deeper pool wins. When you need a 50-person SI team for a global rollout, SFCC’s tier-1 SIs win. Pick the partner before picking the platform.

Hidden costs to watch on each platform?

Both have surprise costs that don’t show up in the initial sales pitch.

Salesforce Commerce Cloud hidden costs:

  • Revenue-share creep. SFCC pricing scales with GMV — every successful year increases license cost. Renewals at $1B GMV often surprise CFOs.
  • Sandbox limits. SFCC sandboxes are quota-limited (development sandbox, staging, etc). Hitting limits means buying more environments at premium rates.
  • Tier-1 SI lock-in. The certified-SI ecosystem is a small club; rate negotiations are limited. Switching SIs is expensive (knowledge transfer + certification).
  • Cartridge upgrades. Salesforce platform upgrades sometimes break cartridge integrations; tier-1 SI fixes are billable.
  • Einstein AI seat fees. Salesforce charges per-seat for Einstein features that started "free" in evaluations.

Adobe Commerce hidden costs:

  • Hosting overruns at peak. Adobe Commerce Cloud auto-scales but the bill follows. Black Friday spikes can 2–3× a quarterly hosting bill.
  • Extension dependency hell. Mid-market AC stores accumulate 30–60 third-party extensions. Upgrades become regression-test marathons. Budget $20k–$80k/yr for extension maintenance.
  • Security patch lag. Adobe ships security patches monthly; if you don’t apply within 30 days, breach risk rises sharply. Patch-application is real ops work — $5k–$20k/patch with regression.
  • Hyvä theme licensing. Hyvä is paid (~€1k/yr/store-view + per-developer fees). Often missed in initial budgets.

Both platforms cost more in year 2 than year 1 — plan for it.