UnitFull vs Prorize (Self Storage Revenue Optimizer)

Prorize publishes the case studies — and the numbers are real

Prorize’s published case studies show 4.3% same-store revenue growth. That’s a real number, and revenue management works. Occupancy-based dynamic pricing reliably outperforms static rate cards. The data is clear on this.

The question isn’t whether revenue management works. The question is whether you should pay for it as a separate subscription on top of your FMS.

The bundling argument

At 5 facilities, Prorize runs $1,500/month (analyst estimate — no published rate card). Add SiteLink ($600/mo), Storable Payments (~$3,500/mo), and you’re at ~$5,600/month before gate fees.

UnitFull: $5,000/month for FMS, portal, payments, access integrations, revenue management, and AI voice. One invoice.

The math doesn’t always favor UnitFull — if Prorize’s algorithms outperform UnitFull’s Occupancy Pilot enough to justify the cost differential, the specialist wins. But for an independent operator at 1–10 facilities, the bundled approach tends to deliver more net value when you account for the total cost and operational simplicity.

What Prorize does better

Prorize is a dedicated revenue management company. Their model is calibrated on millions of storage transactions. They track competitor rates. They have a dedicated team whose entire job is improving yield algorithms for self-storage.

UnitFull’s Occupancy Pilot is purpose-built for storage but not a specialist product. It uses occupancy thresholds and configurable parameters — solid for most operators, not Prorize-level in analytical depth.

The practical question

If you’re currently running SiteLink + Prorize + Storable Payments, the right experiment is: what would your revenue look like with UnitFull’s bundled approach, and what would you save on the total bill?

The free trial lets you run the Occupancy Pilot against your real data before committing. See the full feature set at /features, or compare costs at /pricing.