Many AI coding agents are unprofitable because their business model is broken. They charge a fixed subscription fee but pay variable, per-token costs for model inference. This means their most engaged power users, who should be their best customers, are actually their biggest cost centers, leading to negative gross margins.

Unlike traditional SaaS, achieving product-market fit in AI is not enough for survival. The high and variable costs of model inference mean that as usage grows, companies can scale directly into unprofitability. This makes developing cost-efficient infrastructure a critical moat and survival strategy, not just an optimization.

Standard SaaS pricing fails for agentic products because high usage becomes a cost center. Avoid the trap of profiting from non-use. Instead, implement a hybrid model with a fixed base and usage-based overages, or, ideally, tie pricing directly to measurable outcomes generated by the AI.

The dominant per-user-per-month SaaS business model is becoming obsolete for AI-native companies. The new standard is consumption or outcome-based pricing. Customers will pay for the specific task an AI completes or the value it generates, not for a seat license, fundamentally changing how software is sold.

Counterintuitively, very high gross margins in a company pitching itself as "AI" can be a warning sign. It may indicate that users aren't engaging with the core, computationally expensive AI features. Lower margins can signal genuine, heavy usage of the core AI product.

Unlike SaaS where marginal costs are near-zero, AI companies face high inference costs. Abuse of free trials or refunds by non-paying users ("friendly fraud") directly threatens unit economics, forcing some founders to choke growth by disabling trials altogether to survive.

Unlike SaaS, where high gross margins are key, an AI company with very high margins likely isn't seeing significant use of its core AI features. Low margins signal that customers are actively using compute-intensive products, a positive early indicator.

Contrary to traditional software evaluation, Andreessen Horowitz now questions AI companies that present high, SaaS-like gross margins. This often indicates a critical flaw: customers are not engaging with the costly, core AI features. Low margins, in this context, can be a positive signal of genuine product usage and value delivery.

Many AI startups prioritize growth, leading to unsustainable gross margins (below 15%) due to high compute costs. This is a ticking time bomb. Eventually, these companies must undertake a costly, time-consuming re-architecture to optimize for cost and build a viable business.