Unlike high-margin SaaS, AI agents operate on thin 30-40% gross margins. This financial reality makes traditional seat-based pricing obsolete. To build a viable business, companies must create new systems to capture more revenue and manage agent costs effectively, ensuring profitability and growth from day one.
Established SaaS firms avoid AI-native products because they operate at lower gross margins (e.g., 40%) compared to traditional software (80%+). This parallels brick-and-mortar retail's fatal hesitation with e-commerce, creating an opportunity for AI-native startups to capture the market by embracing different unit economics.
Traditional SaaS companies are trapped by their per-seat pricing model. Their own AI agents, if successful, would reduce the number of human seats needed, cannibalizing their core revenue. AI-native startups exploit this by using value-based pricing (e.g., tasks completed), aligning their success with customer automation goals.
Satya Nadella suggests a fundamental shift in enterprise software monetization. As autonomous AI agents become prevalent, the value unit will move from the human user ("per seat") to the AI itself. "Agents are the new seats," signaling a future where companies pay for automated tasks and outcomes, not just software access for employees.
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.
AI is making core software functionality nearly free, creating an existential crisis for traditional SaaS companies. The old model of 90%+ gross margins is disappearing. The future will be dominated by a few large AI players with lower margins, alongside a strategic shift towards monetizing high-value services.
Unlike SaaS which sells to limited software budgets (e.g., 1% of revenue), vertical AI agents automate core business functions. This allows them to tap into much larger operational and labor budgets. Companies can capture 4-10% of a customer's total spend by replacing expensive human-led tasks like customer support.
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.
Traditional SaaS metrics like 80%+ gross margins are misleading for AI companies. High inference costs lower margins, but if the absolute gross profit per customer is multiples higher than a SaaS equivalent, it's a superior business. The focus should shift from margin percentages to absolute gross profit dollars and multiples.
Intercom priced its AI agent per successful resolution, aligning its incentives with customers. Though initially losing money on each resolution ($1.21 cost vs 99¢ price), efficiency gains made it profitable, proving outcome-based pricing can succeed for AI products.