For tools requiring a new workflow, like Factory's AI agents, seat-based pricing creates friction. A usage-based model lowers the initial adoption barrier, allowing developers to try it once. This 'first try' is critical, as data shows an 85% retention rate after just one use.
Related Insights
For products with high trial churn, replace the standard "try before you buy" model. Instead, charge users upfront and offer a rebate or a free second month if they complete a key activation task. This creates commitment and incentivizes the exact behavior that leads to long-term retention.
Clay deliberately chose usage-based over seat-based pricing because their ideal customer is a technical builder (GTM Ops, Growth Marketer), not an individual salesperson. This model aligns value with the systems these builders create for the entire team, rather than charging for every end-user who benefits from the output.
For a true AI-native product, extremely high margins might indicate it isn't using enough AI, as inference has real costs. Founders should price for adoption, believing model costs will fall, and plan to build strong margins later through sophisticated, usage-based pricing tiers rather than optimizing prematurely.
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.
AI agent platforms are typically priced by usage, not seats, making initial costs low. Instead of a top-down mandate for one tool, leaders should encourage teams to expense and experiment with several options. The best solution for the team will emerge organically through use.
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.
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.
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.
