AI startups often use traditional per-seat pricing to simplify purchasing for enterprise buyers. The CEO of Legora admits this is suboptimal for the vendor, as high LLM costs from power users can destroy margins. The shift to a more logical consumption-based model is currently blocked by the buyer's operational readiness, not the vendor's preference.
Related Insights
AI products with a Product-Led Growth motion face a fundamental flaw in their unit economics. Customers expect predictable SaaS-like pricing (e.g., $20/month), but the company's costs are usage-based. This creates an inverse relationship where higher user engagement leads directly to lower or negative margins.
Atlassian's CEO argues against the death of per-seat pricing. He states that customers dislike the unpredictability of consumption models, and value-based models are too hard to measure accurately. This practical friction ensures simpler, predictable pricing will persist.
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.
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.
In categories like customer support, where AI can handle the vast majority of queries, charging per human agent ('per seat') no longer makes sense. The business model is shifting to be outcome-based, where customers pay for the value delivered, such as per ticket resolved or per successful interaction.
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.
The move away from seat-based licenses to consumption models for AI tools creates a new operational burden. Companies must now build governance models and teams to track usage at an individual employee level—like 'Bob in accounting'—to control unpredictable costs.
Beyond upfront pricing, sophisticated enterprise customers now demand cost certainty for consumption-based AI. They require vendors to provide transparent cost structures and protections for when usage inevitably scales, asking, 'What does the world look like when the flywheel actually spins?'
The shift to usage-based pricing for AI tools isn't just a revenue growth strategy. Enterprise vendors are adopting it to offset their own escalating cloud infrastructure costs, which scale directly with customer usage, thereby protecting their profit margins from their own suppliers.