Is usage-based pricing becoming the norm for AI tools?
Hey everyone,
I've built my product around traditional SaaS pricing (monthly tiers), but I’m starting to wonder if that model is getting outdated, especially with more AI-powered and compute-heavy tools entering the market.
That shift requires real architectural changes, instrumentation, metering, billing logic, and UI changes, not just pricing tweaks. It’s something I’m starting to seriously think about for my own product.
In particular, AI usage has real COGs (every prompt costs money), and I’m seeing more platforms experimenting with usage-based models, or hybrids like “SaaS base + usage + overage.”
For those of you building AI or compute-intensive tools:
Are you sticking with SaaS pricing?
Have you considered switching to usage-based or hybrid models?
Is it helping or hurting conversions?
Would love to hear what others are doing and whether you're seeing buyer preferences shift, too.
Replies
SEMrush
Great question! I'm building a SaaS as well and we're thinking about the following monetization model:
- Standard SaaS plans
- Freemium for PLG (very limited usage to let users try the product)
- Plans based on: AI credits (usage limit) + N of seats / users
- Killer features and integrations available of more expensive plans
- Custom plan (for Enterprise, multiple workspaces, and API access)
- On standard plans, you can buy additional users and credits on demand
Still the same SaaS pricing principal, but with an incorporated usage-based approach.
@alina_petrova3 Nice thinking, but from my experience with pricing, simpler plans that cover the majority of use cases tend to work best. Six bullet points feels a bit heavy. The challenge with too many package options is that it becomes harder to introduce new features, stay flexible for different customer needs, and evolve pricing over time.
So just my two cents.
SEMrush
@jake_friedberg Agree. These are the core principles of the monetization model, not the actual pricing bullet points. On the front end, we offer 3 plans + Custom Enterprise option.
SaaS pricing may look simple at first glance, but once you dig in, it becomes far more complex, especially in larger products. When I worked at Semrush, we started with 3 core plans based on number of users and data limits. As the product scaled, we introduced multiple add-ons and upsell paths, exposing advanced features to targeted segments. This approach significantly increased company revenue.
I think pricing should serve both your customers and your business. If you have a simple product - simple pricing works. But if you deliver unique high value features that users are willing to pay for, sticking to usage-based only becomes a constraint. Smart pricing is one of the strongest levers for sustainable growth.
My SaaS, Floor Plan Mapper is a simple app designed to create and manage interactive office seating plans and provide deks booking capabilities. Most SaaS vendores in this space charge by the desk or by user. I've changed my pricing model from a user based subsription to a per floor subscription. This gives the client more flexibility and in the end is more cost effective from an end user point of view. Depending on your SaaS application, there may be an opportunity to change your pricing model completely. This pricing model doesn't appear to be affeecting conversions at this point :)
@freddy_pendergast thats awesome, your app looks great - how long have you been working at this? Seems like you've had to do a lot to acquire some of the customers on your website.
@fitnessrefined what do you mean by more pricing tiers available? Do you mean you've seen companies offer additional plans rather than change their existing ones? Curious if I'm understanding this right and you have examples?
@shubhamx0312 having spent my career in voice applications - thats why its important to do the following:
Introduce throttling after a certain amount of usage.
Provide other products or add-ons that can help offset costs for your others.
Lmk if you'd like to chat more!
Great question!
We are currently preparing to launch with a hybrid seating model for large capacity subscriptions only EX 100+ seats. However a complete per seat structure is not off the table for future integration. In many situations, our view is that the customer can actually get more value from an established seat structure vs individual seats, especially while scaling and as demand grows !
Mike
Not just usage based price, but outcome based pricing. At WizStudio, we charge our users for downloads, not for image generations. While the COGs are to be figured out, outcome based pricing gives customers relief and us an edge.
TinyCommand
@jake_friedberg At TinyCommand, we keep fixed, tiered SaaS pricing, but each plan comes with a credit-based system that internally accounts for compute and token usage.
What this enables in practice:
If a user primarily uses non-AI features, their credits last significantly longer.
If a user heavily uses AI-powered steps, agents, or transformations, credits are consumed faster because real token and compute costs are involved.
From the buyer’s perspective, pricing stays consolidated. They do not have to reason separately about SaaS fees versus AI fees.
This has helped us in a few ways:
Pricing remains easy to understand at the top level.
We avoid unlimited AI usage that quietly destroys margins.
Users naturally self-regulate usage based on value, not artificial feature locks.
We can evolve AI capabilities without reworking the entire pricing surface every time models or costs change.
It is not a pure usage-based model, and it is not classic SaaS either. It is closer to “SaaS with embedded usage economics,” where the complexity stays on our side, not the customer’s.
currently running a hybrid model (SaaS base + usage/overage). It maps real COGs much better while keeping the entry barrier low and scaling with actual value delivered.
whether this hurts or helps conversion really depends on the target audience: hesitation mainly shows up when usage-based billing is unfamiliar or poorly understood (often in more traditional or classified industries). For the "cool kids on the block" AI-native buyers, transparent metering with clear pricing logic is usually not a blocker at all, often the opposite.
honestly this has been my biggest headache building AI tools. I've got a few products out there and the pricing model question keeps me up at night. went with tiered SaaS for simplicity but the problem is heavy users absolutely crush your margins while light users subsidize them.
the hybrid approach makes the most sense to me - base tier for access + usage for compute-heavy features. but the UX challenge is real, nobody wants to feel like they're on a meter when they're trying to be creative or productive. I've seen some tools do it well by making the base tier generous enough that most users never hit limits.
curious if anyone's found a good way to communicate usage limits without making the product feel penny-pinching?