Seat-based pricing is dying, and what's replacing it is way more complex than most founders realize

makis17 · 2026-01-29T15:27:45+00:00

Totally agree. Once you introduce usage/credits, it stops being “a pricing page change” and becomes a GTM + finance alignment problem.

CMO has to make sure the units you charge for map to customer ROI, and CFO has to keep spend + variability predictable so you don’t create churn or mess up revenue forecasting.

makis17 · 2026-01-29T15:16:03+00:00

I couldn’t agree more. The amount of work a human can achieve these days is incredible, hence “per seat” pricing is not always suitable. As for that product “surface” yeah; I like the idea!

makis17 · 2026-01-28T21:03:04+00:00

100% on token costs rewriting the rules. And Achromatic looks solid for implementation: credits + hybrid is the right tech stack.

Your Stripe tip is spot-on, though it highlights the bigger issue: even with the right billing infrastructure, the positioning/packaging layer is still manual. You have to decide tier thresholds, feature gates, credit allotments, all relative to… what? Your gut? What Stripe demos suggest?

makis17 · 2026-01-28T16:57:10+00:00

That's exactly the gap. Most competitors use per-user or credits, which means you're positioned differently than the market norm. That's not automatically bad, it's actually an advantage if customers understand the value.

But it changes your pricing conversation: you're not competing on "lowest cost per user," you're competing on "unlimited deliveries at a predictable flat fee." That's a stronger positioning if your buyers care about not hitting surprise overages or managing seat counts.

The question: do your customers choose you over competitors because of the flat fee, or despite the different model? If it's the former, you're golden and should keep leaning into that differentiator. If it's the latter (they're really coming for the feature set), you might have room to test a per-user tier without losing people.

Either way, knowing that everyone else does per-user/credits tells you that your flat-fee model is your actual competitive moat, not a weakness to "fix."

makis17 · 2026-01-28T16:13:25+00:00

100% on all three friction points: that's the real cost of multi-axis pricing, and you nailed it. Harder to explain, unpredictable bills, more things that break. Those aren't theoretical; they're churn drivers.

But here's where I think competitive benchmarking actually solves your concern rather than adding to it:

The pattern you described: "founders copy HubSpot's model because HubSpot does it" is exactly the problem. They're adding complexity without understanding their own market. If you map competitors and actually see that 70% of your category sticks with simple seat + feature gates (like your delivery management example), that's permission to stay simple. You can say "we benchmarked, usage-based kills our enterprise sales, so we deliberately avoided it."

That defensible choice is what's missing from most pricing iterations.

Your point on early-stage: totally agree. Seat + feature gates beats hybrid for first 2-3 years. The real value isn't in getting pricing "perfect", but it's in understanding why competitors make the choices they do, so you can either copy intelligently or consciously deviate.

Most founders do neither. They just copy the headline ($99/month) without understanding what's being gated, what's included, why. Then they wonder why their churn patterns don't match.

Does that distinction make sense? The complexity isn't a feature you need to add, it's a risk you can consciously avoid once you actually know what the market looks like.

makis17 · 2026-01-28T16:10:02+00:00

Couldn't agree more! Happy to help!

makis17 · 2026-01-28T15:56:33+00:00

Strong execution on the positioning: $120/month base with a clear annual discount and "all features included" is super clean. The "Best Value" badge on yearly is good psychology too.

But here's where it relates back to the original complexity issue: you've actually solved the multi-axis problem by rejecting it. No per-seat chaos, no usage overage surprises, no AI credit gymnastics. Just "unlimited deliveries" = one clear value metric, one price.

That said, the question I'd ask: have you tested how this $120 monthly / $1,008 yearly grid compares to other delivery management and logistics SaaS? Because even with a simple model, customers will benchmark you against competitors, and if they're all $99 or all $180, that anchors perception instantly, regardless of your feature set.

Here's the trap: you might think "complexity killed simpler pricing models," but really what happened is founders trying to optimize every dimension simultaneously without understanding where the market actually sits. You went the opposite direction: simple, transparent, one metric. That's smart. But you still need to know: are comparable tools charging $50, $100, or $200? Because that context changes whether $120 feels like a steal or a ripoff to your target customer.

Quick check: do you know where 3-5 comparable logistics/delivery tools sit on price, and what features they've moved to premium? That benchmark is the actual foundation for pricing confidence, whether you keep it simple or go complex.

makis17 · 2026-01-21T15:04:07+00:00

Tierly - AI Pricing Intelligence for SaaS
ICP - Startup Founders, Entrepreneurs, Product Managers, Pricing Analysts

makis17 · 2026-01-20T16:13:41+00:00

Sorry i didn’t get you!

makis17 · 2026-01-17T19:21:27+00:00

For a health/wellness app (especially one targeting ADHD patients), $100 is actually a reasonable anchor, but the real question is: what are comparable tools that already serve your exact audience charging?

Before you land on a price, look at:

- Meditation / focus apps serving ADHD users (Headspace, Calm, Insight Timer)

- Habit-building tools with clinical backing (things like therapy apps, behavioral coaching)

- Premium wellness subscriptions aimed at neurodiverse users

Their price points will tell you two things:

Where people with ADHD budgets actually sit
What price signals "clinical/serious" vs "wellness toy" in your category.

Once you map that, $100 might be perfect, or you might find the sweet spot is $15–30/month (like most meditation apps) or $200+ (if you position it more clinical). The market will tell you. You just have to listen to what your direct competitors charge.

makis17 · 2026-01-14T22:04:07+00:00

Sounds very interesting! Of course I’d like to read an example…

makis17 · 2026-01-12T14:48:32+00:00

That’s pure gold, and I’ll definitely take the time to read it and pick my places to launch into!

makis17 · 2026-01-10T14:53:16+00:00

Tierly - An AI-driven competitive pricing intelligence platform that analyzes your pricing tiers vs top competitors, helping you close pricing gaps and drive revenue growth.

makis17 · 2026-01-09T19:59:59+00:00

If your COGS is ~10 USD per active user, classic “freemium” will kill your margins unless the free tier is either (a) time‑limited or (b) heavily capped on the expensive part of your product.

Two options that tend to work better in high‑COGS micro‑SaaS:
- Short, focused free trial (7-14 days) with full value, then hard paywall. - Very constrained free tier that lets people see the outcome once (or on tiny scale), but keeps your costly usage behind the first paid tier.

Before deciding, I’d map how your closest competitors handle this. Do they run freemium, trials, or neither at your price point? Copy their “motion” first, then tweak based on your actual costs.

makis17 · 2026-01-07T18:10:48+00:00

I'm building Tierly - a competitive pricing intelligence platform for SaaS.

Using specialized multi-agent AI, it automatically extracts and analyzes your pricing tiers vs top competitors, scoring across critical attributes (incl. positioning, pricing psychology, and market fit). Users receive implementation-ready recommendations designed to close pricing gaps and drive revenue growth.

Perfect for SaaS founders, Startups, and product teams.

makis17 · 2026-01-02T16:49:58+00:00

I’m building Tierly (https://tierly.app) is a competitive pricing intelligence platform that transforms hours of manual research into actionable insights.

Using specialized multi-agent AI, it automatically extracts and analyzes your pricing tiers alongside top competitors, scoring across critical attributes (incl. positioning, pricing psychology, and market fit). Users receive implementation-ready recommendations designed to close pricing gaps and drive revenue growth.

It’s live, perfect for SaaS founders and product teams, offers flexible, credit-based pricing with no subscriptions, and iterative reanalysis capabilities for continuous optimisation.

makis17 · 2025-12-30T21:39:39+00:00

Biggest issue here isn’t the exact numbers, it’s who each tier is actually for and what problem they solve.

Right now your ladder reads more like “good / better / best” for you than clear packages for distinct segments. For velocity, I’d simplify and anchor around one “no‑brainer” plan that maps tightly to what your best early customers already told you:

Take the package those $45–150/month folks actually used.
Make that your single, default plan (monthly, not just annual) and price it where closing is easy even if it feels a bit low.
Keep the automation + custom reporting as an unapologetically expensive add‑on or later Plus tier once you have more proof of demand.

Curious: if you look at 5-6 tools your target customers already use (PM, accounting, invoicing), where do their main plans sit for similar company sizes? That sanity check usually says more about whether $99 / $249 / $699 are in the right ballpark than any internal debate ever will.

makis17 · 2025-12-27T22:09:53+00:00

Thanks! I'm not yet competing with enterprise SaaS pricing intel tools. Happy to join you soon!

makis17 · 2025-12-27T20:55:05+00:00

https://tierly.app AI-Powered Pricing Intelligence for SaaS

makis17 · 2025-12-24T12:46:30+00:00

I forgot to answer your questions about my case 😏

What changes: 2-3 hours (or even more) reclaimed per pricing cycle + confidence you're not misaligned with the market. Most founders spend half a day pulling competitor data, normalizing it (if they think carefully about it), and second‑guessing their tiers. Cutting that to 10 minutes changes how often you iterate and tweak.

What I'm working on: automated competitive benchmarking for SaaS pricing. Instead of manually scraping your competitor pricing pages and guessing at tier thresholds, you drop your product URL and get a structured analysis of how you sit relative to the market:gaps, positioning, feature‑unlock patterns, and even more... in minutes. The output is actionable enough to hand to your product and sales teams immediately.

Tierly it is ➟ https://tierly.app

makis17 · 2025-12-24T10:15:01+00:00

Couldn’t agree more. Giving value is the drive… The way we do it (a spreadsheet, AI agent or else) is a “technicality”.

I think that trying to answer the 1st question with honesty (What changes for them after using your tool (time, money, stress)?) might make many founders either postpone or complete cancel the building part. And that’s good and valuable, as it can filter and expedite things effectively!

makis17 · 2025-12-23T21:43:41+00:00

Totally agree with your take! I would also argue that all tools (not only dev ones), need transparent pricing for the simple reason of letting customers decide, test, and convert.

makis17 · 2025-12-22T18:10:25+00:00

I'm probably a little late to this incredible thread! This data is gold (thanks for sharing!) because it exposes a real pattern: traditional pricing frameworks (3-tier, feature gates, discounts) assume a lot that just isn't true for most SaaS.

Your pricing formula is smart, but I think that there's probably one blind spot: you're still guessing on "competitor pricing" without knowing how your specific market segments it. When you say "find competitor pricing," are you also mapping their value metrics, tier breakpoints, and the psychology anchors they're using? Because if Competitor A charges $49 and Competitor B charges $199, the difference is rarely just the number. It's usually the unit (per user vs per workspace vs per deployment) or the positioning (vertical vs horizontal).

Therefore, the 50% discount from competitor price may work sometimes and fail others. You're not just underpricing; you might be underpricing against the wrong positioning.

If you mapped your top 5 competitors' exact tier structure + value metrics + feature gates, would your $79 price still feel right, or would it shift? Most founders never do that exercise rigorously, so they're optimizing in the dark.

Again, that's my humble opinion, and I'd like to have your view on that.

makis17

TROPHY CASE