Pricing GenAI – A review of existing models and a look toward the future

James Wilton • March 18, 2025

Author

James Wilton
Managing Partner

Read Bio

Pricing GenAI – A review of existing models and a look toward the future 


AI has changed everything—from how we work to how we interact with technology. But for companies with AI products and features, there’s one critical question that still has no clear answer: How should it be priced?


It’s well-documented that GenAI introduces fundamental challenges to traditional SaaS pricing models. The cost structures are different, usage can be unpredictable, and the way AI delivers value doesn’t always align with common SaaS pricing frameworks.


The market is clearly still figuring this out. Some companies are taking usage-based approaches (OpenAI), while others lean on per-seat pricing (Copilot), outcome-based pricing (Zendesk), or hybrid models (Jasper). Each approach comes with its own benefits and pitfalls.


So, what’s the right way to price AI? It depends.


We’ll break down the key pricing models for AI, the trade-offs they create, and where the industry could be heading.



The Core Challenge: AI’s Cost & Value Are Hard to Align


Traditional SaaS pricing models—like per-seat or feature-based pricing—work well because they scale predictably with customer adoption. AI breaks this pattern in three ways:


1. Compute Costs Are High and Variable – Unlike traditional SaaS, where marginal costs are low, AI models are expensive to run. Every query, every generated response, and every API call burns significant compute power.

2. Usage Doesn’t Always Equal Value – AI products are often priced based on API calls, tokens, or queries—but that doesn’t that truly capture the value the AI provides. More usage doesn’t always equate to more value for the customer.

3. Customers Want Predictability – Businesses are used to – and expect - predictable SaaS pricing. But AI pricing can be volatile, making budgeting difficult. This leads many customers to push back on pure usage-based pricing models.


Given these challenges, AI companies are experimenting with different approaches to pricing.



The Most Common AI Pricing Models (And Their Trade-Offs)


There’s no
one-size-fits-all pricing model for AI, but here are the most common approaches vendors are using today:


1. Per-Seat Pricing (Familiar, but Misaligned with AI Costs)


This is the default SaaS model—charging per user per month. It’s easy for customers to understand and provides predictable recurring revenue.

Works well when each user gets distinct value from the AI.
The problem:
AI’s costs don’t scale per user—they scale with compute and usage.

Example: Microsoft Copilot – Copilot is priced at $30 per user per month. Microsoft likely chose this because it’s easy for enterprises to budget and aligns with how they already buy software.

The challenge? Not every employee needs AI, so companies will hesitate to roll it out broadly at that price point.


2. Usage-Based Pricing (Cost-Aligned, but Unpredictable for Customers)


Since AI’s costs scale with usage, many vendors are adopting pay-as-you-go models where customers are billed per:

  • API call
  • Token processed
  • AI-generated output


Works well when AI usage clearly correlates with business value.

The problem: Customers hate unpredictable costs. AI usage can be hard to forecast, making budgeting a nightmare.


Example: OpenAI API – OpenAI charges per 1,000 tokens, aligning pricing with its direct compute costs.


The challenge? Many businesses hesitate to adopt products where they don’t know their monthly bill in advance.



3.  Outcome-Based Pricing (In Theory, the Gold Standard—But Hard to Execute)


What if AI vendors only got paid when their AI actually delivers results?


This sounds great in theory—customers love the idea of paying only for value. But in practice, it’s difficult to execute because:

  • Defining an “outcome” is tricky. What exactly counts as success?
  • Attribution is a nightmare. If sales increase, was it because of AI, better sales reps, or a strong market?
  • Revenue gets delayed. Vendors may have to wait months before getting paid.


Example: Conversational AI & Zendesk – Some conversational AI vendors have experimented with pricing based on the percentage of customer inquiries handled by AI rather than humans.


The challenge? Most customers still prefer flat pricing because they value budget predictability over outcome-based models.



4. Hybrid Pricing Models (Where Most of the Industry Is Heading)


Given the downsides of the previous models, many AI companies are now adopting hybrid approaches that blend different models.


Some common hybrids:

  • Per-Seat + Usage Tiers – A base subscription + pay-as-you-go for additional usage.
  • Usage-Tiered Per-User Pricing – Instead of charging a flat $30/user, charge per user with limits on AI usage (e.g., X queries per user).
  • Base Subscription + Performance Bonuses – Charge a subscription fee but include an outcome-based component for added revenue.


Example: Jasper AI – Jasper offers tiered subscriptions with AI word limits. Customers pay a base rate, but higher usage unlocks more capacity.



Where AI Pricing Is Headed Next


The industry is still experimenting, but a few trends are emerging:

  • More Structured Hybrid Models – The best AI pricing strategies will likely mix subscription fees, usage-based pricing, and value-based elements.
  • Greater Customer Control Over Usage – Customers don’t want surprise bills. Expect more pre-purchased credits, usage caps, and commit-based discounts.
  • New Metrics for Pricing AI Fairly – The industry needs better ways to align pricing with real business value rather than just raw consumption.


The AI landscape is continuing to evolve (see the $20k per month product
just launched by OpenAI) —and the best models will balance customer adoption, revenue growth, and cost predictability.



Final Thoughts

AI pricing isn’t just a cost-recovery exercise—it’s a key driver of product adoption and long-term success.


The best AI pricing models will:

  • Align costs with value delivered.
  • Encourage broad adoption without scaring off customers.
  • Balance revenue predictability with scalability.


No one has cracked the perfect model yet. But over the next 12 months, we’ll learn a lot from the companies leading the way.

By James D. Wilton May 28, 2025
Outcome-based pricing (OBP) is one of the hottest topics in AI and SaaS monetization today. Instead of charging customers for access or usage, vendors charge based on measurable results. The idea? Customers only pay when they see real value. It sounds like the ultimate pricing model - perfectly aligned incentives, no wasted spend, and a direct link between cost and benefit. So why don’t more companies use it? Because in reality, OBP is much harder to execute than it looks. It’s been around for decades, but few companies truly succeed with it. That’s because OBP introduces complexity, risk, and friction that can make it more challenging than traditional SaaS models. Here are the five biggest pitfalls of OBP - and what to do about them. 1. Defining the Right Metric is Harder Than It Looks The biggest challenge in OBP is choosing a metric that accurately reflects value - without creating unintended consequences. If the vendor defines success too loosely, customers will feel overcharged. If the metric is too restrictive, vendors won’t get paid fairly. Example: Zendesk’s AI Ticket Resolution Pricing Zendesk introduced AI-powered customer service pricing based on resolved tickets. But customers pushed back - because Zendesk’s definition of a "resolution" didn’t always match what customers considered a real resolution. The lesson? A pricing metric must be: Meaningful to the customer (aligned with their definition of success). Tied to the vendor’s real value-add (not just surface-level activity). Difficult to game or manipulate (or customers will optimize against it). 2. Attribution is a Nightmare (Even with AI) Choosing the right metric is only part of the battle - there’s still another problem: Can you prove that YOUR product drove the result? In many cases, multiple factors contribute to an outcome. If revenue grows, was it because of the AI-powered sales tool, better sales reps, or an overall market uptick? Example: IBM Watson & Salesforce Einstein Both were positioned as transformational AI platforms, but customers struggled to isolate the AI’s impact. They could see business improvements, but couldn’t confidently say, “Watson/Einstein was responsible for X% of that success.” Notably, neither IBM nor Salesforce uses OBP for these products. Why? Attribution is too difficult. If vendors can’t prove they caused the outcome, customers won’t want to pay for it. A better approach: Control more of the process (the more your product influences the outcome, the easier it is to claim credit). Use proxy metrics (if direct attribution is hard, find leading indicators that correlate with success). Offer hybrid pricing (mix base fees with OBP so revenue isn’t fully dependent on attribution). 3. Baselining Gets Messy, Fast Even if a vendor picks the right metric AND can prove attribution, there’s yet another challenge: How do you measure improvement? The problem: Many OBP models assume a static baseline - but in reality, customer environments change over time. Example: Fraud Prevention in Financial Services Some AI vendors charge based on the reduction in fraudulent transactions. But this raises tough questions: What’s the starting fraud rate? (Pre-existing fraud levels may fluctuate.) Should the baseline reset each year? (If the vendor permanently reduces fraud, do they still get paid for maintaining it?) The lesson? Customers won’t want to pay for improvements they believe they would have achieved anyway. And vendors need a way to continuously justify their impact. A better approach: Define clear baseline periods (e.g. compare against the 6 months before implementation). Adjust pricing over time (the vendor’s impact might be front-loaded, requiring a different model in later years). Use tiered pricing (higher fees early, lower fees as impact normalizes). 4. Revenue Delays Can Kill a Vendor Even if everything else works - the metric is solid, attribution is clear, and baselining is fair - there’s still one big problem: Vendors often don’t get paid until months (or even years) after delivering value. This creates massive cash flow risks. Many SaaS companies depend on predictable, upfront revenue to fund operations. But OBP means revenue recognition is delayed, making forecasting difficult. Example: Riskified’s Outcome-Based Model Riskified, a fraud prevention platform, only gets paid when transactions are successfully approved without fraud. This aligns incentives - but it also means their revenue is inherently unpredictable. The lesson? While this approach works for Riskified, not every vendor can afford to wait for long-term verification before getting paid. (Note: Investors may not love it either - Riskified trades at just 1.89x EV/Revenue, a very low multiple for a SaaS company.) A better approach: Charge a mix of fixed fees + OBP to ensure steady cash flow. Offer performance tiers (higher base fees for lower-risk customers, full OBP for riskier bets). Use milestone-based payments - instead of waiting for full verification, charge in phases. 5. Customers Prefer Predictability - Even Over Potential Savings Even if an OBP model delivers better value, many customers still choose predictable pricing over variable costs. Why? Most businesses prefer stable, budgetable expenses over a fluctuating fee - even if the predictable price is technically more expensive. Example: Conversational AI in Customer Support A vendor offering an AI chatbot asked customers to choose between: Payment based on how many conversations the AI fully handled (OBP model). A flat subscription fee. Most customers chose the flat subscription. The lesson? Even if OBP is theoretically the best model, buyers often prefer predictability. The existence of an OBP option, however, can signal vendor confidence and reinforce the value of a fixed-price plan. A better approach: Give customers a choice (some will prefer OBP, but many want predictability). Use OBP as an anchor (show the OBP price, but steer customers toward a fixed option). Cap OBP costs to reduce buyer anxiety. Final Thoughts: OBP Works - But It’s Not for Everyone Outcome-based pricing sounds great in theory, but it’s tough to get right. When structured poorly, it leads to: Customer friction (over unclear metrics or unfair pricing). Revenue instability (due to attribution and baseline issues). Delayed payments (which can crush cash flow). The best OBP models: Pick the right metric - aligned to value and hard to manipulate. Solve the attribution problem - proving the vendor’s role in success. Balance cash flow - with a mix of fixed fees and variable components. OBP isn’t broken - but it’s not a magic bullet. Companies that embrace it need to go in with open eyes and a clear strategy. What’s your take? Have you seen OBP succeed or fail? Let’s discuss.
By Annika Li March 24, 2025
Customers love integrations but not paying for them. How to structure API pricing to align with perceived value while maintaining profitability?
By James Wilton February 11, 2025
The following is an edited excerpt from Capturing Value: The Definitive Guide to Transforming SaaS Pricing and Unshackling Growth, the new book by Monevate founder James D. Wilton.
By James Wilton October 1, 2024
James argues that Canva's 300% price increase for Teams is reasonable, but poor messaging, lacking empathy and fairness, fueled customer backlash, underscoring the need for better communication in SaaS pricing changes.
September 6, 2024
While GenAI remains the hotbed of innovation in tech, the level of innovation is not as high for AI’s pricing strategies - dive deep into GenAI pricing insights and strategies!
By James Wilton August 19, 2024
James D. Wilton's 7 B2B PLG Commandments guide effective pricing strategies for SMBs. After covering packaging in his first article, he now explores critical aspects of PLG pricing through commandments four to seven.
By James Wilton August 19, 2024
Product-led growth (PLG) is effective for targeting SMBs, but requires a carefully crafted B2B pricing strategy. James D. Wilton outlines 7 commandments of B2B PLG pricing, focusing on the first three that deal with packaging.
By Max Baughman August 14, 2024
Behind the scenes pricing is where the real money hides in plain sight and implicit price metrics are the unsung heroes of B2B SaaS revenue optimization. Learn all about them and how to ethically implement this powerful strategy.
By Santan Katragadda July 24, 2024
Is your pricing truly aligned with the value you deliver across all customer segments and usage levels? In this article we explore 7 unique price scaling models that can revolutionize your pricing architecture.
SHOW MORE