Panel anchor $21.73 per seat per month · workable range $18.29–$24.62
Your current price sits above the range this panel accepts, which usually shows up as stalled deals and discount pressure.
Panel anchor $21.26 per active user per month · workable range $18.19–$24.97
The panel answered on total annual spend; this is that total expressed per active user. Heavier users of this unit pay more, so the meter tracks value. Per-unit price is steps up across the base.
Panel anchor $116 per site per month · workable range $101–$141
The panel answered on total annual spend; this is that total expressed per site. Heavier users of this unit pay more, so the meter tracks value. Per-unit price is steps up across the base.
Panel anchor $52.62 per workflow per month · workable range $45.62–$61.96
The panel answered on total annual spend; this is that total expressed per workflow. Heavier users of this unit pay more, so the meter tracks value. Per-unit price is steps up across the base.
Panel anchor $0.066 per api call (m) per month · workable range $0.056–$0.078
The panel answered on total annual spend; this is that total expressed per api call (m). Note usage of this unit does not clearly drive spend, so treat it with care. Per-unit price is steps up across the base.
A pricing read for SaaSCo, built from a synthetic panel of 90 buyer personas answering a Van Westendorp price-sensitivity study and MaxDiff value tradeoffs. It gives a specific anchor and range, the direction against your current price, and which segments carry the most pricing power, all with the caveats above. A strong starting point, not a substitute for a live willingness-to-pay test.
Four price perceptions across the range. Where they cross gives the reference prices and the acceptable band.
Shown on total annual contract value, not USD per seat per month. Total spend is the value-metric-agnostic question: buyers answer it without being steered by a per-unit framing, so it is the cleaner read of what a company will pay. Divide by your own unit count for a per-unit price, or read the value metric section, which does that for each candidate unit.
Anchor (IPP) $8,078, lowest-resistance price (OPP) $8,163; the shaded band is the range buyers will pay within.
IPP, Indifference Price Point ($8,078). Where the share who think it is getting expensive equals the share who think it is a bargain. Read it as the going rate, the price the market treats as normal.
OPP, Optimal Price Point ($8,163). Where the share who say "too cheap to trust" equals the share who say "too expensive to consider." Resistance is at its lowest here, so it is the price the fewest buyers reject outright, a strong place to anchor.
Two reads, deliberately. This band comes from asking buyers directly in your price unit. The value metric section derives a second per-unit price from total annual spend divided by each candidate unit. When the two land close together that is a good sign; a wide gap means buyers react differently to the unit than the arithmetic implies.
Acceptable range (the shaded band). The floor is where buyers start doubting quality; the ceiling is where they walk. Most published prices should sit inside it.
Each dot is one persona: how much of the metric they carry against what they will pay. The score is measured within size bands, so it asks whether a heavier user of the metric pays more than a similar-sized lighter user. Comparing across the whole panel would only rediscover that bigger companies spend more. Above +0.40 the metric is doing real work.
Price per unit at each quarter of the base. Measured from the panel.
| uniform | One rate holds across the base. Points to a single product on one linear meter: publish one price per unit. |
| steps up | Larger accounts will pay materially more per unit than small ones. A flat rate leaves money on the table at the top. Either move to a meter that already captures it, or keep this axis and add a premium tier that captures the gap through packaging. |
| steps down | Per-unit value falls as the metric grows, so the meter over-scales. Usually a weak value metric, though it is the expected shape if you intend volume discounting. |
The first test says usage drives spend. These are the other three classic tests.
| Metric | Usage → spend measured | Per-unit shape measured | Grows with customer judgement | Predictable to buyer judgement | Metering judgement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seats | 0.68 | 31% steps up | Moderate tracks headcount but lags it; teams add seats slowly | Strong provisioned accounts, stable and auditable | Easy trivially countable |
| Workflows | 0.57 | 62% steps up | Moderate grows with adoption once teams build on it | Weak depends on how you define one unit | Medium needs a defensible definition of a unit |
| Sites | 0.53 | 68% steps up | Weak locations change rarely, so revenue is flat between expansions | Strong contractual and known up front | Easy contractual |
| Active users | 0.53 | 32% steps up | Strong engagement grows with headcount and adoption | Moderate varies with how actively a team uses the product | Easy already counted in-product |
| API calls (M) | 0.30 | 31% steps up | Moderate grows with integration depth, not company size | Weak spiky and hard for finance to forecast | Medium high-volume metering plus overage handling |
What is measured and what is not. The two shaded columns come from the panel: every persona carries fixed attributes and gives their own price answers, so the scaling test and per-unit shape are computed from that. The three right-hand columns are judgement about the pricing unit itself. We deliberately do not ask the panel to forecast how a company would grow or how its usage would vary, because projecting invented companies forward is a guess built on a guess. Treat them as a starting view to challenge, not a measurement.
Every per-unit price is total willingness to pay divided by these counts. If a number here is wrong for your market, the per-unit price built on it is wrong by the same factor.
These volumes are a formula, not the panel's own estimates. 90 of 90 personas fell back, which happens when persona generation could not reach the model. Every per-unit price below is total spend divided by these guessed counts, so treat the per-unit figures as unreliable. The segment prices and the direct per-unit survey answers are unaffected. Set unit_ratios in config.json, or re-run once the model is reachable.
Median company in this panel: 65 employees.
| Unit | Median assumed | Range | Implied ratio | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seats | 31 | 2 to 115 | 0.48 per employee | formula (90) |
| Active users | 35 | 2 to 119 | 0.54 per employee | formula (90) |
| Sites | 5 | 1 to 11 | 0.08 per employee | formula (90) |
| Workflows | 14 | 2 to 32 | 0.22 per employee | formula (90) |
| API calls (M) | 9,129 | 460 to 49,325 | 140.45 per employee | formula (90) |
Override any of these in config.json under unit_ratios, for example {"Seats": 0.12} for 12 seats per 100 employees, or {"Site licenses": 2000} for one site per 2,000 staff. Client numbers beat our defaults every time. Rows where a formula was used are flagged in survey_results.csv under vm_source and vm_fallback, so they can be filtered out of the dataset.
Among similar-sized buyers, more of it means more spend (0.68), and the per-unit price steps up with size, so this axis works but needs tiers: roughly $11.66 at the small end to $28.86 at the top. Workflows also scales acceptably but steps up, so it works only with tiers and feature differentiation. API calls (M) cannot carry one published rate and is out.
Switch the axis to see the rate, the tier skeleton, and the price bands it implies.
Priced per seat: the panel supports $21.73 per unit per month, inside a band of $18.29 to $24.62.
Larger accounts will pay materially more per unit than small ones. A flat rate leaves money on the table at the top. Either move to a meter that already captures it, or keep this axis and add a premium tier that captures the gap through packaging.
| Band | Rate per unit per month (range) | Total contract band |
|---|---|---|
| under 9 | $11.66 ($10.86 to $15.80) | $525 to $780 |
| 9-31 | $19.16 ($17.73 to $25.51) | $3,293 to $4,616 |
| 31-79 | $24.78 ($20.36 to $27.13) | $12.8k to $19.2k |
| 79+ | $28.86 ($26.71 to $35.32) | $30.2k to $41.3k |
Priced per active user: the panel supports $21.26 per unit per month, inside a band of $18.19 to $24.97.
Larger accounts will pay materially more per unit than small ones. A flat rate leaves money on the table at the top. Either move to a meter that already captures it, or keep this axis and add a premium tier that captures the gap through packaging.
| Band | Rate per unit per month (range) | Total contract band |
|---|---|---|
| under 9 | $12.65 ($10.81 to $15.22) | $525 to $780 |
| 9-35 | $18.27 ($15.76 to $21.31) | $3,383 to $4,665 |
| 35-71 | $26.71 ($22.96 to $30.46) | $15.5k to $22.5k |
| 71+ | $30.87 ($27.55 to $36.12) | $28.6k to $38.1k |
Priced per site: the panel supports $116 per unit per month, inside a band of $101 to $141.
Larger accounts will pay materially more per unit than small ones. A flat rate leaves money on the table at the top. Either move to a meter that already captures it, or keep this axis and add a premium tier that captures the gap through packaging.
| Band | Rate per unit per month (range) | Total contract band |
|---|---|---|
| under 3 | $27.01 ($24.87 to $39.35) | $587 to $945 |
| 3-5 | $71.75 ($63.04 to $86.00) | $3,452 to $4,639 |
| 5-8 | $235 ($183 to $268) | $16.5k to $22.8k |
| 8+ | $266 ($259 to $350) | $28.7k to $41.2k |
Priced per workflow: the panel supports $52.62 per unit per month, inside a band of $45.62 to $61.96.
Larger accounts will pay materially more per unit than small ones. A flat rate leaves money on the table at the top. Either move to a meter that already captures it, or keep this axis and add a premium tier that captures the gap through packaging.
| Band | Rate per unit per month (range) | Total contract band |
|---|---|---|
| under 6 | $13.46 ($12.55 to $16.39) | $520 to $781 |
| 6-14 | $42.31 ($33.79 to $45.89) | $4,406 to $6,510 |
| 14-20 | $104 ($77.99 to $105) | $16.4k to $22.7k |
| 20+ | $117 ($105 to $132) | $31.0k to $40.6k |
Priced per api call (m): the panel supports $0.066 per unit per month, inside a band of $0.056 to $0.078.
Larger accounts will pay materially more per unit than small ones. A flat rate leaves money on the table at the top. Either move to a meter that already captures it, or keep this axis and add a premium tier that captures the gap through packaging.
| Band | Rate per unit per month (range) | Total contract band |
|---|---|---|
| under 3k | $0.043 ($0.037 to $0.054) | $514 to $762 |
| 3k-9.1k | $0.061 ($0.050 to $0.072) | $3,302 to $4,615 |
| 9.1k-20.7k | $0.103 ($0.074 to $0.106) | $15.5k to $20.8k |
| 20.7k+ | $0.079 ($0.076 to $0.094) | $28.7k to $40.7k |
Alignment and shape are measured from the panel.
Recommended: price per seat.
| Metric | Scales with spend | Per-unit shape | One rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seats | 0.68 | steps up | $21.12 |
| Active users | 0.53 | steps up | $22.13 |
| Sites | 0.53 | steps up | $150 |
| Workflows | 0.57 | steps up | $69.21 |
| API calls (M) | 0.30 | steps up | $0.072 |
Anchor, optimal point and acceptable band per firm type, ranked by pricing power.
| Segment | n | Anchor (IPP) | OPP | Acceptable range | vs avg | Pricing power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2B SaaS startup | 30 | $21 | $20 | $18 – $25 | +7% | In line with the market |
| Enterprise | 30 | $20 | $21 | $17 – $22 | +2% | In line with the market |
| Mid-market SaaS | 30 | $18 | $20 | $16 – $22 | -9% | More price sensitive, discount or risk walk |
Market average anchor $20 per seat per month. "vs avg" is how far each segment sits above or below it; a premium means lower price sensitivity and room to charge more. The acceptable range is that segment's own floor and ceiling.
Add a hand-verified competitor price line in config.json (market_benchmark) and it appears here and in the PDF. Left blank it is hidden, and it is never generated from the AI panel.
The same read cut by company size instead of firm type.
| Segment | n | IPP | OPP | Acceptable range (USD per seat per month) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-5 seats | 18 | $11 | – | $9 – $12 |
| 6-15 seats | 18 | $14 | – | $14 – $17 |
| 16-40 seats | 18 | $21 | $20 | $18 – $23 |
| 41-100 seats | 18 | $26 | – | $24 – $31 |
| 100+ seats | 18 | $33 | – | $27 – – |
Specific where the data supports a number, directional where it points a direction.
Preferred pricing model: Flat per-seat monthly fee · Strongest value promise: Do the same work in far less time
Which capability is MOST and which is LEAST valuable to your team?
Which pricing model is MOST and which is LEAST appealing to you?
Which promise is MOST and which is LEAST compelling to you?
Free diagnostic, provided as-is and without warranty. The figures are a synthetic-panel read, specific but caveated, and not financial or legal advice. clearSeam is not responsible for decisions made based on it.
clearSeam agent persona survey v7 · generated locally, no data left your machine