November 11, 2025As AI becomes embedded into software workflows, businesses are considering whether pricing meters—such as seat-based subscriptions versus enterprise-wide flat fees—reflect the value they deliver. Partner Mohit Khanna and coauthors explain that incumbents primarily rely on flat fees, while AI natives lean toward activity consumption-based models. Both groups use successful outcome and capacity-based metrics to a lesser extent. Failure to adopt the right pricing meter could leave revenue on the table or misalign pricing with customer expectations.
Image description:
A pair of tree map charts compares the software pricing meter type and sample metrics used by incumbents and AI natives. The chart is divided into 4 categories: flat fee, successful outcome, activity consumption, and capacity. For incumbents, 68% use flat-fee metrics, 2% use successful outcome metrics, 17% use activity consumption metrics, and 13% use capacity metrics. In contrast, AI natives use a different distribution: 35% use flat-fee metrics, 10% use successful outcome metrics, 40% use activity consumption metrics, and 15% use capacity metrics. The chart also provides examples of sample metrics for each category, such as per user and company access (unlimited users) for flat fee, per resolution and per qualified lead for successful outcome, per conversation and per task for activity consumption, and per virtual CPU used and per tool capacity for capacity.
Note: This image description was completed with the assistance of Writer, a gen AI tool.
End of image description.
To read the article, see “Upgrading software business models to thrive in the AI era,” September 22, 2025.
