.png)
Frameworks, core principles and top case studies for SaaS pricing, learnt and refined over 28+ years of SaaS-monetization experience.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
In today's rapidly evolving financial technology landscape, billing and collections automation has become a critical component for businesses looking to streamline operations. With the emergence of agentic AI solutions specifically designed for these functions, companies face a crucial decision: how should they structure the pricing for these intelligent systems? The pricing model you choose doesn't just affect your bottom line—it fundamentally shapes user behavior, adoption rates, and ultimately, the value your customers derive from your solution.
The Evolution of AI Agents in Billing and Collections
Billing and collections processes have traditionally been labor-intensive, requiring significant human oversight. However, AI agents have transformed this landscape. These sophisticated systems can now autonomously handle routine communications, payment processing, follow-ups, and even complex negotiations with customers regarding outstanding payments.
Modern agentic AI solutions go beyond simple automation. They can:
- Analyze payment patterns to predict late payments
- Personalize collection approaches based on customer history
- Autonomously negotiate payment plans within defined parameters
- Escalate only the most complex cases to human operators
As these capabilities expand, so too does the question of how to appropriately price these services. Let's explore the primary pricing models available for billing and collections automation.
Per-Seat Pricing: The Traditional Approach
Per-seat pricing has been the standard for software applications for decades, charging based on the number of users accessing the system.
Advantages:
- Simplicity and predictability: Both vendor and customer easily understand the cost structure
- Reliable revenue stream: Provides stable, recurring revenue
- Scalability with team size: Revenue naturally grows as customer organizations expand
Disadvantages:
- Discourages wide adoption: Organizations may limit seats to control costs
- Disconnection from value: A customer might pay the same amount regardless of the value received
- Fails to account for usage intensity: A power user costs the same as an occasional user
According to a 2022 report by OpenView Partners, SaaS companies are increasingly moving away from pure per-seat models, with only 38% using it as their primary pricing metric—down from 67% in 2014.
Per-Action Pricing: Usage-Based Models
In a per-action pricing model for billing and collections agents, customers pay based on specific operations performed by the AI system. This could include invoices processed, collection attempts made, or customer communications sent.
Advantages:
- Usage-based pricing aligns cost with activity: Customers pay for what they use
- Promotes broader adoption: Organizations can deploy the solution widely with costs scaling with usage
- Transparent value exchange: Clear connection between payment and service rendered
Disadvantages:
- Less predictable revenue: Makes forecasting more challenging for both vendor and customer
- May discourage usage: Customers might limit essential actions to control costs
- Requires robust tracking systems: Need for precise measurement of all billable actions
A study by Paddle found that companies employing usage-based pricing metrics grew at a 38% faster rate than those using solely subscription-based models, suggesting this approach may facilitate more rapid scaling.
Per-Outcome Pricing: The Value-Based Approach
Outcome-based pricing ties costs directly to results achieved by the billing and collections automation system. This could mean charging a percentage of successfully collected payments or fees based on reduced days sales outstanding (DSO).
Advantages:
- Perfect alignment with customer ROI: Customers pay for actual business results
- Creates mutual success incentives: Vendor is motivated to continuously improve the AI's performance
- Eliminates adoption barriers: Low risk for customers to implement the system
Disadvantages:
- Complex to implement: Requires sophisticated tracking of outcomes and attribution
- Cash flow challenges: Revenue may be delayed until outcomes are achieved
- Risk allocation: Vendor assumes more performance risk
According to a McKinsey study, companies that implement outcome-based pricing models for technology solutions report 31% higher customer satisfaction scores than those using traditional models.
Hybrid Models: The Best of All Worlds?
Many successful billing and collections AI providers are finding that hybrid pricing models offer the flexibility needed in this complex market. These approaches might combine:
- Base subscription + outcome percentage: A modest per-seat fee combined with a share of collections success
- Credit-based systems with guardrails: Customers purchase credits that can be spent on various actions, with built-in guardrails to prevent unexpected costs
- Tiered usage with outcome incentives: Usage-based tiers with bonuses or discounts tied to collection success rates
These hybrid approaches allow for balancing predictable revenue with value-based pricing that rewards successful implementations.
Choosing the Right Model for Your AI Agent
When determining the optimal pricing strategy for your billing and collections agent, consider these factors:
Market Positioning
Are you targeting enterprise customers who prefer predictable costs, or mid-market companies willing to pay for results? Enterprise clients often prefer per-seat models for budgeting certainty, while growth-stage companies may favor outcome-based approaches that minimize upfront costs.
Technology Maturity
The maturity of your AI orchestration and LLM ops infrastructure should influence your pricing approach. More mature systems with proven outcomes can confidently offer outcome-based models, while newer technologies might benefit from usage-based models as they improve.
Implementation Complexity
If your agentic AI solution requires significant integration or customization, a per-seat model with professional services may make sense. Solutions that deploy quickly and show immediate value may be better suited for outcome-based pricing.
Implementation Considerations
Regardless of the pricing model chosen, successful implementation requires:
- Clear metrics and tracking: Establish transparent measurement systems for all billable components
- Robust AI monitoring: Implement systems that track agentic AI performance and outcomes
- Customer education: Help customers understand the connection between pricing and value
- Value-based positioning: Focus marketing on ROI rather than features
- Regular review cycles: Periodically assess pricing effectiveness and customer satisfaction
Conclusion
The ideal pricing model for billing and collections automation isn't one-size-fits-all. It should reflect your solution's unique value proposition, target market expectations, and the maturity of your AI technology. Increasingly, successful vendors are moving toward hybrid models that balance predictability with value-based components.
As agentic AI continues to evolve, we'll likely see even more sophisticated pricing approaches emerge that dynamically adjust based on AI performance, market conditions, and customer success metrics. The most successful providers will be those whose pricing models create true partnerships with their customers—where both parties benefit from improved collection outcomes and operational efficiency.
When evaluating or developing your billing and collections agent pricing strategy, remember that the best model isn't necessarily the one that maximizes short-term revenue, but rather the one that creates sustainable value for both your customers and your business.