
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.
SaaS Pricing
In the world of SaaS, pricing isn’t just about picking numbers – it’s a fundamental growth lever that can make or break your business. In fact, experts have shown that even a tiny 1% increase in price can drive an 11% boost in profits, a far greater impact than equal improvements in customer acquisition or retention. This outsized effect means monetization strategy deserves as much attention as your product and growth strategy. Yet many SaaS founders and product leaders default to simplistic pricing models without fully examining their fit. It’s like driving a sports car but never shifting out of first gear, you’re leaving money on the table.
One common default is the classic “Good-Better-Best” (GBB) tiered pricing model. On the surface, GBB seems like a no-brainer: offer three packages (basic, mid, premium) to capture different willingness-to-pay, and let customers self-select. It’s simple, familiar, and many successful companies use it. But when applied without careful thought, GBB can quietly undermine your growth: “killing” your company’s potential softly, over time, through missed revenue and mis-served customers. Before you slap three tiers on your pricing page and call it a day, it’s worth exploring where this approach can go wrong and how to get it right.
It’s easy to see why the Good-Better-Best (GBB) model is appealing. The approach offers 2–3 tiered packages, e.g., Basic, Pro, Enterprise, each priced to match the willingness-to-pay of a broad customer segment. It’s simple, familiar, and efficient for products that serve homogeneous user bases, such as SMBs with similar needs and budgets.
When used in the right context, GBB can:
This model works especially well in markets where:
But here’s the catch: not all products or markets are that simple.
Many SaaS companies serve diverse segments or use cases where needs and willingness-to-pay vary significantly. In these cases, GBB can misfire:
Worse, a rigid GBB structure can limit your revenue ceiling by:
It’s no coincidence that less than half of SaaS companies publish pricing pages at all. And among those that do, many with GBB structures still end up customizing deals behind the scenes, especially for enterprise buyers.
So, even though Good-Better-Best is a helpful framework, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. When blindly applied to complex markets, it can stall growth, alienate customers, and leave money on the table.
In the next section, we’ll look at a real-world example of a GBB misstep, and the costly lesson it delivered.
A few years ago, Customer Success software provider Gainsight found itself in a pricing predicament that perfectly exemplifies the hidden dangers of a misapplied GBB model. Gainsight primarily served mid-market companies with its platform – this was its ideal customer profile. Yet, ironically, this core segment was where its pricing was most “broken”. What happened?
For a long time, Gainsight offered a three-tier “good-better-best” pricing lineup to mid-market customers, with packages (let’s say) around $1k, $2k, and $3k per month. In theory, these tiers were meant to provide options for smaller vs. larger mid-market clients. But in reality, it failed on multiple fronts:
Meanwhile, Gainsight’s approach to larger enterprise deals was to completely custom-price each one (essentially one-off quotes for each enterprise client). That gave the sales team flexibility at the high end, but it introduced inconsistency, some enterprise customers were paying vastly different prices for similar deployments, and the lack of a structured offering made it hard to predict revenue or ensure fairness. Smaller customers, on the other hand, were essentially ignored by the packaging; the lowest tier was still too expensive for many small firms, meaning Gainsight had unintentionally priced itself out of the lower end of its potential market.
In summary, Gainsight’s misaligned Good-Better-Best strategy was slowly stifling its growth in the very market it should have owned. The company was leaving money on the table (no effective premium upsell for higher-paying customers), frustrating mid-sized clients with all-or-nothing bundles, and missing out on smaller customers altogether. Gainsight’s story is a cautionary tale: a GBB model, applied by default without tailoring to a product’s specific market dynamics, can do more harm than good.
So, what went wrong and how did Gainsight fix it? The root issue was treating all mid-market customers as one monolithic segment that could be served with a fixed ladder of packages. In reality, different customers valued different aspects of the Gainsight platform. Gainsight belatedly realized that even within a target segment (mid-market), there was significant heterogeneity in needs. The “one-size-fits-all” tiered packages weren’t fitting anyone particularly well.
To correct the course, Johnny Cheng, Head of Pricing & Packaging at Gainsight, took a more nuanced approach. He shifted the company toward a modular packaging strategy, essentially breaking the product into components or “Lego pieces” that could be recombined to suit each client’s needs. Instead of forcing every customer down one preset path (good/better/best), the sales team could now mix and match modules to create custom bundles with transparent pricing for each module. This is known as a packaged-plus-à-la-carte hybrid model, and it gave Gainsight much more flexibility to align price with value on a per-customer basis.
Crucially, this new approach was grounded in customer segmentation and use cases. The team literally listed out every feature and capability of the product (hundreds of line items) and grouped them into logical modules based on different use cases. Some clients might need Module A + B, others B + C, etc., depending on what outcomes they were after. By pricing each module, Gainsight could charge for the specific value a customer needed, rather than a bloated bundle. This modular strategy acknowledged that for their product, customers didn’t progress along a single axis of “small to big”; they had varied paths and priorities. It traded the simplicity of GBB for a more segmented approach that ultimately drove better monetization.
The Gainsight case highlights a few key mistakes to avoid with Good-Better-Best, as well as principles to embrace:
Now, let’s generalize these lessons and tie them into a clear framework for pricing done right. We’ll walk through the four pillars of Monetizely’s pricing framework: Segmentation, Packaging, Metrics, and Operationalization, and show how applying them can steer you away from Good-Better-Best bad practices.
The first and most critical step is knowing your customer segments and their differing needs. Before deciding how many tiers or what goes into each, ask: Who are my distinct customer groups, and what does each value most? Your segments might be based on company size, industry, use case, user persona, or any combination of these. The goal is to cluster customers who have similar problems and willingness-to-pay, so you can design offerings tailored to each cluster.
Skipping segmentation often leads to mispricing. For example:
A great example of segmentation in action is Mixpanel’s pricing overhaul. Mixpanel, a product analytics SaaS, realized that its customers ranged from early-stage startups to large enterprises, and within those were different functional teams (engineering, data, marketing) using the product differently.
In their pricing redesign, Mixpanel’s team first identified the big customer segments and use cases they were serving: for instance, startups with lean teams versus enterprises with strict governance needs; or data engineers looking for pipeline integrations versus marketers focused on messaging campaigns. By understanding these distinctions, Mixpanel could see that a single linear pricing model would never fit all. What a 10-person startup values in analytics is not the same as what a Fortune 500 analytics team values. This insight drove Mixpanel to segment its offering (more on how in a moment).
The takeaway is clear: do your homework on customer segmentation. Talk to users, look at usage patterns, and discern clusters of needs. Your pricing (whether GBB or otherwise) should start with the customer, not with an arbitrary “good/better/best” template. If your segments truly are homogenous (e.g. a pure SMB self-serve tool), GBB might work out-of-the-box. But if you have diverse segments, you may need more creativity, perhaps multiple tier structures, tailored messaging for each segment, or modular add-ons. Simply put, good-better-best works best when you have a “large ‘n’” of customers with relatively homogenous needs and a similar willingness-to-pay. Outside of that scenario, it’s time to consider alternatives or hybrids.
Once you've clearly defined your customer segments, the next step is packaging, structuring your product into offerings that map to how different customers derive value.
At the heart of good packaging is alignment: the way you bundle features, usage, and access should reflect real differences in customer needs and willingness to pay.
If your segments are fairly uniform and value scales with volume, like usage, seats, or projects, a classic Good-Better-Best (GBB) model can be highly effective.
The key is ensuring these tiers reflect actual customer usage patterns, not just arbitrary upsells.
If your segments have qualitatively different needs, a modular or hybrid packaging strategy may be more appropriate.
Examples:
This model let startups stick with just core analytics (keeping costs low) while enabling enterprises to add high-value modules, paying more for what they actually use.
Effectively, Mixpanel reinvented “Good-Better-Best” into a build-your-own-bundle approach. Customers still got “good” fits upfront, and could graduate to “better” setups by adding what they needed over time.
Even if you choose a tiered model, poor design can backfire. One common pitfall: stuffing higher tiers with every feature, just to justify the price.
If only a subset of customers needs a feature, like SOC2 reports or API rate limiting, don’t bury it in every tier. Offer it as an add-on or custom bundle.
Ajit Ghuman puts it well: Good-Better-Best is not one-size-fits-all.
The point isn’t to hit a number, it’s to match packaging to your market reality.
If you’re using public tiers, make sure:
If not, you likely need to rethink the structure.
Bottom Line: Design your packaging to fit your customers, not the other way around. Whether you choose tiers, modules, or a hybrid model:
A well-structured packaging strategy doesn’t just improve monetization, it simplifies the buying experience and signals product maturity to investors and customers alike.
An often-overlooked aspect of SaaS pricing is the pricing metric, the unit by which you charge. This could be per user, per 1,000 events, per GB of data, per customer managed, or another usage-based measure. Choosing the right metric is just as critical as setting the right price.
A strong pricing metric has three qualities:
Too often, teams rely on tiered packaging (“Good-Better-Best”) and assume the pricing problem is solved. But if these tiers are built on a flawed or misaligned metric, customers will still struggle. Poor metric alignment quietly erodes value perception, customers can’t predict bills or connect price to outcomes. As a result, they hesitate to adopt, expand, or fully engage.
Mixpanel’s story provides a clear example. Their original pricing was events-based; clients were charged based on the number of events (user actions) tracked in their product analytics. This made sense to Mixpanel internally (more events meant more load on their servers, i.e. higher cost to serve), but it didn’t work well for customers, as:
In short, the pricing metric was at odds with customer success. Mixpanel recognized this friction and as part of their pricing revamp, they changed the metric (alongside packaging).
Mixpanel revamped its model:
This shift made Mixpanel’s value metric more intuitive and user-aligned. When defining your pricing, ask: What usage metric best captures the value a customer gets? And also: What metric scales with a customer’s ability to pay (as they grow or use more) without becoming unpredictable or punitive?
For many SaaS, per-seat (per user) is popular because it ties to company size and is straightforward. But per-seat doesn’t fit all products (consider a data analytics platform used by a small data team to process massive amounts of data, per-seat would undercharge relative to value).
Alternatives might be per consumption unit (API calls, transactions, data volume), per feature/module (charging more for access to certain functionality), or tiered thresholds of a key value metric (e.g. pricing bands for number of customer records, or for revenue processed through your system).
The trap to avoid is picking a metric that is either too far from the customer’s perceived value or too hard for them to predict/control.
Gainsight’s case involved a feature-based tiering, which is slightly different (gating features by tier rather than usage quantity).
Gainsight’s challenge wasn’t the usage metric per se, but a lack of consistency:
Don’t assume one metric fits all. Use segmentation to inform metric design:
Takeaway: The right pricing metric grows with value, not just with cost, and customers see it as fair and tied to outcomes. It makes tiered packaging intuitive (“up to X users or Y projects”) rather than arbitrary. When metric and packaging are both aligned to customer success, pricing becomes a growth enabler, not a friction point.
Even the best pricing strategy can fall flat without effective execution. Pricing isn’t a “set-and-forget” task, it cuts across product, sales, marketing, billing, and customer success. Operationalization is about rolling out pricing changes in-market with clarity, coordination, and care. It means communicating updates, enabling teams to sell the new model, and managing customer transitions, without causing churn or confusion.
Here are five best practices to operationalize pricing changes effectively:
Don’t rip the Band-Aid off for everyone at once. If your current pricing or tiers aren’t working, experiment with smaller segments before a broad rollout.
Complex pricing models like modular packages or add-ons, require more than just internal buy-in. Your sales team must be ready to navigate and sell them smoothly.
Transitioning existing customers off legacy plans is one of the hardest parts of pricing change, and a common place where companies stumble.
The goal: make legacy customers feel upgraded, not squeezed.
New pricing creates risk: what if your new “Better” tier is cheaper, or perceived as better, than what current customers already pay for “Good”?
The aim is to grow revenue through innovation, not create an unintended race to the bottom.
Operationalizing pricing isn’t a one-time event, it’s a living process.
Even with a strong launch, pricing must evolve alongside your product and market.
Final Thought: Great pricing isn’t just about theory, it’s about execution. A simple model can succeed if rolled out thoughtfully, while even the most elegant strategy can fail if poorly implemented. The true lever lies in the combination of strategic design and disciplined operationalization.
Pricing is too fundamental to be an afterthought. Copy-paste tactics, like slapping on a generic Good-Better-Best page, may look standard, but they often mask deeper misalignments that quietly stifle growth. The good news? Most pricing issues are fixable, and fixing them often delivers faster results than shipping new features or ramping up marketing.
If you’re a SaaS founder or product leader, now is the time to ask:
These questions reveal whether your monetization strategy is fueling your expansion or quietly slowing it down.
The power of pricing lies in working smarter, monetizing what you already have, but with sharper focus and stronger alignment. A disciplined approach to segmentation, packaging, pricing metrics, and execution can expose and patch the leaks in your growth engine.
When done right, pricing does more than boost revenue, it aligns your product with the right customers, builds trust, and scales value.
So don’t let outdated or misaligned pricing slowly choke your momentum. Treat pricing like a product: something to design, test, and optimize with the same rigor you apply to UX or code.
Because in SaaS, monetization isn’t just a financial detail, it’s a growth system. Make it count.
Use Good-Better-Best (GBB) when:
Use a modular approach when:
Most SaaS companies blend both: GBB for simplicity, with add-ons or bespoke options for larger or more complex customers.
Pricing changes can be sensitive. Balance fairness, clarity, and operational ease:
Successful transitions are gradual and transparent. Respect existing relationships while steadily guiding customers to your new model.
Non-standard pricing requires structured sales enablement. Focus on:
When sales is aligned and equipped, pricing becomes a confident lever, not a blocker.
You should continuously measure the performance of your pricing strategy. Start by defining what “working” means for your business – typically it’s driving healthy growth and retention without leaving money on the table. There are a few signals to watch:
Importantly, bake these evaluations into a regular review cadence. Remember, pricing is a powerful growth lever – you want to constantly ensure it’s calibrated correctly, based on data. If the data shows suboptimal results, don’t be afraid to iterate on your packaging or price levels.
Pricing changes impact multiple internal systems. Ensure alignment across:
Before launch, run simulations (e.g., upgrade from Tier A to Tier B) to ensure systems handle transitions smoothly. Coordinate early across engineering, ops, finance, and legal to avoid costly errors post-rollout.
Start with clear segmentation, by company size, industry, or use case:
Align pricing to the perceived value in each segment:
Segment-driven pricing ensures:
Done right, segmentation enhances both growth and satisfaction.
Pricing isn’t a “set and forget” decision, it requires regular tuning as your product and market evolve. Top SaaS companies often form pricing committees and revisit strategy quarterly, adjusting pricing every 6 months. That cadence may seem aggressive, but it reflects the reality: pricing is a living system.
There’s no universal rule, but you should watch for signs it’s time to revisit:
Even without clear triggers, a yearly pricing audit is healthy. Review metrics to assess if pricing is helping or holding back growth (see FAQ #4).
When making changes, go methodically:
Avoid knee-jerk changes that confuse customers. Instead, treat pricing as a strategic growth lever that evolves with your business. Regular check-ins and data-driven iterations ensure your monetization keeps pace, not falls behind.
Join companies like Zoom, DocuSign, and Twilio using our systematic pricing approach to increase revenue by 12-40% year-over-year.