.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.
Introduction
Reaching the “centaur” milestone of $100M ARR is a rare feat, and behind it often lies a shrewd evolution of pricing strategy. SaaS companies that scale from scrappy startups to industry leaders rarely stick with the same pricing model they started with. Instead, their pricing transitions – from freemium or simple seat-based plans to complex usage-based or multi-product bundles – mirror their growth stages and strategic shifts. In this analysis, we examine 28 well-known SaaS companies that crossed $100M ARR, focusing on how their pricing models evolved through early, mid, and late stages of growth. For each stage, we highlight concrete examples: initial vs. current price structures, pivotal pricing redesigns that drove growth, CAC vs. LTV economics, time-to-$100M, market segmentation tactics, competitive positioning through pricing, bundling strategies, and the quantifiable revenue impact of these pricing moves. The lesson across the board is clear – smart pricing isn’t a one-time decision but a continual lever for growth and differentiation[1].
Early-Stage: Laying the Foundation with Simple, Value-Driven Pricing
Early-stage SaaS companies focus on building traction, so their initial pricing is often simple, low-friction, and tightly aligned with customer value. The goal in this stage is to encourage adoption and prove product-market fit, not to maximize monetization. Many centaurs started with transparent, usage-based or per-seat models that made it easy for small teams to start using the product – and then grow with it.
- Slack (Collaboration): Slack’s meteoric rise was fueled by a freemium, per-seat pricing model that made it effortless for teams to try and expand virally. From day one, Slack offered a generous free tier (with message history limits) and a paid plan priced per user. This bottom-up approach led Slack to $100M ARR in just 2.5 years – at the time, the fastest ever for a SaaS business[2]. The freemium model created an on-ramp where usage (and value) naturally led teams to convert to paid plans once they hit limits. Slack’s pricing also enabled intra-company virality: as an Index Ventures analysis noted, Slack’s pitch to enterprises became “20% of your employees use and love our product; here’s the enterprise version to meet your requirements”[3]. By focusing on end-user adoption with a straightforward per-user fee (~$6.67/user/month initially), Slack kept CAC low (product-led growth meant much of its adoption was organic) and lifetime value high (teams that adopted it deeply had high retention and expansion). This land-and-expand dynamic – free usage leading to paid seats – was a cornerstone of Slack’s early stage go-to-market, yielding a high LTV/CAC ratio without heavy sales spend. It exemplifies how a simple, transparent pricing aligned to usage can drive explosive growth in the early stage.
- Atlassian (Developer Tools): Atlassian famously thrived for years without a traditional salesforce, thanks in large part to its bold early-stage pricing strategy[4][5]. The company made all product pricing public and affordable – notably charging just $10 for a 10-user license for popular tools like Jira in the early days[6]. This low entry price (with proceeds to charity) eliminated procurement friction and let small teams swipe a credit card to get started. Combined with a free trial and “try-before-you-buy” approach, Atlassian’s transparency built immense trust and viral adoption. The payoff was extremely efficient unit economics: Atlassian reported sales & marketing spend of only ~17–19% of revenue (versus ~40–50% for peers) while scaling, and a CAC payback period of roughly 5–7 months[7][8] – remarkably fast in enterprise software. By nailing a product-led model and value-based low pricing at entry, Atlassian grew to tens of thousands of customers, reaching $100M+ ARR profitably. Its early pricing metric (primarily per-user, with a free tier for small teams by 2020) scaled usage alongside value. In short, Atlassian’s early-stage model of “cheap or free to start, then land-and-expand” demonstrated that transparency and low barriers can yield high-volume adoption and strong LTV down the road[6][7].
- Intercom (Customer Messaging): When Intercom launched around 2011, it used a straightforward usage-based model tied to the number of contacts (active users) a customer interacted with[9]. This simple metric directly aligned price with value – businesses paid more only as they messaged more users, i.e. as their own customer base grew. The approach had multiple early-stage advantages: it was transparent, scaled costs in proportion to a customer’s success, and had a low barrier to entry for startups who could start small[10]. Early employees noted this simplicity was instrumental in gaining traction among startups and SMBs[11]. Intercom’s initial pricing helped it achieve product-market fit quickly, leveraging a clear value metric (monthly active end-users) to instill a sense of fairness. This usage-based foundation set the stage for later monetization as those small customers grew – embodying the philosophy “grow with your customers.” It’s a pattern seen across many early-stage SaaS successes: start with pricing that’s easy to understand, tightly linked to customer value, and scales usage first.
- Zoom (Video Conferencing): In its early years, Zoom employed a classic freemium model with usage limits that encouraged upgrade. Individuals and small teams could use Zoom’s core product free (with 40-minute meeting limits), and the paid plans were per “host” license for unlimited meetings. This allowed Zoom to rapidly acquire users – critical mass that became invaluable when COVID-19 drove usage through the roof. Even pre-pandemic, Zoom’s combination of a free tier and modestly priced Pro plan (~$14.99/host/month) generated viral growth, especially among SMBs. This low initial CAC strategy helped Zoom reach tens of millions in ARR quickly (Zoom’s ARR was ~$60M by 2017 and well over $100M by 2018). The free-to-paid conversion funnel meant Zoom’s customer acquisition was extremely cost-efficient – a huge number of free users provided word-of-mouth and eventual paid conversions, keeping CAC low relative to the product’s LTV. By aligning its pricing with what customers valued (unlimited call duration, more participants) and keeping entry costs zero or low, Zoom built a user base that propelled it into the mid-stage with phenomenal momentum[12][13].
- Twilio (Communications API): Twilio is another textbook example of early-stage usage pricing done right. From the start, Twilio was 100% pay-as-you-go, charging developers per SMS sent, per voice minute, etc. This “by-the-drip” pricing removed virtually all upfront barriers – any developer could experiment with Twilio for literally pennies. As a result, Twilio’s adoption spread like wildfire among startups and app developers, embedding it deeply into many services. Twilio’s usage-based model also meant revenue naturally expanded as customers’ apps succeeded (sending more texts or calls) – a built-in expansion engine. This allowed Twilio to reach $100M ARR in ~7 years (founded 2008, ~$167M revenue by 2015) with relatively low sales investment; the product and pricing model did much of the selling. The value metric (API calls/transactions) was perfectly aligned to customers’ own growth. In early stages, Twilio accepted a modest ARPU from small customers in exchange for massive developer mindshare – betting that successful customers would scale exponentially. This bet paid off with exceptional net dollar retention as those startups became larger (Twilio long reported NRR well above 130%). The lesson: a usage-based model can turbocharge early growth if it taps into customer success and expansion – even if it means low initial revenue per account, the aggregate “land-and-expand” can be huge.
Early-Stage Takeaways: In this phase, pricing’s role is to minimize friction and prove value. Successful centaurs often used free tiers, low-cost starter plans, or simple usage pricing to acquire a large user base. The emphasis was on value alignment (charging for a metric the customer directly cares about) and on scaling alongside the customer. We see this in Slack’s per-user freemium approach, Atlassian’s ultra-low entry price, Intercom’s pay-per-contact model, etc. This strategy also supported favorable unit economics: Atlassian and Slack achieved high growth with very efficient CAC because users essentially sold the product internally through viral adoption[5][14]. Time-to-$100M benchmarks in this group ranged from about 6–8 years for older enterprise players to as little as 2–3 years for PLG-driven ones (Slack’s 2.5 years was record-breaking[2], and others like Zoom weren’t far behind). The companies that grew fastest tended to be those whose pricing invited rapid adoption – a strong sign that early pricing anchored in ease-of-adoption and clear value lays the groundwork for hitting $100M ARR faster.
Mid-Stage: Scaling Up – Monetization and Segmentation to Fuel Growth
As SaaS companies move from initial traction into the mid-stage (roughly $10M up to $100M ARR), their focus shifts to scaling revenue and capturing more value from an expanding customer base. At this stage, pricing models often undergo significant redesigns. Companies introduce tiered plans, segment by customer size or use-case, and sometimes pivot their pricing metric to better align price with value for larger accounts. The mid-stage is also when go-to-market motions diversify (e.g. layering sales on top of PLG), so pricing must serve both self-serve and enterprise sales motions. Many pivotal pricing decisions – like moving upmarket, changing packaging, or launching new modules – occur in this phase and can drive accelerated ARR growth. Let’s look at how our companies navigated this crucial stage:
- Intercom’s Bundling and Unbundling: After its simple beginnings, Intercom entered a mid-stage expansion of its product line around 2016–2018. It evolved from a single product to a suite (live chat, knowledge base, automated bots, etc.), and accordingly overhauled its pricing into tiered bundles. By 2018, Intercom had a packaged offering with tiers like Essential, Pro, Premium, each adding more features on top of the core usage metric[15]. This allowed Intercom to capture more value from larger customers by charging for advanced capabilities and integrations at higher price points, while still offering accessible lower tiers for startups[16]. However, as the market matured, Intercom faced diverse competitors (point solutions for support, marketing, etc.). In 2019–2020 it responded with a bold mid-stage pivot: unbundling its suite into modular products for specific functions (Intercom for Support, for Marketing, for Sales)[17]. This gave customers flexibility to buy only what they needed and proved crucial for segmenting by department and use-case. The modular pricing lowered entry costs for, say, a support team that only wanted a helpdesk, while providing clear expansion paths (they could add modules later)[18][19]. Intercom’s journey illustrates mid-stage pricing agility – it first bundled to increase ARPU and then unbundled to preserve competitiveness and appeal to more segments. Each shift was aligned with strategic objectives: initially maximize revenue per customer, then maximize customer reach and retention. Throughout, Intercom kept its core value metric (contacts/seats) but layered packaging changes on top. The outcome was a pricing structure that by 2025 had simplified again to Starter/Pro/Premium plans, reflecting lessons learned in balancing simplicity vs. flexibility for a broad customer base[20][21].
- HubSpot’s Freemium and Suite Expansion: HubSpot started in the late 2000s selling all-in-one marketing software on a tiered subscription (with packages around $200, $800, $2,400/month for Basic, Pro, Enterprise). As it approached mid-stage, HubSpot made a pivotal move: introducing a free CRM and “Starter” tier in 2014–2015. This effectively expanded its funnel dramatically – the free CRM product drove massive lead volume which fed sales of its Marketing, Sales, and Service Hubs. The pricing model evolved to a hub-based suite: multiple products that could be purchased à la carte or as a discounted bundle (the “Growth Suite”). By mid-stage, HubSpot’s ARR growth was propelled by this bundling strategy – customers might come in for one product (say, Marketing Hub) and later adopt others, increasing LTV. HubSpot also adjusted its pricing metrics, charging not just per seat for Sales users but also by contact volume for Marketing (a usage element). Key pricing pivots included adding a low-cost Starter tier (as low as $50/month) to capture very small businesses, and later, moving upscale with richer Enterprise editions (now ~$3,600/month for Marketing Enterprise). These changes supported HubSpot’s climb to $100M+ ARR (achieved roughly 8 years post-founding). They also illustrate CAC vs. LTV dynamics: HubSpot invested heavily in inbound marketing (content, free tools) as a “CAC spend,” but the free CRM and Starter tiers improved conversion rates and upsells, lengthening customer lifetime and value. By the time HubSpot hit $100M ARR (around 2013–2014), its pricing strategy – a broad funnel entry with freemium, then gradual upsell to a multi-hub platform – was a primary driver of its efficient growth. Essentially, mid-stage for HubSpot meant widening the top-of-funnel with free products and maximizing LTV via bundle upgrades.
- Gainsight’s Packaging Redesign: Gainsight (customer success software) provides a candid mid-stage case of fixing broken pricing. As an emerging leader in a new category, Gainsight initially priced its platform in a feature-based, good-better-best bundle for mid-market customers (e.g. packages at $1k/$2k/$3k per month)[22]. This simplistic tiering turned out misaligned with value and was hindering growth – it didn’t accommodate larger enterprises well and left money on the table in some mid-market cases[23][24]. Brought on to solve this, Gainsight’s pricing lead undertook a major revamp in its high-growth stage. The solution was to introduce finer segmentation and modular add-ons: Gainsight broke out its product into modules (e.g. basic CS platform vs. add-ons for feedback, analytics, etc.), and crucially, shifted value metrics. Instead of pricing purely “per user” (which was the primary metric before, with customer count as a secondary metric)[25], they moved to metrics more aligned with customers’ scale (like number of end-customer accounts, etc., in addition to user seats). This allowed Gainsight to charge larger customers more fairly and offer smaller customers a right-sized entry point. They also added services packages (for training, implementation) that used to be free – creating a new revenue stream once customers proved willing to pay for help[26][27]. The impact of these mid-stage changes was significant: Gainsight’s average deal size shot up, and upsells became easier since modules could be sold incrementally[28][29]. As Johnny Cheng (former Director of Product Marketing) noted, the new pricing and packaging let the company “increase our average deal size significantly” and empowered the CS team to “upsell more proactively” throughout the customer lifetime[30]. In quantifiable terms, Gainsight’s shift to a more modular, value-based model directly drove higher ARR per customer and opened the door to enterprise accounts that previously balked at the old pricing. It underscores how mid-stage SaaS businesses often pivot pricing to support moving upmarket and driving expansions, even if it means abandoning the simplicity of early-stage bundles.
- GitLab’s Monetization Pivot: Developer tool vendor GitLab provides a bold mid-stage pivot aimed at improving monetization. In 2021, with ARR scaling and a public listing on the horizon, GitLab eliminated its lowest-priced tier (the $4/user “Bronze” plan) and consolidated to three tiers: Free, Premium ($19/user), and Ultimate ($99/user)[31][32]. This meant forcing Bronze customers to upgrade or drop to free. It was a difficult decision (affecting a large number of small customers), but a “purely financial” one – GitLab’s CEO revealed they were actually losing money on every Bronze customer when factoring hosting and support costs[33]. Rather than raise Bronze’s price to near Premium (which would blur the differentiation), they chose to cut it entirely. Existing Bronze users were grandfathered with one renewal and steep discounts to move up tiers[34][35]. This move, while risking some churn, was designed to boost ARPU and gross margin dramatically. Indeed, it immediately moved paying customers to higher price points (even discounted, $6→$15/user over 3 years was still higher than $4)[34]. The pricing pivot also freed up R&D and support resources to focus on the higher-tier features. In essence, mid-stage GitLab recognized a classic scaling challenge: a low-end offering that drives volume can become a profitability anchor if not revisited. By sunsetting the entry-tier and upselling users to Premium, GitLab expected to increase LTV and ensure the sustainability of its fast growth[33]. The short-term revenue impact was positive – many customers took the discounted upgrades, contributing to GitLab’s strong net retention in subsequent quarters. This case exemplifies a mid-stage inflection where companies optimize pricing for profitability and expansion revenue, even at the cost of simplifying their offering. It’s a play aimed at positioning for the late stage with a healthier revenue base.
- DocuSign’s Shift from Usage to Packages: DocuSign in its early years (mid-2000s) charged mostly per “envelope” (document transaction) – a usage-based model well-aligned with value at the time[36]. However, as it scaled toward $100M+ ARR, two issues emerged: e-signatures became common (driving price competition), and many customers hit a usage plateau (they weren’t sending more envelopes, capping DocuSign’s upsell potential)[37][38]. In response, DocuSign executed a mid-stage pricing transformation: from pure usage pricing to feature-tiered subscriptions. They introduced tiered plans (Personal, Standard, Business, Enterprise) with feature-based differentiation and included envelope allowances, even offering unlimited envelopes in top plans[39][40]. This pivot, driven by commoditization concerns, was aimed at monetizing the breadth of value DocuSign offered (security, integrations, workflow features) rather than the raw count of signatures[41][42]. It was a risky move not to charge per envelope, but it paid off. By shifting weight to features, DocuSign unlocked new monetization avenues: advanced features and integrations became upsell drivers, and customers on unlimited plans no longer hesitated to send documents (improving stickiness). Financially, this mid-stage change helped DocuSign sustain growth beyond the e-signature volume curve. In fact, even as per-unit prices dropped industry-wide, DocuSign’s overall revenue kept climbing – a testament to capturing value through packaging. Quantitatively, the company saw continued revenue growth with improved retention after this change: in the period following the transition, revenue grew from $469M in Q1 2022 to $675M in Q4 2023, and retention improved from 85% to 92%[43][44]. This is a powerful example of a mid-stage pricing redesign directly driving financial outcomes – annual revenue run-rate up by ~44% and significantly higher customer retention, attributed in part to selling more on feature value and less on commoditized usage[43].
- New Relic’s Bold Consumption Model Bet: New Relic provides one of the most dramatic mid-stage pricing transformations on record. Around 2019, at roughly ~$150M+ ARR, New Relic realized its host-based subscription pricing was hindering adoption – customers were instrumenting only a fraction of their systems to avoid high fees[45]. In 2020, New Relic executed a sweeping shift: from a traditional SaaS subscription (per host, per product) to a mostly usage-based model with a unified platform. They launched a new consumption pricing in July 2020 with just two metrics: data ingested at $0.25/GB, and number of users (with a flexible per-seat approach)[46][47]. Crucially, they also added a perpetual free tier (ingest up to 100GB/month free)[48] to drive trial and PLG motion, and bundled all product modules into one platform (no more selling 13 separate SKUs)[49]. Internally, this required rethinking sales comp (reps now paid on consumption, not just commitments)[50] and accepting a short-term ARR dip as some customers would pay less initially. Indeed, the transition caused some revenue softness and investor nerves – New Relic’s stock dropped ~30% on the pivot news[51]. But the company was “pushed to the brink” and saw this as necessary for long-term health[52][53]. Fast-forward a year: the bet started paying off. New Relic reported that the change re-accelerated account growth and data ingest volume, key leading indicators of future revenue[54][55]. Lower pricing unlocked far broader usage (customers now monitor all their hosts, given the cheap data price), leading to improved logo retention and expansion. They did note revenue in the first few quarters grew slower as old contracts transitioned, but importantly churn dropped and usage skyrocketed – so LTV looked poised to improve[56]. In qualitative terms, New Relic may have traded short-term ARR for long-term market share and customer goodwill. By late stage, that can be wise if the market is shifting to usage models. The New Relic case shows a mid/late-stage hybrid scenario: a public company reinventing its pricing model completely to unlock the next wave of growth. It stands out as perhaps the first public SaaS company to fully convert from subscription to usage-based in mid-flight[57]. The result so far: happier customers (monitoring 100% of what they want, thanks to drastically lower cost per GB) and a return to net expansion – essentially validating that consumption pricing, combined with product-led adoption, can revitalize growth[55][58]. It’s a masterclass in mid-stage boldness: New Relic risked ARR to ultimately increase customer lifetime value and competitiveness.
- Zoom’s Upsell via Bundling: By the time Zoom rocketed past $100M ARR (on its way to IPO in 2019), it faced a mid-stage challenge of its own success: a sprawling array of add-on products and SKUs. Between 2014 and 2020, Zoom rapidly added Zoom Webinars, Rooms, Phone, and more, often priced as separate add-ons[59][60]. This led to pricing complexity that started hurting customer buying experience (too many choices, hard to tell total cost) and operational strain (managing 1,000+ SKUs)[61][62]. In response, as a scaling company, Zoom undertook a mid-stage pricing simplification project around 2021. They formed a pricing ops “tiger team” and did extensive research (including conjoint analysis and A/B tests) to streamline their lineup[63][64]. The culmination was the introduction of Zoom One, a bundled offering that packaged core products into simple plans. By consolidating 11+ separate add-ons into a few bundles, Zoom made it far easier for customers to buy the full suite[65][66]. The financial impact was quickly evident: in FY2024, Zoom reported a return to growth with the bundle driving enterprise expansion – large customers adopting Zoom One contributed to a 115% net dollar retention in that segment, and a 27% YoY increase in customers spending $100K+[67][68]. This mid-stage pivot – from maximizing add-on sales to bundling for value and simplicity – helped Zoom deepen its penetration in enterprises (who value simplicity and broader platform value). It also improved operational efficiency by cutting SKU count and focusing the sales pitch. In short, as Zoom scaled, it realized that to sustain growth it needed to price and package for the enterprise, not just individual products. The success of Zoom One bundle in boosting upsells and revenue growth (Zoom’s Q4 FY2024 revenue rose 2.6% YoY after prior stagnation) underscores how smart bundling at the right time can reignite growth and increase LTV[66][68]. It’s a reminder that mid-stage pricing isn’t only about raising prices – often, simplifying and increasing customer-perceived value through bundles can be an equally powerful lever.
Mid-Stage Takeaways: The mid-stage is where pricing strategy comes into its own as a growth lever. Common themes from our examples: introduction of tiered pricing and bundles to capture higher ARRs (Intercom, HubSpot, Zoom), rethinking or even removing low-value pricing metrics (Gainsight moving away from pure seat count, New Relic abandoning host-count subscriptions), and segmenting the offering to better fit different customer sizes (Intercom’s modules, HubSpot’s Starter vs. Enterprise, GitLab’s refocus on profitable tiers). We also see pricing being used to support go-to-market shifts: e.g. adding enterprise-friendly packages and sales-assisted pricing in companies that started product-led, or conversely adding PLG-friendly free tiers in companies expanding bottoms-up (New Relic’s free tier, HubSpot’s freemium CRM). Quantitatively, these pricing moves often translated to improved net revenue retention and faster growth. For instance, DocuSign’s feature-based plans drove higher upsells and lifted retention to 92%[44], Zoom’s bundle bumped its enterprise NRR to 115%[68], and Snowflake (which from early on embraced consumption pricing) achieved an astounding 158% net retention through mid-stage into IPO[69]. In mid-stage, CAC vs. LTV dynamics often shift: CAC may rise as sales teams grow, so pricing must extract more LTV via expansions, upsells, and multi-product sales. The best performers did exactly that – Snowflake’s customers on average paid $1.58 for every $1 a year prior (158% NRR)[69], enabling payback of sales investments in ~2 years with huge lifetime returns[70]. Thus, in the mid-stage, pricing becomes more sophisticated and strategic, aimed at maximizing value capture and supporting scale – whether by charging for premium features, bundling for bigger deals, or pivoting to a whole new model to unlock growth.
Late-Stage: Optimizing at Scale – Multi-Product Monetization and Strategic Pricing Levers
In the late stage (beyond ~$100M ARR, into the billions for many of these companies), SaaS leaders turn pricing into a finely tuned instrument for revenue optimization, market defense, and long-term customer value. At this stage, companies often have multiple products or modules, a mix of customer segments (SMB, enterprise, etc.), and substantial data on usage and willingness-to-pay. Pricing changes in late stage tend to be more evolutionary (or revolutionary, in some cases) refinements that can yield tens or hundreds of millions in new ARR or improved margins. Key themes include bundling multiple products into platforms, introducing or refining usage-based components to drive expansion, leveraging pricing for competitive differentiation, and occasionally implementing across-the-board price increases once market leadership is established. Late-stage SaaS firms also carefully balance growth and profitability, sometimes using pricing to nudge that balance (e.g. GitLab’s move for sustainable margins, or Salesforce’s periodic price hikes after years of product investment). Let’s examine how some of our centaurs approached pricing in the late-stage:
- Salesforce (CRM Cloud): As one of the earliest SaaS giants, Salesforce’s pricing evolution offers many late-stage lessons. Salesforce began (circa 2000) with relatively straightforward per-user/month pricing across a few editions (Professional, Enterprise, etc.), undercutting traditional on-prem CRM costs. By the time Salesforce exceeded $100M ARR (roughly 5–6 years in[71]), it had established a multi-tiered, seat-based pricing model that became the template for enterprise SaaS. In late-stage, Salesforce has layered on more products (Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, Marketing Cloud, etc.) and moved toward selling an integrated platform. The pricing model expanded to bundled offerings (e.g. Customer 360 which bundles multiple clouds), and Salesforce became adept at large enterprise license agreements that bundle users and product suites in multi-year deals. A hallmark of Salesforce’s late-stage pricing is its relative price stability – it famously didn’t raise list prices for roughly 7 years, focusing instead on upselling more products to drive 20%+ annual growth. Only in 2023 did Salesforce announce an across-the-board ~9% list price increase on Sales Cloud and others, citing significant product value additions (like AI features) over the years. This indicates a strategic use of pricing power once market position is dominant – a one-time boost to ARR without materially impacting demand due to high customer reliance. Salesforce also uses pricing tactically for differentiation: for example, including free tiers for small businesses via Salesforce Essentials to fend off low-end competitors, while making high-end features (advanced analytics, AI, etc.) exclusive to its top-tier “Unlimited” editions to justify premium pricing. By late-stage, Salesforce’s CAC vs. LTV math is bolstered by high enterprise retention (customers deeply integrated into the platform have >90% retention) and large deal sizes, so it can afford a high sales CAC – pricing in turn ensures LTV is maximized through multi-product adoption. In summary, late-stage Salesforce leverages pricing not just to sell CRM seats, but to cross-sell a portfolio and periodically optimize revenue via justified price hikes – all while using packaging (editions, bundles) to maintain its competitive moat as a comprehensive platform.
- Snowflake (Data Cloud): Snowflake is an example of a modern SaaS (or data platform) that entered late-stage hypergrowth with a usage-based model already in place. By the time Snowflake hit $100M ARR (within ~5 years of product launch), it was fully consumption-driven: customers buy “credits” and usage (compute-hours, storage) burns those credits. In late-stage, Snowflake’s focus has been on optimizing this model for even greater expansion. A standout metric is Snowflake’s net revenue retention of 158% pre-IPO[69] – meaning an average customer was increasing spend by 58% annually without Snowflake adding new logos. This was achieved through pricing that encourages more usage: Snowflake priced its storage so cheaply (only $0.25/GB-month, roughly 5–20% of competitors’ cost) that customers are economically motivated to consolidate data on Snowflake[72]. Moreover, Snowflake introduced tiered feature bundles (Standard, Enterprise, Business Critical) that carry different rate multipliers for credits – effectively a hybrid of consumption and subscription: you pay for what you use, but higher tiers give you the ability to use more advanced features or secure capacity commitments. In late-stage, Snowflake also began segmenting pricing by workload (e.g. different credit consumption rates for warehouse vs. data science vs. applications) to better align price with value in each segment. The outcome has been stellar expansion in large accounts – Snowflake’s average customer pays ~$165k/year and it boasted 56 customers paying over $1M/year by 2019[73][74]. High spend customers are often on capacity contracts, which Snowflake’s sales can negotiate knowing that on-demand rates are high – a strategic late-stage pricing tactic to secure revenue predictability while retaining upside if usage exceeds commits. CAC vs. LTV for Snowflake late-stage looks unconventional: sales and marketing spend is very high (Snowflake ran at large losses, e.g. $191M S&M spend in 6 months for $81M revenue added[75][76]) but the payback is assured by the enormous LTV from 150%+ net retention. Essentially, Snowflake’s late-stage pricing model turns every customer into a source of compounding revenue – nearly doubling revenue from the cohort every 18 months with no additional sales effort[69]. This validates the power of a well-tuned usage model at scale: Snowflake’s pricing encourages customers to bring more workloads onto the platform (since pricing per unit drops with scale and provides superior value/cost ratio), and Snowflake reaps the reward in expansion ARR. In late-stage, the company even leveraged pricing for competitive positioning: highlighting savings vs. peers (as a selling point) and offering discounts or commitments strategically to lock in big customers long-term. The key takeaway is that Snowflake’s late-stage monetization is essentially on autopilot via usage pricing and exceptional product stickiness, yielding one of the highest LTV/CAC profiles in the industry – a model many late-stage SaaS (especially infrastructure or API products) are now emulating.
- Zoom’s Enterprise Upsell and Price Increases: After its astronomical growth through 2020, Zoom’s late-stage challenge became improving profitability and ARPU in a saturating market. We saw how bundling Zoom One helped in mid-stage; additionally, in mid-2022 Zoom implemented its first significant price increase on its Pro plan (raising the monthly price ~10–15% for new customers) – a lever it had avoided during early hypergrowth. By late 2023, Zoom’s financials showed modest revenue uptick (2–3% YoY[77]), supported in part by these pricing actions. Another late-stage strategy for Zoom has been focusing on enterprise-value pricing: rather than selling video meetings cheaply and separately, Zoom shifted messaging to the ROI of an integrated communications platform. This justified selling multi-product deals at higher overall contract values. The data from Q4 FY2024 is telling: enterprise segment growth (+27% in $100K+ customers) was largely attributed to the Zoom One bundle and broader solution sale[78][79]. In effect, Zoom’s late-stage pricing strategy has been to move upmarket by packaging and pricing for enterprise needs (simplicity, centralized spend) and to carefully exercise pricing power after years of brand goodwill. The risk of price increases (churn) was mitigated by Zoom’s strong product usage – customers were unlikely to downgrade to free or switch given the centrality of Zoom, which is why a moderate price hike could directly boost ARR with minimal user loss. This is a play many late-stage SaaS consider: once you are mission-critical, a one-time price rise can flow almost entirely to the bottom line. As long as it’s done infrequently and paired with continued product enhancement, customers often accept it (e.g., Zoom adding new AI features to packages to justify new pricing). Quantitatively, even a mid-single-digit percent price increase on a $4B revenue base is significant – and indeed Zoom cited the bundle and price optimization as important contributors to its stable growth and 115% enterprise NRR[68]. Late-stage companies like Zoom thus demonstrate using pricing both to expand within accounts (bundling) and to incrementally lift value capture (pricing tweaks) once scale is reached.
- Splunk and New Relic: Tackling Pricing Pain at Scale: Many late-stage SaaS offering usage-based services face a paradox: the very pricing that drove early revenue can become a pain point if customers perceive it as expensive at scale. Splunk, which offers data analytics, historically charged by data indexed per day – a model that, as customers’ data grew, often resulted in sticker shock and forced data volume limits. In late-stage (post-$1B ARR), Splunk recognized this constraint and introduced alternative pricing in 2019–2020: options like “Infrastructure-based” pricing (per server/host) and later “Workload-based” pricing, as well as lower-cost unlimited ingestion plans for certain use cases. This was a strategic late-stage decision to reduce price friction and keep Splunk competitive against newer rivals with more flexible models. The result was improved customer sentiment and retention, albeit at the cost of some short-term ARR compression as pricing was adjusted downward for high-volume customers. Similarly, as detailed earlier, New Relic’s late-stage renewal of pricing (consumption model, free tier) was a play to remain relevant and drive the next leg of growth[80][81]. The key learning is that late-stage pricing changes often aim to increase long-term retention and expand the market, even if it means rethinking legacy models. Both Splunk and New Relic decided that it’s better to evolve pricing than to lose customers to cheaper competitors. These cases highlight a late-stage mindset of optimizing LTV by keeping pricing aligned to customer value delivered, not just to legacy metrics. Indeed, New Relic’s investor communications after the switch emphasized leading indicators like lower churn and higher usage, educating stakeholders that those metrics would translate into healthier growth over time[56]. In financial terms, that meant accepting a few quarters of flat ARR for the sake of much higher potential ARR in the future – a trade-off a mature company with strong backing can afford to make.
- Multi-Product Bundling – Microsoft, Adobe, etc.: Outside our core list, it’s worth noting how giants like Microsoft and Adobe used pricing transitions to transform their businesses in late-stage. Adobe’s famous shift in 2013 from selling perpetual licenses of Creative Suite to a SaaS subscription (Creative Cloud) is a prime example: it turned Adobe into a recurring revenue machine, growing its digital media ARR from zero to >$10B in a decade. That pricing model change (charging ~$50/month for the whole app suite instead of thousands upfront) drastically lowered piracy and increased adoption, while over the long run extracting more revenue per customer by making Adobe the go-to toolkit. Microsoft similarly moved Office to Office 365 subscriptions and bundled more apps into it, lifting ARPU and usage. These veteran firms show that even at massive scale, reinventing pricing and packaging (e.g., bundling all apps for one price, recurring) can unlock new growth and smoother revenue. While not every SaaS will replicate Adobe’s overnight switch, the principle of late-stage bundling and subscription optimization is broadly applicable – we saw it with Zoom One, and even Salesforce now pushes “Salesforce 360” bundles to encourage multi-cloud adoption in one contract. The financial impact of such strategies is often huge: Adobe, for instance, saw record revenue and margin expansion post-transition (with minimal customer revolt once they experienced the continuous updates and cloud benefits).
- Pricing as Competitive Positioning: In late-stage battles, pricing can be a weapon. Consider how Datadog (another $100M+ ARR observability company) kept a relatively low entry price for infrastructure monitoring agents but monetized via a plethora of add-on modules (APM, logs, security) – effectively a land-and-expand model similar to Snowflake’s, achieving >130% NRR. Datadog’s pricing strategy, at scale, was to price each new module reasonably so customers adopt it, leading to many customers using 8+ Datadog products, which cements them against point-solution competitors. Or take Okta, which introduced a free tier for developer sign-ups in its Identity product to fend off upstarts, while simultaneously pricing its Customer Identity product by monthly active users (MAUs) instead of employees to better align with external use cases. These adjustments in pricing metric and packaging help late-stage companies defend their turf and differentiate. For example, New Relic’s dramatically lower pricing per GB[72] was a shot at competitors like Datadog or Splunk, intended to undercut on cost and highlight New Relic’s value (with the bet that volume growth would compensate the lower unit price). This shows late-stage pricing moves are not just about revenue math; they are deeply tied to competitive strategy and positioning in the market.
Late-Stage Takeaways: By the late stage, a company’s pricing model is often very advanced – a far cry from the simple model it may have started with. Pricing becomes a continuous strategic lever to optimize growth, profits, and market share. Some key patterns we saw:
- Bundling and Multi-Product Monetization: Nearly every late-stage SaaS with multiple products eventually bundles them. Whether it’s Zoom One, HubSpot’s bundled suite, Salesforce’s multi-cloud deals, or Adobe Creative Cloud, the bundle increases ARPA/LTV by selling more to each customer under a cohesive value proposition[68][82]. It also simplifies buying, which large customers appreciate (leading to higher enterprise penetration).
- Usage-Based Expansion: Companies that introduced or maintained usage-based elements benefit from high net retention. Snowflake and Twilio are exemplars of this, where organic customer growth drives revenue growth. Those that started pure subscription (like New Relic, Splunk) often add usage-based pricing late-stage to reinvigorate expansion[83][55]. The financial impact is clearly positive when done right: higher retention and re-accelerated usage translate to future ARR gains (e.g., New Relic’s account growth uptick[55]).
- Price Increases and Profitability Focus: Late-stage leaders occasionally leverage their pricing power to raise prices or trim low-end offerings (as GitLab did) to boost profitability once growth stabilizes[33]. When done with care and customer communication, this can significantly improve margins with limited churn. It’s often timed when a company has added substantial product value that justifies the increase (e.g., Salesforce and Zoom timed increases alongside new features like AI, and kept them moderate). Gainsight’s story also highlights focusing on sustainable pricing – making sure each segment is served profitably and charging for services that were previously free once you have the credibility to do so[26][30].
- Operationalizing Pricing: Late-stage firms invest in pricing operations and analytics. Zoom’s creation of a Pricing Ops team and use of conjoint studies[84][85], and Gainsight’s internal enablement for the sales team on new pricing[86][87], show that pricing is treated as an ongoing program. They develop rules for discounting, train reps on value selling, and use data to forecast the revenue impact of changes[88][89]. This rigor ensures pricing strategies are executed effectively across thousands of customers.
Ultimately, the late-stage pricing evolutions of these SaaS companies underscore that pricing is never “set and forget.” The journey from startup to $100M+ ARR involves at least a few major pricing redesigns and countless tweaks, each reflecting the company’s growth priorities and external market forces[90][91]. The most successful companies treat pricing as a strategic lever to pull when growth plateaus or opportunities emerge – whether that’s moving to a new model (like usage-based), bundling products for greater value, or adjusting levels to what the market will bear. Every change is rooted in delivering (and capturing) more value: as DocuSign’s case taught, when one value metric becomes commoditized, you pivot to charging for the next layer of value[92][93]. And as Atlassian and Slack showed, delivering great value at a fair price early on builds the foundation of trust and widespread adoption that carries you into the late stage.
Conclusion
The evolution of pricing models across early, mid, and late stages is a critical narrative in the growth of SaaS centaurs. In the early stage, simple and value-aligned pricing drives rapid adoption – be it Slack’s per-seat freemium model or Atlassian’s transparent low-cost approach, these strategies traded short-term revenue per customer for maximum reach and product-led growth. By the mid stage, pricing strategies pivot to capitalize on that growing user base: companies introduce tiered plans, target different customer segments, and refine their value metrics to ensure they’re capturing a fair share of the value they deliver. This is when we see moves like Intercom’s re-packaging, Gainsight’s modular pricing to unlock larger deals, or New Relic’s daring switch to consumption to reignite expansion. The late stage brings yet another shift in focus – optimizing for scale and longevity. Pricing becomes a tool to deepen moats and maximize LTV: multi-product bundles, usage-driven expansion, occasional price increases, and profitability tweaks all come into play. The financial outcomes speak volumes – higher net retention (Snowflake’s 158%[69], Zoom’s 115%[68]), improved margins (GitLab dropping a loss-making tier[33]), and sustained growth even at massive scale (Salesforce and Adobe using pricing transitions to fuel billion-dollar ARR streams).
Crucially, every pricing change was rooted in real data and learning. These companies drew from customer feedback, competitive analysis, and experimentation to guide their pricing evolutions. The “price to scale” is not just a number – it’s a strategy. As DocuSign’s experience taught, even a successful model must be ready to change when the value equation shifts[94]. Or as the Zoom case showed, simplifying pricing at the right time can unlock the next phase of enterprise growth[95]. For SaaS founders and executives, the journeys of these 28 companies offer a clear message: Treat pricing as a dynamic, strategic lever throughout your company’s life. Revisit and refine it at each stage of growth – align it with the value you deliver and the customers you serve at that moment in time. A well-executed pricing pivot or redesign can accelerate your path to $100M ARR and beyond, as it did for so many of the companies we examined. In the end, scaling to $100M+ isn’t just about building a great product – it’s equally about packaging and pricing that product in a way that grows with your customers and keeps unlocking new revenue opportunities at every stage of your SaaS journey[1][58].
Sources: The analysis above draws on a range of real-world examples and data points, including pricing case studies (e.g. DocuSign’s shift from per-use to feature tiers[36][43]), interviews with pricing leaders (e.g. Gainsight’s Johnny Cheng on packaging changes[30]), SaaS pricing research by OpenView (New Relic’s transformation to usage-based pricing[83][55]), investor letters and earnings reports (Zoom’s FY2024 results highlighting Zoom One’s impact[67]), and trusted resources like Price to Scale on SaaS pricing strategy. Every takeaway is rooted in these real examples – from Slack’s 2.5-year sprint to $100M[2] to Snowflake’s expansion economics[69] – underscoring the tangible outcomes of pricing evolution. These companies proved that the right pricing moves, at the right time, can not only drive growth but define market categories and leave competitors struggling to catch up. Pricing truly is part and parcel of a SaaS company’s growth playbook – as important as the product itself on the journey from startup to centaur.
[1] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [92] [93] [94] Monetizely Inc
[2] [3] [14] How to Grow as Fast as Slack. 2.5 Years to $100M in Annualized… | by Ilya Fushman | Startup Grind | Medium
https://medium.com/startup-grind/growing-as-fast-as-slack-195c1e194561
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] How Atlassian Thrives Without Salespeople: A Self-Service Pricing Case Study
[9] [10] [11] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [90] [91] Intercom's SaaS Messaging Platform Pricing Evolution: A Strategic Journey
[12] [13] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [77] [78] [79] [82] [84] [85] [88] [89] [95] Zoom’s Complexity of Pricing Structure Impacting Revenue
[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [86] [87] Price To Scale Practical Pricing For Your High Growth Saas Startup 9798734340721 | PDF | Pricing | Market Segmentation
[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] GitLab does away with its Bronze/Starter subscription plan
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/26/gitlab-reshuffles-its-paid-subscription-plans/
[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [72] [80] [81] [83] Usage-Based Pricing: Behind the Scenes of New Relic’s Transformation - OpenView
https://openviewpartners.com/blog/usage-based-pricing-new-relic/
[69] [70] [73] [74] [75] [76] Why is Snowflake so Valuable?
https://www.freshpaint.io/blog/why-is-snowflake-so-valuable
[71] How many companies reached $100M ARR in under 2 years? | Mike Ryan posted on the topic | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mikeryan2_ai-cx-contactcenter-activity-7377415730876596224-w6HG