How 350 business professionals are navigating AI pricing and procurement decisions, revealing a market where buyers expect AI as baseline functionality, apply traditional cost discipline to premiums, and treat AI spend as routine operational expense.
The research shows a market shifting from AI excitement to procurement discipline. With 82% of organizations beyond the earliest stage of adoption, buyers increasingly evaluate AI like normal software spend rather than a special innovation category. That maturity raises the monetization bar: 81% expect core AI to be included in the base product, and while 58% say a 20% premium is a hard sell, they will consider it when the value is clear.
What unlocks willingness to pay is not AI alone, but proof tied to outcomes. 75% need practical use-case fit to justify AI spend, and efficiency is the dominant value story, cited by 84% of those willing to pay more. In response to cost uncertainty, buyers favor simple pricing and contained complexity: 46% prefer flat per-user pricing, but some accept variability when controls exist, reinforced by 68% wanting dashboard-level visibility and 68% preferring vendor-managed AI. As a result, AI is increasingly bought, budgeted, and negotiated like recurring software, not a standalone premium category.
Most buyers no longer see foundational AI as a separately monetizable novelty. The default expectation is that standard AI capabilities come bundled, with premium pricing reserved for clearly differentiated value.
The market is not closed to higher AI pricing, but buyers demand a defensible business case. Vendors can still win premiums when they connect price uplift to practical value and measurable outcomes.
Productivity, speed, and reduced manual work dominate the willingness-to-pay logic. This makes efficiency the broadest and most scalable commercial story for AI monetization.
Dashboard-level usage visibility and vendor-managed backend AI emerge as the operational standard. Buyers will tolerate more pricing flexibility when the experience still feels predictable, governed, and easy to manage.
AI pricing has crossed a maturity threshold: 82% of organizations are beyond the earliest stage of AI adoption, and 81% now expect core AI bundled into the base product as standard. The implication is clear — buyers are no longer evaluating whether to invest in AI, they are evaluating whether vendors can justify the price. This shift creates six concrete go-to-market opportunities for software vendors who are paying attention.
75% of buyers require demonstrated use-case fit before justifying AI spend, and 73% say they will only accept a 20% price premium with strong evidence of ROI — not a promise of it. The market has moved past AI curiosity into procurement discipline, where proof precedes purchase.
Lead every sales motion with documented case studies and ROI calculators specific to the buyer's role and workflow. Make proof of value the first step in the sales cycle — not a post-sale justification artifact.
81% of buyers expect core AI capabilities to be included in the base product as standard, not sold as a separate module or tier. Vendors still treating AI as a bolt-on upsell are misaligned with market expectations — and risking churn to competitors who include AI by default.
Move foundational AI features into your standard packaging and reserve premium tiers for high-accuracy, high-stakes, or governance-heavy use cases where willingness-to-pay is established.
68% of buyers demand dashboard-level visibility into AI usage and spend, and 43% say they will only accept variable AI costs when they have real-time controls. Vendors who cannot provide clear usage telemetry are a compliance and budget risk — not a trusted partner.
Build and prominently market usage dashboards, spend caps, and audit trails. Frame governance as a first-class product feature — not an enterprise-tier afterthought — and let it carry weight in competitive evaluations.
63% of buyers classify AI spend as an operating expense or recurring subscription, and 46% prefer flat per-user pricing for budget predictability. AI spend now competes monthly against other SaaS renewals — vendors pricing with large upfront commitments or unpredictable usage models are creating friction in the buying motion.
Design pricing around predictable monthly or annual rates with lightweight entry tiers. Let buyers grow AI spend incrementally and align payment cadence to value realization, not to vendor cash flow preferences.
56% of buyers say they would pay materially more for AI that delivers higher accuracy in high-stakes scenarios — compliance, financial modeling, customer-facing recommendations. In these contexts, the cost of an AI error is concrete, and buyers will pay to eliminate it.
Identify the two or three use cases in your product where AI errors carry real business cost. Build differentiated premium accuracy tiers around these and quantify the cost of failure in your positioning and sales conversations.
92% of buyers actively use negotiation tactics at renewal — competitive alternatives, usage audits, bundle leverage. The vendors who survive intact are those whose customers have internalized their product as a productivity multiplier: 84% of buyers willing to pay more do so primarily because of documented efficiency and productivity gains.
Deliver mid-year business reviews showing usage and productivity benchmarks before buyers reach renewal mode. Buyers who can quantify gains are the ones who don't negotiate you down.
The market context is no longer early experimentation: most organizations are past the earliest stage of AI adoption, and many now evaluate AI commercially with clearer expectations. That maturity creates a core monetization challenge: buyers increasingly expect AI to be included in the base product, and they resist standalone premiums unless the value is concrete. A 20% premium is not ruled out, but it faces scrutiny and must be justified with practical use cases and provable fit.
“I would place it probably at a three where we have moved beyond experimentation into, like, targeted production use cases that deliver as value and and core, save cool where we can save time.”
— Lead Automation Integration Engineer and Senior Technical Product Lead, Retail
AI adoption has moved beyond experimentation for most organizations, with 82% now in mid-stage or advanced maturity. Four in ten say AI is already central to strategy, while a slightly larger 42% are using it in targeted, production-oriented ways without making it a core enterprise priority.
Maturity is splitting into two clear tiers. Mid-stage organizations are proving value through selected use cases and operational efficiency, while another 40% are tying AI directly to investment priorities, business processes, and service delivery. Only 18% remain in the earliest stage, suggesting the conversation is shifting from pilots to scale and strategic integration.
AI has moved beyond the starting line: 82% are beyond the earliest stage of adoption, while only 11% remain in very early experimentation and 9% are still in pilot or cautious exploration
Most organizations are in the messy middle: 63% say AI is mid-stage but not yet strategic, showing adoption is widespread even if formal integration is still catching up
Strategic maturity is now significant: 40% have reached more advanced adoption, including 22% making AI a strategic priority or core and 14% describing it as advanced and integrated, with 45% also scaling despite uneven execution
Segment go-to-market and customer success by AI maturity. Build migration paths that move the 63% in mid-stage adoption from fragmented use cases to governed, cross-functional deployment through packaged playbooks, implementation services, and ROI proof points. Price for progression with entry pilots, scale bundles, and enterprise strategic tiers. Shift messaging from AI experimentation to operational integration, risk management, and measurable business value, while giving advanced buyers roadmap, governance, and transformation support.
“Five. So level five, because it is a central pillar of our, investment transformation priorities, and budget, and project we are running.”
“We've only had, one real project that has helped the introduce the use of AI and, automate a lot of tasks, but we're still, very early into it”
Customers overwhelmingly expect AI to be included in the base product, with 81% saying core AI should come standard. Only 13% support a bundled-basic, paid-premium model, and just 6% believe AI should be sold separately as an add-on, making standalone AI pricing a clear minority position.
Buyer expectations hinge on whether AI improves existing workflows or introduces distinctly new value. Foundational, productivity-oriented capabilities are seen as table stakes, while willingness to pay emerges for advanced features with clear ROI. In practice, vendors risk appearing extractive if they charge extra for incremental AI, but can justify premiums for genuinely differentiated capabilities.
Baseline AI is now expected by default: 81% say AI should be included in the base product, with 58% explicitly expecting it bundled into the base price
Bundling matters most for core workflow AI: 31% prefer bundled pricing specifically when AI is embedded in core product workflows, signaling customers see foundational AI as table stakes
Premium pricing requires clear differentiation: only 21% say AI should be priced separately overall, while 26% accept separate pricing for advanced AI and 44% only if the value, usage, or fit is clearly justified
Bundle baseline AI into core product tiers and position it as standard functionality, especially where it supports embedded workflows customers already view as table stakes. Reserve separate monetization for advanced, differentiated capabilities with clear performance, workflow, or economic outcomes. Redesign packaging around a two-tier model—default AI included, premium AI sold as targeted add-ons—and sharpen messaging to explicitly justify paid features through measurable value, usage intensity, or specialized fit.
“my immediate expectation is that the foundational AI features should be included in the base price. Especially when they enhance existing workflows rather than introducing entirely new capabilities.”
“AI that enhances access existing functionality should be included and then AI that introduces entirely new high value capacity capabilities can be an add on, but only with a clear return on investment So vendors who get this wrong feel exploit native, vendors who get the right feel innovative, Yeah.”
A 20% AI premium is acceptable for a majority only when the value case is explicit. Nearly six in ten say it is a hard sell but still viable with clear ROI, while roughly one in four view that level of uplift as a dealbreaker. The market is open to paying more, but not for AI branding alone.
Buyers consistently tie willingness to pay to measurable business outcomes, especially productivity gains, cost reduction, and net new value. Even among those not rejecting the premium outright, scrutiny rises quickly when differentiation feels weak or comparable vendors bundle AI at lower cost. In practice, vendors need a stronger business case, not just more AI features.
20% is the acceptance ceiling: 70% see a 20% AI premium as either a dealbreaker or a major red flag, while only 30% say it is tolerable
Proof of value determines willingness: 73% would accept a 20% premium only with strong evidence of ROI or clear value, showing the price increase must be justified, not assumed
Acceptance is highly context dependent: just 13% are open to paying more in high-value or mission-critical use cases, and only 8% would accept the premium broadly if the rationale is credible
Cap AI pricing uplifts at 20% and treat that level as the maximum viable threshold, not a default markup. Tie any premium to quantified ROI, time savings, risk reduction, or revenue impact, and prove it with segment-specific evidence, pilots, and case studies. Reserve higher-confidence premium positioning for mission-critical use cases, while offering lower-cost entry tiers, opt-in AI add-ons, and clear value messaging for broader markets.
“I wouldn't say a 20% premium is an automatic deal breaker, but it would definitely trigger, like, the value focused evaluation and proposition.”
“It wouldn't be a direct deal breaker. There are times where I would say we are willing to pay extra or be open to incremental pricing, particularly when an AI is delivering net new or defensible value.”
The clearest opening is not charging generically for 'AI,' but packaging premium capabilities around validated outcomes. Buyers signal willingness to pay when value is proven through practical use cases, especially around efficiency gains or higher accuracy in high-stakes settings. The commercial model that best supports that willingness is one that feels operationally simple: straightforward pricing, strong usage visibility, and vendor-managed complexity.
“It it if it helps in, in enhancing our customer service, our response to faster our response to customers. Improves, internal business processes like service desk, and it also enhances the search capabilities of various documents within our environment. So, we can justify the premium price for the AI features.”
— Head of Cybersecurity
AI budgets are justified primarily by practical, clearly fitting use cases. Three quarters of respondents said spend depends on tangible value in day to day workflows, while only small minorities focused first on quantified ROI, 4%, or production grade proof such as references and case studies, 5%.
Buyers are not rejecting premium AI pricing outright, but they expect it to map directly to operational gains such as faster service, better search, time savings, or revenue impact. In practice, this means vendors win support by tying AI features to specific business outcomes first, then reinforcing the case with measurable financial results and credible proof.
Clear use cases are the entry ticket: 75% said AI spend depends on practical value and clear fit, with 42% needing workflow relevance and 58% requiring proof of concrete business outcomes versus alternatives
Generic AI narratives have no traction: 0% said a broad value story is enough, showing buyers need AI tied directly to specific use cases and measurable business impact
ROI proof matters more than directional promise: 52% need quantified ROI or cost-benefit analysis, while only 34% accept directional evidence and 6% require pilot, production, or finance-ready proof
Lead AI investments with a use-case-first business case: map each proposal to a specific workflow, define the operational pain point, and quantify expected gains against current alternatives before seeking budget. Replace broad AI messaging with outcome-led narratives, ROI calculators, and proof packages tailored to finance and business owners. Prioritize pricing and packaging around measurable value delivery—such as pilot-to-production offers, milestone-based expansion, and use-case-specific bundles—to reduce perceived risk and speed approval.
“significant productivity increases or time savings, that could justify a somewhat premium price point But in order to justify a significant premium price point, it would have to directly improve or help with revenue generation or some type of revenue pipeline related outcome.”
“And thirdly, these features would need to be quantified by the vendor themselves. So if there are proven case studies with, similar companies, similar verticals, and other organizations which have used these features and there's they have demonstrably, affect the productivity, efficiencies, return on investments.”
Efficiency and productivity gains are the dominant reason buyers accept higher AI prices, cited by 84% of respondents who discussed AI premiums. Only 2% pointed to hard cost savings alone, while 10% justified premiums through revenue growth, risk reduction, or strategic advantage. The strongest willingness to pay centers on measurable improvements to output, speed, and labor efficiency.
Respondents consistently framed premium AI as worthwhile when it removes manual work, accelerates processing, and improves margins or bottom-line performance. Hard savings appear as a secondary consideration, while growth and strategic benefits play a narrower role. In practice, vendors need a clear business case tied to productivity, automation, and financially visible operating gains.
Efficiency plus savings drive premiums: 84% say AI premiums are justified by efficiency and productivity gains, and 77% specifically require both efficiency improvements and measurable cost savings
Soft benefits rarely stand alone: just 17% accept time savings alone, while only 6% say hard cost reduction or clear ROI is the sole requirement for paying more
Growth and quality matter, but trail efficiency: 33% cite quality, accuracy, or risk reduction and 30% point to revenue or customer outcome growth, while just 13% justify premiums through strategic transformation or competitive advantage
Lead AI offers with a quantified efficiency-and-savings business case: package deployments around workflow compression, labor/capacity release, and measurable cost takeout, then price premiums against documented ROI milestones. Position growth, quality, and risk reduction as secondary proof points rather than the core justification, and reserve transformation messaging for select executive buyers. Align sales, product, and customer success around fast time-to-value, baseline metrics, and post-deployment savings validation.
“We do measure the business case in terms of, the bottom line improvement. So if there is a business case which is helping us to improve the productivity, helping out to eliminate some of the manual tasks and, human factors who are supporting it and help to improve our bottom line, I think they will be definitely will be justifying the payment premium price for the AI features.”
“It's all about efficiency if it means someone can perform their job role or or automate a huge amount of mundane tasks and focus on higher value work, that would justify a premium price point.”
Buyers pay materially more for AI accuracy when the stakes are high. A majority, 56%, said they would justify a meaningful premium for higher accuracy in consequential use cases, while 23% would pay only a modest uplift and only one in five view accuracy as table stakes that should not command any premium.
Willingness to pay rises when higher accuracy reduces regulatory risk, prevents costly errors, or cuts rework. In practice, buyers distinguish between routine use cases, where accuracy is expected, and high-consequence decisions, where moving from 90% to 99% can warrant significantly higher spend. That makes proof of measurable business impact critical to premium pricing.
High-stakes accuracy commands real premiums: 56% said better AI accuracy in high-stakes use cases is worth paying materially more for, showing accuracy becomes a pricing lever when consequences are significant
Most buyers cap the accuracy premium: 61% said higher accuracy is worth only a small or modest premium, while 11% see accuracy as pure table stakes and 13% say lower accuracy is a barrier but still do not expand the premium much
Proof determines willingness to pay more: 48% said any premium depends on demonstrated savings, risk reduction, or work impact, and 4% explicitly require pilots or benchmarks before paying for an accuracy uplift
Segment offers by consequence level: package premium “high-assurance” tiers for clinical, financial, legal, and other high-error-cost workflows, and price them above baseline accuracy products only when supported by pilots, benchmarks, and quantified ROI. Keep core offerings competitively priced because most buyers treat accuracy as table stakes or grant only modest premiums. Shift messaging from generic model quality claims to proof of risk reduction, fewer escalations, lower rework, and measurable business impact.
“I would I would frame this as rather from going to 99 I percent accuracy from 90%, I would say cutting the error rate by cutting the error rate by 90% or, saying 10% as many errors. And I think kind of frame that way, I would pay at least double the cost for something that is, say an order of magnitude more accurate.”
“I think we're in a highly regulated industry, and a lot of our materials need to be filed with regulators in the view, and they expect them to be accurate. So we would expect the, you know, the 99% accuracy at least, and we would obviously pay some sort of premium for that.”
Flat per-user pricing leads overall, with 46% of respondents favoring this model, compared with 34% who prefer consumption-based pricing and only one in five who want a hybrid or situational approach. Predictable budgeting and easier cost management appear to give fixed pricing an edge, even as a sizable minority remains open to usage-linked alternatives.
Cost predictability is the clearest driver behind per-user preference, while supporters of consumption-based pricing emphasize fairness and paying only for actual use. The 20% favoring hybrid models point to a middle ground: organizations want stable baseline costs but also flexibility when usage varies widely across teams, workflows, or seasons.
Predictable pricing sets the default: 46% prefer flat per-user pricing overall, with 42% showing a strong preference and another 23% favoring it when usage is stable or embedded
Flexibility matters as much as simplicity: 53% take a situational or hybrid view depending on use case or maturity, compared with 27% who strongly prefer consumption or pay-as-you-go pricing
Variability is the core pricing friction: only 7% are open to either model if value and transparency are clear, while 4% explicitly reject pricing tied to unpredictable consumption
Lead with flat per-user pricing as the default commercial offer, positioning predictability and budget control at the center of the value proposition. Add hybrid and usage-based options for high-variance, early-stage, or experimental deployments, with clear thresholds, caps, and transparent reporting to reduce anxiety around cost volatility. Segment packaging by deployment maturity and workload stability, and equip sales teams to guide buyers into the pricing model that matches adoption patterns rather than forcing a single approach.
“For AI features, I think consumption model makes the most sense because different people will use different amounts, and the cost is directly proportional to the amount used, not the number of users.”
Dashboard-level visibility is the clear expectation for AI oversight, with 68% of respondents wanting this level of usage and spend reporting. A much smaller share, 16%, say high-level visibility is enough, while only 14% need detailed tracking. The center of gravity is clear: leaders want practical monitoring, not minimal oversight or exhaustive granularity.
This preference points to a decision-ready middle ground, where teams want spend, usage, and trends visible by department, team, or project so they can manage budgets, risk, and value. The strongest contrast is between the large majority seeking optimization-focused dashboards and the smaller groups at either end, one satisfied with rough summaries, the other requiring chargeback or user-level detail.
Dashboard governance is the clear expectation: 68% want dashboard-level visibility into AI usage and spend, with 57% specifically prioritizing dashboards for usage and adoption monitoring
Light oversight still has a meaningful constituency: 49% say minimal, aggregate, or only moderately helpful visibility is sufficient, including 23% who want only high-level visibility and 11% who say little to no visibility is needed
Accountability requires more than topline dashboards: 22% want per-user accountability or chargeback detail, while 9% want breakdowns by team, feature, or business unit to manage ownership and spend allocation
Package visibility in tiers: make dashboard-level usage and spend reporting the default experience, with adoption trends, cost summaries, and alerting built into core governance, then offer drill-down modules for per-user chargeback and team or business-unit allocation. Sell to two buying modes at once—light-oversight customers with simple executive views and governed enterprises with accountability controls—while aligning pricing and packaging to maturity, from included summaries to premium granular analytics.
“In terms of AI usage, the information I need needs to be, enough to manage cost, risk, and and value. So the data that I would want, it has to be clear and decision ready.”
“So a dashboard showing, like, team level usage, aggregate spend, and high level trends is very helpful for sure.”
Vendor-managed AI is the clear preference in this theme: 68% favored having providers absorb backend model costs, while 31% preferred BYOK or direct model control. The appeal centers on simplicity, with respondents valuing a single commercial relationship and more predictable budgeting over managing multiple model vendors directly.
A smaller but meaningful minority still wants direct control, primarily for security, governance, and cost visibility. That split suggests vendor-managed models win when ease, accountability, and support matter most, while BYOK becomes more attractive for organizations with mature AI governance, enterprise model contracts, or stricter compliance requirements.
Simplicity decisively outweighs model control: 68% favor vendor-managed AI backends overall, led by 60% with a strong preference and another 5% leaning that direction
Direct control remains a sizable minority view: 24% strongly prefer direct model control or BYOK, with 4% leaning that way, showing transparency and optionality matter but trail managed simplicity
Preferences are stronger on the managed side: conditional support is lower for vendor-managed AI at 9% versus 12% for direct control, suggesting managed-backend buyers are more convinced while direct-control interest is more situational
Lead with a vendor-managed AI offering as the default package, emphasizing fast deployment, lower operational burden, and predictable pricing, since simplicity is the primary buying driver for most respondents. Position direct model control or BYOK as a premium, optional tier for buyers requiring transparency, governance, or model flexibility. Align go-to-market around “managed first, control when needed,” streamline onboarding for the core segment, and reserve customization resources for the smaller but meaningful advanced-control cohort.
“I would prefer that the vendor takes care of the backend cost, and then that I only receive one invoice.”
“I will have a vendor handle all the back end cost. I think it will be easier for us to have a vendor being accountable for all the support, maintenance, and any other open issues which requires to have an interaction with OpenAI.”
In response to uncertainty around AI cost and value, buyers gravitate toward simpler and more manageable commercial structures. Flat per-user pricing leads because it reduces ambiguity, but some buyers will accept usage-based variability if they have controls and dashboard-level visibility into usage and spend. This preference aligns with a broader desire for vendor-managed AI, where operational complexity and backend cost management stay with the provider rather than the customer.
“a consumption based model makes more sense. Provided it's, it is transparent, It is it is kept so cost don't spiral unexpectedly.”
— Senior Leader in Technology
Comfort with usage-based pricing depends on governance more than on the model itself. The largest share, 43%, accept cost variability when spending is transparent and controllable, while 34% remain uncomfortable with fluctuating costs. Only 23% are broadly comfortable with usage-based pricing without added conditions.
Budget discipline is the main fault line. Respondents who accept consumption pricing often require spend caps, real-time dashboards, and alerts to prevent surprise overruns, whereas roughly one-third reject the model because it weakens forecasting and annual planning. In practice, adoption rises when vendors pair pay-for-use pricing with strong visibility and budget controls.
Controls make variability acceptable: 43% were comfortable with usage-based pricing when they had visibility and controls over spend
Predictability still anchors decision-making: 43% strongly preferred predictable pricing, while only 13% were comfortable with spend variability outright
Acceptance depends on guardrails, not openness: 45% accepted usage-based variability only with strong guardrails or bounded exposure, 41% accepted it only in specific contexts, and just 5% were broadly comfortable
Package usage-based pricing with explicit spend controls, real-time visibility, and hard limits by default. Lead with predictable base plans, then layer metered elements only in bounded use cases such as pilots, burst capacity, or clearly defined overages. Position dashboards, alerts, caps, and approval thresholds as core product features—not add-ons—to convert cautious buyers. Anchor messaging on “flexibility without surprise,” since broad tolerance for variability is rare and acceptance depends on guardrails.
“So unless they have a budget or an allowance that is trackable and then fed back to them that said, hey. You've overconsumed You know, you your allowance for the month is x. You've consumed that in the first two weeks. You can't use AI for the next two weeks.”
“Consumption models, they're really bad for, for budgeting. Budgeting is massive where we work. If we can't really if, you know, prices are constant constantly changing due to usage, this is really bad for our, budget planning, which is something that is, you know, massive in our organization.”
On the organizational side, AI spending is already being normalized into standard software buying processes. Buyers predominantly treat AI as OpEx or recurring subscription spend, and they use familiar procurement tactics—renewals, competitive alternatives, and scale—to negotiate discounts. This indicates that AI is moving out of exceptional-status budgeting and into disciplined commercial management.
“Currently, it is being categorized as OPEX cars, because lot of it is being run through a SaaS based model. Approval from finance is more based on the business case and and less dependent on CapEx versus OpEx.”
— Vice president
AI budgeting is primarily treated as an operating expense, with nearly two-thirds, 63%, classifying spend as OpEx or a recurring subscription. Far fewer take a mixed view, 23% treating AI as a hybrid of CapEx and OpEx, while just 14% frame it mainly as a capital investment.
This pattern suggests AI is often managed like SaaS, with budgets tied to ongoing usage, subscriptions, and service consumption rather than long-term asset creation. Still, almost one in four apply a stage-dependent model, funding infrastructure and embedded product development as CapEx while keeping day-to-day AI tools in OpEx, highlighting a more nuanced budgeting approach.
AI budgets default to OpEx: 63% say AI spend is treated as OpEx or recurring subscription, with 50% primarily classifying it as OpEx
CapEx remains a selective play: just 11% primarily treat AI as CapEx, showing capital investment is far less common than operating expense treatment
Hybrid budgeting is a meaningful middle ground: 24% use a staged CapEx to OpEx model, and another 24% classify AI spend based on use case, deployment model, or strategic importance
Package AI offerings around OpEx-first buying motions: emphasize subscription, consumption-based, and pilot-to-scale pricing, with clear monthly ROI metrics and renewal justification built into every proposal. Reserve CapEx positioning for infrastructure-heavy, proprietary, or strategic platform builds, and offer hybrid commercial models that separate upfront implementation from ongoing service fees. Equip sales, finance, and product teams with use-case-based budgeting guides so buyers can map AI spend quickly to the right approval path.
“"In terms of any AI features, we embed on our internal software, which we sell to or we provide as a service to our clients, that will be a CapEx investment. But in terms of the AI features we use as part of our daily operational work, that will be an Opex cost in terms of recurring subscription."”
“Both. So there is a CapEx component in creating the basic infrastructure for consuming AI services. Building new platforms, integrating them in a one time. And then there is a OPEX cost also, which will be depending on the model consumption.”
Buyers are actively negotiating AI pricing, with 92% of respondents discussing tactics to lower costs. Roughly half, 48%, rely on renewals, competitive alternatives, and enterprise scale as their strongest leverage, making market comparisons and procurement pressure the dominant path to better pricing.
Negotiation strategies split beyond that core playbook. About one-quarter, 24%, push vendors to prove usage, ROI, and measurable value before accepting premiums, while another 24% trade on contract structure, relationships, or pricing models such as usage-based terms and multiyear commitments. In practice, this means AI pricing is won through both hard leverage and smarter deal design.
Usage and term flexibility drive the most leverage: 47% actively use data, value proof, and commercial terms to negotiate AI pricing, versus 18% who report little leverage beyond accepting vendor terms
Walk-away power is scarce for most buyers: 44% say they have little or no market leverage, while only 18% use strong alternatives or credible walk-away pressure to win discounts
Competitive pressure is more limited than operational leverage: 25% cite some competitive benchmarking but weak switching pressure, compared with 34% who gain at least some leverage through usage, scale, or contract term adjustments
Anchor AI negotiations on renewal events, usage commitments, and contract structure rather than expecting broad market competition to force discounts. Package credible ROI and adoption data, consolidate demand to increase scale, and trade term length, ramp schedules, volume bands, and feature scope for price concessions. Build a viable alternative only for priority categories where switching is realistic; elsewhere, sharpen commercial discipline, benchmark selectively, and tailor messaging to operational value and expansion economics.
“"Given the size and scale of our business and the breadth across the geographies and the number of users. We have been able to negotiate very robustly with us of vendors for any AI add ons."”
“We typically require our vendors to justify premium pricing by building a case study that justifies, the ROI.”
As organizations move beyond the earliest stage of AI adoption, AI is evaluated less as a novelty and more through normal software buying rules. That shift shows up in expectations that AI be included by default, skepticism toward broad premiums, classification of AI spend as OpEx, and heavy use of standard negotiation levers.
Vendors should stop relying on AI excitement alone to support pricing and instead design offers that can withstand mature procurement scrutiny: clear packaging, budget fit, and defensible commercial logic.
Buyers resist paying more for AI in the abstract, but become more open when the premium is tied to practical use cases and business outcomes. Efficiency and productivity are the broadest justification, while higher accuracy can support materially higher willingness to pay in high-stakes scenarios.
Monetization should anchor on outcome-specific value propositions, with premium tiers tied to measurable productivity gains or specialized high-accuracy use cases rather than undifferentiated AI access.
Buyers prefer flat per-user pricing because it simplifies planning, yet some will tolerate variable consumption costs when they have controls and dashboard-level visibility. This is reinforced by the preference for vendor-managed backend AI, suggesting acceptance of complexity only when the customer experience remains predictable and governable.
If vendors want to introduce usage-based AI pricing, they need to pair it with strong governance features and operational abstraction so customers experience flexibility without feeling exposed to unmanaged cost or technical complexity.
Yes, but conditionally. A 20% premium is not automatically rejected: 58% say it is a hard sell but acceptable with clear value, while about one in four see that level as a dealbreaker. The key is that buyers will not pay more for AI branding alone.
Practical workflow impact is the main trigger. 75% say AI spend depends on tangible use-case fit, and 84% of those discussing premiums point to efficiency and productivity gains as the primary reason to pay more. In higher-risk contexts, 56% would pay materially more for better accuracy.
Bundling is the dominant expectation. 81% believe core AI should be included in the base product, while only 13% support a bundled-basic, paid-premium approach and just 6% think AI should be sold separately as an add-on.
Flat per-user pricing leads at 46% because it is easier to budget and manage. Still, 34% prefer consumption-based pricing, and comfort with variability improves when governance exists: 43% accept fluctuating costs if they have controls and visibility.
AI is increasingly treated like normal recurring software. 63% classify AI spend as OpEx or subscription spend, and 92% discuss active negotiation tactics, with 48% relying on renewals, competitive alternatives, and enterprise scale to push for discounts.
Treat foundational AI as table stakes in packaging, since 81% expect it in the base product. Reserve paid tiers for differentiated capabilities tied to clear workflow impact, specialized automation, or high-stakes performance.
Build pricing and sales narratives around measurable productivity gains, because 75% require practical use-case fit and 84% justify premiums through efficiency. Lead with concrete before-and-after workflow outcomes rather than generic AI positioning.
Develop premium offers for use cases where accuracy reduces risk, rework, or costly errors, as 56% would pay materially more in consequential scenarios. Do not apply the same pricing logic to everyday assistance and mission-critical AI.
Start with predictable per-user packaging where possible, given the 46% preference for flat pricing. If offering consumption-based pricing, pair it with spend caps, alerts, and dashboard visibility because acceptance rises when controls and transparency are in place.
Position AI as recurring operational software spend, not an exceptional budget category, since 63% classify it as OpEx and buyers actively negotiate using renewals, alternatives, and scale. Equip field teams with ROI proof, competitive framing, and commercial flexibility that can withstand normal procurement pressure.
This research draws on 350 in-depth interviews with business professionals representing a wide mix of roles, industries, and company sizes.
Interviews ran 3 to 31 minutes and covered expectation for AI to be bundled vs sold separately, tolerance for AI price premiums, evidence required to justify AI spend, and primary business outcomes that justify paying more for AI. The conversational format allowed respondents to discuss their actual practices rather than select from preset options, surfacing nuance that closed-ended surveys typically miss.
Respondents included business professionals across technology, financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, and retail. All participants were selected for their direct experience with evaluating and purchasing AI-enabled business software. Company sizes ranged from small businesses to large enterprises.
The analysis of 350 interview transcripts was conducted using AI for semantic understanding, with multi-iteration validation and cross-verification to ensure analysis quality. Each transcript was independently reviewed by G2's AI Custom Research team to inform narrative, context, and clarity.
G2 Research, June 2026
G2 is the world's largest and most trusted software marketplace, helping 90 million people every year make smarter software decisions based on authentic peer reviews.
Based on similar topics and audiences.
How 335 B2B professionals are navigating AI-assisted vendor research, revealing a buying process where AI accelerates early discovery and content triage but human verification and direct negotiation still govern final decisions.
How 121 business professionals are navigating AI adoption and governance, revealing a dominant position that favors progress with guardrails rather than rejection, where human authority remains non-negotiable.
How 121 business professionals are navigating AI's role in their daily work, revealing clear boundaries between tasks they readily delegate and those where human judgment and oversight remain essential.
