[HN Gopher] Pricing Pages - A Curated Gallery of Pricing Page De...
___________________________________________________________________
Pricing Pages - A Curated Gallery of Pricing Page Designs
Author : finniansturdy
Score : 167 points
Date : 2025-08-11 12:27 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pricingpages.design)
(TXT) w3m dump (pricingpages.design)
| xz18r wrote:
| The SaaS internet is so boring! These are like carbon copies of
| each other.
| avdlinde wrote:
| Isn't that a good thing? Let's you compare easily.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| It seems like you see either 3-4 columns, or a link to
| arrange a conference call with a salesperson (e.g. a
| "don't-bother-button")
| porridgeraisin wrote:
| Yeah. Literally all of them are .flex-row>.pricing-card*4.
| zerkten wrote:
| A lot of this comes down to A/B testing. Once people have found
| a solution that converts some number of customers, it's hard to
| take risks. There are alternative designs, but it's safest to
| just go with what is known. In some cases, the familiarity is
| helpful for users, but there is no denying that it can be
| boring. These are the unfortunate constraints that many
| talented people have to work in.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Given how badly I've seen a/b tests being conducted at
| multiple companies, I'm not sure I'd assume anything from
| competitors works particularly well.
| iammrpayments wrote:
| I can guarantee from my experience that most internet
| marketing practices are determined by the blind leading the
| blind.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Certainly my experience as well.
| runlaszlorun wrote:
| Would concur 100% on "blind leading the blind" here.
| exodust wrote:
| I'd like to see a pricing page where if you get the ball though
| the hoop, or some other challenge, you get a discount.
| biker142541 wrote:
| Not being boring doesn't translate to $$, however.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| And we wonder why code generating LLMs are... wait, never mind,
| we don't wonder. Of course, my pricing page looks different for
| now but will end up looking much the same since that's what
| visitors generally expect.
| jasonkester wrote:
| I had one of those for S3stat for a while. It lost decisively
| in A/B tests to the ugly wall of text that it replaced, so
| that's what's up there today:
|
| https://www.s3stat.com/Pricing.aspx
|
| I'm still waiting for the next generation of trendy SaaS
| companies to crib it.
| runlaszlorun wrote:
| I love your page. Being an authentic human and actually
| having some personality seem to be like secret weapons these
| days.
| martypitt wrote:
| > "We'll even put on a little tie when we talk to you on the
| phone".
|
| Love it.
| o0-0o wrote:
| Investor Portal Software Solutions from Investor Portal Pro are
| custom, built on customer AWS accounts, and based on a toolkit.
| We'll soon be launching a SaaS version, but not sure I want the
| pricing pages like these. I want a single price point (per
| user) that takes people right into the software after paying.
|
| Simplicity is tough, and it's hard to understand which option
| would be more affordable without a pricing 'calculator'.
|
| Here's our current pricing page (for the on-prem) version
|
| Feedback welcome!
|
| https://investorportalpro.com/pricing.html
| wonginator2001 wrote:
| ngl this looks like ass
| JimDabell wrote:
| Also see Paywall Screens: 10k screenshots of paywalls in mobile
| apps.
|
| https://www.paywallscreens.com/
| dn97 wrote:
| I didn't know about this! Does anyone have any other good
| repositories for app design patterns?
| bookofjoe wrote:
| WOW!
| becarlos wrote:
| Great!
| RicDan wrote:
| I've always wanted to know: Are people actually interested in
| more granular pricing options? I.e. give me 10x more tokens but
| miss me with that image generation, or give me more bandwith but
| still only one domain. It feels like nowadays 80% of stuff in
| pricing packages isn't really used by people paying for it, but
| they can't opt out of it...
| Swizec wrote:
| > Are people actually interested in more granular pricing
| options?
|
| Yes. Welcome to the world of committed contracts, call-us
| pricing, and "partnerships. At many-zeroes scale every cent is
| negotiated to the point that you'll get different pricing based
| on the hour of the day that you make the API call.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Still waiting for micropayments after 50 years...
| nilamo wrote:
| Adobe's subscription is so bad for this.
|
| Want a single product? It's only available for annual
| subscriptions for hundreds of dollars, with huge cancellation
| fees (the rest of the year). But it comes with a dozen or so
| products you'll never download lol
| ethan_smith wrote:
| Research suggests consumers actually prefer fewer choices - the
| "paradox of choice" shows that highly granular pricing often
| increases decision paralysis and cart abandonment rather than
| improving conversion rates.
| sangeeth96 wrote:
| I too think that has some weight to it, but there's no reason
| we can't have both.
|
| Before the LLM boom, I wouldn't have thought twice about
| having fine-grained options, but since then, every SaaS
| company on the face of the planet has forcibly bundled
| ChatGPT and its ilk and jacked up prices -- LLM crap I don't
| use and don't plan to use in its current state.
|
| Similarly, many might wanna go initially with a simple option
| but later, based on their usage, whittle it down to the few
| that are relevant, save money in the process, and commit to
| the company.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| I would be except that the feeling seems to be that you get
| screwed either way:
|
| * Tiers (aka new car model): something is always strategically
| left out of the otherwise "ideal" tier to force you up a level,
| even though you won't use most of the other options. Sometimes
| the "nearly there" tier is artificially expensive to drive you
| to the higher tier - the same trick as a medium coffee being
| only fractionally cheaper than the large. Sometimes there's a
| ratchet where you can upgrade but a downgrade is a huge hassle
| and/or penalised.
|
| * A la carte (aka the car/dishwasher spares model): every
| option feels expensive and you feel like you're being nickel-
| and-dimed and you know the marginal cost of providing that
| option was small
|
| * Top-up (aka the phone minutes model): top ups are _obscenely_
| expensive and are either a punishment for being "cheap" (i.e.
| prudent) or act as a threat to push you up a tier in the first
| place
|
| Add a few special offers, points, cost sinks and lock-ins
| (especially where hardware is involved), rewards and all that
| crap here and there to muddy it up to prevent a clear
| comparison being made. I basically assume all subscriptions are
| doing some kind of mind-games or scam with every little aspect
| of the pricing.
|
| Not that a fair price _can 't_ be any of the above options. The
| vendor has to cover the overheads somewhere!
| kmfrk wrote:
| One of my biggest peeves in pricing pages is the "feature diff".
| There are so many redundant features listed between tiers - or
| products - that many would be better off not showing features
| that are largely the same.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Then how would you see and compare everything you're getting in
| a given package?
| mdaniel wrote:
| I didn't dig through the infinite scroll _(ironic on a page about
| designs)_ but I 'm surprised more than half of them weren't
| dedicated to _obfuscating_ the prices, as has been the vast
| majority of my experience with trying to figure out how much
| money I need to give anyone
|
| <font size=small>call us</font>
|
| <h3>let's talk!</h3>
|
| or my other pet peeve
| https://lucidic.ai/#:~:text=Get%20started%20for%20free aka don't
| worry about it until you like it!
| pc86 wrote:
| They do have "contact sales" as a filter option which is nice
| if you're looking for examples of that. It only has one (not
| that great IMO) example though.
| Terretta wrote:
| WITHOUT ever speaking to anyone on the phone or by email, you
| can scale even $1M a month and get auto-scaled (very deep)
| discounts with big providers like AWS who certainly have enough
| "enterprise sales" to waste everyone's time on the phone,
| suggesting there's no good reason to make anyone talk to your
| SaaS if they don't have to.
|
| If they have to, because they don't know how to use what they
| buy, that's one thing. But don't force a call to, let's say,
| sign in with OIDC or turn on audit logs.
| yread wrote:
| Yeah, I'm looking for some GRC compliance software and there
| are so many vendor with pricing page that just has 3 columns of
| Call us! Why even bother?
| bluGill wrote:
| They bother because they don't want competitors to price
| match or beat their prices. if the prices (and changes are
| hard to learn about they think they can compete better). I'm
| not sure if it is worth it - many do go elsewhere to find
| clear pricing, but they think it matters.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It also means that the price isn't fixed, and that a good
| negotiator might be able to get a lower price than someone
| else. The whole "call us" also typically lowers the noise
| on the vendor's end as well. Anyone willing to take time
| out to contact them would be a much better chance of
| closing a sale. They are what would be known as the "good
| leads". If you're a user and researching multiple vendors
| with similar services/products/apps that have decent $$$
| attached, you'd be a fool to not contact and only pay the
| price on the tin.
| sturadnidge wrote:
| I agree re: quality of leads, but also wonder how many
| sales are lost to competitors _with_ advertised pricing
| purely because the user didn't want the hassle of talking
| to sales (maybe not purely, but you get the gist).
| netdur wrote:
| I love pricing pages, I avoid landing pages or whatever they want
| to me read and go directly to pricing page to get the meat of
| what they offer... then I look at price.
| hahn-kev wrote:
| Totally. It tells me who the target audience is and if there's
| actually a free tier. It tells me if the paid plan is 5$ per
| month, per user or fixed, or 500$ per month. It's kinda
| shocking how many times I have no idea which one it will be
| until I find the pricing page.
| seperman wrote:
| I'm the same way -- I skip straight to pricing too. Curious
| though: when you get there, do you prefer seeing a few fixed
| tiers (like the classic "3 bucket" layout), or would you rather
| have a usage-based formula where you can adjust a slider or
| input your exact needs and see the price change in real time?
| jongala wrote:
| I don't know if they were the first but I think of 37signals and
| Basecamp as the ones that first nailed the multi-
| column/highlighted plan form of design that has become so
| dominant.
|
| Here's 2009:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20090307125843/http://www.baseca...
|
| if you go back to 2007 you can see the same structure in a
| plainer presentation; it's easy to see how they went from one to
| the other:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20070831191822/http://www.baseca...
|
| Pretty interesting!
| alberth wrote:
| ... and neither Hey nor Basecamp (both from 37Signals) use that
| layout style anymore.
|
| https://www.hey.com/pricing/
|
| https://basecamp.com/pricing
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| huh, to me they look really, really similar, just a little
| more emphasis/direction on the basecamp page and a simpler
| set of offerings with more details each for hey.com.
| physix wrote:
| It's probably too much work, but it would be nice to see a short
| comment on the "curated" examples to better understand the
| reasoning behind the assessment. Why was it included ? What was
| particularly good about it? That might help people choose the
| right ones for their use case.
| eruci wrote:
| A simple text page is good enough for us:
| https://geocoder.ca/pricing
| randfish wrote:
| Just wanted to say this is wonderful work, timely for a couple of
| my companies, and I love seeing stuff like it posted to HN.
| burnte wrote:
| This is the second most important page on your website. The first
| is a clear description of the product. Without a pricing page
| people immediately think your pricing and contracts are predatory
| and probably covering up product deficiencies with contractual
| lockins.
| dylan604 wrote:
| So many sites get the first wrong, that you'd just expect the
| second to be bad as well. So many pages leave you wondering WTF
| does this do even after reading all of the information of the
| home page. I hate sites with landing pages before the home page
| too for sites that only offer the one thing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-11 23:00 UTC)