What pricing-page experiments have SaaS companies actually run?
- By Ali Abouelatta
- n = 301
- Published
- Updated
- 3 min read
- pricing · monetization · experiments · saas · web · mobile
Short answer
Lazyweb detected 301 pricing-area experiments (254 mobile plan-picker diffs + 47 web pricing-table diffs), our model scoring web PRICING TABLE changes highest for impact (3.60 of 5 vs 3.52 for mobile PRICING) source[1]. The recurring plays are tier restructuring — collapsing to a single hero price, adding a $0 floor, deleting a mid tier, splitting into audience tracks — plus billing-cadence and badge moves source[1]. Every one is a detected before/after diff with inferred rationale, not a confirmed A/B win.
Lazyweb detected 301 pricing-area experiments (254 mobile + 47 web) in July 2026; web pricing-table changes scored highest impact at 3.60/5.
Bar chart · Observed change
Observed change — The recurring plays (named before/after diffs)
One block is about 10.6 Observed change
- Collapse to hero price
- 3-tier grid → single '$8/mo' headline + one CTA
- Widen entry with $0
- 3 paid tiers → Free $0 · $5 · $15 · $30 · Custom staircase
- Split into tracks
- 3 per-person tiers → individual + team tracks, each with a free tier
- Remove the mid tier
- 4 tiers → 3 (delete $29.99 'Business')
- Trim flanks, hold anchor
- Hobbyist $16→$12, Business $50→$40, keep 'Most Popular' Creator $24
- Repriced per-seat
- Growth $297.50/mo flat (5 seats) → $42.50/mo per user
The tested-area landscape
The 301 pricing-area experiments split by platform and carry model-assigned impact/confidence scores (1–5, for relative ranking only) source[1]:
| Area | Platform | Count | Avg impact | Avg confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRICING | mobile | 254 | 3.52 | 3.76 |
| PRICING TABLE | web | 47 | 3.60 | 3.51 |
Web pricing-table changes edge out mobile on impact but with lower confidence — a thin, higher-variance set source[1]. These scores rank experiments against each other; they are not measured lift.
The recurring plays (named before/after diffs)
The highest-scored detected pricing-table diffs, with the change and inferred rationale source[1]:
| Play | Observed change | Inferred rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Collapse to hero price | 3-tier grid → single '$8/mo' headline + one CTA | Remove the downgrade escape hatch and plan-evaluation step |
| Widen entry with $0 | 3 paid tiers → Free $0 · $5 · $15 · $30 · Custom staircase | Capture hobbyists instead of bouncing at a $10 floor |
| Split into tracks | 3 per-person tiers → individual + team tracks, each with a free tier | Stop solo users parsing '/person' pricing; drop top anchor $21→$10 |
| Remove the mid tier | 4 tiers → 3 (delete $29.99 'Business') | Spare a three-way comparison; route agencies to sales |
| Trim flanks, hold anchor | Hobbyist $16→$12, Business $50→$40, keep 'Most Popular' Creator $24 | Lower entry barrier without discounting the anchor tier |
| Repriced per-seat | Growth $297.50/mo flat (5 seats) → $42.50/mo per user | Let a small team start near $85 instead of a ~$300 anchor |
Company attribution for these diffs is inferred from the pricing details in each summary, not a verified join source[1].
How to apply this
Use this as a tested-play menu, not a leaderboard of proven wins. If your funnel problem is decision paralysis, the tested moves are collapse-to-hero-price or delete-the-mid-tier. If it's entry too expensive, it's add-a-$0-floor or trim-the-flanking-tiers. If it's wrong buyer confusion, it's split-into-individual-and-team-tracks. If it's a team pricing wall, it's switch-flat-bundle-to-per-seat source[1]. Each was scored high-impact by our model but remains a detected diff with inferred rationale — reproduce it as your own A/B before trusting the direction.
The numbers
| # | Stat | Computed from |
|---|---|---|
| 01 | 301pricing_experiments | _experiment_annotations WHERE area IN ('PRICING','PRICING TABLE') — 254 mobile + 47 web |
| 02 | 254, impact 3.52, conf 3.76mobile_pricing | PRICING area mobile experiments with model-assigned impact/confidence (1-5) |
| 03 | 47, impact 3.60, conf 3.51web_pricing_table | PRICING TABLE area web experiments with model-assigned impact/confidence (1-5) |
Methodology
Universe: 301 detected pricing-area experiments (254 mobile, 47 web), Lazyweb Research, July 2026. Experiments are detected before/after UI diffs with LLM-inferred rationale and model-assigned impact/confidence scores — relative ranking only, not measured A/B lift. Company names are inferred from summary text.
Sources
- [1]
Lazyweb Research analysis of 301 pricing-area experiments (detected before/after UI diffs), July 2026
254 mobile PRICING + 47 web PRICING TABLE annotations. Impact/confidence are model-assigned 1-5 scores for relative ranking only, never measured lift. Company attribution is inferred from summary text, not a verified join.
Source: Lazyweb Research — proprietary analysis of real, in-market app screens. Cite as Lazyweb Research, 2026-07-07.