These three AI products, ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, and Intercom Fin, have drastically different pricing plans. ChatGPT uses flat subscription tiers, while GitHub charges per seat, and Intercom Fin charges per resolved customer conversation.
ChatGPT is mainly charging for access. The availability of Open AI’s tool, higher rate limits, and better reasoning models. GitHub Copilot charges for a person (individual enablement), pricing per developer headcount regardless of how many lines of code they push. Intercom Fin charges for an outcome: customers only pay when Fin resolves a ticket, and owe nothing if the AI fails and escalates to a human agent.
In terms of risk, for ChatGPT and Copilot, the customer carries the risk when the AI is wrong (incorrect answers or bugs in code), while the vendor carries the risk when inference costs are expensive against fixed monthly fees. For Intercom Fin, the vendor absorbs the financial risk of wrong or failed responses, while the customer takes on variable cost risk as resolution volume scales. It is interesting to see how the target audience and goal impacts pricing plans.
For our product, a Slack integration that helps PMs find cross-functional teammates via an internal skill portfolio and automates schedule optimization, a company-wide tiered subscription for access is what I imagine fits best (a flat-fee pricing plan). Our tool isn’t an isolated, dev-by-dev productivity extension like Copilot; its value depends on whole-company connectivity across Slack. Charging for access rather than outcomes (like “meetings booked”) ensures predictable budgeting for orgs and avoids penalizing PMs for frequent searches or calendar adjustments. The access to the different features across platforms, which we are providing, are the most important. It also can unlock more features if a company needs that hopefully continues to stream line their work.
