78 / 100

MyCase pricing teardown

https://www.mycase.com/pricing

MyCase presents a clean, transparent 3-tier per-seat pricing model with visible prices, an annual discount, and a well-marked 'Most popular' tier — a strong self-serve setup for a legal vertical SaaS. The feature-gating story is clear and well-documented via a full comparison table, though the tier price jumps (60/120/150) are uneven and the Pro-to-Advanced gap is thin relative to the Basic-to-Pro leap, weakening the good-better-best logic.

Tier structure

MyCase Basic

$50-60/user/mo

MyCase Pro

$100-120/user/mo

MyCase Advanced

$130-150/user/mo

Value metric

per seat (per user/month)

Escalation logic

Plans escalate from core case/billing management (Basic) to automation, AI writing assistant, and integrations (Pro) to deeper AI case/discovery tools and advanced admin controls (Advanced); each tier explicitly includes everything in the prior tier.

Psychological anchors

  • Most popular badge — MyCase Pro is visually highlighted with a dark banner and centered placement, steering buyers to the middle tier.
  • Annual vs monthly toggle with strikethrough pricing — Toggle defaults to Annually and shows crossed-out monthly price next to the discounted annual price (e.g. $60 struck through, $50 shown), reinforcing savings framing with 'Save up to 16%' badges and dollar-amount savings callouts per tier.
  • Free trial as entry point — 10-day free trial, no credit card required, repeated as CTA under every plan and in the hero.
  • Charm-adjacent round pricing — Prices use round numbers ($50/$100/$130) rather than $X9 charm pricing, signaling a premium/professional B2B positioning rather than consumer discounting tactics.
  • Add-on upsell anchors — LawPay Payments ($0) and MyCase Accounting ($39/user/mo) are presented as low-friction bolt-ons below the core plans, expanding ARPU without complicating the main tier decision.

What this page is optimizing for

Primarily self-serve conversion — prices are fully visible, CTAs are instant ('Try MyCase free', no credit card), and the annual toggle nudges commitment — while a persistent AI chat widget (Margo) and 'Get a Demo' link suggest a secondary sales-assist path for larger firms.

Red flags

  • The price gap between Pro ($100) and Advanced ($130) is much smaller than Basic to Pro ($50 to $100), muddying the escalation logic and decoy effect.
  • No explicit user/seat minimums or team-size guidance are shown, despite pricing being per-seat, which could confuse solo vs multi-attorney firms.
  • The full feature comparison table is extremely long (30+ rows) with binary checkmarks per tier only, making tier differentiation hard to scan at a glance rather than in the pricing cards themselves.
  • Client Portal and Data Migration are marked 'Limited' on Basic but the specific limitation is not defined anywhere in the visible text.
  • No enterprise/custom tier or contact-sales option for large firms is shown, potentially leaving bigger firms without a clear high-end path.

Best-practices scorecard

What works · 6

  • Clear recommended tier — MyCase Pro is explicitly badged 'Most popular' and centered.
  • Visible prices — All three core tiers and both add-ons show exact monthly and annual per-user prices.
  • Annual discount offered — Annual billing saves up to 16% with per-tier dollar savings called out and a toggle to compare.
  • FAQ or objection handling — FAQ covers trial mechanics, seat limits, security, exact pricing, and cancellation policy.
  • Trust signals present — Customer testimonials, security details (SSL/AES encryption), and award-winning support claims are included.
  • Clear CTAs per tier — Each tier has a consistent 'Try MyCase free' button with 'No credit card required' reassurance directly beneath.

Half measures · 2

  • Value metric matches usage — Per-seat pricing fits a professional services tool, but no usage-based limits (storage, cases, etc.) are shown to justify tier price gaps beyond feature counts.
  • Tier differences are scannable — Pricing cards list feature bullets cleanly, but the full comparison table below is very long and repetitive, making deep comparisons tedious.