72 / 100

Runn pricing teardown

https://www.runn.io/pricing

Runn's pricing page is clean and well-structured with a clear 3-tier good-better-best model, transparent per-seat pricing on two tiers, and a detailed feature comparison table. The page does solid work on self-serve conversion for the Standard plan but gates Lite and Advanced behind sales contact, creating friction at both ends of the funnel. Trust signals and FAQ depth are genuine strengths.

Tier structure

Lite

$7/resource seat/mo

Standard

$11/resource seat/mo

Advanced

Contact us for custom pricing

Value metric

per resource seat per month

How limits scale

Saved Scenarios 3 per user → 3 per user → Unlimited
Custom Fields Not available → Up to 5 → Unlimited
Project Templates Not specified → Up to 5 → Unlimited
Save Reports Not specified → Up to 5 → Unlimited
Audit Activity Log 30 days → 90 days → Custom

Escalation logic

Tiers escalate from core scheduling/capacity essentials (Lite) to near-full feature parity with integrations and timesheets (Standard) to enterprise-grade analytics, SSO, unlimited customization, and dedicated support (Advanced). The ~57% price jump from Lite to Standard is modest; Advanced is opaque with custom pricing.

Psychological anchors

  • Recommended plan badge — 'Most Popular' badge is applied to the Standard plan, acting as a decoy anchor to push users toward the mid-tier.
  • Enterprise anchor / opaque top tier — Advanced has no public price ('Contact us for custom pricing'), making Standard feel affordable by comparison and anchoring enterprise value upward.
  • Annual vs. monthly toggle with discount — A billing toggle (Monthly / Annual) is prominently displayed at the top of the pricing section; annual billing is positioned as the savings option.
  • Charm pricing — Lite at $7 and Standard at $11 use sub-round pricing to feel lower-cost, though neither hits the classic $X9 pattern.
  • Volume discount teaser — A banner states 'Volume discounts start at 100+ resource seats. Talk to Sales to unlock savings,' nudging larger buyers toward a sales conversation.
  • Free trial as entry anchor — Both Lite and Standard CTAs offer a '30-day free trial, no credit card needed,' lowering commitment friction for self-serve entry.
  • Total price calculator — The page shows a dynamic 'Total per month: $350 for 50 resources' calculation beneath the per-seat price, making the real cost tangible and reducing sticker shock.

What this page is optimizing for

The page primarily optimizes for self-serve Standard plan sign-ups, evidenced by the 'Most Popular' badge, transparent pricing, and instant free-trial CTAs on that tier. A secondary goal is enterprise lead generation for Advanced, with 'Talk to sales' CTAs and no public pricing creating a deliberate sales-qualified lead funnel.

Red flags

  • Lite plan requires contacting [email protected] to trial, which contradicts the self-serve promise and will cause drop-off for budget-conscious buyers.
  • The value metric (resource seats, not users) is non-standard and requires FAQ explanation — this adds cognitive load and may confuse prospects unfamiliar with the distinction.
  • Advanced has no price anchor whatsoever, making it hard for mid-market buyers to self-qualify before investing time in a sales call.
  • The Lite-to-Standard price jump is only ~57% ($7 to $11), which is too small to create a strong perceived value gap and may undermine Standard's 'Most Popular' positioning.
  • Several Advanced-only features (Workstreams, SmartMatch AI, Resource Requests, SAML SSO, Custom Insights Dashboards) are scattered across the comparison table without a summary callout, making the upgrade case harder to scan.
  • The 'eligible' designation for Implementation Services and Dedicated CSM on Standard and Advanced is vague and requires a separate sales conversation, reducing transparency.
  • No strikethrough or explicit annual savings percentage is shown on the pricing cards themselves — the annual discount benefit is understated.

Best-practices scorecard

What works · 4

  • Clear recommended tier — 'Most Popular' badge is visually prominent on the Standard plan in both the hero cards and the comparison table header.
  • Tier differences are scannable — The detailed feature comparison table with checkmarks, numeric limits, and category groupings makes tier differences easy to scan.
  • FAQ or objection handling — A comprehensive 15-question FAQ covers pricing mechanics, trial details, seat definitions, security, cancellation, and discounts — well above average depth.
  • Trust signals present — SOC 2 certification, GDPR alignment, a named customer testimonial, '15k users worldwide' social proof, and a product tour all appear on the page.

Half measures · 4

  • Visible prices — Lite and Standard show clear per-seat prices with a dynamic total calculator, but Advanced is fully opaque with custom pricing only.
  • Annual discount offered — An annual/monthly toggle exists and annual is promoted as cheaper, but the exact discount percentage is not displayed on the cards.
  • Value metric matches usage — Per-resource-seat pricing aligns well with resource management use cases, but the user vs. resource distinction requires FAQ clarification and may confuse buyers.
  • Clear CTAs per tier — Standard and Lite have 'Start 30-day free trial' CTAs, but Lite's trial requires emailing support rather than instant self-serve signup, weakening the CTA.