AI billing per user | Voters

AI billing per user

Nikita Kozhemiakin

Currently, there's no option to enable AI tools for specific users only, and some users might not need this feature at all. Please consider introducing a feature similar to GitHub Copilot integration: the organization is billed monthly for the number of seats selected for given users.

September 15, 2023

Rajiv Tirumalareddy

Pinned

Hey everyone,
We hear you loud and clear on the need for per-user AI billing. We want to make this work, but we’re running into some "boundary" challenges where we’d love your feedback.
For individual tools like AI Writer, the boundary is simple: if you pay for it, you use it.
However, for Workspace-level features like AI Assign or AI Prioritization, the lines get blurry. If an admin with an AI license sets up AI Assign, then Brain assigns tasks to a team member without a license, who "owns" that AI action? If only the admin owns that action, would this encourage everyone to just get one AI license no matter how large their workspace?
We’d love to know: If we offered per-user billing, would you be okay with Workspace-level AI features being restricted only to teams where everyone has a seat? Or should those features remain tied to "Credit Packs" while individual tools move to a per-seat model?
Looking forward to your thoughts!

Gareth Hughes

Yes - we need this! Only some users require it

Maddee McKinnon

Rajiv Tirumalareddy

From my perspective, per-user AI billing still makes the most sense, even if it means being stricter with workspace-level features.

I’d be completely okay with Workspace-level AI features (like AI Assign / AI Prioritization) being restricted to spaces, folders, or teams where all users have an AI seat. That feels similar to how other tools gate advanced automations or permissions.

In practice, most organisations already have:

Power users / admins who genuinely need AI daily
Other users who barely touch it at all

If a mixed model is needed, I’d strongly prefer:

Per-seat billing for individual tools (AI Writer, summaries, etc.)
Workspace-level features only activating when all members in that scope have seats rather than keeping everything tied to credit packs.

VCM

I fully agree with Maddee McKinnon. In my org we have very few power ClickUp users that would take advantage of AI features. Others simply comply and use clickup because they have to. These are actually the guys advocating for having ClickUp in the first place. Forcing an all or nothing... leaves them with nothing, frustration... and ClickUp with no revenues.
It is not about being stingy... it is about being cost sensitive.
AI note taking, AI Brain,... and things that are triggered by one user and empower one user would make sense to be purchased on a per-user basis.

Jessica Sullivan

Hi everyone, much like many others, in our organisation we'd only have likely 3-4 people using AI out of the 30+ we have in our Workspace. I think for this reason, per-seat billing for individual AI tools will work well combined with either an option choose a workspace wide set of AI features that are pre-built into the plan level as some organisations may not need all of the AI features OR the choice to use capped credits with clear and detailed reporting for credit packs incase they want all of the AI features but not to pay for a high cost plan. It would be great as someone also mentioned below to be warned before your credit pack runs out so that jobs don't fall through the cracks and get missed. I think the ability to mix and match needs is key. Thanks.

Chris Scribner

Rajiv Tirumalareddy admins should be able to decide who has access to prompt AI to perform tasks. The "owner" of the AI action is the person who set up or prompted the AI to perform the action.
For my company, as an example - Only team leads would need access to AI tools. The AI features are incredibly helpful for creating and assigning tasks to our developers. Our developers really only update their tasks, documentation and leave comments on tasks. They wouldn't need AI to perform their duties at all, but it would be good to have the ability to grant AI access to one or two developers who we think WOULD use the tool.
Paying for the entire workspace to have access to the AI tools when only a small percentage actually uses them is a waste of money.

Georgia King

Make everything pay-per-use / credits. Starting at zero, not at "10,000". Do not make people pay for a "batch", just make them pay only for what they actually use. "Use it or lose it" is annoying.

So people can regulate their spend, make admin settings where you can turn off all AI, turn off certain AI features, turn off certain features for certain users, and/or set monthly spend limits (at which point AI turns off entirely until you authorize a new pay cap for that month).

Oleksii Segodin

Rajiv Tirumalareddy, I agree with those responders who say that admin owns the AI and the person who was assigned by the tool has nothing to do with it. They could be assigned even by mistake and this mistake is on admin. Admins are owners and pay for tools they initiate.

But if I have to choose one of two options I would select "Credit Packs" while individual tools move to a per-seat model.

Truc Thi Thanh Tran

This feature should be restricted only to teams, users who would need to have it enable

Pavlina Kopecna

Hi Rajiv, I think this is a good compromise: Workspace-level AI features remain tied to "Credit Packs" while individual tools move to a per-seat model.

Maurice Pieters

Hi,

I understand that ai in clickup is a nice business model. By making smart use of make and GPT or another AI, you can also integrate the functions for everyone. I don't understand that clickup has made the whole setup of ai so difficult. It's unclear what you're paying for and what the credits are used for. My preference is to pay for one workspace and that everyone can use it when necessary. Clickup must monitor for itself whether it is being used fairly.

Paul van Oorschot

Just make it credit based on the token usage, would allow us to actually start using it. we cannot enable it now for 30 users when only 4 or so would actually use a few functions

→