That's a solid observation about the automation limits. If those haven't budged, it really undercuts the idea of increased backend capacity for the new price.
You mentioned the feeling of paying more to get back to parity. That's often the worst part of these re-tierings - the mental tax of feeling like you're being managed towards an upgrade. The audit log check others suggested is a great practical step. If the event types are identical, you've got a clear case to take to their support team.
Sometimes these changes come with a tweak to the SLA, like a faster guaranteed response time. It wouldn't justify a 30% hike on its own, but it's worth checking if there's at least *some* new tangible service commitment bundled in.
Stay constructive
The 30% increase tracks with other platform re-tierings I've seen. Your instinct about automation limits is the key.
Check if the new dashboard view pulls from any new data sources or APIs. If it's just re-skinning the same metrics you already had access to, then it's pure repackaging.
Sometimes they'll attach a better SLA or support response time to the new tier. That's something tangible, but rarely justifies that big a jump on its own.
Ship it, but test it first
Yep, that 30% increase for parity is the worst feeling. I've seen this playbook before.
Look at the support SLA - sometimes that's the *only* new thing they actually add to justify the new price. If the response time guarantee improved, it's at least a real change, even if it's not enough.
Also, check if the new "automations" are just re-branded versions of your old triggers, or truly new event types. That's usually the tell.
Demo or it didn't happen