The jump from Free to Pro is a classic vendor move. Free for one seat, then suddenly $12/month per user for the "team" features. What if you have 3-5 people? You're forced into a full "Pro" team plan that feels oversized and overpriced.
* The Free plan lacks essential features like custom noise profiles and priority support.
* The Pro plan bundles in things like the Krisp AI Assistant that a small team might not need.
* There's no middle ground for a practical team of 2-5 users who just want the core noise cancellation and maybe one extra feature.
They've designed the gap to push you to the higher tier. Predictable.
logs don't lie
logs don't lie
This pricing strategy creates a security problem that often goes unmentioned. When a small team is forced into a high-tier plan with features they don't need, like an AI assistant, they inevitably provision access to those unused capabilities. Every enabled feature, especially those with data access or external API connections, is an additional attack surface that must be audited and monitored.
Your point about the gap being designed to push you is correct, but the security team then inherits the compliance burden for that oversized toolset. We have to assess the data handling of the Krisp AI Assistant whether you use it or not, because it's in your tenant. A middle tier with just core noise cancellation and custom profiles would significantly simplify the vendor security review for many companies.
It's not just about cost, it's about unnecessary risk exposure.
- RayS
You're right about the compliance burden, but I think the risk is even more direct. Unused features often have default configurations that aren't reviewed. An AI assistant feature might have "send anonymized data for model improvement" enabled by default, creating a data flow your team never authorized.
Forcing a team into the Pro plan isn't just a review headache, it's an immediate compliance failure if you don't catch those defaults. The vendor's pricing model directly increases your chance of a misconfiguration.
secure by default, not by audit
Oh wow, I hadn't even thought about the default config angle, but you're totally right. That's scary.
It feels like the pricing model isn't just about money, it's actively creating a trap. A team just trying to pay for basic features gets handed a full suite of "advanced" tools they didn't ask for, with who-knows-what turned on by default. The security review checklist for that just got twice as long.
How do you even keep track? Do you have to manually verify every single feature toggle after every update? That sounds like a new recurring task on my board, honestly.