A pricing simulator is a machine for producing encouraging numbers — you choose the inputs, so the output is whatever you already believed. This one states every assumption, anchors every price to a competitor that was actually checked, and includes a pessimistic case that genuinely hurts.
Base case is $32,261 ARR. The conservative case is $3,958 — 12% of it, and falling.
Both numbers come from the same model with different assumptions. The conservative case is not the base case reduced — it encodes what the Week 2 validation conversation actually found: that most freelancers are content with a spreadsheet, and that the one person interviewed said he would not buy.
Every number below is computed from the inputs. Change one and watch what happens — including the parts that are uncomfortable.
Stated assumptions, each carrying a confidence level in the table below. Most are estimated rather than sourced, and the page says so.
Segment A — hourly or retainer, in Mexico
The rest stay on free Solo and contribute nothing
Segment B — 2 to 5 people under one name
Compounds. The largest lever in this model.
Annual billing is discounted, so this lowers MRR
MRR
$2,688
46,267 MXN
ARR
$32,261
run-rate, not the sum of the projection
Blended ARPU
$12.5
weighted across segments
Paying accounts
165
140 freelancers · 25 studios
Peso figures use a fixed rate of 17.21 MXN per USD, dated 2026-09-19. Revenue is gross — the per-stamp cost of issuing a CFDI through a PAC is not modelled, because no sourced figure was available.
Every price is anchored to a competitor figure fetched and dated in the Week 2 research, not chosen because it looked plausible.
Free
One freelancer, up to 3 active projects
Free forever, and kept working. The tracker stays current with SAT changes whether or not you pay.
Why this price. Harvest is free forever for 1 seat and 2 projects. A paid entry tier loses to free before the argument starts, so Solo is free and beats it by one project.
Verifiedsource · 2026-08-31$14/mo
≈ 241 MXN
A freelancer billing hourly or on retainer, in Mexico
One system instead of two. Projects, hours, and a CFDI that is legally an invoice — maintained as the rules change.
Why this price. A Segment A freelancer today pays for a tracker and an invoicing tool separately: Harvest Teams at $9/mo plus Alegra Inicial at $187 MXN (~$11/mo) is about $20/mo. Pro replaces both at $14.
Verifiedsource · 2026-08-31$12/seat/mo
≈ 207 MXN
2–5 people working under one name
Per seat, so it scales with the team. See across everyone and find which work is actually profitable.
Why this price. Priced below Pro per seat because volume should cost less per head, and well under Bonsai's $59/user/mo top monthly tier.
Verifiedsource · 2026-08-31Defined by billing model rather than by size, because billing model is what determines whether a subscription fits at all.
Designer, developer, or consultant billing by time across roughly 3–8 concurrent clients. Has hours to reconcile and needs a CFDI every time they invoice.
Two to five freelancers working under one name. The same problem multiplied, plus a need to see across people.
“I sell 1 time install shit so not a retainer model and it's always priced per job too so I haven't had a problem with tracking”
No recurring workflow to subscribe to, no hours to reconcile, no repeat invoicing rhythm. A per-seat monthly subscription does not fit this person, and he said so directly when asked.
Week 2 human validation conversation, recorded verbatim. He is not counted anywhere in the revenue model below, and there is no option to add him back — a flattering number one click away is still a flattering number.
6 of 9 are estimates, not measurements. A revenue model is mostly guesses; the useful part is saying which ones and what they would cost if wrong.
| Assumption | If it is wrong | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Pro at $14/month$14 USD · 241 MXN | If freelancers will not pay more than the tracker alone, Pro has to sit near $9 and the whole model loses roughly a third of its revenue. | Verifiedsource |
| Solo is free$0 | If free users never convert, Solo is pure cost. The model assumes a conversion share rather than treating free users as revenue. | Verifiedsource |
Each one stores its inputs as well as its result, and is recomputed when this page renders.
Base case
400 freelancers · 25 studios · 5% churn
$32,261 ARR
recomputes identically
Conservative case
120 freelancers · 4 studios · 9% churn
$3,958 ARR
recomputes identically
| FX rate1 USD = 17.21 MXN (2026-09-19) |
|---|
| Peso prices drift with the rate. Stated and dated rather than live, so staleness is visible. |
| Verifiedsource |
| Monthly churn5% base · 9% conservative · 3% optimistic | Churn compounds. At 9% monthly, 100 accounts become 31 within a year rather than 54 — the single largest lever in this model. | Estimatedunsourced |
|---|
| Monthly account growth8% base · 2% conservative · 15% optimistic | No acquisition data exists. This is a guess, and the Week 2 interviewee said his own hardest problem was 'getting clients' — acquisition is not solved by having a product. | Estimatedunsourced |
|---|
| Share of freelancers on Pro rather than free Solo35% base · 12% conservative · 55% optimistic | The most flattering number in the model. Free-to-paid conversion for solo tools is usually low single digits, and the base case here is deliberately generous. | Estimatedunsourced |
|---|
| Share paying annually30% base | Annual billing is discounted, so a higher annual share lowers MRR while improving retention. Pulls in both directions. | Estimatedunsourced |
|---|
| Seats per studio3 | Studio revenue scales linearly with this. The segment is defined as 2–5 people, so 3 is the midpoint rather than a measurement. | Estimatedunsourced |
|---|
| PAC stamping cost — NOT MODELLEDomitted | Issuing a CFDI has a real per-stamp cost through an authorized PAC. No sourced figure was available, so it is left out rather than guessed. Every revenue number here is therefore gross, not net. | Estimatedunsourced |
|---|
Pro at $14/month
$14 USD · 241 MXN
If freelancers will not pay more than the tracker alone, Pro has to sit near $9 and the whole model loses roughly a third of its revenue.
Solo is free
$0
If free users never convert, Solo is pure cost. The model assumes a conversion share rather than treating free users as revenue.
FX rate
1 USD = 17.21 MXN (2026-09-19)
Peso prices drift with the rate. Stated and dated rather than live, so staleness is visible.
Monthly churn
5% base · 9% conservative · 3% optimistic
Churn compounds. At 9% monthly, 100 accounts become 31 within a year rather than 54 — the single largest lever in this model.
Monthly account growth
8% base · 2% conservative · 15% optimistic
No acquisition data exists. This is a guess, and the Week 2 interviewee said his own hardest problem was 'getting clients' — acquisition is not solved by having a product.
Share of freelancers on Pro rather than free Solo
35% base · 12% conservative · 55% optimistic
The most flattering number in the model. Free-to-paid conversion for solo tools is usually low single digits, and the base case here is deliberately generous.
Share paying annually
30% base
Annual billing is discounted, so a higher annual share lowers MRR while improving retention. Pulls in both directions.
Seats per studio
3
Studio revenue scales linearly with this. The segment is defined as 2–5 people, so 3 is the midpoint rather than a measurement.
PAC stamping cost — NOT MODELLED
omitted
Issuing a CFDI has a real per-stamp cost through an authorized PAC. No sourced figure was available, so it is left out rather than guessed. Every revenue number here is therefore gross, not net.