Topic starter
04/06/2026 2:56 pm
TL;DR: C1.ai says per-seat identity pricing breaks down as bots, service accounts, and AI agents do more of the work, because non-human identities already outnumber humans by 25x to 50x in the average enterprise. Seat-based licensing now misprices identity as a headcount proxy instead of machine-speed infrastructure, and that assumption is becoming untenable.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by C1.ai: “Why We Stopped Charging Per Seat”.
Key questions
Q: How should teams price identity platforms when bots and agents drive most of the workload?
A: Teams should separate human licensing from machine consumption and price around measurable identity actions such as access requests, entitlement changes, tool calls, and provisioning events.
Q: Why do per-seat models misrepresent non-human identity governance?
A: Per-seat models assume value is created by named users logging in, but non-human identities create load through repeated execution, policy checks, and delegated access.
Q: What breaks when identity programmes are measured only by headcount?
A: Headcount-only measurement hides the identities that actually consume entitlements, trigger policy checks, and create operational risk.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate human seats from machine workload Track bots, service accounts, and AI agents as a distinct consumption class so identity budgets do not hide real platform demand.
- Map identity controls to billable actions Tie internal reporting to access requests, entitlement changes, tool calls, account provisioning, and policy enforcement rather than named-user counts.
- Rebaseline NHI inventory against runtime usage Compare assigned identities with actual execution volume to find dormant seats, overused automations, and governance blind spots.
Bottom line: The post argues that identity commercial models built around seats no longer match how bots, service accounts, and AI agents actually consume access and policy.
What's in the full article
C1.ai's full blog covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- C1 Tokens pricing mechanics, including prepaid annual credits and pay-as-you-go options
- Real-time usage dashboards and threshold alerts for identity consumption tracking
- The exact action types used for billing, including MCP tool calls and policy enforcement
- How the agentic-first operating model influences the company's own internal identity workflows
👉 Read C1.ai's analysis of usage-based pricing and the agentic identity workload →
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
04/06/2026 3:05 pm
Per-seat identity pricing is now a governance mismatch, not just a billing issue. The article describes a market where non-human identities outnumber humans by 25x to 50x, and that ratio changes the meaning of identity consumption. When bots and agents do the work, the commercial unit and the governance unit diverge. Practitioners should read this as a signal that identity programmes must measure actual execution demand, not employee headcount.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations treat AI agents like human users in IAM?
A: No. Human IAM assumes a person logs in, works within a session, and can be reviewed later as a stable identity holder. Agents can act at machine speed, across multiple systems, and with changing runtime context, so they need identity governance built around execution and delegation rather than human authentication patterns.
👉 Read our full editorial: Usage-based pricing exposes the real identity workload in agentic enterprises