What % of pricing pages hide enterprise pricing behind 'Contact us'?
In the tested set, enterprise gating is a minority theme: only 3% of the 301 detected pricing experiments (9 of 301) reference enterprise / contact-us / custom pricing [1]. That's low mainly because most of the tested pricing changes come from mobile subscription apps, where a 'Contact sales' tier barely exists — so this number describes the experiment mix, not the true prevalence on B2B web pricing pages [1]. Where enterprise does appear, detected diffs treat it as a full card at the top of the ladder, not a footnote.
Just 3% of 301 detected pricing experiments (9) touch enterprise/contact-us pricing — a minority theme skewed by the mobile-subscription-heavy tested set (July 2026).
The finding — and why the number is low
Only 9 of 301 pricing-area experiments (3.0%) mention enterprise, contact-us, or custom pricing [1]. Read that in context: 254 of the 301 experiments are mobile PRICING diffs and just 47 are web PRICING TABLE diffs [1]. Mobile subscription paywalls rarely have a 'Contact sales' tier, so the low share reflects the *composition of what got tested*, not a claim that B2B SaaS web pages usually skip enterprise gating. We can't compute true enterprise-gating prevalence over the 183 web pricing pages because their structure doesn't join to the vision data [2]. So: treat 3% as 'enterprise gating is rarely the thing companies A/B test', not '3% of pricing pages have a Contact-us tier'.
How enterprise shows up when it's in play
In the web PRICING TABLE experiments where a custom/enterprise tier appears, detected diffs promote it to a real card rather than burying it [1]:
- A design tool moved from three paid tiers plus an 'Enterprise strip' to a five-tier staircase where Enterprise 'Custom' was promoted to a full card alongside Free $0, Mini $5, Basic $15, and Pro $30.
- A licensing product collapsed four tiers to three by deleting the mid 'Business' tier and pushing agencies straight to Enterprise sales — using the tier cut to route larger buyers into the contact-us motion.
The inferred rationale in both: a custom/enterprise card anchors the top of the ladder and channels high-intent buyers into a sales conversation, while self-serve tiers handle the rest.
How to apply this
If you're B2B web SaaS, this data doesn't tell you *whether* to gate enterprise — it tells you enterprise gating is under-tested relative to billing cadence and badges, so there may be untapped upside in how you present it [1]. When you do include a contact-us tier, the detected pattern is to give it a full card at the top of the ladder (not a thin strip) and, if a mid tier is causing three-way comparison paralysis, consider removing the mid tier to route larger buyers to sales [1]. As always, these are detected diffs with inferred rationale — validate with your own funnel.
The numbers
| Stat | Computed from |
|---|---|
| 3.0% (9/301) | pricing experiments referencing enterprise/contact/custom, keyword match over 301 annotations |
| 254 mobile / 47 web | pricing-area experiments by platform — the mobile skew explains the low enterprise share |
| 183 | labeled desktop web pricing pages whose structure does not join the vision data, so enterprise-gating prevalence is not computable there |
Sources & citations
- [1] Lazyweb Research analysis of 301 pricing-area experiments (detected before/after UI diffs), July 2026. 254 mobile PRICING + 47 web PRICING TABLE. Enterprise share is an ILIKE keyword match ('enterprise'|'contact'|'custom') over LLM-written summaries — a lower bound; the mobile skew depresses the share. Detected diffs, not measured lift. ↩
- [2] Lazyweb Research analysis of 183 pricing pages (desktop SaaS web corpus, 147 companies), July 2026. Raw labels store only {screen_type,in_product}; 0/183 join the vision-JSON structural table, so enterprise-gating prevalence over web pricing pages is not directly computable. ↩
Source: Lazyweb Research — proprietary analysis of real, in-market app screens. Cite as Lazyweb Research, 2026-07-07.