Proposal: A Mid-Tier Plan Between Pro+ ($60/mo) and Ultra ($200/mo)
Hi Cursor team and community,
I’d like to open a discussion about the current pricing structure and suggest the feasibility of introducing an intermediate subscription tier between Pro+ ($60/month) and Ultra ($200/month).
The current gap is significant. The jump from Pro+ to Ultra represents a 3.3× price increase — going from $60 to $200/month. For many developers, especially individuals, freelancers, and small-team contributors, Pro+ may start to feel limiting, but $200/month is simply not justifiable for personal or light professional use.
What I’m suggesting: A middle-tier plan in the range of $90–$120/month that would offer, for example:
A higher (but not unlimited) usage quota — something between the Pro+ and Ultra caps
Access to premium models at a reasonable daily/monthly rate
Perhaps a modest increase in background agent hours or fast requests
Why this matters:
It removes a hard barrier that forces users to either under-use Pro+ or over-pay for Ultra
It captures a segment of users who are willing to spend more but not 3× more
It follows standard SaaS pricing best practices (Good / Better / Best tiers), which typically improve conversion and reduce churn
I believe many users fall into this “middle ground” — they push the limits of Pro+ regularly but can’t justify the leap to Ultra. A mid-tier would keep these users engaged and growing with the platform instead of looking for alternatives.
Would love to hear from others who feel the same way, and of course from the Cursor team on whether this is something being considered.
Thanks for building such an incredible product — I’m rooting for Cursor’s success and this is purely constructive feedback.
Hi @Sergio_Luiz_Nunes_Fa, thanks for the thoughtful write-up. I’ve passed this along to the team as feedback.
There isn’t a plan between Pro+ and Ultra today. If you outgrow the included Pro+ usage, you can stay on Pro+ and turn on on-demand usage in the Spending tab. Extra usage is billed at API rates, and you can set a monthly spend limit so you only go a bit past the plan instead of jumping to Ultra spend levels
Hi, thanks for passing the feedback along to the team — I really appreciate it!
I’m aware of the on-demand option, but unfortunately it doesn’t work well for my workflow, and I’ve had to keep it disabled for that reason.
My concern is predictability. I use the Agent in auto mode quite heavily, and with on-demand enabled, that combination burned through $50 in just 3 days — which was a genuinely alarming experience. For context, on my regular Pro+ plan, $50 worth of usage typically lasts me around 20 days. So on-demand effectively compressed 20 days of spend into 3, with no obvious change in how I was working.
I understand the spend cap feature exists, but the problem isn’t just the total amount — it’s the unpredictability and acceleration of costs when the agent runs autonomously. It makes budgeting very difficult, and the anxiety of watching credits evaporate kills the flow of actually getting work done.
That’s precisely why I think a fixed mid-tier plan would be valuable: it offers more headroom than Pro+ at a predictable, flat monthly cost, without the risk of surprise bills that on-demand introduces. For users like me who rely on the agent heavily but can’t justify $200/month, a stable $90–$120 tier would be the sweet spot.
Hopefully this gives the team a clearer picture of the use case. Thanks again for engaging with the feedback!