Landingi Pricing: Two Meters, Four Plans, and Where Testing Begins

Landingi Pricing: Two Meters Running at Once, and the Tier That Can Actually Test

Most landing page builders bill on one thing. Unbounce counts deduplicated monthly visitors. Instapage counts unique monthly visitors. Landingi counts monthly visits and, separately, AI credits, and a plan can run short on either one.

That second meter is the part a feature comparison never shows, because credits are not a feature and they are not traffic. They are a consumption budget attached to the generative parts of the product, and they have their own top up prices.

Here is the ladder on that page, both of its meters, where the capability boundary falls, and what the arithmetic looks like for a B2B page fed by outbound rather than by paid search.

The published ladder

Landingi's pricing page opens with a switch reading "Pay monthly" and "Pay yearly (save 2+ months)", and its own frequently asked questions state the annual figures plainly.

The page states that "Landingi pricing starts at $24 per month when billed annually" and that "Annual billing in Landingi includes two months free compared with monthly billing", so the monthly basis carries a higher effective rate than every figure in that column. Each plan offers a 14 day trial. All of this was read from landingi.com/pricing on 30 August 2026.

Two figures in that table are worth a second look before anything else, and neither is the price.

Build stops at 2,000 visits a month

The entry tier's allowance is 2,000 monthly visits. That is a small number by the standards of this category, and comparison articles tend to move straight past it to the feature list.

For a business running paid search it is met in days. For a B2B team whose landing page is fed by outbound it is closer to plausible than it first looks, which is the more interesting reading. A campaign page reached from a few thousand sent messages, at the response rates outbound actually produces, may genuinely sit inside it.

So the entry tier is not automatically the wrong tier here in the way it usually is. What decides it is the second meter and the capability boundary, not the traffic ceiling.

The credit meter is the one that surprises people

Alongside visits, every plan carries a monthly AI credit allowance: 2,500 on Build, 10,000 on Optimize, 20,000 on Scale and 60,000 on Enterprise, written on the Build card as "2,500 credits / mo.". Credits feed the generative parts of the platform, including the AI page generator the page calls Lunar and the AI assistants bundled into the entry tier.

Credits are also separately purchasable. The page lists three pay as you go packs, at $15 for 5,000 credits, $25 for 10,000 and $40 for 20,000, alongside an extra custom domain at $5 a month.

That changes how the ladder should be read. A team that leans on generation to produce page variants is consuming a budget that resets monthly and is not interchangeable with its traffic allowance, and running out of it does not stop the pages serving. A team that builds pages by hand and uses the editor may never touch it. Two teams on the same tier paying the same rate can therefore have entirely different experiences of whether that tier is sufficient, and the axis that separates them is invisible on a feature table.

Traffic meterMonthly visits

• Steps with the tier
• Not consumed by page count
• Governs whether the plan can carry the campaign
• Scale publishes several volume options

Credit meterMonthly AI credits

• Resets each month
• Consumed by generation rather than by traffic
• Top up packs sold pay as you go
• Untouched by teams who build by hand

DomainsPriced per unit

• One on the entry tier
• Extra domains sold monthly
• Capped per tier before an upgrade
• Ten included at Scale

Server side A/B testing starts on Optimize

Build holds the page builder and the generative tooling. Its card lists the AI page generator, described there as a way to "Generate a landing page by chatting with Lunar", plus the classic drag and drop builder, forms and integrations, AI assistants, pre-designed sections and basic analytics.

What that plan's own list on the page does not carry is testing. The pricing page places "Server Side A/B Testing" one tier up on Optimize, along with EventTracker for micro conversion tracking, Solis AI Insights, Smart Sections, multi language personalization and an e-commerce hub. Scale then adds programmatic landing pages, an MCP server for connecting the platform to a language model, and unlimited active pages.

This is the third vendor in the category to place that boundary at the same rung. The live read of Unbounce puts A/B testing on Experiment rather than on the cheaper Build tier, and Instapage puts its own server side testing on the middle plan rather than the entry one. A team pricing any builder on its entry tier while intending to test later is making the same mistake three times over, and it is a mistake about product packaging rather than about any one vendor's price list.

Before you pick a Landingi tier

• ✓Yes: You know roughly how many visits the page will receive in a month
• ✓Yes: You know whether your team will generate pages or build them by hand
• ✓Yes: You checked which tier the capability you need starts on, not the tier that looks affordable
• ~Depends: You counted the custom domains you need and priced the extras
• ✕No: You compared this ladder to another vendor on entry price alone
• ✕No: You are buying the entry tier and planning to run tests on it

What the credit and visit split means at low volume

The two meters fail in opposite directions, which is what makes the pairing worth thinking about rather than just recording.

Traffic ceilings are forgiving of a thin campaign and punishing of a successful one. Credit allowances are the reverse: they are consumed by how much you produce rather than by how many people arrive, so a team building twenty variants for a page nobody has visited yet burns credits while its visit meter stays near zero.

An outbound programme frequently sits in exactly that quadrant early on. The pages are being produced faster than the traffic is arriving, because the campaign has not launched or has only just launched. The tier that suits that period is not the one a traffic based comparison would pick.

Later the shape inverts, and the question becomes whether the visit allowance covers the campaign at full send volume. Neither state is well described by the headline rate.

Where a builder sits in the wider decision

The category label covers four different jobs, and a shortlist that spans two of them is really two shortlists. Which job you are shopping for, and which meter each vendor bills on, is mapped in landing page optimization tools.

If the intended job is testing rather than publishing, the constraint moves from the price list to the sample. A test needs conversions rather than visits, and enough of them to separate a real effect from noise, which is the arithmetic in cold email A/B testing benchmarks applied to a page instead of an inbox. The case of a page that cannot supply that sample is worked through in A/B testing a landing page, and the trap of reading a rate computed over a few dozen records is in conversion rate. Before benchmarking your own figure against a published one, average landing page conversion rate sets out what those published figures actually counted.

Underneath all of it is the question no tier answers. A landing page converts demand that already exists and creates none, so a thin flow of visitors is a supply problem rather than a page problem, and landing page lead generation makes that argument in full.

How to price it

Name the job first. Publishing pages without waiting on a developer is Build. Running experiments is Optimize, and Build should not appear in that comparison.

Estimate both meters, not one. Visits for the campaign at full volume, and credits for how the team will actually produce pages.

Read the rate on the basis you will be billed on. Every figure in the table above is the annual basis, and the page's own wording is that "Annual billing in Landingi includes two months free compared with monthly billing.", so a short pilot costs more per month than the headline.

Then ask whether the page or the traffic reaching it is the constraint. If it is the traffic, the tier is not the decision that matters.

The short version

Landingi publishes four plans at $24, $119, from $229 and from $1,199 a month on the annual basis, as read on 30 August 2026, with a 14 day trial and a page that states "Landingi pricing starts at $24 per month when billed annually". Active pages run 10, 100, unlimited and unlimited; visits run 2,000, 30,000, up to 500,000 and 1M and above; custom domains run 1, 3, 10 and 100.

The thing worth taking away is the second meter. The AI credit allowances the pricing page lists at 2,500, 10,000, 20,000 and 60,000 a month are a consumption budget separate from traffic, and the same page prices top up packs at $15, $25 and $40 for 5,000, 10,000 and 20,000 credits. That is what makes two teams on the same tier disagree about whether it is enough. Server side A/B testing starts on Optimize, so the entry tier builds pages and does not test them. When the shortage is the flow of qualified visitors rather than the page receiving them, see what a first campaign produces against your own market.

Plan names, rates, allowances, credit packs and feature placement above were read from landingi.com/pricing on 30 August 2026, and every rate above is the annual billing basis that page gives. Verify current terms with the vendor before relying on them.