For a solo founder this is not a close call. The reasoning has little to do with conversion rates and everything to do with what a free tier costs you in attention.
For a solo founder, freemium versus free trial is not a close call. Run a free trial. The reasoning has little to do with conversion rates and everything to do with what a free tier costs you in attention.
Freemium is a distribution strategy that requires scale. Solo founders reaching for it usually want a marketing channel and get a support queue.
Both models give something away. The difference is whether you are giving away time or scope — and only one of those has a fixed end.
| Free trial | Freemium | |
|---|---|---|
| What is free | Everything, for a fixed period | A limited tier, forever |
| Deadline | Yes — creates a decision | None — decision deferred indefinitely |
| Support load | Bounded by trial length | Permanent and growing |
| Needs volume | No | Yes, substantially |
| Feedback quality | From people evaluating a purchase | Mostly from people who will never pay |
The row that decides it for a solo founder is support load. Free users ask questions, report bugs and request features at a rate comparable to paying users. At a few hundred free accounts that is a meaningful share of your week, permanently, from people who have not paid you.
Three conditions. Freemium works when all three hold, and fails when any one does not.
Marginal cost per free user is effectively zero. If each free account costs you AI inference, storage or compute, the free tier is a bill that grows with your popularity.
Free users create value for paying users. Collaboration tools, marketplaces, anything with network effects. A free user who invites three colleagues is marketing. A free user who works alone is a cost.
You have the volume for the arithmetic to work. Freemium conversion rates are typically low single digits. At 2%, a thousand free users produce twenty paying ones — which means freemium needs a working acquisition channel before it makes sense, not instead of one.
A free trial that degrades into a genuinely limited free tier at the end, rather than cutting off entirely.
This appeals because it seems to capture both. In practice it inherits the worst of each: the deadline stops creating a decision, because nothing bad happens when it passes, while the permanent support load arrives anyway.
If you want a softer ending, a read-only mode after expiry works better. People keep access to what they created without keeping access to what makes the product useful, which preserves the decision while avoiding the sense of being locked out of your own data.
Switching away is doable and it is mostly a communication exercise.
Grandfather existing free users indefinitely and close the tier to new signups. This costs you nothing you were earning, avoids a public reversal, and the cohort shrinks naturally over time.
Expect noise from a small number of free users. It passes, and it comes from people who were not going to pay. The relevant question is what happened to signups and conversion for new users after the change — that is your evidence, not the volume of complaints.
The honest test: if you removed your free tier tomorrow, would any paying customer be affected? If nobody would notice, the free tier is a support obligation rather than a growth channel.
If you pick a trial, the next decision is length, which follows from your time-to-value — the trial length playbook covers it, along with whether to require a card.
Either model depends on people reaching value quickly, which is an onboarding problem before it is a pricing one. And if your conversion is poor regardless of model, work through trial-to-paid conversion before changing the model again.
For the wider question of what you charge and how it is packaged, see the pricing framework and how to price a SaaS product.
A free trial, in almost every case. The deciding factor is support load rather than conversion rate: free users ask questions and report bugs at a rate comparable to paying users, permanently, and that comes out of a week you cannot expand.
When three conditions hold together: marginal cost per free user is effectively zero, free users create value for paying users through collaboration or network effects, and you already have the acquisition volume for low single-digit conversion rates to produce meaningful revenue.
It usually inherits the worst of both. The deadline stops creating a decision because nothing happens when it passes, while the permanent support load arrives anyway. A read-only mode after expiry works better than a limited free tier.
Grandfather existing free users indefinitely and close the tier to new signups. This costs nothing you were earning and the cohort shrinks naturally. Judge the change by new-user signups and conversion, not by the volume of complaints.
Typically low single digits. At 2%, a thousand free users produce twenty paying customers, which means freemium requires a working acquisition channel before it makes sense rather than serving as a substitute for one.
Tell Marcus your product, your marginal cost per user and your channel. You get one recommendation and the reasoning behind it.
Try GhostCoach free →14-day free trial · cancel anytime · 30-day money-back on Lifetime