Do not index
Do not index
When you're comparing AI coaching platforms, the advertised monthly price tells less than half the story. A $199 plan can end up cheaper than an $83 plan once you factor in what each one actually takes from your revenue. At 1,000 paying subscribers on a premium subscription, a 10% cut and a 15% cut aren't rounding errors. They're the difference between $108,767 and $102,301 in your account every single month.
Most comparisons stop at sticker price because the real unit economics are buried in help docs, support articles, or terms of service most people never open. If you're building a premium AI coaching business with real subscriber numbers, you need the actual math: what does each platform cost at 100 subscribers, at 500, at 1,000, after every fee is applied.
We researched the current pricing structures of Rocky.ai, Delphi, and Coachvox, and ran the comparable math for a flat-fee, no-revenue-share model, as of October 3, 2026.
How Much Each Platform Actually Costs at Scale
Here is what each pricing model costs you per month, after all fees, using a $1,500/year subscription ($125/month per subscriber) as the baseline, a realistic premium price point for this category:
Platform | 100 Subscribers | 500 Subscribers | 1,000 Subscribers | Pricing Model |
Rocky.ai | $11,456/mo | $58,556/mo | $118,211/mo | Seat-based: $199 base + $3-10/seat |
Coachvox | $10,802/mo | $54,342/mo | $108,767/mo | 10% revenue share + $83 license |
Delphi* | $9,961/mo | $51,001/mo | $102,301/mo | 15% revenue share (benchmark) + $299 license |
BuddyPro | $9,438/mo | $47,978/mo | $96,153/mo | AI usage cost (~20%) + $197 flat license |
*Delphi's current pricing page lists monetization under its custom-priced Immortal tier, and its Creator Terms (dated January 16, 2026) say creator payments are set by a private Statement of Work. The 15% figure comes from Delphi's older published documentation and is a historical benchmark, not a confirmed quote for a new creator. Confirm the actual terms directly with Delphi before signing anything.
Every column includes Stripe's standard 2.9% + $0.30 processing fee, which all four platforms route payment through in some form.
Sources, checked October 3, 2026: Rocky.ai's business pricing packages (help.rocky.ai), Coachvox's pricing and paid-access fee structure (coachvox.ai, support.coachvox.ai), Delphi's pricing page and older monetization documentation (delphi.build, docs.delphi.ai), and Stripe's published processing rate (stripe.com/pricing).
The numbers surface something most comparisons miss entirely: the seat-based model produces the highest raw dollar take-home at this price point, because its cost has nothing to do with how much revenue you generate. The two revenue-share platforms and the usage-based model all get more expensive in dollar terms as your numbers grow, for different reasons.
It's also worth noting what none of these three competitors publish anywhere: a clear answer on how their fee applies to refunds, chargebacks, or discounted trial conversions, and in Rocky's case, whether its seat discount applies to every seat or only the ones above a threshold. At 500 to 1,000 subscribers, that ambiguity alone can move the real number by close to a thousand dollars a month. Get it in writing before you build your pricing model around someone else's help page.
Why Revenue-Share Models Get More Expensive as You Succeed
The real difference between these models isn't this month's bill. It's what happens as the business grows.
Seat-based pricing charges for how many people can access the platform, independent of what you charge them. Raise your subscription from $1,500/year to $2,500/year and the seat cost doesn't move. The extra margin is entirely yours.
Revenue-share pricing takes a fixed percentage of whatever you charge, permanently. Raise your price and the platform's cut rises with it, at the same 10% or 15%, forever, by contract. There's no version of that deal where the percentage goes down because you got good at this.
A usage-cost model is different again. The cost is tied to how much your subscribers actually use the AI, not to your list price. If you raise your price without a proportional jump in usage, that additional revenue is not being split with anyone. It falls straight to your margin. For a deeper breakdown of how that math plays out, see AI Coaching Business Profit Margins: The Real Unit Economics of No-Code Subscription Models.
This matters for more than your spreadsheet. A platform earning a cut of your revenue has a direct financial interest in you charging more and acquiring more subscribers, regardless of whether that serves your audience well. A platform charging a flat fee, or passing through only its real infrastructure cost, has no stake in your pricing decisions either way. Who benefits when you raise your price is a fair question to ask before you sign.
Where a Flat-Fee, No-Revenue-Share Model Fits Inside This Math
The fourth row in that table runs on a different structure entirely: a flat $197/month license on annual billing, plus the real AI compute cost of running each subscriber's conversations, which typically lands around 15-30% of subscription revenue depending on how actively people use it.
That percentage is not a platform markup extracted as profit. It is what it costs to process every conversation, hold unlimited long-term memory for each subscriber individually, and run the specialized knowledge models trained on the expert's own content. The license fee never changes, whether there are ten subscribers or a thousand, and whether the price charged is $1,000/year or $3,000/year.
That last point is the one the dollar table above doesn't fully show. At a $1,500/year price point, this model's effective cost share and Delphi's 15% benchmark land close together, around 20-24% of gross. But raise the subscription price and the two diverge: a revenue-share platform's cut rises in lockstep with the price forever, while a usage-cost model's share shrinks, because the cost is driven by how often subscribers message the AI, not by what they're charged.
The retention numbers are part of why this holds up. Platform-wide retention on BuddyPro runs 60% weekly and 80% monthly, with the strongest business coaching twins reaching 80% weekly and 95% monthly. A subscriber who sticks around for a year is one whose AI has learned their specific situation over many conversations, which is exactly the kind of relationship depth a seat count or a revenue percentage was never built to measure.
Getting there is meant to be self-serve: upload existing books, courses, recordings and frameworks through Google Drive, let the AI analyze the methodology and generate specialized coaching roles from it, and go live within days, no coding required. A customer success team helps with setup and launch, but the build itself doesn't require a developer or an agency.
Which Pricing Model Actually Scales With Your Success
The real question isn't which platform is cheapest this month. It's which pricing structure gets more expensive precisely as you succeed, and whether you're comfortable with that for the life of the business.
If you expect to stay at a fixed, modest price point with a large volume of subscribers, seat-based pricing is the most predictable choice, and the math above shows why. But if the plan is to build a premium coaching product and raise prices as reputation and results compound, a platform taking a permanent percentage of revenue becomes a bigger and bigger number, by design, no matter how the relationship with that platform otherwise feels.
A model where the license is flat and the only variable cost is genuine usage, not a cut of price, rewards exactly the opposite behavior: pricing for what the expertise is actually worth, without a third party automatically taking a larger slice every time that number goes up. That's the structural question worth answering before comparing a single month's invoice, and it's the one most sticker-price comparisons never ask. For a full breakdown of what each major platform charges, see AI Coaching Platform Pricing in 2026, and for a closer, platform-by-platform look at Rocky.ai, Coachvox and Delphi's numbers individually, see Rocky.ai vs Coachvox vs Delphi vs BuddyPro on davidriha.com. More detail on how the flat-fee model works is at buddypro.ai.
Related reading
Written by