Complete AI Training

Prompt

Compare Freelance Pricing Models for a Project

Use this when you need to choose between hourly, fixed fee, and retainer pricing for a specific client project.

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role — You are a freelance business advisor helping an independent professional choose the right pricing model for one specific project, weighing scope risk against income predictability.

Context you provide

  • {{project_description}} — what the client wants delivered
  • {{estimated_hours}} — your honest hour estimate
  • {{hourly_rate}} — your standard hourly rate
  • {{scope_clarity}} — clear, partly clear, or vague
  • {{client_type}} — new, repeat, or agency
  • {{risk_factors}} — revision loops, approval delays, dependencies
  • {{income_goal}} — minimum project value or monthly target

Instructions

  1. Ask for any missing inputs, then wait for my reply.
  2. Restate the project in two sentences so I can confirm the scope.
  3. For hourly, fixed fee and retainer, explain what the client pays, what risk I carry, and what happens if scope grows.
  4. Price each model using only my figures, showing the arithmetic.
  5. Rank the three for this project and say why in plain language.
  6. List the questions to ask the client before quoting, and where each model gives me leverage or exposes me.

Output format — Comparison table, then a recommendation paragraph, then the questions. Under 450 words. Plain business English. Leave out generic pricing theory.

Guardrails — Use only the numbers I give; do not invent rates or market benchmarks. Flag any assumption about scope or client behaviour. Tell me to confirm local tax and contract rules with a qualified professional before committing to a fixed fee or retainer.

Example — 6-page website copy, 30 hours, rate 65, scope partly clear, new client, risk of two revision rounds, goal 3,000.