Your renewal date is not when you have leverage.

Industry research consistently puts unused or underused licences at roughly a third of SaaS spend in the average organisation. We would rather show you your own number than quote a benchmark, so the audit produces a figure specific to your stack.

No. We charge a fee. A percentage-of-savings model rewards aggressive cuts whether or not they hurt the business, and it gives us a reason not to tell you when a tool is worth keeping.

Months before the notice window, not at the renewal date. Auto-renewal windows of 30 to 90 days exist so that by the time you are thinking about it, you are confirming a price rather than setting one.

Only where the numbers support it. Migration has a real cost in money and disruption, and often the right answer is a cheaper tier or fewer seats on the system you already run.

Every subscription and its true annual cost, seats provisioned against seats used, contract terms and notice windows, tier mismatches, and overlapping tools billed separately for one job. It ends with a renewal calendar your team owns.

A fixed fee scoped to the number of contracts in play, not a percentage of what we find. The reason is structural: a share-of-savings model pays us to cut aggressively whether or not the cut hurts the business, and gives us a reason not to tell you when a tool is worth keeping at full price.

Usually two to four weeks to a complete picture, and most of that is waiting on access rather than analysis. Renegotiation runs on the vendor calendar afterwards, which is why the work has to start months before a renewal rather than in the same quarter as one.

Billing records, the contracts themselves, and admin-level usage reporting from the major systems. Contracts are covered by a mutual NDA before anything is shared. Where usage reporting does not exist, establishing it is the first deliverable, because seats against usage is the number the whole exercise turns on.

Yes, and it is the part clients most often want. We run the conversation with the benchmark, the usage evidence and the alternatives already mapped, which is a different conversation from one that opens with a request for a discount. You stay the decision-maker throughout.

It matters a great deal, and it is common in GCC groups. Separate entities buying the same tool separately is one of the most reliable sources of overspend we find, because neither entity has the volume to negotiate and nobody is looking at the combined number. Consolidating the commercial relationship without disrupting the operational one is usually straightforward once somebody has the full picture.