Your SaaS spending just hit $4,830 per employee in 2025. That’s a 21.9% jump from last year. You’re probably managing 275 different SaaS applications right now. And you likely don’t have visibility into half of them.
This is part of the broader SaaS cost problem where software inflation is running at 8.7% – more than four times general inflation. Understanding how to manage and control these costs has become critical for CTOs.
Here’s the problem. 30-40% of your licences are sitting there unused while you keep paying for them. Employees leave and their subscriptions keep renewing. Departments buy duplicate tools because they don’t know what IT already has.
This is why SaaS spend management platforms exist. Zylo, Productiv, Torii, and Vertice all promise to fix this mess. They’ll discover your shadow IT, track usage, reclaim unused licences, and help you negotiate better deals.
But which one should you actually use? Let’s work it out.
What Are SaaS Spend Management Platforms and Why Do You Need One?
SaaS spend management platforms are automated tools that discover, track, and optimise your software subscriptions. They connect to your SSO provider and financial systems to build a complete picture of what software your company uses and what it costs. Then they help you cut the waste.
The business case is straightforward. Platforms typically achieve ROI within 3-6 months through cost savings that exceed platform fees. The quick wins come from obvious waste – unused licences from departed employees, duplicate tools, forgotten trial subscriptions that auto-renewed.
Here’s what these platforms actually do. They discover apps through your SSO logs, expense systems, and payment data. IT is responsible for just 26% of SaaS spending – the rest happens across business units buying whatever they need. Your SaaS portfolio is growing 33.2% annually whether you know about it or not.
The platforms pay for themselves by solving the visibility problem.
How Do Zylo, Productiv, Torii, and Vertice Compare on Core Features?
All four platforms offer the basics – automated discovery via SSO, financial system integration, and spend tracking dashboards. Beyond that, they diverge.
Zylo launched in 2016. They’ve got the most mature renewal management workflows. They were named a leader in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for SaaS Management Platforms. If tracking hundreds of renewal dates and managing negotiation cycles is your pain, Zylo built for this.
Productiv focuses on usage analytics. If your cost reduction strategy depends on deep usage insights showing who’s actually using what and how much, Productiv provides that data with more granularity than the others.
Torii differentiates on workflow automation. Employee leaves? Torii automatically triggers licence reclamation workflows. This is useful if you want to operationalise cleanup rather than run reports.
Vertice is the newest entry (2022). They combine SaaS and cloud spend management in a single platform, and they add aggregated buying power. Vertice acts as a procurement partner, using their database of pricing data for over 16,000 vendors to negotiate on your behalf.
Which Platform Is Best for Licence Optimisation and Cost Reduction?
Zylo and Productiv lead here through different approaches. These platforms work best when combined with a structured approach to software rationalisation that helps you identify optimisation opportunities across your entire SaaS portfolio.
Zylo’s customers reclaim thousands of unused licences. Modernising Medicine reclaimed 2,800 unused licences for $1.4M in cost avoidance. Adobe reclaimed over 20,000 licences and achieved $60M in savings.
The process is simple. Track SSO logins. If someone hasn’t logged into a tool in 30, 60, or 90 days, flag the licence. Send automated notifications. If they still don’t use it, reclaim it. The savings come from doing this systematically instead of manually hunting for waste.
Productiv uses deep usage analytics beyond login tracking. They look at feature usage, engagement patterns, and user activity to show you who’s barely using a tool versus who’s a power user. This matters for tools with tiered pricing where you might be paying for premium licences when basic would suffice.
Torii automates the reclamation process through employee offboarding workflows that trigger licence cancellations. This reduces admin overhead rather than identifying opportunities.
Vertice adds procurement leverage through aggregated buying power. They claim to secure 15-30% better pricing than you’d get negotiating alone. For enterprise software like Salesforce or Microsoft, where discounting is opaque, this approach can work.
If you’re managing $2M in SaaS spend and reduce it by 20%, that’s $400K in annual savings. Platform fees typically run 3-8% of spend under management ($60K-$160K). The maths works as long as you execute on the opportunities the platform identifies. For maximum impact, combine these platforms with a comprehensive approach to optimising your SaaS spend across discovery, usage analysis, and consolidation.
How Do These Platforms Handle Renewal Management and Contract Negotiation?
Zylo provides the most comprehensive renewal workflows. They send 120-day advance notifications, route approvals through your organisation, and provide negotiation playbooks based on your usage data. Starting negotiations 6 months before renewal gives you time to explore alternatives and negotiate from knowledge rather than urgency.
Productiv and Torii offer basic renewal alerts and tracking but less structured negotiation support. They’ll tell you when renewals are coming and give you usage data, but you’re driving the negotiation yourself.
Vertice uses a different model. They provide a dedicated procurement team that negotiates on your behalf using their benchmarking data and buying power. This is useful if you lack internal procurement expertise or want to outsource renewal management.
Here’s the thing. Software inflation is running at 8.7% – more than double general inflation. Vendors are aggressively raising prices and 60% deliberately hide their pricing to make benchmarking difficult.
The platforms help by tracking all your renewal dates in one place, sending advance notifications, and providing the usage and pricing data you need to negotiate. The difference is whether you want to run those negotiations yourself (Zylo, Productiv, Torii) or outsource them (Vertice).
What Are the Pricing Models and Total Cost of Ownership for Each Platform?
None of these platforms publish transparent pricing.
Zylo and Productiv typically charge a percentage of SaaS spend under management, usually 3-8%. If you’re managing $2M in SaaS spend, expect to pay $60K-$160K annually for the platform. The percentage usually decreases as your total spend increases.
Torii uses seat-based pricing instead of percentage-of-spend. You pay per user who accesses the platform. This can be more predictable for budgeting but might not scale as efficiently as percentage-based pricing.
Vertice uses a hybrid model with a platform fee plus a success-based fee on savings they negotiate. This aligns their incentives with yours – they only make money when they save you money. The platform fee covers the software access, the success fee compensates for the procurement team’s work.
Total cost of ownership includes more than the platform fee. Budget 4-8 weeks for initial setup to connect SSO, financial systems, and HRIS. Mid-market companies typically assign 0.25-0.5 FTE for ongoing admin. Enterprises might have 1-2 dedicated roles.
Most platforms become cost-effective when managing $500K-$1M+ in annual SaaS spend. Below that threshold, platform fees might exceed the savings you can realistically achieve.
One pricing quirk worth knowing about. Platforms charging percentage-of-spend see their fees decrease as you optimise. This creates potential misalignment – the better they do at reducing your costs, the less they make. Vertice’s success-fee model addresses this. Others use contract minimums or focus on value beyond cost reduction.
Which Platform Is Right for Different Organisation Sizes and Maturity Levels?
Zylo suits enterprises with 1,000+ employees and complex vendor portfolios. If you need sophisticated renewal management workflows with approval routing and negotiation support, Zylo built for this scale. Healthcare and IT companies spend $10,000+ per employee, so this can mean $20M+ in SaaS spending to optimise.
Productiv targets mid-to-large companies (500-5,000 employees) prioritising usage analytics. If your strategy is “show me exactly who’s using what so we can rightsise licences,” this is your platform.
Torii serves mid-market organisations (200-1,000 employees) valuing workflow automation and ease of use over deep analytics. If you don’t have a dedicated SaaS management team, Torii makes it easier to operationalise optimisation.
Vertice fits enterprises with $5M+ annual SaaS spend seeking procurement support. If you lack internal procurement expertise or want to outsource vendor negotiations entirely, their model makes sense.
How Do the Platforms Compare on Shadow IT and Shadow AI Detection?
All platforms discover unauthorised apps through expense system parsing, SSO log analysis, and browser extensions. The difference shows up in coverage and how they handle Shadow AI.
Productiv invested in Shadow AI detection specifically. They identify unsanctioned AI tools – ChatGPT Plus, Midjourney, Claude subscriptions – via expense systems and usage patterns. This matters because employees rapidly adopt and abandon AI tools without IT oversight, creating security and compliance risks.
Coverage rates are typically 60-80% of shadow SaaS. The 20-40% you miss are personal credit card purchases and free tier usage that doesn’t trigger expense reports.
Your remediation strategy should focus on understanding why shadow IT exists. Usually employees bought tools because the approved alternatives are slow, missing features, or unavailable. Fix the root cause rather than blocking access.
For Shadow AI, the risk is data leaks. These tools often process company data through external APIs without data protection agreements. Discovery matters, but so does policy, training, and providing approved alternatives.
What Integration and Implementation Requirements Should You Consider?
All platforms require SSO integration as the foundation for app discovery and usage tracking. If you’re using Okta, Azure AD, or Google Workspace, integration is straightforward. Without SSO, platform capabilities are limited.
Financial system connections (NetSuite, QuickBooks, Expensify) enable spend tracking and shadow IT detection. HRIS integration (Workday, BambooHR) powers automated licence reclamation during employee departures.
Implementation typically requires 4-8 weeks. Ongoing admin overhead is 0.25-0.5 FTE for mid-market companies, 1-2 FTE for enterprises.
All platforms are SOC 2 Type II certified. They access metadata (who uses what, how often) rather than application data itself.
FAQ Section
What’s the minimum SaaS spend to justify a spend management platform?
Most platforms become cost-effective when managing $500K-$1M+ in annual SaaS spend. At this threshold, 10-20% cost reduction covers platform fees and delivers positive ROI. Smaller organisations may benefit from lighter-weight tools or manual tracking.
Can these platforms help negotiate better pricing with vendors?
Yes, they can. Platforms provide usage data, benchmark pricing, and alternative vendor options that strengthen your negotiation position. Zylo’s renewal playbooks and Vertice’s procurement team support are specifically designed for vendor negotiations. Typical savings range from 10-30% at renewal.
How long does it take to see ROI from a spend management platform?
Most organisations achieve ROI within 3-6 months through quick wins like identifying unused licences, reclaiming licences from departed employees, and eliminating duplicate tools. Full portfolio optimisation takes 12-18 months as renewal cycles complete.
Do I need a dedicated team to manage these platforms?
Mid-market organisations typically assign 0.25-0.5 FTE (IT operations or finance), while enterprises may have 1-2 dedicated SaaS management roles. Torii requires less admin time through automation. Zylo benefits from procurement expertise for renewal management.
What happens to the platform investment if we reduce SaaS spend significantly?
Platforms using percentage-of-spend pricing (Zylo, Productiv) see fees decrease as you optimise spend. This can feel counterproductive but aligns incentives. Vertice’s success-fee model means you only pay when achieving savings. Consider multi-year contracts with spend floors to lock in value.
Can these platforms manage both SaaS and IaaS/cloud spending?
Vertice explicitly combines SaaS and cloud (AWS, Azure, GCP) spend management in a single platform. Others focus exclusively on SaaS subscriptions. For comprehensive cloud and SaaS optimisation, consider Vertice or pair a SaaS platform with cloud-specific tools.
How do platforms handle data privacy and security for sensitive SaaS usage data?
All platforms are SOC 2 Type II certified and support enterprise security requirements (SSO, role-based access, audit logging). They access metadata (who uses what, how often) rather than application data itself. Review data processing agreements for GDPR/privacy compliance based on your jurisdiction.
What if our SSO adoption is limited – can we still use these platforms?
SSO integration is critical for usage analytics and automated discovery. Without SSO, platforms rely on expense system parsing (less reliable) and manual data entry (high overhead). Torii offers browser extensions for non-SSO environments but capability is limited. Consider SSO adoption as prerequisite.
Can we trial these platforms before committing to annual contracts?
Most vendors offer 30-60 day pilots or proof-of-value engagements. Zylo and Productiv typically require integration setup for meaningful trial. Torii offers fastest time-to-value for quick pilots. Use trial period to validate discovery accuracy and ROI potential before multi-year commitment.
How do these platforms compare to building internal SaaS tracking tools?
Build-vs-buy economics favour platforms for most organisations. Building requires ongoing engineering investment, vendor API maintenance, and continuous feature development. Platforms offer vendor benchmarking data and best practices impossible to replicate internally. Consider building only if you have unique requirements and dedicated engineering capacity.
