Most enterprise software advisory firms charge you whether they deliver savings or not. Fixed retainers, hourly rates, and project fees are the norm β and they create a fundamental misalignment of interests. This guide compares every advisory model honestly, with real cost scenarios, risk analysis, and the questions CFOs and procurement leaders should ask before they sign any advisory engagement.
28 pages. Real cost scenarios. Side-by-side model comparison. Free download.
No spam. No sales calls unless you request them.
Enterprise software and cloud spending now accounts for 15-25% of total IT budgets at most large organisations. As that spend has grown, so has an industry of advisory firms offering to help reduce it. The problem is that most of those firms charge you regardless of outcome β which means their incentive is to run a thorough process, not necessarily to achieve the maximum possible saving.
The gainshare model β in which an advisor takes a percentage of verified savings, and receives nothing if savings are not achieved β fundamentally inverts this. When an advisor is paid only on results, their entire effort is directed toward maximising those results. This creates a qualitatively different engagement dynamic, and quantitatively different outcomes in practice. Our own 25% gainshare model has consistently outperformed comparable fixed-fee engagements by a factor of 2-4x in terms of net savings retained by the client.
This white paper is not a sales document β it is an honest comparison of advisory models. There are circumstances where fixed-fee advisory is the appropriate choice, and we identify those. There are also circumstances where gainshare advisors structure their contracts in ways that disadvantage clients, and we explain how to spot that too. The goal is to equip CFOs, CPOs, CIOs, and procurement leads with the framework to make the right choice for their specific situation.
We cover the three primary models in detail β gainshare, fixed-fee, and hourly β and walk through five real-world scenarios showing the total cost and net saving under each. We then address contract red flags, savings verification mechanisms, and the 12 questions every enterprise buyer should ask before engaging any software advisory firm.
We negotiate Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, AWS, Salesforce, Google Cloud, and 50+ other vendor contracts. You pay 25% of verified savings, and nothing if we deliver nothing. Get your free savings estimate β or explore our services β
This comparison covers the structural characteristics of each model. The financial scenarios that follow show what these differences look like in practice.
| Dimension | Gainshare (25%) | Fixed-Fee Retainer | Hourly / Project Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront cost to client | $0 | $50Kβ$200K+ | Varies (billed monthly) |
| Fee if no savings achieved | $0 β zero risk | Full retainer still owed | Hours billed regardless |
| Advisor incentive structure | Maximise savings | Deliver process | Maximise billable hours |
| Skin in the game | Yes β advisor earns nothing without results | No β paid upfront | No β billed for effort |
| Savings verification | Independent audit required | Self-reported by advisor | Self-reported by advisor |
| Advisor motivation to maximise deal | High β directly tied to fee | Medium β reputation only | Low β engagement can extend |
| Client budget risk | Minimal β contingent on savings | High β sunk cost regardless | High β unpredictable |
| Net savings to client (typical) | 75% of total savings | Variable (total savings minus fixed fee) | Variable (erodes with low savings) |
| Suitable for uncertain saving potential | Yes β no risk if savings are low | No β fee is sunk regardless | No β billed regardless |
| Suitable for known, defined project | Yes | Yes | Sometimes |
These scenarios are based on real engagement types. Numbers are illustrative but reflect actual market rates for advisory fees and typical savings outcomes. All figures in USD.
Enterprise with $3M Oracle EA facing renewal. Independent advisor negotiates $900K in verified savings (30% reduction).
Gainshare (25%): Client pays $225K, retains $675K net.
Fixed-fee ($120K retainer): Client pays $120K regardless, retains $780K β but only if savings materialise. If advisor delivers $200K savings, client is net $80K ahead vs $275K on gainshare.
Key insight: Fixed-fee wins when savings are very large relative to the retainer, AND when the advisor definitely delivers. Gainshare wins when outcome is uncertain.
Enterprise with $2M Microsoft EA. Fixed-fee advisor charges $100K, delivers $280K in savings. Fixed-fee: Client pays $100K, retains $180K net. Gainshare: 25% of $280K = $70K fee, client retains $210K β pays $30K less and carries zero risk. The gainshare model consistently outperforms in moderate-savings scenarios because the fee scales proportionally rather than being a flat sunk cost.
Enterprise evaluating SAP RISE migration. Engages advisor to benchmark pricing. After forensic analysis, advisor determines SAP's quote is already close to market rate β savings potential is limited to $40K. Fixed-fee ($75K retainer): Client is net negative $35K. Gainshare: Client pays $10K (25% of $40K), retains $30K net. This scenario β where savings potential turns out to be lower than expected β is exactly where gainshare protects the client from an expensive advisory engagement with minimal return.
Enterprise with $5M combined Oracle, Microsoft, and Salesforce spend. Engages multi-vendor negotiation advisory. Total verified savings: $1.6M. Gainshare (25%): Fee $400K, client retains $1.2M. Fixed-fee ($250K for full engagement): Fee $250K, client retains $1.35M β IF the advisor delivers. For multi-vendor engagements with high confidence of material savings, fixed-fee can make mathematical sense. The risk is that savings are self-reported and not independently verified.
Enterprise engages hourly advisor for AWS EDP review. Estimated project: 80 hours at $350/hour = $28K. Scope expands. Final bill: 140 hours = $49K. AWS savings achieved: $110K. Hourly: Client pays $49K, retains $61K β 55% of total savings. Gainshare (25%): Fee $27.5K, client retains $82.5K β 75% of total savings. Hourly advisory on complex cloud negotiations almost always results in scope creep, eroding the client's share of savings unpredictably.
In scenarios with very high, predictable savings potential, a fixed-fee advisor can deliver a higher net saving to the client β if they deliver. But they are also paid if they don't. Gainshare means you never pay for an engagement that doesn't perform. That risk elimination has real value, particularly for organisations with limited procurement resources or uncertain saving potential.
Under a gainshare model, savings must be independently verified before the fee is triggered β because the advisor only gets paid on verified savings. Under fixed-fee and hourly models, the advisor reports their own savings, with no independent check. This creates a structurally different quality of outcome measurement. Ask any advisory firm: "Who verifies the savings, and how?" If the answer is "we do," that's a red flag.
Enterprise buyers sometimes push back on gainshare rates, feeling that 25% is expensive. In context: if an advisor saves you $1M, they earn $250K and you keep $750K. That $750K is money you would not have otherwise had. The alternative β a fixed-fee advisor charging $150K regardless β only makes mathematical sense if your confidence in delivery is very high. Most buyers overestimate their advisor's delivery rate.
Not all gainshare agreements are created equal. Watch for: savings defined so broadly that routine renewal discounts count; lack of baseline definition; automatic renewal clauses; exclusivity terms preventing you from negotiating directly; and advisors who claim savings from work they didn't actually do. A clean gainshare contract defines savings precisely, uses pre-engagement baselines, and requires independent audit.
Fixed-fee advisory is appropriate when: the scope is tightly defined and unlikely to expand; the savings potential is well-understood and high relative to the fee; the buyer has strong internal procurement expertise to validate the advisor's work; and the advisory firm has a verifiable track record of delivery in the specific vendor area. These conditions are less common than most buyers assume going in.
The NoSaveNoPay advisory team is composed of former executives from Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, AWS, IBM, and other major enterprise vendors. We built this guide because we believe the information asymmetry in enterprise software advisory is a serious problem β both between vendors and buyers, and between advisory firms and buyers.
We operate on a 25% gainshare model because we believe it is the most honest model. Our fee is zero if your savings are zero. Every engagement includes independent savings verification. We are 100% buyer-side with no vendor affiliations or referral arrangements.
If you'd like to understand what we'd realistically achieve in your specific situation β before any commitment β start with a free savings estimate. No retainer. No obligation. Just an honest assessment.
We negotiate Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, AWS, Salesforce, Google Cloud, IBM, ServiceNow, Broadcom/VMware, Workday β and 40+ other vendors β on a single, transparent basis.
A practical framework for CFOs to benchmark, challenge, and reduce enterprise software costs β without disrupting vendor relationships.
Download Free βHow to coordinate Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, and cloud renewals that all land in the same fiscal year β and use each vendor as leverage against the others.
Download Free βWhen Salesforce, ServiceNow, or any SaaS vendor announces a price increase, this playbook tells you exactly how to respond β and what to say.
Download Free βStart with a free savings estimate. We'll review your current software and cloud contracts, identify the biggest savings opportunities, and give you an honest projection of what we could deliver β before any engagement, with no obligation. If the numbers aren't there, we'll tell you that too.