# How should you compare enterprise GRC software pricing and three-year TCO?

**Normalise scope before comparing price, and separate external cash expenditure from internal capacity.** This research does not establish comparable enterprise prices for the named suppliers.

Public commercial information illustrates why normalisation matters. LogicGate states that its model combines applications and Power User licences, with Standard and External user licences included at no additional cost; it separately identifies features and services that can be added. IBM publishes indicative starting figures by deployment option and warns that prices depend on location and offering availability. Neither page supplies your configured three-year ownership cost. ([logicgate.ai](https://www.logicgate.ai/platform/pricing/?utm_source=openai))

### What must every quote include?

Use a common commercial schedule covering:

| Cost group | Items to resolve |
|---|---|
| Software | Modules, entities, applications, users and exact rights for contributors, reviewers and administrators |
| Environments | Production, test, development, sandbox and recovery arrangements |
| Integration | Connectors, APIs, middleware, custom development and ongoing maintenance |
| Content | Frameworks, regulatory intelligence, content updates and permitted reuse |
| AI | Included features, usage limits, model services, overage and review requirements |
| Delivery | Discovery, data cleansing, migration, configuration, testing, training and acceptance |
| Operations | Administration, support, release testing, access reviews and reporting maintenance |
| Transition | Retained tools, dual-running, archive access and legacy retirement |
| Commercial terms | Renewal basis, scope changes, price protection and termination assistance |

Ask suppliers to mark each line **included, separately priced, buyer responsibility or unresolved**. An unresolved item should not enter the model as zero.

### What can a worked GRC total cost of ownership comparison reveal?

The following is **entirely synthetic**. It compares two hypothetical configurations delivering the same assumed scope. These are not supplier quotes, market averages or recommended budgets. Figures are undiscounted USD; the example assumes flat prices and excludes taxes, financing and unpriced extras.

| Three-year item | Configuration A | Configuration B |
|---|---:|---:|
| Software subscription | $120,000 × 3 = $360,000 | $150,000 × 3 = $450,000 |
| External implementation | $140,000 | $200,000 |
| Internal implementation labour | $80,000 | $65,000 |
| Ongoing internal administration | 60 hours/month × 36 × $90 = $194,400 | 30 hours/month × 36 × $90 = $97,200 |
| Retained specialist software | $30,000 × 3 = $90,000 | $15,000 × 3 = $45,000 |
| Legacy dual-running | $24,000 | $12,000 |
| **External cash subtotal** | **$614,000** | **$707,000** |
| **Internal labour subtotal** | **$274,400** | **$162,200** |
| **Total economic cost** | **$888,400** | **$869,200** |

In this illustration, B has a **$19,200 lower economic cost but requires $93,000 more external cash**. It is not the cheaper cash purchase. Its apparent economic advantage also depends on unverified administration and retained-tool assumptions.

Six additional administration hours each month, at the assumed $90 hourly cost over 36 months, add $19,440—enough to reverse that small economic difference. This is why a short administrator trial can be more decision-useful than another headline discount.

Use three sensitivities in the final business case:

- **Delivery:** extra cleansing, configuration and dual-running.
- **Operations:** administration hours, retained tools and support consumption.
- **Expansion:** another entity, workflow, integration or AI usage level.

Keep exit costs in a separate scenario unless exit is actually planned during the model period. Present staff capacity released separately from cash savings; do not assume fewer hours of work automatically reduce payroll.