You are paying three vendors for the same capability.
Not because anyone made a bad decision, but because nobody had the view. Real usage per vendor, the overlaps, the unused seats, and what consolidation is actually worth.
How do you decide which AI vendors to consolidate?
On usage rather than on contract count. Camaze shows what each vendor is actually used for, by which teams, at what effective rate after discounts, and where capabilities overlap. That distinguishes genuine duplication, where two tools do the same job for the same people, from deliberate multi-vendor strategy, where different models serve different work or keep your negotiating position strong. Consolidation scenarios then attach a dollar figure to each option before anything is cancelled.
AI tools arrive through every door at once.
A team trials a coding assistant and it becomes standard for that team. A different group standardizes on another.
More detail
A third arrives inside a SaaS renewal as an AI add-on nobody evaluated separately. Someone expenses a research tool on a card.
Each decision was locally sensible. The aggregate is three contracts covering substantially the same capability, seats assigned generously and reclaimed never, and the same underlying model purchased through three routes at three effective rates.
- Overlapping tools bought independently by different teams
- Seats assigned in blocks with no view of actual usage
- The same model bought direct, through a marketplace and through a reseller
- AI add-ons inside SaaS contracts that never reach an AI review
- Renewals arriving separately, so overlaps are never compared side by side
Illustrative product view. Figures are examples.
Decide on usage, not on contract count.
Reducing vendor count is not automatically good. Multi-vendor is often correct, for routing different work to suitable models and for keeping your negotiating position strong. The goal is to remove duplication, not variety.
- What each vendor is actually used for, by which teams
- Effective rate after discounts, commitments and credits
- Seat utilization against seats purchased
- Genuine capability overlap separated from deliberate multi-vendor strategy
- Consolidation scenarios with the saving and the switching cost attached
Which tools genuinely duplicate each other.
Two coding assistants used by two separate teams may be duplication or may be preference worth respecting.
More detail
Two coding assistants where a third of engineering holds an active seat on both is duplication, and the second one is measurable.
Camaze shows usage per tool per team and the overlap between them, which is the difference between a consolidation proposal and a consolidation argument.
- Tools grouped by capability, with usage on each
- Users holding active seats on more than one
- Inactive seats quantified per tool and per team
- Usage trend, so a tool being abandoned organically is visible
| Optimization | Workflow | Status | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open-weight model covers the classification step | Support triage | Done | $15,600 |
| Cache the system prompt, 78% of input tokens | Document workflow | In progress | $8,700 |
| Put a ceiling on the agent retry loop | Internal agents | In progress | $7,400 |
| Move batch-eligible work off synchronous | Data enrichment | Planned | $5,100 |
| Committed-use tier now earned | All providers | Planned | $14,200 |
| Right-size a GPU endpoint at 11% utilization | Self-hosted models | Under review | $6,900 |
| Reclaim unopened seats on two AI tools | Engineering | Under review | $3,900 |
| Total | $61,800 a month |
Illustrative product view. Figures are examples.
The same model, three effective rates.
Model access bought directly, through a cloud marketplace and through a reseller often differs materially in effective rate once discounts, commitments and marketplace drawdown are accounted for.
More detail
Very few companies have compared them, because the three appear in three unrelated bills.
Consolidating onto the best available route is frequently the fastest saving in the whole exercise, and it requires no product change at all.
- Effective rate per route, after all discounts and credits
- Marketplace commitment drawdown treated as real spend
- The saving from consolidating routes, quantified
- No change to workloads, only to how access is purchased
| Project | Model | Share | Cost | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support automation | Claude Sonnet | $34,800 | +22% | |
| Search and ranking | GPT-4o mini | $21,400 | -6% | |
| Sales copilot | GPT-4o | $18,900 | +31% | |
| Docs assistant | Llama 3.1 70B, self-hosted | $15,200 | +9% | |
| Data enrichment | Gemini 1.5 Flash | $11,600 | -14% | |
| Internal agents | Mixed | $9,800 | +64% | |
| Engineering seats | Cursor, Copilot | $8,300 | 0% |
Illustrative product view. Figures are examples.
Sequence it against the renewal calendar.
Consolidation only realizes value at a renewal or a contract break. Attempting it mid-term usually means paying twice for a period, which erases the saving.
More detail
Camaze maintains the renewal calendar with notice periods, so consolidation is planned as a sequence of renewals rather than attempted all at once. Each renewal arrives with usage history, effective rate and the overlap analysis already prepared.
- Renewal dates and notice periods per vendor
- Consolidation opportunities sequenced against the calendar
- Switching cost estimated alongside the saving
- First-charge detection, so the next tool does not repeat the pattern
-
A cheaper model now covers your largest workload
Ticket triage runs 41M tokens a month on a frontier model. A newly released mid-tier model matches it on your own eval set.
$21,300a month -
Input pricing dropped on a model you already run
No change needed. The saving lands automatically. The forecast has been updated and plan variance is now favorable.
$4,900a month -
Prompt caching is now available on the document workflow
78% of that workflow's input tokens are an unchanged system prompt. Caching them is a configuration change, not a rewrite.
$8,700a month -
Volume now qualifies for committed-use pricing
Twelve months of usage supports a commitment at the next tier. Draft terms and a break-even are attached.
$14,200a month
Illustrative product view. Figures are examples.
See the overlaps.
Bring your AI vendor list and we will show you usage, effective rates and where the duplication actually is.
Consolidating without breaking anything
The order that avoids paying twice.
Reclaim before you cancel
Inactive seats are the fastest saving and require no decision from anyone. Reclaim them and set an automatic rule at 45 days. Often this alone changes what the right contract size is at renewal.
Consolidate routes, not products
Where the same model is bought several ways, consolidate onto the best effective rate. Nothing about the product changes, no team has to switch tools, and the saving is immediate.
Then sequence the renewals
Take the genuine duplications to their next renewal in order, with usage history and overlap analysis prepared. One at a time, so a migration that goes badly does not coincide with another.
Keep reading
For procurement
Verified usage history, commitment sizing and the renewal calendar for every AI vendor.
Read moreMulti-vendor sprawl
Producing one number across eleven billing relationships and four billing models.
Read moreCost optimization
The standing list of what to cut, including seats, duplicate tools and unused commitments.
Read moreQuestions people ask
Is fewer vendors always better?
No. Multi-vendor is often the right answer, both for routing different work to models suited to it and for keeping your position strong at renewal. The problem worth solving is duplication, meaning two vendors doing the same job for the same people, not variety.
How do you identify overlapping capability?
From usage rather than from marketing categories. Two tools used by the same people for the same kind of work overlap, whatever their positioning claims. Users holding active seats on both is the clearest signal, and it is directly measurable.
What about tools bought on personal cards?
Anything appearing in connected billing or expense data is picked up and flagged on first charge. Purchases entirely outside those systems are beyond what any billing-based tool can see, though they generally surface at reimbursement.
Does consolidation risk losing capability people rely on?
It can, which is why the decision should be made on usage. A tool with low seat count but heavy usage by a specific team is doing something the alternative may not. Camaze shows depth of use as well as headcount, so that distinction is visible before a contract is cancelled.