4 tactics CFOs can use to counter more volatile SaaS pricing

CFOs and finance teams are running into a familiar problem: SaaS pricing is becoming harder to predict.

Straightforward seat-based pricing is giving way to usage-based billing. AI surcharges, dynamic pricing, and add-on features folded into renewals are increasing costs in ways finance teams don’t always see coming. Sara Yamase, a partner and global head of technology, media and telecom at consultancy Simon-Kucher Partners, says this shift has accelerated over the past year.

“The big topic right now is that as you have more AI capabilities increasing efficiency, [SaaS] pricing is turning more into usage- or consumption-based pricing,” she says. The question is whether vendors make that usage transparent, or whether hidden costs creep in.

Yamase says that a growing number of SaaS firm board members are pushing for new pricing models, not least because shrinking headcounts make seat-based pricing less viable for vendors. It’s no coincidence that Stripe CEO Patrick Collison recently called metered pricing “the native business model of the AI era,” with implications as big as the rise of SaaS itself.

The problem for CFOs is usage-based pricing breaks the pattern they’ve relied on for many years and uproots the predictability they seek. That makes it a financial risk, magnified by contract terms, renewal cycles, vendor lock-in, and pricing models. In this piece, we’ll break down:

• Where unpredictable SaaS spend hides — and how to catch it before renewal season.
• Negotiation levers that still work in a world moving to metered pricing.
• Governance and process fixes that stop overspend from slipping through.

Where SaaS overspend hides

SaaS overspend hides in everyday decisions: duplicate tools, unclear usage patterns, and contract terms. Flexera’s 2026 IT Priorities Report shows the pattern: 70% of IT leaders say business units purchase more cloud and SaaS offerings than IT knows about, and 58% have already run into issues from shadow SaaS.

“The big topic right now is that as you have more AI capabilities increasing efficiency, [SaaS] pricing is turning more into usage- or consumption-based pricing."
—Sara Yamase, Partner, Simon-Kucher Partners

Yamase says the biggest area of spend bloat is duplicate tools. When teams adopt software on their own, or when platforms add overlapping features, companies can end up paying twice for capabilities they already have.

A second major blind spot is unclear usage data. This has two sides: Finance teams need visibility into vendor-reported usage and their own records of what they actually bought. “If you're a procurement manager, and you're dealing with data [for which] you know who the supplier is, but you don't really know what's being purchased … you're kind of at a loss,” says digital procurement advisor and consultant James Meads. “How can I drive savings if I don't know what I'm buying?”

Finally, contract structure can lock companies into higher costs. Chris Sawchuk, principal and global procurement advisory practice leader at The Hackett Group, points out that in concentrated software markets, buyers often have little leverage.

Vendor lock-in “is driving a lot of significant increases, because organizations don't feel they can do anything,” he says. Together, these visibility gaps make SaaS spend unpredictable — unless finance builds the systems to catch them.

4 ways CFOs can stay ahead of rising SaaS costs

1. Require usage transparency as a condition for buying

If a SaaS tool charges based on consumption, finance must be able to track and forecast it. As Yamase explains, vendors should provide transparency into usage over time.

A product that can’t show what drives its bill is a financial risk — and should be treated like one. This is the simplest filter CFOs can apply: no usage transparency, no contract.

2. Reconcile vendor usage with your own purchasing records

Vendor dashboards show how a product is being used: seats, credits, API calls. But only the company’s own systems can confirm what it committed to: license counts, contract tiers, minimums, pricing terms, renewal dates.

Meads says the disconnect between vendor-reported usage and internal records is one of the biggest reasons companies lose control of SaaS costs.

Because so many different people can initiate purchases, the data behind those purchases is often messy. “The root cause is the same. It’s that procurement isn’t managing it and the data quality of the spend going through the system is poor, because so many different people touch it,” he says.

"Most small companies … if they’re managing their contracts at all, they’re in a Google Drive or on a SharePoint site somewhere. That makes it difficult for finance to track terms or spot issues before renewals hit."
—James Meads, Digital Procurement Consultant

This disorganization can show up in two ways: free text purchase orders — where employees manually enter what they’re buying instead of selecting from a digital catalog — and contracts scattered across shared drives. “Most small companies … if they’re managing their contracts at all, they’re probably managing their contracts in a Google Drive or on a SharePoint site somewhere,” he says. That makes it difficult for finance to track terms or spot issues before renewals hit.

Meads says companies don’t need full-scale contract lifecycle management software to fix the problem — just a simple home for contracts and the details teams depend on that’s kept up to date. What many organizations actually need is “a repository … that contains the right metadata” and can send reminders before renewals or changes kick in. When purchasing data and contracts flow through the same structured process, finance gets a reference point to measure usage against commitments. Sawchuk adds that some tools can scan contract portfolios and pull up terms that influence cost, a capability that many vendors now offer through AI-based search.

3. Turn vendor land-grab mode into negotiation leverage

Usage-based pricing doesn’t mean there’s no room for negotiation. Yamase says vendors are in land-grab mode, meaning they have strong incentives for customers to expand their use of their platform. But this offers the opportunity for leverage: you can trade a larger footprint for greater predictability, whether that’s usage buffers, lower unit economics, or room to renegotiate at renewal. One lever companies can use is negotiating a usage buffer upfront. If actual usage falls below projections, it becomes a data point the buyer can take into renewal conversations.

Yamase says some CFOs are already using this dynamic to their advantage.

“What I’ve heard from a CFO is that he predicts that he won’t use nearly the amount of the [threshold] that they get. And then when they come back and negotiate in the next term, he will be like, ‘Hey, I only used 20% of my usage — please give me a better price.’”

Companies should also stay on top of platform creep. Yamase points to a “really big trend” of software companies adding more capabilities into their platforms as they mature. As bundles expand, renewals become the moment to ask whether the new features actually replace other existing tools or simply add cost. An audit of what’s redundant and what’s actively used can influence future pricing conversations.If you’re fighting vendor lock-in, understanding what’s actually in your contracts can help you stay ahead. Modern tools use AI to scan contracts for the clauses that influence cost. That visibility makes it easier to spot terms that affect pricing, usage, or renewals before they become a problem.

In a metered world, the strongest levers aren’t list prices but predictability mechanisms: usage bands, usage buffers, escalation caps, renewal terms, and clear rules for how the vendor will report usage. Teams that negotiate these early avoid the biggest cost shocks later.

4. Set up a clear internal decision structure

The way decisions get made matters as much as the pricing model itself. Yamase says many companies lack centralized procurement. Teams buy software independently, features overlap, and renewals go unnoticed because roles and responsibilities aren’t spelled out.

Setting up a governance framework isn’t complicated: someone needs to own the decision, and the rest of the team needs to know their role. Yamase suggests a “RACI” model outlining who’s responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed to make procurement decision paths clear and traceable.

In a metered world, the strongest levers aren’t list prices but predictability mechanisms: usage bands, usage buffers, escalation caps, renewal terms, and clear rules for how the vendor will report usage.

As SaaS pricing shifts and renewal cycles get harder to forecast, the CFO’s job isn’t just managing spend. It’s building the visibility, processes, and negotiation tactics that keep surprises out of the budget. That starts with usage visibility, clean purchasing data, records of contract terms, and a close watch on platform expansion.

But as SaaS costs become more variable, Yamase stresses that cost control isn’t the only measure of a healthy strategy. In the rush to stay lean, she cautions that there’s a danger in cutting too deep.

“Spend discipline is important, but not at the expense of your core capability,” she says.