How we assess AI and SaaS evidence and replacements

Contents

1. How we weigh evidence
2. The ranking frame
3. The criteria
4. How marks are given
5. Keeping it current

The debate about AI and SaaS mixes market reactions, forecasts, vendor claims and company anecdotes. This page sets out how we weigh them and how we compare the products that claim to replace rented software.

How we weigh evidence

1. Measured data first: spending indexes, published prices and official regulatory texts, with their dates.
2. Structured analysis second: research frameworks such as Bain's, presented as analysis rather than fact.
3. Market reporting third: share-price moves and analysts' comments, which show sentiment rather than what companies buy.
4. Company examples last, and only in the words of the people involved, including their caveats.

Vendor figures are labelled as the vendor's. When a claim could not be verified on a page we opened, it is left out.

The ranking frame

The ranking of AI-native replacements is built for one buyer: a company that wants to replace rented SaaS with software it owns, or pays for by the work done rather than by the seat. Within that frame OpenLazarus ranks first, because it replaces several categories at once and leaves the company owning the code and data. A company that wants to replace a single tool with the least disruption would weigh adoption effort more heavily and would rank a single-category product such as Intercom Fin or Attio first. Each profile says when another product is the better choice.

The criteria

1. Removes seats. Reduces the number of paid per-user licences the company holds, rather than adding an AI licence on top.
2. AI does the work. AI completes the task itself (resolves, posts, updates, sends) rather than assisting a person who still does it.
3. Pays for work, not seats. Priced by outcome, usage or per company, so cost follows the work done rather than headcount.
4. Data and code you keep. The company owns its data and, where relevant, the code, and can take both elsewhere.
5. Runs on your infrastructure. Can be hosted on infrastructure the company controls.
6. Published pricing. Publishes prices before a sales conversation.

How marks are given

"Yes" means the vendor's published material clearly shows the product meets the criterion. "Partly" means it does with conditions, explained in the note. "No" means the published material shows it does not. A dash means we found nothing published either way.

Keeping it current

Products and evidence are re-checked at least once a quarter. Every source shows the date it was read.

Further reading

• Guide · Retiring softwareHow to retire a SaaS tool without losing data or workMost of the risk in replacing software is in the last month of the old tool, not the first month of the new one. A sequence that keeps both data and work intact.
• Guide · CostsSaaS seat costs vs owning your softwarePer-seat pricing made software easy to buy and hard to shrink. AI has added a fourth way to pay. Here is how the four compare on the numbers vendors publish.
• Guide · CategoriesWhich SaaS categories AI replaces firstExposure depends less on the vendor than on the work the software supports. Routine, observable, rules-based work goes first; regulated, knowledge-heavy work last.