The spend leaked through per user packing rather than through the platform price, because named users were assigned the full suite where a single module fit
The platform is the access layer. The modules are what you license, and each one carries its own metric, its own price, and its own audit risk.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 19, 2026 · Construction Cloud estates. 20 to 30 estates benchmarked, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
Named users were assigned the full unified suite where a single module fit, adding 25 to 40 percent. The suite is tidy and the module is what they use.
Project member counts were forecast high, so license packs ran 15 to 30 percent ahead of active accounts. Packs are bought against a plan and billed against nothing.
Cross account project sharing created duplicate billable members on 1 in 3 multi entity estates. The same person, counted twice, in two accounts.
Seats bill whether the user logs in or not. Six months after deployment, 20 to 40 percent of assigned seats sit dormant.
What are you actually licensing?
Modules, not the platform. The platform is the access layer and the modules are the licensed components, each with its own metric, price and audit risk.
The five modules that carry the bill
- Field execution, quality, safety and project management, per user.
- Design coordination and clash detection, per user.
- Quantity takeoff in two and three dimensions, per user.
- Budget, change order and forecast workflows, per user.
- Document management and the common data environment, per user and often bundled.
Each module is a separate decision
Assigning the unified suite to everyone is one decision made once. Assigning modules to the people who use them is a hundred small decisions, and it is where the 25 to 40 percent sits. The packaging boundaries are published on the platform page and the module detail on the module pages.
Which metric applies to which module?
Three metrics, and most enterprise estates run a mix of all three without ever reconciling them against each other.
| Metric | Applies to | Annual list | Audit risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Per named user | Field, coordination, takeoff, cost modules | $900 to $2,400 per user | Low, because the user is named |
| Per project | Limited modules with a project mode | Variable | Medium |
| Per token | Integration and connector scenarios | Varies by transaction | High |
The token model needs weekly attention
Token consumption rates vary by product, and token use on this platform is less common than on the design tools. Where it is used, the math needs monitoring at weekly rather than annual cadence.
The rate card is published
Subscription pricing sits on the pricing pages with the full catalog at the product list. The list is the anchor you negotiate down from, not the number you plan against.
The engineering software audit defense guide
The compliance triggers, the usage evidence that holds, and the negotiation sequence for engineering estates.
Get the brief →What 20 to 30 Construction Cloud estates showed
Across roughly 20 to 30 Autodesk Construction Cloud estates Fredrik Filipsson benchmarked between 2024 and 2025, the spend leaked through per user packing rather than the platform price. Three patterns recur.
- Named users were assigned the full unified suite where a single module fit, adding 25 to 40 percent.
- Project member counts were forecast high, so license packs ran 15 to 30 percent ahead of active accounts.
- Cross account project sharing created duplicate billable members on 1 in 3 multi entity estates.
Most enterprises overspend by twenty five to forty percent here, and the reduction sits in seat assignment audit and module right sizing rather than in the rate.
- Your net price placed on the market curve from real closed transactions
- Adjusted for your deal size, region, industry and signing period
- A two page executive brief you can put in front of the CFO the same day
Why does seat assignment drift so far?
Because assigned seats bill whether the user logs in or not. Many estates assign during initial deployment and never review usage again.
Six months in, a fifth to two fifths sit dormant
Twenty to forty percent of seats carry no logins at all by that point. Nothing reclaims them and nothing on the invoice distinguishes them from working seats.
The seat audit pattern
Pull the active seat ratio from trailing login activity, then compare module assignment against module usage per user. Those two passes recover the assignment drift and the packing premium separately.
Duplicate members are a structural finding
Cross account project sharing bills the same person in two accounts on 1 in 3 multi entity estates. It is invisible from inside either account, which is why it survives every single account review.
How do license packs run ahead of reality?
By being forecast against a project plan rather than an account roster. Packs are bought for the members a project expects; billing follows the pack.
The forecast is the purchase
Project member counts were forecast high across the benchmarked estates, so packs ran 15 to 30 percent ahead of the accounts that were actually active on the platform.
Reconcile at project close, not at renewal
A project that ends leaves its members assigned unless somebody unwinds them. Reconciling at close rather than at the annual renewal is what stops the drift compounding across a portfolio. The multi vendor view sits in the negotiation scorecard.
Where the common advice on this platform is wrong
The common advice is to consolidate onto the unified suite for simplicity and negotiate the platform rate. We disagree.
The platform price is not where the money is
The spend leaked through per user packing, and assigning the full suite where a single module fit added 25 to 40 percent on its own. No platform rate negotiation recovers that, because the rate is being applied to the wrong assignment.
The buyer side move is to audit seat assignment against login activity, right size the module per user, reconcile packs against active accounts, and find the duplicate members across entities before the renewal. The practice view sits in the licensing advisory practice.
What the estates measured, 2024 to 2025
Two cuts of the benchmark file, and both are assignment problems rather than pricing problems.
Where named users carried the full unified entitlement for work a single module covered entirely.
Because project member counts were forecast against a plan rather than reconciled against the roster actually on the platform.
Neither needs a vendor concession. Both need somebody to compare two lists that already exist.
Your first five moves
- Pull the active seat ratio from trailing login activity, because assigned seats bill whether the user logs in or not.
- Compare module assignment against module usage per user, which is where the 25 to 40 percent suite premium becomes visible.
- Reconcile license packs against active accounts, not the project plan, since packs ran 15 to 30 percent ahead of the roster.
- Look for duplicate billable members across entities, because cross account sharing bills the same person twice on 1 in 3 multi entity estates.
- Unwind assignments at project close rather than at renewal. The spend health check runs both counts before the quote arrives.
Frequently asked questions
What is actually licensed?
The modules, not the platform. The platform is the access layer and each module carries its own metric, its own price and its own audit risk.
Where does the spend leak?
Through per user packing rather than the platform price. Assigning the full unified suite where a single module fit added 25 to 40 percent on its own.
Which metrics apply?
Per named user for the main modules, per project for a limited set with a project mode, and per token for integration and connector scenarios.
Which metric carries the most risk?
The token model. Consumption rates vary by product and the math needs weekly monitoring rather than an annual review.
Do unused seats still bill?
Yes. Assigned seats bill whether the user logs in or not, and 20 to 40 percent sit dormant six months after deployment.
Why do packs run high?
Because they are forecast against a project plan rather than an account roster. Packs ran 15 to 30 percent ahead of the accounts actually active.
What are duplicate billable members?
The same person counted in two accounts through cross account project sharing. It happened on 1 in 3 multi entity estates and is invisible from inside either account.
When should assignments be unwound?
At project close rather than at the annual renewal, because otherwise the drift compounds across the whole portfolio.
Does consolidating onto the suite help?
It simplifies administration and costs 25 to 40 percent more where a single module fits. Simplicity that bills every year is not a saving.
What recovers the most?
A seat assignment audit against login activity, and module right sizing per user. Both use lists you already hold and need no vendor concession.
