A buyer side comparison of Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon licensing in 2026. How named user, consumption, and concurrent models differ, and which fits your usage pattern.
Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon all sell design and engineering software, but they meter it in very different ways. Autodesk leans on named user subscriptions and tokens, Bentley on consumption based licensing, and Hexagon on a mix of named and concurrent models that vary by product line.
This comparison is for procurement leaders running a multi vendor design and engineering estate. Read it with the Autodesk licensing advisory and the Autodesk Flex token pricing guide.
Each vendor built a different commercial model. The model, not the feature list, is what drives your real cost and your true up risk.
Bentley documents its consumption approach on the Bentley enterprise licensing page. The contrast with Autodesk named users is the core of the comparison.
Autodesk is mostly named user. Each person who needs a product gets an assigned subscription. Flex tokens cover users who only need a product occasionally.
Bentley meters actual use. You can run almost any product, and the platform records consumption, which is then billed, often with a true up against a committed quantity.
The decision is about how your teams actually use the software. Steady daily users and occasional users have very different best fits.
Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon licensing models compared
| Vendor | Primary model | Best fit | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autodesk | Named user plus Flex tokens | Steady daily users | Paying for idle seats |
| Bentley | Consumption based | Variable or seasonal use | Overage true up bills |
| Hexagon | Named or concurrent by line | Mixed teams and tools | Inconsistent metrics |
Bentley consumption can produce the largest surprise bill, because overage accrues quietly. Autodesk risk is the opposite, paying for named seats that sit idle.
Hexagon grew through acquisition, so different product lines keep different metrics. One estate can hold named user, concurrent, and consumption terms at the same time.
You cannot compare these three on price per seat. Autodesk bills for who is assigned, Bentley for what runs, and Hexagon for whichever model that product line inherited. Compare on usage pattern.
Autodesk mostly uses named user subscriptions assigned to individuals, with Flex tokens for occasional use. Bentley uses consumption based licensing that bills by what you actually run. The two suit opposite usage patterns, steady daily users versus variable or seasonal use.
Overage true up. Bentley consumption accrues against a committed quantity, and use above that commitment is billed later. Because the overage builds quietly through normal work, the true up can produce a large and unexpected bill at the review point.
Flex tokens make sense for users who run a product occasionally rather than daily. A daily token draw is cheaper than a full named subscription for light users, so moving idle named seats to Flex is a common Autodesk saving.
Hexagon grew through acquisitions, so its product lines retained different commercial models. A single estate can include named user, concurrent, and consumption terms at once, which makes a uniform comparison harder than with a single model vendor.
No. Price per seat ignores how each model bills. Autodesk charges for assigned users, Bentley for actual consumption, and Hexagon by product line. The meaningful comparison is by your real usage pattern and the true up risk each model carries.
Negotiate true up caps and review usage data before renewal. For Bentley, watch consumption against the commitment. For Autodesk, reclaim idle named seats. For Hexagon, document each line metric so no product slips into an unmanaged overage.
Autodesk EBA token economics, named user mechanics, true up exposure, and the buyer side moves across a multi vendor design and engineering estate.
Used across more than five hundred enterprise engagements. Independent. Buyer side. Built for procurement leaders running the next renewal cycle.
The vendors want you comparing feature lists. The money is in the model. Match named, consumption, and concurrent licensing to how your teams actually work.
500+ enterprise clients. 11 vendor practices. Industry recognized. One conversation can change what you pay for the next three years.
One short note on design and engineering software licensing, renewal mechanics, audit posture, and the buyer side levers we run in client engagements. No noise.
