Estates running both CRM Analytics and Tableau overlapped on dashboard use for 40 to 60 percent of seats, and the bundle hid the unit price in eight of ten proposals
Two analytics products arrived through different doors, several years apart, sponsored by different teams. Nothing in the renewal process ever asks whether both are still needed.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 17, 2026 · Salesforce advisory. 30 to 40 Salesforce analytics engagements benchmarked, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
Estates running both CRM Analytics and Tableau overlapped on dashboard use for 40 to 60 percent of seats. Two products doing the same job for the same people, billed twice, and reviewed never.
Bundled analytics, Data Cloud, and Einstein proposals hid the analytics unit price in eight of ten cases. A line with no stated unit price cannot be compared against the product sitting beside it, which is what keeps the overlap invisible.
Between 35 and 55 percent of assigned high tier seats showed little or no build activity in the trailing year. High tier analytics prices the ability to build. Most of the population consumes what somebody else built.
The analytics line was almost never reviewed at seat level before renewal. Which is the single procedural fact that lets all three of the above persist across terms.
Where the duplication sits
The two products are not identical, but the population that uses them overlaps far more than the products differ.
| Use | Which product | What the estate pays |
|---|---|---|
| Viewing a dashboard | Either, interchangeably | Frequently both, for the same person |
| Building a dashboard | The high tier seat | Justified, for the population that builds |
| Analytics inside a bundle | No stated unit price in 8 of 10 | Whatever the renewal decides later |
| Seat level review | Almost never performed | The reason the other rows persist |
The bundle is what makes the duplication survivable, which is why the itemisation request comes before the consolidation decision. If the analytics line has no stated unit price, it cannot be compared to the other analytics line, cannot be benchmarked against the market, and cannot be shed if the estate consolidates. Eight proposals in ten arrived that way. Asking for the analytics unit price costs nothing and is the precondition for every other move on this page.
Two products that do the same job, billed twice, reviewed never
Across roughly 30 to 40 Salesforce analytics engagements benchmarked between 2024 and 2025, estates running both CRM Analytics and Tableau overlapped on dashboard use for 40 to 60 percent of seats. That is not a subtle inefficiency. For between two fifths and three fifths of the analytics population, the organisation is paying two vendors' worth of licence for one person's dashboard, and the person in question generally has no idea there is a second product.
The duplication is a procurement artefact rather than an architectural decision. The two products arrived through different doors, several years apart, sponsored by different teams, and each was justified on its own merits at the time. Nothing then happened. The analytics line was almost never reviewed at seat level before renewal, so both renew, and the overlap compounds quietly as each product's footprint grows with the organisation.
The bundle is what keeps it invisible. Bundled analytics, Data Cloud, and Einstein proposals hid the analytics unit price in eight of ten cases reviewed, which removes the ability to compare the two products against each other or against the market. A buyer cannot rationalise a duplication they cannot price. That makes the itemisation request the first move rather than the last: ask for the analytics unit price to be stated separately, and the consolidation question becomes answerable arithmetic instead of an argument about preference.
There is a second, independent finding worth acting on at the same time. Between 35 and 55 percent of assigned high tier analytics seats showed little or no build activity in the trailing year. High tier analytics prices the ability to build, and most of an analytics population consumes what somebody else built. Pull build activity per seat alongside the overlap analysis, because the two corrections use the same data and neither is available once the renewal has been priced. The Platform seat question sits in the Platform playbook, the ISV estate in the AppExchange brief, and the library in the Salesforce practice.
- Usage exports analysed: inactive accounts, plan right sizing, per user reassignment
- Overlapping capability identified across products bought in separate cycles
- Every risky clause flagged with the exact quote, the page, and the replacement language
The Salesforce licence optimisation brief
The estate audit, the renewal timeline, the uplift cap targets, and the buyer side moves across the full Salesforce estate.
Get the brief →Rationalising the analytics estate
- Demand a stated analytics unit price outside the Data Cloud and Einstein bundle, since eight proposals in ten hid it and nothing else can proceed without it.
- Identify the seats holding both products, which was 40 to 60 percent of the analytics population in the estates reviewed.
- Separate dashboard consumers from dashboard builders, because only the second group justifies a high tier seat.
- Pull build activity per seat, where 35 to 55 percent of high tier assignments showed little or none in the trailing year.
- Run both corrections from the same data set, since the overlap analysis and the build activity analysis need the same export.
- Do it before the renewal is priced, as neither correction is available once the analytics line has been agreed inside a bundle.
What the analytics engagements showed, 2024 to 2025
Across roughly 30 to 40 Salesforce analytics engagements benchmarked, the analytics line was almost never reviewed at seat level before renewal:
Share of seats where estates running both CRM Analytics and Tableau overlapped on dashboard use, paying twice for one person's dashboard.
Proposals where bundled analytics, Data Cloud, and Einstein pricing concealed the analytics unit price, preventing any comparison.
Between 35 and 55 percent of assigned high tier analytics seats showed little or no build activity in the trailing year, because high tier prices the ability to build and most of the population consumes.
The duplication is a procurement artefact: two products arrived through different doors, years apart, sponsored by different teams, and nothing in the renewal process ever asked whether both were still needed.
Watch the briefing · 4:19Where Salesforce Leverage Comes FromWhy the estate evidence has to exist before the bundle is priced.
Your first five moves
- Ask for the analytics unit price to be stated separately from the bundle, which is the precondition for everything else.
- Export seat assignments for both products and identify the population holding both.
- Pull build activity per seat from the same export.
- Classify every seat as builder, consumer, or duplicate, and price each group.
- Take the classified estate into the renewal. The Salesforce practice runs the overlap analysis with you.
Frequently asked questions
How much do CRM Analytics and Tableau overlap?
Estates running both overlapped on dashboard use for 40 to 60 percent of seats across the 30 to 40 engagements benchmarked. For that share of the population, one person dashboard is licensed twice.
Why does the duplication persist?
Because it is a procurement artefact rather than an architectural choice. The products arrived through different doors, years apart, sponsored by different teams, and nothing in the renewal ever asks whether both are still needed.
What role does the bundle play?
It hides the analytics unit price, in eight of ten proposals reviewed. A buyer cannot rationalise a duplication they cannot price, so the bundle is what makes the overlap survivable.
What should we ask for first?
A stated analytics unit price, separate from Data Cloud and Einstein. It costs nothing to request and every other move depends on having a number to compare.
What is the build activity finding?
Between 35 and 55 percent of assigned high tier analytics seats showed little or no build activity in the trailing year. High tier prices the ability to build, and most of the population consumes.
Are the two corrections related?
They use the same data. The overlap analysis and the build activity analysis both come from the seat assignment and usage export, so running them together costs little more than running either alone.
Does anyone notice the duplication internally?
Rarely. The user holding both licences generally has no idea there is a second product, because they simply open whichever dashboard they were sent a link to.
When must this happen?
Before the renewal is priced. Neither correction is available once the analytics line has been agreed inside a bundle, because there is no longer a separable number to argue about.
Do we have to consolidate onto one product?
Not necessarily. The finding is that the decision should be made deliberately and priced, rather than defaulting to both because no one reviewed the line at seat level.
What does seat level review actually mean?
Looking at who holds which product, who builds versus who consumes, and who holds both. It is a single export and it is the step the renewal process does not prompt anyone to take.
