Three inflation points, and all of them are decided by what you do first
RISE bundles S/4HANA private edition, infrastructure, and tooling into one subscription priced on a blended user metric. The convenience is real and it reduces your visibility into what each component costs. Read across our RISE, optimization, and fit engagements and the same structure appears three times: the number is set by the order in which you do the work, not by how hard you argue about it afterwards.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 10, 2026 · SAP advisory. Based on 40 to 55 RISE engagements benchmarked, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
The first FUE proposal ran 18 to 30 percent above the count the buyer could defend after a clean user role remap. The inflation is not random: self service and occasional users were mapped to higher bands than their actual usage warranted, which alone accounted for 15 to 25 percent of the count.
The metric blends your user mix into one weighted number, so whatever mix exists on conversion day becomes the baseline for the term.
That matters more than it appears, because reclassification and conversion are the same population measured twice. Our SAP optimization work finds that activity analysis moves 20 to 40 percent of Professional users to cheaper types, and RISE conversion applies its ratios to whatever mix it finds.
Converting an un-remapped estate therefore prices the inflation once and carries it for the whole term. Reclassify first, convert second. Doing it in the other order is the single most expensive sequencing error in the transition.
Migration credits covered 6 to 18 months, after which the year three run rate rose 20 to 35 percent. That creates a cliff at precisely the point most business cases stop looking.
A three year evaluation straddles the end of the subsidy, which is why our RISE fit work finds roughly half of evaluations showed RISE raising five year cost once internal run labour and lost hyperscaler credits were counted.
Model five years, and treat any three year comparison as a measurement of the subsidised period.
Digital access surfaced late in 8 of 10 estates, after the FUE deal was already framed.
Indirect and digital access sit outside the user count entirely and are licensed by document volume, so discovering them after the commercial shape is set converts a negotiable term into an add on priced without leverage. Establish the document count before the FUE conversation opens, not during it.
What the subscription actually aggregates
| Component | What it covers | Where visibility is lost |
|---|---|---|
| S/4HANA Cloud private edition | The managed ERP and database runtime | Software cost is not separable from the service wrapper |
| Infrastructure as a managed service | Compute, storage, and operations on your chosen hyperscaler | SAP holds the infrastructure contract, so you do not see the underlying rate |
| Platform credits | A consumption pool for extensions and integration | Credit volumes vary by deal size and are rarely benchmarked |
| Business network starter pack | Entry level supplier and logistics network access | Entry tier value is easy to overstate in a bundle case |
| Transformation tooling | Process discovery, readiness checks, migration accelerators | Bundled value assumed rather than priced against alternatives |
One order form, one throat to choke, and one number you cannot decompose. That is the honest description of the bundle, and the loss of component visibility is the price of the convenience rather than an oversight in the packaging.
It matters commercially at renewal rather than at signature: a buyer who cannot separate the software line from the infrastructure line cannot benchmark either against the market, and cannot tell whether an uplift is being driven by the ERP, by the hyperscaler pass through.
Or by the managed service.
Ask for the component split at signature, when the vendor wants the deal, rather than at renewal when it does not. The package comparison sits in the RISE against GROW analysis.
The sequence that sets the number
- Reclassify before you convert. Activity analysis moves 20 to 40 percent of Professional users to cheaper types, and the conversion applies its ratios to whatever mix exists on the day, so an un-remapped estate carries the inflation for the term.
- Establish the document count before the user conversation. Digital access is licensed on volume and sits outside the user metric, and once the commercial shape is framed it prices as an add on rather than as a negotiated term.
- Build the five year model before the three year one, because credits cover 6 to 18 months and the year three run rate rises 20 to 35 percent, which is exactly where a three year comparison stops looking.
- Baseline your current run cost first, including the internal labour you already spend, since roughly half of evaluations showed RISE raising five year cost once that labour and the lost hyperscaler credits were counted.
- Ask for the component split at signature, while the vendor wants the deal, because at renewal an undecomposable number cannot be benchmarked against anything. The reclassification method sits in the SAP optimization guide.
RISE with SAP against on premises
The FUE conversion arithmetic, where the private edition case genuinely holds, and the offsets to negotiate before committing.
Get the white paper →Why the three inflation points are one problem
Read the three findings separately and they look like three unrelated negotiation risks. Read them together and they are the same failure repeated: work that is cheap to do before a commercial shape exists becomes expensive or impossible once it does. The user count is the clearest case.
Our optimization engagements consistently move 20 to 40 percent of Professional users to cheaper types on activity evidence, and the conversion blends whatever mix it finds into one weighted number, so the reclassification is worth a fifth to two fifths of a population either way.
Done first it reduces the baseline. Done afterwards it is an argument against a number already in a signed order, which is a different and much weaker conversation. Digital access follows the identical pattern.
It is licensed on document volume and sits outside the user count, so it is genuinely negotiable while the deal shape is open and becomes an add on once the shape is set, which is precisely why finding it late in eight of ten estates was so costly.
And the credit cliff is the same structure in time rather than in scope: the subsidy covers the window in which the business case is evaluated, so the evaluation measures the subsidised period and the decision is made before the real run rate appears. None of the three is a pricing problem.
All three are ordering problems, and the ordering is entirely within the buyer's control. The fit test that should precede all of it sits in is RISE right for you, and the indirect access mechanics in the digital access guide.
- Percentile standing for your exact deal size and industry, from real closed transactions
- Scenario simulation before the call: test alternative terms and see the financial impact of each
- A negotiation playbook, talking points, and a two page executive brief on day one
What we saw across RISE engagements, 2024 to 2025
Across roughly 40 to 55 RISE with SAP engagements benchmarked between 2024 and 2025, the FUE count in SAP's first proposal ran on average 18 to 30 percent above the count the buyer could defend after a clean user role remap:
Count inflation caused by mapping self service and occasional users to higher bands than their measured usage warranted.
Estates where the document volume exposure surfaced only after the user metric deal had already been framed commercially.
Three patterns recurred: self service and occasional users mapped to higher bands than their usage warranted, inflating the count 15 to 25 percent; migration credits covering 6 to 18 months of bridge cost before the year three run rate rose 20 to 35 percent.
And digital access exposure discovered late in 8 of 10 estates.
The buyer side move is a sequence rather than a tactic.
Reclassify users on activity evidence, establish the document count, baseline your real run cost including internal labour, build the five year model, and only then let SAP propose a number, because every one of those steps removes inflation from the basket rather than arguing about it afterwards.
Your first five moves
- Run the user reclassification before any conversion conversation, because activity analysis moves 20 to 40 percent of Professional users down and the conversion prices whatever mix it finds.
- Audit the billable document count before the user metric is discussed, since digital access sits outside the count and becomes an unnegotiated add on once the deal shape is set.
- Baseline your current run cost including internal labour, which is the input roughly half of estates could not state and without which no comparison means anything.
- Model five years, not three, because credits cover 6 to 18 months and the year three run rate rises 20 to 35 percent exactly where a three year case stops looking.
- Ask for the component split at signature, so the software, infrastructure, and managed service lines can each be benchmarked at renewal. The SAP practice runs the sequence with you.
Frequently asked questions
What does RISE with SAP include?
S/4HANA Cloud private edition as the anchor, infrastructure run as a managed service on a hyperscaler you nominate, platform credits for extensions and integration, a business network starter pack, and transformation tooling.
SAP holds the infrastructure contract rather than you, which is convenient and removes your visibility into the underlying rate.
How is RISE priced?
On a blended user metric that converts your named user mix into one weighted number, with heavier user categories counting as a full unit and lighter categories converting at a fraction.
Because it blends whatever mix exists at conversion, the user classification work you do beforehand directly sets the baseline for the whole term.
How inflated is the first proposal?
In our engagements it ran 18 to 30 percent above the count defensible after a clean user role remap, with 15 to 25 percentage points of that coming from self service and occasional users mapped to higher bands than their measured usage warranted.
It is an opening position rather than a measurement of your estate.
Should reclassification happen before or after conversion?
Before, and this is the single most valuable sequencing decision in the transition. Activity analysis moves 20 to 40 percent of Professional users to cheaper types, and the conversion applies its ratios to whatever mix it finds.
Done first it lowers the baseline; done afterwards it is an argument against a number already in a signed order.
How do migration credits affect the business case?
They cover 6 to 18 months of bridge cost and then drop off, raising the year three run rate 20 to 35 percent. That places the cliff exactly where a three year evaluation stops looking, so a standard three year comparison measures the subsidised period.
Model five years, which is where roughly half of evaluations showed RISE raising total cost.
Where does digital access fit?
Outside the user count entirely. Indirect and digital access are licensed by document volume, and in 8 of 10 estates the exposure surfaced only after the user metric deal had been framed.
At that point it prices as an add on rather than as a negotiated term, which is why the document count belongs before the commercial conversation.
What should be negotiated beyond the discount?
Exit terms, the renewal uplift cap, and the true up clause on the user metric, all of which outlast the headline discount.
Add the component split at signature, so the software, infrastructure, and managed service lines can each be benchmarked at renewal rather than arriving as one number nobody can decompose.
