SaaS Management: Autonomous Tools Clash with Software Asset Management (SAM)

If you already have SAM in place, what is the point of adopting a SaaS management solution?

In its summary of the latest Magic Quadrant dedicated to this market, Gartner does not settle the question. It notes, however, that among buyers there is a form of “resistance to adding yet another tool”…

These buyers are most often involved in IT procurement and operations. Those are, at least, the main profiles that vendors target, rather than IT security/compliance teams and IT asset management roles.

The message aired last year about the market’s low maturity remains relevant. The accompanying guidance: negotiate contracts for a maximum of two years, given the lack of guarantees on many vendors’ viability. This situation makes them vulnerable to acquisitions… including by SAM players.

From contract management to risk scoring, many optional components

From one year to the next, the functional brief to appear in this Magic Quadrant has changed little.

• Browser extension
• Agent
• Financial or expense management system
• SSO
• Endpoint management tool
• Email
• OAuth
• Direct API connection

As last year, there was a need to ensure at least low-code orchestration of workflows for automating routine tasks such as onboarding and offboarding employees. Also expected, on the cost-optimization front, were capabilities to identify redundant apps, revoke/reallocate licenses and – new – delegation of ownership to lines of business outside IT, with role-based access control.

ITSM integrations were optional. So were risk and compliance scores, adoption reporting, vendor and contract management, GenAI for admins, or employee app request processing workflows.

17 vendors, 5 “leaders”

Vendor evaluation occurred on two axes. The first was forward-looking (“vision”): strategies (industry, geographic reach, go-to-market, product…). The other focused on the ability to actually meet demand (“execution”: customer experience, pre-sales performance, quality of products/services…).

The situation on the “execution” axis:

< td style="text-align: center;">Lumos

On the “vision” axis:

Last year, three vendors were classified as “leaders”: Torii, Zluri and Zylo. They remain, joined by BetterCloud and Flexera.

FinQuery and Oomnitza have fallen off the radar, no longer offering standalone SaaS-management platforms. Productiv also exited, because it did not fully meet the workflow-orchestration criterion. As for Trelica, it was acquired by 1Password (which we do not count as a new entrant in the tables above).

Aside from the leaders, almost all vendors fall into the “niche players” category, a sign of the market’s limited maturity.

Limited data-location options at BetterCloud

BetterCloud stands out for adapting to evolving needs. The acquisitions of G2 Track and Tricent broaden its offering, adding spend-management and file-sharing governance. Gartner also praises its effective targeting of IT, finance, and security buyers, with a flexible rebates strategy. There is also a strong point regarding the pace of delivering new features.

BetterCloud does not allow data-location selection and offers support only Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 20:00 (Eastern Time). Its pricing sits above the market average (three-tier model plus a governance add-on). Gartner also notes the absence of a browser extension for discovering SaaS usage.

Flexera still integrating Snow Software

Flexera benefits from a global physical presence (US, Canada, Brazil, United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia, India) and an extended partner network. Gartner values its commercial targeting, both sectorally and geographically. Its pricing tends to be lower than competitors and paired with a flexible rebates policy. The marketing, through webinars and in-person events, also helps Flexera’s visibility, including in SAM.

While the Snow Software integration is still pending, Flexera does not offer a way to measure or drive SaaS adoption. Gartner also flags inconsistent support and partner integration quality, and a limited number of direct API integrations.

The data residency issue, missing at Torii…

Torii earns praise for its feedback collection and, by extension, its roadmap. It is also commended for its cadence in delivering functional improvements and for its habit of “anticipating” needs—evidenced, for example, in its GenAI usage to handle contracts, enrich application profiles, and design automations.

Like BetterCloud, data location cannot be chosen (North America only). While licensing is flexible, Torii’s Enterprise tier is among the most expensive in the Magic Quadrant. Smaller than the other leaders, it lacks the scale to drive its sales teams effectively.

… and costly at Zluri

Zluri’s baseline pricing is among the most competitive in the Magic Quadrant, paired with an attractive volume-discount strategy. Like Flexera, its marketing is deemed effective. Its AI integration is likewise strong (contract processing, user activity analysis, license sizing…), and it helps users get up to speed with the product.

Zluri allows data-location selection… but at a higher price (costs depend, in particular, on company size and data volume). Feedback on support quality and overall solution effectiveness is mixed. Additionally, the top-of-page elements do not always align with customers’ main needs.

With Zylo, costs can be hard to forecast

Zylo also earns strong marketing points—from its podcast and YouTube channel to its annual SaaS Management Index. Gartner highlights the quality of the customer experience, including customer-success managers and value-maximization methods. It also notes the expansion of the application library (each item containing financial, functional, and risk data) and the platform’s comprehensive adoption-measurement capabilities.

For Zylo, data is hosted exclusively in North America. Staff are also located exclusively in the United States (a factor to consider given the geopolitical context). Caution is advised regarding pricing as well: it can be hard to understand… and to predict costs. There is also a noted lack of sector-tailored coverage beyond government and pharma.

* Quebec and New York time zones, among others. 6 hours behind Paris.