Measure purchased, assigned, and active seats; quantify cost exposure; test a reclaim scenario; and roll multiple apps into one local portfolio view—without inventing a universal “waste rate.”
Purchased seats tell you what you pay for. Assigned seats tell you what is provisioned. Active seats tell you what showed measurable use inside the review window you choose. Keeping those layers separate prevents a simplistic “unused = waste” conclusion.
Enter one application. The example button loads sample data so you can see how the desk behaves before using real numbers.
Purchased seats that are not currently provisioned.
Assigned seats without activity in your selected review window.
Total committed seat spend divided by active seats.
Use the seat-state evidence above to test a proposed reduction. The model shows contract value associated with those seats and distinguishes immediate realizability from next-renewal opportunity.
Save each analyzed application into the local register. The workspace aggregates seat capacity and cost exposure without sending your inputs to a vendor or inventing a site-wide waste score.
| App | Purchased | Assigned | Active | Utilization | Annual committed spend | Annual review exposure | Renewal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No applications added yet. | ||||||||
Aggregates only the applications you add from this page.
The calculator itself is driven by your inputs. These sources support metric definitions and show why license visibility matters, while keeping each population and methodology explicit.
FinOps defines these as separate KPIs. That distinction is why this page asks for purchased, assigned, and active counts instead of collapsing them into one “unused seat” input.
Open FinOps source ↗Zylo’s current 2026 material says the average organization in its data uses 54% of provisioned licenses. This is enterprise-scale context—not a default assumption for your company.
Open Zylo index ↗Authority comes from transparent math, explicit evidence categories, and refusing to turn one utilization metric into a universal judgment about business value.
Copy or print a review note that separates your inputs, derived seat economics, external context, contract timing, and the decision boundary.
Seat evidence can point toward inventory cleanup, renewal preparation, a broader audit, or a cluster-level cost review. Keep the route tied to the decision.
Use when seat ownership, price, renewal, or app-level usage data is incomplete.
Use when a material contract or notice window is approaching.
Use when license exposure is only one symptom across multiple tools or teams.
Return to the Software Intelligence / SaaS cost-control hub without making SaaS the site-wide authority.
This tool does not impose one definition. Use the vendor’s activity or audit logs and choose a review window that fits the workflow. A 30-day window may suit frequently used collaboration software; a longer window may be more appropriate for seasonal or specialized applications.
Because they answer different questions. Purchased seats measure capacity you pay for. Assigned or provisioned seats measure access granted. Active seats measure observed use. FinOps treats license utilisation and active-to-provisioned ratios as separate KPIs.
No. Confirm ownership, role, business dependency, compliance requirements, offboarding status, and contract rules before changing access or reducing entitlements.
Because cost attached to a seat is not automatically realizable savings. Your contract may prevent mid-term reduction, require a minimum commitment, bundle seats, or defer changes until renewal.
Yes. Analyze one app, add it to the portfolio register, then repeat. The portfolio view aggregates only the rows you add in the current page session.
This self-contained calculator does not transmit its form values. It performs the math in your browser. Standard site analytics may still operate elsewhere on the page, but this tool does not submit your seat or price inputs to a vendor endpoint.
