Gainshare Pricing — 25% of Verified Savings. $0 If We Save Nothing.
The gainshare pricing model means NoSaveNoPay is paid a defined percentage — 25% — of the verified savings we deliver on your enterprise software or cloud contract. The baseline is documented before negotiation starts. The fee is invoiced only against measured savings against that baseline. If nothing is saved, nothing is owed. No retainer. No hourly bill. No minimum fee. No "discovery fee" hidden in a master services agreement.
This page covers the full pricing structure: how the 25% is calculated, how the baseline is agreed and verified, what counts as savings and what doesn't, a worked Oracle EA example, the SOW clauses that make it contractual, and how gainshare compares to fixed-fee, hourly, and retainer models. Read the complete gainshare guide for the full reference, or the methodology page for how every dollar of savings is verified.
- ✓ Senior negotiator on your account from day one — never a junior
- ✓ Baseline countersigned by your team before negotiation begins
- ✓ Vendor positioning, redline review, audit defence reserves included
- ✓ Multi-vendor portfolios at one rate across Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, AWS and 50+ others
- ✓ $0 invoice if savings are not delivered — contractual, not marketing
What "25% of verified savings" means in practice
Gainshare pricing is a performance-based fee model. NoSaveNoPay is paid only when the negotiation produces savings against a baseline that was agreed in writing before negotiation started. The fee is calculated once savings are documented and the new contract is signed. The vast majority of engagements in our pipeline run on this 25% rate — not because we won't quote anything else, but because gainshare is the only model that puts the advisor's compensation on the same side of the table as the client's outcome.
The 25% rate is not negotiable for standard mid-market and enterprise engagements. We're often asked "can we get 20%?" — the honest answer is no, because the rate reflects the economics of carrying engagements that don't yield savings. The advisor funds senior negotiator time, vendor analytics tooling, redline counsel, and audit defence reserves for every engagement, including the ones that pay nothing. If we reduced the rate, we'd have to introduce minimums or retainers to backfill the cost of failed engagements. The 25% rate is what lets us keep the model clean.
Worked example: an Oracle EA renewal
The clearest way to understand gainshare pricing is to walk through an actual engagement. Here is a representative Oracle Enterprise Agreement renewal. Numbers are anonymised but the structure is exactly what every engagement letter looks like.
| Line item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Existing Oracle EA annual value (Year 3 of expiring term) | $1,600,000 |
| Oracle's first written renewal proposal (3-year TCV) | $4,800,000 |
| Documented baseline (countersigned by CIO + Procurement) | $4,800,000 |
| NoSaveNoPay-negotiated final signed contract value | $3,120,000 |
| Verified savings vs baseline | $1,680,000 |
| NoSaveNoPay gainshare fee (25%) | $420,000 |
| Client net benefit after fee | $1,260,000 |
Three things to notice. First, the baseline was Oracle's first written proposal, not the client's existing run-rate. That's important — a "savings" claim against an existing run-rate would be misleading when the vendor was already proposing a large uplift. Second, the savings figure is the delta between the documented baseline and the signed contract, not a forecast. Third, the client kept 75% of every dollar saved — $1.26M of real, P&L-visible savings on a deal that would have cost $4.8M without intervention.
The fee is billed in line with the contract's payment schedule. If Oracle invoices the EA in three equal annual instalments, the NoSaveNoPay fee is split across three annual instalments too. The client never pays the fee ahead of the savings.