What we solve ·Should I approve what is on my desk?
Vanguard · Guide
Stay on the platform you have, or migrate, and with what numbers do you defend that call?
The licensing model changed and we have to decide whether we stay.
The real break-even between staying and migrating, run on your volumes, with the cost of operating the destination included.
Stay or MigrateSend this page to whoever decides
This sounds like you if
- The vendor changed the licensing model and the renewal arrived with a different number.
- The two proposals on the table were written by the two parties who want to sell the solution.
- The migration is justified on cost, and nobody has priced what it takes to operate the destination.
Use this today, without hiring anyone
The five costs that rarely make it into a platform comparison, and that usually decide it. Add them to any case you have been shown:
- Operating the destination. People, tooling and on-call for the new platform, seldom identical to today's.
- Training the team, and the period where it produces less while learning.
- Coexistence. The months where both platforms are alive and both are paid for.
- Exiting the current contract, including clauses triggered by early termination.
- The migration window itself. Overtime, outage risk, and the cost of rolling back if it goes wrong.
With those five in, a good share of migrations justified on savings stop being justified. And some are better justified on a different argument, which is worth saying out loud.
How we solve it
The method, not the promise.
- The baseline is built from invoices and contracts, not list prices. A model on list prices is good for conversation, not for deciding.
- Each scenario is modeled over three years with operations included, which is where the real difference lives.
- The current platform is assessed on what holds it up and what would break on migration, not on its age.
- Sensitivity is run until the tipping point appears: which assumption, and by how much.
- The recommendation names the assumption that would reverse it, and the model is handed over open so you can recalculate it.
What you receive
- The three-year total cost model, editable, with every assumption attributed to whoever supplied it.
- The assessment of the current platform: what holds it up and what breaks on migration.
- The sensitivity analysis, with the exact point where the decision flips.
- The written recommendation, with the assumption that would change it.
The proof that applies here
- Leadership of more than 60,000 servers and 200,000 instances, with budget ownership.
- Vendor management from both sides of the contract, as buyer and as seller.
- Two enterprise products taken to the Gartner Magic Quadrant, with product and market decisions.
Before you hire
If the decision is already made and what you need is backing for it, better to know this first: the model is handed over open and anyone can recalculate it.
If the recommendations on your table were written by parties paid according to which one wins, this one is written by someone who sells neither platform, takes commission from neither, and will not run the migration.
Of the two options you were shown, who wins under each one?