Live demo · security-stack TCO

What is tool sprawl costing you?

Pick the tools you actually run, set your scale, and watch what a consolidated stack would save — broken down by where the money goes, plus a 5-year projection. Your numbers stay in your browser. (And yes — this is exactly the kind of thing we build for the brands selling that consolidation.)

Your security stack

Check the categories you pay for today. Tap the on any tool for a plain-English definition.

Scale
The hidden cost

Software is only half the cost. Want to factor in the team time spent running all these tools?

Choose “Licenses + team time” above to unlock these.

Assumptions

How optimistic should the consolidation math be? Defaults to Expected.

Your results

Estimated savings from consolidating
$—
per year vs. your current stack
Illustrative defaults — see how this is modeled below.
—
Lower TCO
—
Switch pays back in
—
Tools retired
—

Payback counts the one-time switch — migration, ~2 months of parallel-run and retraining — but excludes contract-exit penalties.

Save your results

A branded, one-page business case — ready to forward to your buying committee.

Generated right here in your browser — this HTML-to-PDF export is itself a capability we build into clients' tools.

5-year projection

A fragmented stack's pricing drifts up faster than a single consolidated contract (better renewal leverage), so the gap widens over five years. Year 1 also carries the one-time switch cost.

Projected total cost of ownership by year, current stack vs. consolidated
YearCurrentConsolidatedSavedCumulative
5-yr total saved—
This is a live demo of what we build.
Branded to your product, wired to your real pricing, embedded on your campaign page — a calculator like this hands a skeptical buying committee the business case they need to say yes. We'll scope yours to your numbers.
Talk to Black Lizard

How this is modeled

Licenses are estimated per seat across the categories you select (seats × per-seat rate), plus a redundancy penalty when you run more separate tools than categories. Integration is an operating tax per tool (connectors, dashboards, training, swivel-chair). The optional team layer values the hours your staff spend wrangling tools (FTEs × salary × % of week). Integration is split into a small recurring maintenance per tool plus a one-time switching cost — platform setup, ~2 months of parallel-run, and retraining (contract-exit penalties excluded). Consolidating applies a bundle discount, removes redundant tools, and cuts management time. The Conservative / Expected / Aggressive toggle scales how optimistic those benefits are, and defaults to Expected.

Rates here are illustrative defaults for demonstration, not a quote. Real numbers vary by vendor, region, and contract — the point is the shape of the decision, not the decimal.

Why the redundancy penalty?

Most sprawling stacks run two or three tools that do overlapping jobs — a legacy scanner alongside a newer platform, duplicate logging, shelfware nobody turned off. Each extra tool beyond one-per-category adds a slice of waste this model makes visible. It's usually the easiest savings to defend.

Is this real or marketing math?

It's a directional model meant to frame the conversation, not replace your finance team's analysis. The Conservative / Expected / Aggressive toggle lets you stress-test it right now; a branded build for your product would plug in your actual catalog pricing so the number survives scrutiny.