Most firms that advise on SAP also depend on SAP for revenue. They resell SAP licenses, implement SAP modules, sit on SAP partner tiers, or earn margin on RISE and cloud subscriptions. That commercial dependency shapes their advice in ways that are rarely disclosed and often invisible to the client.
SAPAudits was built to remove that conflict. Our entire revenue model is client fees. We do not resell, implement, or refer. We do not hold a partner agreement at any tier. We do not accept rebates, kickbacks, or volume bonuses from SAP or any third party vendor that touches the SAP estate.
The conflict that quiet partner advisory creates
When a firm holds an SAP partner agreement, two pressures appear. First, the partner relationship requires a minimum revenue contribution to SAP, measured in license sales and subscription bookings. Second, partner standing affects access to SAP product roadmap, technical resources, and joint go to market support. Both pressures align the partner with SAP commercial outcomes.
That alignment is rarely visible in a proposal. It shows up in the recommendations. A partner advisor is unlikely to recommend a contract structure that reduces SAP revenue if it would compromise partner tier standing. A reseller is unlikely to flag an indirect access exposure as a renegotiation opportunity if doing so reduces their own commission. An implementation firm is unlikely to suggest pausing a project to redesign licensing before software is deployed.
The question to ask any SAP advisor is simple. Is your revenue affected by the outcome of your advice? If yes, you have a structural conflict. If no, you do not. SAPAudits answers no.
How we are structured
SAPAudits is funded entirely through client engagement fees. We have no other revenue source. No partner rebate, no reseller margin, no implementation revenue, no software subscription pass through. Our advisors hold no equity or compensation tied to SAP commercial outcomes.
The firm operates under a strict no resale, no referral, no kickback policy. We have declined SAP partner program invitations, third party software referral arrangements, and procurement consortium memberships that would have introduced any commercial dependency. Those decisions are documented and shared with clients on request.
What this changes in practice
The structural choice produces practical differences in how we work:
- We can recommend reducing SAP license counts, downgrading user types, or eliminating modules without affecting our own commercial position
- We can quantify indirect access exposure independently of SAP digital access marketing positions
- We can advise on RISE versus on premise renewal without preferring one outcome to the other
- We can document negotiation positions that survive SAP audit team scrutiny because we have no incentive to soften them
- We can decline engagements where our advice would conflict with a prior client commitment
The questions clients ask us
Clients new to independent advisory ask the same questions. A few of the most common are worth answering directly.
Do you have any SAP relationships at all?
We have professional relationships with individuals who work at SAP, including former colleagues. We have no commercial relationship with SAP as an entity. No contract, no agreement, no revenue exchange.
How do we verify your independence?
We share our partner status documentation on request. We are not listed on SAP partner directories at any tier. Any contract or arrangement that would create a commercial dependency is disclosable. For deeper context on our methodology and team, see the about page. Our services overview details the practice areas, and the white papers show how our independence shapes specific positions on issues like indirect access and audit defense.
What is the catch?
There is no catch. The catch, if there is one, is that independence is more expensive than implicit subsidy from SAP partner economics. Clients pay our advisory fees in full. The economics work because the cost reductions we identify typically exceed our fees by an order of magnitude.