Even in the age of “AI”, SaaS Startup Valuation Isn’t That Hard

The Prophet recently penned a long LinkedIn post on The New Diligence Questions for SaaS in an “AI”-dominated world that, on a first read, makes it sound like diligence is going to get insanely difficult unless you’re backing AI (because, apparently, AI is going to replace everything and everyone).

The reality is that AI doesn’t really complicate the equation, especially if you already realized that a lot of software is becoming a commodity and making the right investment is all about focussing on what’s not commodity and then, when you find that subset of potential investments, which one of those is the most user friendly. And you can narrow down to a good potential investment pretty quick with just 3 short questions:

What data is being captured, created, or curated?
Tech replicates quickly, and easier to build now than ever. But good data is scarcer and scarcer.
What unique algorithmic capabilities does the platform possess that can’t be accomplished by today’s, and likely tomorrow’s, AI?
Orchestration, workflow, NLP, et.? Sorry but that’s all pretty common place. We’ve had we-based middleware since a year after the world wide web was invented (and orchestration is just middleware 3.0), workflow for decades longer, NLP for decades (although LLMs now make it easier to use and more accessible), etc. You need to look for unique algorithmic capability that can’t be plug and play from open source components or learned by dumb AI (like advanced optimization, new types of mathematically sound predictive analytics algorithms, etc.)
Does the platform enable users, through Augmented Intelligence capabilities, to be 10X as productive as they would be without it?
i.e. where data collection, processing, workflow, etc. etc. etc. can be fully automated, is it? does it employ NLP interfaces to the extent possible for non-technical users?

This is what defines winning software, not plugging in overhyped 3rd party LLMs and AI tech that is still, more-or-less, experimental, hallucinatory, and fundamentally flawed.

Once you have successfully answered these questions, chances are that there is nothing else super significant to answer about the tech (beyond the standard due diligence process, inc. security and privacy reviews where needed) and you can focus on the business and market questions. Does the market exist, and does the business have the right people, processes, and support to capture the market.

So, in other words, if the platform

The SaaS play has value, and you can move onto the business and market analysis.

The only real question will be how to define the market and the new market value in an age of (temporarily) overhyped AI / Agentic plays (when, as we have pointed out many times, it’s not new, just better) to determine its real valuation (when you are being flooded with nonsense).

And of course,

  • beyond pure S2P,
  • easy agentic co-worker interfaces, and
  • plays well with “AI”,

as pointed out by The Prophet, will increase value, but that’s not the core of what you’re looking for.

Governance IS the Agent No One is Talking About

Joel is right — The Procurement AI Agent That No One is Talking About is Governance, it’s the agent that is needed the most, and, moreover, it’s one of the few agents, especially among the AI Agents (that include the felon roster), that can actually be implemented predictably and reliably, if you define their role properly.

In Joel’s post, he asks:


What happens AFTER you go live?

  • Users start tweaking workflows without documentation
  • Agents get duplicated as teams grow
  • Logic gets lost when staff turnover happens
  • Nobody remembers why decisions were made

And then tells you the answer:

It’s the same mess we created with ERP and S2P systems!

And then he goes on to say

????’? ???? ?? ????:

  • Automated workflow documentation
  • Change tracking with rationale capture
  • Duplicate detection and consolidation
  • Impact analysis before modifications
  • Knowledge retention across team changes

And he’s very close here, except what we really, really need (and really, really want) is

  • Impact assessment before initial implementation (as well as modifications),
  • Workflow documentation up-front and not just on changes, and
  • Documentation of every decision made, whether or not it changes the workflow, as well as who made it, and who approved.

In other words, knowledge capture and retention is ongoing, change tracking is also decision tracking, and analysis is continual.

However, when it comes to duplicate detection and consolidation, good luck with that!

While it would be nice to automatically detect (and quash) duplicate agents — if they are acting on API pulls through third party systems, how do you know they exist? When users in multiple departments go rogue, and do their own thing (especially if they are unaware there’s already an agent-based app for that), how do you know? You don’t!

So, instead, what you should really be focused on, especially from a GRC viewpoint, is

access tracking and access control
only authorized, validated requests get through to systems and agents because while you can’t track every agent on your system, approved or felonious, you can ensure access control to data if you replace the (open) APIs with no access control or access tracking with an agent that intercepts all requests and does that
risk assessment
continuously monitor data sources, internal and external, for KRIs and alert the right person when a potential risk situation is detected
compliance enforcement
ensure that any company, industry, or government protocols are followed in access control, data collection, decision making, and reporting

Considering that all of this can be accomplished via well-defined workflows, you could build very reliable agents and solve the un-cool problem that everyone needs a solution too. And I think that would be cool. Don’t you want to be someone who’s cool?

There is No Super-Selection Map for Source-to-Pay

In a post on comparing the Hansen Fit Score to other analyst ranking maps and methodologies, THE REVELATOR asks “which would you choose, and why”, to which the doctor responds that THE REVELATOR has to be a lot more specific, because, depending on your context, there could be three choices

1) The Hackett Group Inc. KPIs for zeroing in on what type of technology you should choose for the biggest boost to your business as there’s no arguing with their book of numbers. But this doesn’t give you a shortlist.

2) Spend Matters, A Hackett Group Company Solution Map for deep tech assessments, allowing you to qualify tech for consideration before doing a deep dive assessment on business needs (and we all know that most people can’t do this effectively). Once you know what module, or modules, you need, SolutionMap will give you a qualified list of the best, rated, vendors with those modules.

3) Jon W. Hansen fit score for sieving a shortlist of relevant vendors who make the tech cut into the 3 most likely to be the best organizational fit to invite to the RFP where they can prove their worth AND interest in actually making your organization successful

However, the optimal route, if you have the time and money, is 1, 2, 3 … (and let’s face it, since this could save you millions, you likely do). Why? When you use

1) you focus in on the specific problem set/module (set) to attack first for the biggest impact

2) you filter down to those providers who have the tech to do it

3) you filter down to those that would be right for your business on the other dimensions 1 and 2 does not address.

However, none of these approaches can

0) perform a gap analysis, determine what problems you need to solve, and help you center your analysis on the right metrics or numbers or

5) take the short-list you are left with after using Spend Matters Tech Match (built on Spend Matters Solution Match) or the Hansen fit score and construct a proper RFX to help you determine which vendor will provide you with more than a license but work with you to implement, and execute, a proper solution.

And that’s why there’s no super selection map for source-to-pay!

(And please remember, never use a big analyst firm quadrant map because vendors have lured big analyst firms astray.)

Don’t Get Misled By Overly Simplistic Comparisons!

A recent post on LinkedIn on Coupa vs. I-Valua that implies it’s always Coupa vs I-valua or that Coupa is better is missing the point entirely. So much so, that the doctor had to call it out (see the initial LinkedIn response here) because it ends up being very deceptive (even if that wasn’t the intent).

The post made a very simple comparison between Coupa vs. I-Valua in big graphical format that basically said the following:

Coupa I-Valua
1 Billion in Annual Sales, inc. 2006 200 Million in Annual Sales, inc. 2000
Considered Innovation Leader Can Be Customized to Specific Needs
Generally Good Customer References Customers Have Mixed Success

So much wrong with this!

1) Revenue size is in no way indicative of a company’s particular ability to serve YOU. As long as the company is financially stable and has enough support staff for an organization of your size, that’s all you care about. (And it’s obvious they both do since once a company surpasses 100 Million in annual sales, it can serve the vast majority of enterprise clients.)

1b) Neither is time in business relevant once the company has been in business long enough to have a mature solution.

2) “Considered the Innovation Leader” is either opinion, not fact, or bland, marketing BS. By who? The market at large? Well, guess what, in this scenario neither Coupa nor I-valua qualify — Zip is the current darling of ProcureTech. (But don’t go there … please … don’t go there! [Or we’ll have to rip into that assumption too. For now, we’ll be content in reminding you that, despite what Zip claims, there are NO FREE RFPs.] To keep it short and sweet, Zip’s S2P capabilities are still relatively non-existent as it was built as an orchestration platform to connect existing systems and make them work better, and what they offer to plug the gaps you don’t have is not anywhere close to Best in Class.)

3) As Joel was also quick to point out in the comments, good customer references depends upon who you ask (and many of us who have been in the space a long time know that both vendors have very happy customers, some unhappy [former] customers, and customers who are generally satisfied (but wouldn’t go out of their way to give a recommendation). At Spend Matters, where I developed the Source-to-Contract Solution Maps, in the first release, I-valua was top dog and Coupa was average on the customer ratings. As more references poured in, I-valua dropped down to average and Coupa climbed slowly. In other words, both have great customer references, both have average customer references, and both sets of providers have a customer base with mixed success. (And you can’t always blame the company for the success or failure, both sell very advanced solutions and sometimes customers insist on a module they aren’t ready for.)

Furthermore this comparison misses multiple key points that need to be taken into consideration in any comparison, which include, but are definitely not limited to:

4) Simplification is key — and both platforms can simplify extensively! However, the approach is different — Coupa, in simple terms, gives you default configurations that are easy and widely adopted. I-valua built the infinitely customizable platform, and YOU have to work through that process to get it simple. In technical terms, I-valua was built for power users, Coupa for tech novices, but both can be configured to a middle ground.

5) There are more than 2 suites! While Coupa is a finalist in most deals (due to market size), depending on the industry and geography, the final “2” could also include SAP Ariba (yes, still), Jaggaer, GEP, Zycus, Oracle, Corcentric (Determine) or Synertrade, especially in enterprise deals, with another half dozen or so smaller suites emerging in the mid-market. And, for a subset of those deals, Coupa is definitely NOT the best. Sometimes it’s not even close!

5b) While Coupa is undisputedly one of the indirect (sourcing) market leaders, it is still very weak in direct sourcing compared to some of its peers (especially when compared to emerging players built for direct from the ground up). Classically, it had no direct support. The Trade Extensions acquisition gave it support in advanced sourcing and the Llamasoft acquisition gave it direct support in supply chain demand planning, but direct was never at Coupa’s core. For direct industries, it makes a difference. (To be fair, most of Coupa’s peers weren’t built for direct either, but Jaggaer acquired Pool4Tool, I-valua acquired and rebuilt DirectWorks in their platform from the ground up, GEP built NEXXE for supply chain to supplement its weak direct capabilities in SMART, and Synertrade was built from the ground up for direct – one of the few suites that was.)

I could go on, but, with over 666 companies to choose from, it’s never just Coupa vs. someone else, or I-vlaua vs something else. Sometimes neither of them should be in the room. Evaluate the alternatives. And do so after you know your core requirements, as that’s what you need to narrow down to a relevant pool of providers.

And also, you need to consider your sources when you see very simplistic one-side comparisons like these. While there may not be intentional bias, the relative knowledge the author has of different solutions will weight the comparison if the author is not an analyst who has rigorously, and objectively, weighted each platform side by side on its technical merits alone! (Which the doctor did for six years in this case, along with many of the other big names listed above.) (The Spend Matters solution map was a deep technical solution map with over 600 areas of feature/function/process evaluation on the tech axis [and dozens of questions on the customer axis] for a reason. Comparisons are NEVER this easy between suites and sometimes the usual market leader, for your organization, is the default market loser.)

In this situation, the post author’s company does a LOT of Coupa-related platform advisory, the post author has experience with Coupa that predates that in professional CPO or equivalent roles, and is one of the few consultants out there who has a good understanding of the Coupa platform. (And, by the way, there aren’t many of these consultants, especially when you consider that Coupa doesn’t really know Coupa anymore! The only two employees who knew the entire platform end-to-end, that contains over 20 acquisitions over the years, left last year. And the last few years also saw the departure of key personnel from acquisitions that gave them their advanced analytics, optimization, and risk capabilities. As for the doctor, he’s been following Coupa since Procurement Independence Day and consulted for, advised, or did diligence on half their acquisitions over the years. He’s one of the few that probably now knows the core of Coupa better than Coupa, and knows when someone, like the post author, knows a platform well.)

So if you need help identifying the right vendors to consider, and guidance on how you should be comparing them, seek out the niche analyst firms and independent analysts who have been covering the space for over two decades — they’ll give you the right list of vendors to look at, the right factors to consider, and can even help you craft the right RFP. (Unlike the big firms who just publish the same maps with the same vendors who happen to get a ranking that often just happens to be highly correlated to how much they pay the firm. [Remember, vendors have lured big analyst firms astray.])  And when you need help on a shortlist, seek out the consultants who have actually implemented multiple players on that list for their advice.