Per-seat pricing charges for every named user with access, which penalises a firm where many junior staff briefly touch many engagements during busy season, while per-engagement pricing charges per audit regardless of how many staff work on it, which penalises a firm with a large number of small, simple engagements relative to its staff count; the only reliable way to pick between them is to run the firm's own staffing pattern — number of distinct staff needing access versus number of engagements per year — against both pricing structures using actual vendor numbers, because the better model for one firm shape can be meaningfully more expensive for another firm of a similar size.
The structural difference, stated plainly
| Per-seat | Per-engagement | |
|---|---|---|
| Cost driver | Number of named users with access | Number of audits run through the system |
| Penalises | A firm with many staff who each touch the system briefly (common with a large article/trainee pool) | A firm with many small, low-fee engagements relative to its total staff count |
| Rewards | A firm with a small, stable team running many engagements each | A firm with large staff rotation but few, larger engagements |
| Predictability | Predictable if headcount is stable; spikes if the firm hires seasonally | Predictable if engagement count is stable year to year |
Worked example: a firm with a large junior pool
Consider a firm with 4 partners, 6 seniors, and 20 articles who rotate across roughly 35 engagements in a season, with most articles touching 5-8 different engagements each. Under a per-seat model charging for every named user, the firm needs licences for roughly 30 people (partners, seniors, and articles who need direct access) regardless of how briefly each article is on a given engagement. Under a per-engagement model, the firm pays for 35 engagements, with any number of staff working within each at no extra named-user cost.
- If the per-seat price is, illustratively, ₹8,000/seat/year, 30 seats costs ₹2,40,000/year regardless of engagement count.
- If the per-engagement price is, illustratively, ₹7,500/engagement/year, 35 engagements costs ₹2,62,500/year regardless of staff count — close in this scenario, but the sensitivity runs in opposite directions as either number changes.
- If the same firm grows its article pool to 30 next year without adding engagements, the per-seat cost rises meaningfully while the per-engagement cost doesn't move at all.
- If the same firm instead takes on 15 more small engagements with the same staff, the per-engagement cost rises meaningfully while the per-seat cost doesn't move.
The question each firm actually needs to answer
- 01Count actual distinct named users who'd need access over a season, not just full-time staffArticles who rotate on and off engagements still typically need individual logins under a per-seat model — count them.
- 02Count actual engagements run through the system in a season, including small onesA firm that under-counts its smaller, lower-fee engagements will underestimate a per-engagement quote.
- 03Run both numbers against each vendor's actual quoted rate, not an assumed oneAsk every vendor under consideration for both a per-seat and per-engagement quote if they offer either, so the comparison uses real numbers rather than illustrative ones.
- 04Re-run the comparison at the firm's expected volume in two years, not just todayA model that's marginally cheaper today can become meaningfully more expensive as the firm's shape changes — see the worked scenario above.
A vendor who only offers one pricing model and presents it as obviously the right fit for every firm shape is not engaging with the actual tradeoff. Ask explicitly whether an alternative structure is available, even if the vendor's default is one or the other.
Common practice, not a requirement
This comparison deserves its own worksheet separate from the general vendor-checklist pricing section, precisely because the right answer depends entirely on a firm's specific staffing and engagement-count pattern, not on which model is 'usually' cheaper across firms in general.
This is practical guidance written for audit teams, not an authoritative statement of any standard or statute. Standards, forms and timelines change. Check the current text issued by the ICAI and the relevant authority before relying on anything here in an audit file.
Related resources
- Technology, data & AI in auditChoosing an audit automation vendor: a checklistThe questions that separate a vendor worth trusting with client data from one that merely demos well: security, what's computed versus generated, exit terms, pricing, and India-specific fit.
- Technology, data & AI in auditA side-by-side comparison framework for 3 audit automation vendorsThree demos on three different days leave a firm with three separate impressions, not a comparison. A shared scoring sheet fixes that.
- Audit workflow & automationAudit software for firms with 50+ audit staff: what changesPast roughly 50 audit staff the decision stops being about one partner's workflow and starts being about standardising dozens of them at once.
- Technology, data & AI in auditAudit software for firms with 1-4 audit staff: is it worth it yetThe honest answer depends on one number: how many hours of repetitive matching the firm actually does in a season, not how many staff it has.
Free tools, no signup
Each one reads a file entirely in your browser — or, for two of them, just answers a few questions — and nothing is ever uploaded.
- Purchase register checkDuplicate payments, round-sum amounts, weekend-dated invoices, incomplete records.
- GSTR-2B reconcilerMatches your purchase register against GSTR-2B — missing invoices either side, amount mismatches.
- Bank reconciliation checkerMatches your cash book against a bank statement — what's outstanding on each side.
- Fixed asset register checkDuplicate asset codes, missing location or useful life, negative net book value.
- Payroll red-flag scannerBank accounts shared across employees, and records missing an ID, PAN or salary.
- CARO applicability checkerAnswer a few questions about the company and see which CARO 2020 clauses likely apply.
- MSME payment delay checkerMSME-flagged invoices paid — or still unpaid — beyond the 45-day Section 22 limit.
- Related-party transaction screenerTransactions above a threshold you set with no approval reference, grouped by counterparty.
- Depreciation useful life checkerCompares a useful life in use against the Schedule II, Part C indicative figure.
- Materiality calculatorOverall and performance materiality against PBT, revenue, assets or equity, with reasoning shown.
- Sample size calculatorStatistical sample size for a test of controls or a substantive test of detail.