“SaaS spend increases without founders noticing because subscriptions renew automatically, ownership is unclear, and usage is rarely reviewed as teams change.” (Michael Pantilione)

From communication channels, to shared workspaces, AI chatbots and design services, companies are aware that they are paying more for monthly subscriptions than ever before. Research, however, suggests that most firms have no idea how deep the problem goes.

The Zylo 2026 SaaS (Software as a Service) Management Index reported that the average large organisation manages 305 separate software applications. Forty-six percent of those licences sit unused at any given time, representing approximately $19.8 million in wasted annual expenditure for the average enterprise. And it’s not just a problem affecting larger businesses. According to the report, the average British SME is estimated to waste as much as R250 000 a year on software that isn’t being actively used.

These figures reflect more than careless purchasing decisions. They are a predictable consequence of how cloud software is designed to be sold, distributed, and renewed. SaaS vendors have built their distribution models around frictionless adoption and auto-renewals. For organisations that lack formal governance over their software portfolios, this dynamic produces a cost base that grows by default, irrespective of whether the tools in question are delivering measurable business value.

Why oversight fails

The central driver of SaaS creep is decentralisation. Over the past decade, purchasing authority for software has migrated steadily away from IT and finance functions and towards individual business units. The Zylo 2026 SaaS Management Index found that business units now control 81% of total SaaS spend, while IT departments directly manage just 15%. In a small business, where procurement processes are typically informal and financial controls on software purchasing are loosely enforced, this dynamic is even more pronounced.

In short, no single department maintains visibility across the full portfolio. The Marketing team acquires its own tools, Operations purchases its own platforms, and individual team members subscribe to productivity applications on corporate expense accounts. According to Productiv, approximately 48% of enterprise applications are effectively unmanaged, meaning no one in the organisation is tracking renewal dates or monitoring active usage.

Each purchasing decision is locally rational. But collectively, they produce a software stack which is almost impossible to fully understand, manage or audit.

The renewal mechanism

Automatic renewals compound the problem. SaaS vendors have no interest in identifying underutilised licences ahead of renewal as exercising the contractual right to reduce or cancel rests entirely with the buyer.

Are there solutions?

The only way of making sure you don’t become a victim of SaaS creep, is to take control of the issue and focus on visibility, ownership, and timing. Complete visibility means knowing every active subscription in the portfolio: what it costs, who authorised it, and whether it’s being used. As your accountants, we can help you conduct a full audit of subscriptions, and put together a list of just what’s being deducted and for which service. Once you know what you are subscribed to, you can decide what to keep and which to cull.

Following on from this, it’s vital to assign someone from each team to oversee subscriptions. This person needs to make the ultimate purchasing decisions, and must maintain a complete list of subscribed services. This way, subscriptions can become an element of employee onboarding and offboarding, ensuring nothing gets lost in the system and invisible renewal costs don’t pile up in the background.

The final word

SaaS creep is, at its root, an organisational design problem. It emerges predictably wherever purchases are not carefully monitored, and where auto-renewal clauses allow costs to persist beyond the point of value. For you as a business leader, the takeaway is simple: software spend requires the same disciplined oversight as any other cost.