ROI calculator
Estimate the value of automating governance, risk, and compliance work. Compare recordkeeping and execution savings, including costs and human review.
Estimate time spent collecting evidence, testing controls, and following up on findings.
Size the assessment work by scope and evidence, rather than framework count.
Count separately assessed control implementations. Reuse the same assessment across frameworks only where scope and evidence fit.
Use additional software, usage, setup, training, and administration costs versus today. Exclude labor already counted in the hours model.
Your year-one estimate
Net hours freed up
Net capacity value
Less time maintaining records
Less time carrying out the work
1,120 hours saved before additional validation, less 0 validation hours = 1,120 net hours freed. Existing human review: 800 hours.
Assumptions: 70% adoption; 50% recordkeeping and 50% execution time saved on adopted work.
Enter your costs to calculate ROI.
Annual staff hours, using your inputs. The final scenario includes existing review and any additional validation.
These are planning scenarios, not measured comparisons between products. If your current software already saves this time, reduce the relevant assumptions.
Starting values are illustrative assumptions, not industry benchmarks or promised results. Use time spent in your current process, including any software you already use.
Existing review is retained. Add any new checking effort separately below.
Include new output checking and corrections. Zero is a starting assumption; validate it in a pilot.
Share of full-year review work using the new workflow, not deployment at year-end. Allow for rollout and work that stays manual.
200 items × 4 reviews per item per year = 800 annual reviews. At 70% adoption, 560 use the new workflow.
| Work | Current | Modeled | Freed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recordkeeping | 800 | 520 | 280 |
| Execution | 2,400 | 1,560 | 840 |
| Existing review | 800 | 800 | 0 |
| Additional validation | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 4,000 | 2,880 | 1,120 |
1,120 net hours × $95.00/hour ≈ $106,400 in net capacity value.
A negative number means the proposed workflow adds staff time or costs more than the capacity value it creates. Validate your inputs using completed work, including review and corrections.
Annual reviews = unique items × average reviews per item per year. Net hours freed = annual reviews × adoption × [(recordkeeping hours × recordkeeping time saved %) + (execution hours × execution time saved %) − additional validation hours]. Net capacity value = net hours freed × loaded hourly cost. First-year capacity ROI = (net capacity value − incremental first-year cost) ÷ incremental first-year cost × 100.
Include evidence collection and control assessment work for the defined scope and period. Separate initial framework mapping from recurring reviews. External audit fees and technical fixes are outside this staff-time estimate.
Use a consistent definition of a review. If you enter total annual review events rather than unique items, set reviews per item to 1. For mixed workloads, estimate comparable groups separately or use a weighted average. Count hours of staff work, not elapsed waiting time.
Loaded hourly cost includes salary, benefits, and employer overhead; $95 is an editable assumption. No incident reduction, avoided fines, revenue gains, or audit-fee savings are included. A zero-cost denominator has no defined ROI; a net reduction in software spend needs a separate cash-flow model. Figures are rounded for display; calculations use full precision.
Treat each tab as a separate scenario. Before combining them, remove shared work and allocate shared costs once. For example, count an AI vendor’s security review in AI Governance or TPRM, not both. Freed capacity becomes cash savings only when spending falls.
The workload behind the estimate matters more than the size of an inventory. Use these distinctions to choose what to count.
Compliance automation
One assessment can support more than one framework when the evidence is relevant, current, and sufficient. A different system, implementation, period, or requirement may still need additional work. Count the assessment units you actually test, and add incremental effort where reuse is not appropriate.
AI governance
A customer-facing agent, an internal approval workflow, and an employee writing assistant can create different risks. Group use cases by data access, autonomy, and potential impact. Use hours that reflect the mix, and include reassessments after material changes. Counting model names alone misses that work.
NIST AI RMF: context and risk · AI governance and security guide
Third-party risk management
A critical provider with sensitive access may need deeper due diligence and more frequent reassessment than a low-risk supplier. Count unique vendors reviewed and their average review frequency. Use separate estimates for materially different tiers, and include evidence requests and follow-ups in the hours for each review.
NIST supplier due-diligence guidance · Third-party risk management software
First-party risk management
An internal assessment uses evidence to judge what a weakness means for a system or business process. Estimate the additional effort to assess impact, agree treatment, and follow up with accountable owners. Count shared compliance testing once; track the engineering work to implement fixes separately from assessment coordination.
NIST CSF 2.0: risk assessment · First-party risk management software
Policy management
A review can involve several owners, approval rounds, and follow-ups on acknowledgements. Adjust hours for the people affected and the size of the change. Keep first-time drafting separate from recurring maintenance. A recorded acknowledgement shows receipt or attestation; it does not establish that the policy operates effectively.
Start with the value of staff time saved, subtract the cost of the new workflow, and divide by that cost. Include recordkeeping and execution savings, then deduct any extra validation. Keep existing human review in the workload.
Assume 200 control assessment units reviewed four times a year. At 1 hour of recordkeeping, 3 hours of execution, and 1 hour of human review per unit per review, the current workload is 4,000 hours. If 70% of reviews adopt the workflow and recordkeeping and execution each take 50% less time, the gross saving is 1,120 hours.
Allow another 0.5 hours to validate each adopted review: 560 reviews × 0.5 hours = 280 hours. Net time freed is 840 hours, leaving 3,160 hours of work. At $95/hour, that capacity is worth $79,800. With an illustrative $50,000 first-year incremental cost, capacity value after costs is $29,800 and modeled ROI is 59.6%.
This is a planning example, not Zania pricing or a customer result. The source documents explain the work in scope; they do not validate the time-saving assumptions.
In this one-year model, capacity value equals costs when net hours freed × loaded hourly cost equals incremental first-year cost. In the example, break-even is about 526.3 net hours at $95/hour. A payback date needs monthly rollout, costs, and realized benefits, which this calculator does not forecast.
The record holds your evidence, ownership, and decisions. The action is the work around it: collecting evidence, preparing assessments, and following up on gaps. Your team reviews the findings and makes the decisions.
Gather evidence from connected systems and track what is missing. Use browser-based collection where an integration does not cover the task, with human oversight.
Check evidence against your control requirements and testing procedures. Review the findings before accepting a conclusion.
Keep source references and assessment history with the work so reviewers can understand how a finding was reached.
Connect controls, evidence requests, and approvals to the people responsible for them.
Assign issues, request updates, and track remediation. Keep risk acceptance and closure decisions with the responsible reviewer.
Bring evidence status, assessment progress, and open issues into one view so the team can decide what to work on next.
Walk through the estimate with us. Compare your current process, the work Zania can take on, and the review your team retains.
© 2026 Zania Inc.
1950 University Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303