Freight Bill Audit Software - Complete Buyer's Guide 2025

For companies spending $1M to $500M annually on freight across parcel, LTL, FTL, ocean, and air modes, carrier billing errors represent a silent profit drain. Industry research consistently demonstrates that 3-8% of freight invoices contain overcharges—incorrect rate application, duplicate charges, unauthorized accessorial fees, or dimensional weight miscalculations. On a $50M annual freight budget, that's $1.5M to $4M in recoverable dollars.

Yet most companies lack the resources to manually audit thousands of monthly invoices, leaving millions on the table. Freight bill audit software automates invoice validation, error detection, carrier dispute filing, and recovery tracking—delivering typical ROI of 3-10× in the first year.

This comprehensive buyer's guide equips procurement leaders, CFOs, supply chain managers, and logistics directors with the frameworks needed to evaluate freight audit software, calculate implementation ROI, compare vendor approaches, and build sustainable audit programs that recover 1.5-3.5% of freight spend annually.

Why Freight Audit Matters: The 3-8% Error Rate Reality

The root causes of freight billing errors span systemic carrier pricing complexity, operational mistakes, and sometimes deliberate overcharging:

Pricing Complexity Creates Error Opportunities

Modern freight pricing involves hundreds of variables per shipment:

Parcel (UPS, FedEx, DHL):

LTL (less-than-truckload):

Ocean freight:

With this complexity, even sophisticated carrier billing systems generate errors—and less-sophisticated systems generate them frequently.

Common Billing Error Types and Frequency

| Error Type | % of Total Errors | Avg $ per Error | Detection Method | |------------|------------------|----------------|------------------| | Incorrect rate application | 30-40% | $35-$450 | Compare invoice rate to contract rate table | | Duplicate charges | 15-20% | $150-$8,500 | Match tracking numbers across invoices | | Unauthorized accessorials | 20-25% | $45-$275 | Cross-reference BOL vs invoice fees | | Dimensional weight errors | 10-15% | $8-$125 | Recalculate DIM weight from package dimensions | | Detention/demurrage overcharges | 25-35% (ocean) | $500-$3,200 | Validate container return dates vs free time | | Address correction fees | 5-10% | $18-$21 | Verify address accuracy in TMS | | Fuel surcharge errors | 5-8% | $12-$180 | Recalculate using DOE fuel index |

Real-world impact: $20M freight spend breakdown

Without freight audit software, companies typically recover <10% of this ($90K) through manual spot checks. With automated audit platforms, recovery rates reach 70-85% ($635K-$770K).

Types of Freight Requiring Audit: Mode-Specific Considerations

Parcel Shipments: Highest Error Rates, Complex Pricing

Characteristics:

Most valuable audit opportunities:

  1. Dimensional weight disputes: Carriers measure packages at automated sortation facilities; these measurements are frequently inaccurate (±1-2 inches creates $5-$25 billing difference)
  2. Residential delivery surcharges: 15-25% of shipments incorrectly marked residential when actually commercial (or vice versa), generating $4.75-$5.50 per package overcharges
  3. Address correction fees: Carriers charge $18-$21 when they "correct" addresses that were already accurate
  4. Delivery area surcharges: Extended delivery areas carry $2.50-$8 fees; incorrect ZIP code mapping generates overcharges
  5. Service failures: Late deliveries should trigger money-back guarantees (for applicable service levels); carriers don't automatically credit late shipments unless claimed

Parcel audit software ROI is typically highest: 2.5-3.5% recovery for companies shipping 10,000+ packages monthly.

LTL (Less-Than-Truckload): Class-Based Complexity

Characteristics:

Most valuable audit opportunities:

  1. Reclassification charges: Carriers inspect freight and reclassify to higher classes (Class 70 → Class 125), increasing charges 30-60%; audit validates whether reclassification was justified
  2. Weight discrepancies: Carrier-weighed weight vs shipper-declared weight differences generate billing adjustments (often incorrect)
  3. Incorrect discount application: Contract discount tiers based on monthly volume; carriers sometimes fail to apply earned discounts
  4. Deficit weight charges: Carriers bill minimum shipment sizes (e.g., minimum 500 lbs even if shipment is 300 lbs); contract terms may waive this
  5. Accessorial fee legitimacy: Liftgate fees billed when shipment went to dock, inside delivery fees when not requested

LTL audit software delivers 1.8-2.8% recovery, with highest value on shipments $500-$2,500.

FTL (Full-Truckload): Simpler Pricing, Lower Error Rates

Characteristics:

Most valuable audit opportunities:

  1. Fuel surcharge calculations: Validate FSC against DOE diesel fuel price index and contract formula
  2. Detention fees: Verify loading/unloading times justify detention charges ($50-$100/hour for delays beyond free time)
  3. Lumper fees: Validate charges for unloading labor match actual services rendered
  4. Rate application: Confirm invoice rate matches contracted lane rate or spot quote

FTL audit delivers 0.8-1.5% recovery—lower than parcel/LTL but still material on high spend volumes.

Ocean Freight: High-Dollar Errors, Complex Port Charges

Characteristics:

Most valuable audit opportunities:

  1. Detention/demurrage overcharges: Carriers bill per-diem fees ($75-$300/day) for containers held beyond free time (typically 5-7 days); errors include:

    • Incorrect free time calculation (weekends/holidays treatment)
    • Container return date errors (carrier records wrong return date)
    • Charges for carrier-caused delays (chassis shortages, terminal closures)
    • Single error value: $1,500-$5,000 per container

  2. Incorrect freight rates: Invoice rate doesn't match contract rate or spot quote ($200-$2,000 per container)

  3. Port fee duplication: Terminal handling charges (THC) billed by both carrier and terminal

  4. Chassis fee overcharges: Daily chassis rental fees ($25-$75/day) calculated incorrectly

Ocean freight audit delivers 1.5-2.5% recovery but individual error values are large (hundreds to thousands per occurrence), making ROI compelling for importers handling 100+ containers annually.

Air Freight: International Complexity

Characteristics:

Audit opportunities:

  1. Rate tier application: Validate shipment billed at correct weight break (100 kg shipment should get 100+ rate, not <100 rate)
  2. Fuel surcharge calculation: Complex formulas based on international jet fuel indices
  3. Security fees: TSA/international security fees should match regulatory rates
  4. Dimensional weight: Air freight uses ÷166 or ÷6000 (cm³ to kg) calculations

Air freight audit delivers 1.2-2.2% recovery.

Freight Audit Software Capabilities: What to Expect

Core Functionality Table

| Capability | Description | Value Delivered | Implementation Complexity | |------------|-------------|-----------------|--------------------------| | Automated invoice ingestion | EDI 210, email parsing, carrier portal scraping | Eliminate manual data entry (save 20-40 hours/month) | Medium (EDI setup 4-8 weeks) | | Rate validation | Compare invoice rates to contract rate tables | 30-40% of recoveries (largest error category) | Low (upload rate tables) | | Accessorial verification | Match invoice fees to shipment BOL and requested services | 20-25% of recoveries | Medium (integrate with TMS/WMS) | | Duplicate detection | Identify same tracking number billed multiple times | 15-20% of recoveries | Low (automatic once data ingested) | | DIM weight recalculation | Recalculate dimensional weight from package dimensions | 10-15% of recoveries (parcel-specific) | Medium (requires package dimension data) | | Claims filing | Auto-generate carrier dispute documentation | Save 15-30 hours/month manual claims work | Medium (carrier portal integration) | | Recovery tracking | Monitor claim status and carrier responses | Ensure $0 recovery leakage | Low (automatic) | | Reporting | Spend analysis, carrier scorecards, error trends | Support carrier negotiations (save 2-5% on renewals) | Low (standard dashboards) |

Advanced Capabilities (Enterprise Platforms)

Predictive analytics:

Service level validation:

Network optimization:

Contract compliance:

Software Architecture: Point Solution vs TMS Module vs 3PL Service

Point Solution: Standalone Freight Audit Platform

Architecture: Cloud-based SaaS platform dedicated to freight audit and payment Examples (generic): Specialized freight audit software vendors focusing exclusively on invoice validation

Pros:

Cons:

Best for: Companies with $5M-$100M freight spend, multi-mode operations (parcel + LTL + ocean), using mid-market or legacy TMS that lacks robust audit

Typical pricing: $1,500-$5,000/month SaaS or 15-30% of recoveries

TMS Module: Integrated Audit Within Transportation Management System

Architecture: Audit functionality built into existing TMS (Manhattan, SAP TM, Oracle TMS, Blue Yonder, MercuryGate) Examples: Enterprise TMS platforms with native audit modules

Pros:

Cons:

Best for: Enterprise companies ($50M+ freight spend) with modern TMS platforms, single-mode operations (e.g., retail with 90% parcel), strong IT teams managing complex integrations

Typical pricing: $10,000-$50,000 annual module fee (part of larger TMS license)

3PL Freight Audit Service: Fully Outsourced

Architecture: Third-party logistics provider operates freight audit and payment as managed service Examples: Freight audit specialists (Cass Information Systems, CTSI-Global, enVista), 3PLs with audit services

Pros:

Cons:

Best for: Small-to-mid market companies ($1M-$20M freight spend), companies without logistics staff, businesses wanting fully outsourced freight back-office

Typical pricing: 25-40% of recovered overcharges + $0.50-$2.00 per invoice processed (freight payment fee)

Freight Audit Software Pricing Models: Total Cost Analysis

Percentage-of-Recovery Model

Structure: Vendor receives 10-50% of all recovered overcharges (most common: 20-35%)

Example: $10M annual freight spend, 2.5% recovery rate = $250,000 recovered annually

Pros:

Cons:

Best for: First-time freight audit adopters, small freight spend ($1M-$10M), companies testing audit viability before full commitment

Negotiation tips:

Monthly SaaS Fee Model

Structure: Fixed monthly or annual subscription ($500-$5,000/month typical)

Example: $3,000/month ($36,000/year) for $20M freight spend

Pros:

Cons:

Best for: Established audit programs, freight spend $10M+, companies with logistics/AP staff to own audit process

Typical pricing tiers:

| Freight Spend | Monthly SaaS Fee | Annual Cost | Implied Recovery for 3× ROI | |---------------|------------------|-------------|----------------------------| | $1M-$5M | $500-$1,500 | $6,000-$18,000 | $18K-$54K (1.8-3.6%) | | $5M-$20M | $1,500-$3,500 | $18,000-$42,000 | $54K-$126K (1.1-2.5%) | | $20M-$50M | $3,000-$5,000 | $36,000-$60,000 | $108K-$180K (0.5-0.9%) | | $50M+ | $5,000-$15,000+ | $60,000-$180,000+ | $180K-$540K+ (0.4-1.1%) |

Negotiation tips:

Per-Invoice Fee Model

Structure: $0.10-$1.00 per invoice audited (varies by mode and complexity)

Example: 5,000 monthly invoices × $0.50 per invoice = $2,500/month ($30,000/year)

Pros:

Cons:

Best for: Variable freight volume businesses (retail with seasonal peaks), low-to-moderate invoice volume (1,000-5,000/month), companies wanting usage-based pricing

Typical rates by mode:

Hybrid Models: Base Fee + Performance Incentive

Structure: Base monthly SaaS fee ($1,000-$2,500) + percentage of recoveries (10-20%)

Example: $2,000/month base + 15% of recoveries

Pros:

Cons:

Best for: Large freight spend ($50M+), complex multi-mode operations, companies wanting vendor partnership with aligned incentives

ROI Calculation Framework: When Does Freight Audit Pay Off?

ROI Formula

ROI = (Annual Recovery - Annual Software Cost) ÷ Annual Software Cost × 100%

Break-even calculation:

Annual Software Cost ÷ Expected Recovery Rate = Minimum Freight Spend for Break-Even

Example: SaaS software costs $36,000/year. Expected recovery rate is 2.0%.

Scenario Analysis: $10M, $50M, $200M Freight Spend

Scenario 1: $10M annual freight spend (small-to-mid market company)

Freight mix: 60% parcel ($6M), 30% LTL ($3M), 10% ocean ($1M)

Expected recoveries:

Software options:

| Model | Annual Cost | Net Benefit | ROI | |-------|-------------|-------------|-----| | Percentage (25%) | $68,750 | $206,250 | 300% | | SaaS ($2,000/mo) | $24,000 | $251,000 | 1,046% | | Per-invoice ($0.40 avg, 3,000/mo) | $14,400 | $260,600 | 1,810% |

Recommendation: SaaS or per-invoice pricing delivers 10-18× ROI. Percentage model leaves $45K-$55K on the table annually.

Scenario 2: $50M annual freight spend (mid-to-large market company)

Freight mix: 40% parcel ($20M), 35% LTL ($17.5M), 20% ocean ($10M), 5% air ($2.5M)

Expected recoveries:

Software options:

| Model | Annual Cost | Net Benefit | ROI | |-------|-------------|-------------|-----| | Percentage (25%) | $321,875 | $965,625 | 300% | | SaaS ($4,000/mo) | $48,000 | $1,239,500 | 2,582% | | Hybrid ($2,500/mo + 15%) | $30,000 + $193,125 = $223,125 | $1,064,375 | 477% |

Recommendation: SaaS pricing delivers 25× ROI. Hybrid acceptable if vendor provides strategic consulting. Percentage model wastes $175K-$275K annually.

Scenario 3: $200M annual freight spend (enterprise company)

Freight mix: 30% parcel ($60M), 25% LTL ($50M), 30% ocean ($60M), 10% FTL ($20M), 5% air ($10M)

Expected recoveries:

Software options:

| Model | Annual Cost | Net Benefit | ROI | |-------|-------------|-------------|-----| | TMS module | $75,000 | $3,895,000 | 5,193% | | SaaS enterprise ($8,000/mo) | $96,000 | $3,874,000 | 4,035% | | 3PL service (30% recovery) | $1,191,000 | $2,779,000 | 233% |

Recommendation: In-house TMS module or enterprise SaaS delivers 40-50× ROI. 3PL service leaves $1M+ on table but viable if no internal resources available.

Internal staffing cost: Add 2-3 FTEs ($150K-$250K fully loaded) to manage enterprise audit program. Net ROI remains 15-25× even with staffing.

Implementation Considerations: From Purchase to Recovery

Integration Complexity: What to Expect

Phase 1: Data integration (weeks 1-4)

Carrier invoice integration:

Best practice: EDI for primary carriers (90% of volume), email parsing for secondary carriers (10% of volume)

ERP/TMS integration:

Complexity drivers: Legacy ERP systems (SAP R/3, Oracle E-Business Suite) require custom integration work (8-12 weeks). Modern cloud ERP (NetSuite, SAP S/4HANA, Workday) have pre-built connectors (2-4 weeks).

Phase 2: Historical data migration (weeks 3-6)

Load 12-24 months of historical invoices to:

Data volume: 50,000-500,000 historical invoices typical for $20M-$100M freight spend companies

Phase 3: Rate table configuration (weeks 4-8)

Upload contracted rates for validation:

Accuracy is critical: Incorrect rate tables generate false positive errors (claiming correct charges are errors), damaging carrier relationships.

Phase 4: Testing and validation (weeks 8-10)

Phase 5: Go-live and claim filing (weeks 10-12)

Data Quality Requirements

Poor data quality is the #1 cause of freight audit implementation failure. Software can only audit what data it has access to.

Critical data elements:

| Data Element | Source | Accuracy Requirement | Impact of Errors | |--------------|--------|---------------------|------------------| | Tracking number | TMS, WMS | 99%+ | Can't match invoices to shipments | | Origin/destination ZIP | TMS, OMS | 98%+ | Incorrect zone rates, can't validate address correction fees | | Weight | WMS, TMS | 95%+ | Can't dispute weight-based overcharges | | Dimensions (L×W×H) | WMS, carrier | 90%+ | Can't recalculate dimensional weight | | Service level | TMS, OMS | 98%+ | Can't validate service-based rates | | Accessorial requests | BOL, TMS | 85%+ | Can't dispute unauthorized fees | | Contracted rates | Contract PDFs, carrier portals | 100% | False positives if rates wrong |

Common data quality issues:

  1. Missing dimensions: 30-50% of shipments lack package dimensions in TMS → can't audit DIM weight (10-15% of potential recoveries lost)
  2. Inconsistent tracking numbers: TMS records FedEx tracking as "1234567890", carrier invoice shows "9876-1234-5678" → duplicate detection fails
  3. Outdated rate tables: Contract rates changed October 1, software still has September 30 rates → false claims on every invoice
  4. Service level mismatches: TMS calls it "Ground", carrier invoice calls it "Standard Overnight" → can't match rates

Pre-implementation data cleanup (budget 40-80 hours):

Claim Filing Workflow and Timeline

Step 1: Error detection (real-time to 24 hours post-invoice)

Software compares invoice to contracted rates and shipment data, flags discrepancies.

Step 2: Validation (automatic or manual review)

Best practice: Auto-approve low-risk, high-volume errors (duplicates, rate variances). Manually review high-dollar ($200+) or complex claims.

Step 3: Claim generation (1-5 minutes per claim)

Software generates carrier dispute documentation:

Step 4: Carrier submission (automatic or manual)

Step 5: Carrier response (30-90 days typical)

Carriers review claims and respond:

Software tracking: Monitor claim status via carrier portal scraping or manual status updates. Alert for claims aging >90 days without response.

Step 6: Recovery and accounting (varies)

Accounting reconciliation: Match recovered amounts to original invoice and claim documentation for audit trail.

Typical recovery timeline:

Recovery leakage: 5-15% of filed claims never recover due to carrier non-response, insufficient documentation, or errors in claim filing. Leading software platforms reduce leakage to <5% through systematic follow-up.

Vendor Selection Checklist: 15 Criteria for Evaluation

When evaluating freight audit software vendors, assess against these 15 criteria:

1. Mode coverage: Does the platform audit all freight modes you use (parcel, LTL, FTL, ocean, air, or subset)?

2. Carrier coverage: How many carriers are supported (UPS, FedEx, DHL, regional LTL carriers, ocean carriers, etc.)?

3. Invoice ingestion automation: EDI, email parsing, portal scraping—what % automation for your carriers?

4. TMS/ERP integration: Pre-built connectors for your systems vs custom integration required?

5. Rate validation accuracy: What % of rate errors does software detect (request case studies with 95%+ detection rates)?

6. Accessorial audit depth: Does software validate BOL-requested fees vs invoice-billed fees?

7. Claim automation: What % of claims filed automatically vs manual review required?

8. Carrier portal integration: Can software track claim status automatically vs manual entry?

9. Reporting and analytics: Dashboards, carrier scorecards, error trend analysis—customizable?

10. Implementation timeline: Weeks to go-live for your freight spend volume?

11. Data quality requirements: Minimum data elements required—can you provide them?

12. Customer support: Response time SLAs, dedicated account manager, or ticket-based support?

13. Pricing transparency: Clear pricing model (no hidden fees, overage charges clearly disclosed)?

14. Customer references: 3-5 references in your industry and freight spend range?

15. ROI guarantee: Does vendor guarantee minimum recovery or refund software cost if targets missed?

Vendor differentiation questions to ask:

Case Study: $180M Freight Spend Manufacturer Recovers $3.2M in Year 1

Company profile:

Challenge:

CFO directive to reduce freight costs by $2M (1.1%) without reducing service levels or renegotiating carrier contracts (contracts locked for 18 months). Procurement identified freight audit as untapped opportunity.

Solution selection (RFP process, 6 vendors evaluated):

Selected enterprise freight audit SaaS platform:

Year 1 results:

| Error Category | Errors Found | Total Value | Recovery Rate | Net Recovered | |----------------|--------------|-------------|---------------|---------------| | Incorrect rate application | 4,250 | $1,450,000 | 88% | $1,276,000 | | Duplicate charges | 890 | $420,000 | 95% | $399,000 | | Unauthorized accessorials | 3,100 | $685,000 | 82% | $561,700 | | DIM weight errors (parcel) | 6,800 | $340,000 | 75% | $255,000 | | Detention/demurrage (ocean) | 125 | $485,000 | 68% | $329,800 | | Service failures (late delivery) | 2,400 | $204,000 | 91% | $185,640 | | Fuel surcharge errors | 1,850 | $275,000 | 80% | $220,000 | | Total | 19,415 | $3,859,000 | 83% | $3,227,140 |

Net financial impact:

Year 2-3 projections:

Strategic benefits beyond recoveries:

  1. Carrier negotiations: Used audit data to demonstrate billing accuracy issues; negotiated 2.5% rate reduction in Year 2 contract renewal (saved additional $4.5M)
  2. Carrier consolidation: Audit data showed 3 LTL carriers had 8-12% error rates vs 2-3% for top 2 carriers; shifted 80% volume to low-error carriers
  3. Network optimization: Identified $1.2M in overnight shipments that consistently delivered in 2 days → downgraded to 2-day service, saved 35% on those lanes

Total 3-year financial impact:

Lessons learned:

  1. Audit software is table stakes, strategic application delivers multiplier effects: Recoveries alone deliver 10-20× ROI; using audit data for carrier negotiations and network optimization delivers 50-100× ROI
  2. Internal ownership matters: Adding 1 dedicated FTE ($85K cost) enabled strategic analysis beyond just claim filing—worth the investment
  3. Historical data recovery is one-time windfall: Year 1 included 24 months of retroactive claims ($1.8M of the $3.2M total); Year 2+ reflects ongoing rates (lower but still compelling)
  4. Carrier relationships improved: Contrary to fears, sharing audit findings with carrier account teams built trust and reduced future errors

12 Best Practices for Sustainable Freight Audit Programs

  1. Set claim thresholds at $25-$50 minimum: Avoid nuisance claims that damage carrier relationships for minimal recovery
  2. Share audit findings quarterly with carrier reps: Position as "process improvement" rather than adversarial—carriers appreciate visibility into billing errors
  3. Track claim acceptance rates: If carriers reject >25% of claims, audit logic may be flawed (false positives)—refine rules
  4. Integrate audit data into carrier scorecards: Evaluate carriers on billing accuracy alongside on-time delivery and rate competitiveness
  5. Use recoveries to fund continuous improvement: Reinvest 10-20% of recoveries into TMS upgrades, data quality improvements, staff training
  6. Automate high-volume, low-dollar claims: Duplicates, obvious rate errors—manual review wastes time on $20-$50 claims
  7. Manually review high-dollar claims ($200+): Carrier relationships matter; validate claim before filing $2,000 dispute
  8. Monitor recovery lag time: If claims age >120 days, escalate to carrier management—don't let recoveries languish
  9. Validate software accuracy annually: Manually audit sample of 50-100 invoices to confirm software detection rate remains high (95%+)
  10. Update rate tables immediately: Contract rate changes on January 1 should be in audit software by January 2—not February 1
  11. Track error trends, not just dollars: If residential delivery errors spike 40% in Q3, investigate root cause (TMS address validation failing?)
  12. Expand beyond recovery to prevention: Year 2-3 focus should shift from finding errors to preventing them (fixing TMS data, negotiating simpler carrier pricing)

Conclusion: From Cost Center to Profit Center

Freight audit software transforms accounts payable from a cost center (processing invoices) into a profit center (recovering margin). For companies spending $5M-$500M annually on freight, automated audit platforms deliver immediate 3-20× ROI through error recovery, with strategic applications (carrier negotiations, network optimization) multiplying returns to 50-100× over 3-5 years.

The decision framework is straightforward:

The complexity lies not in whether to audit freight invoices (the answer is yes for any company spending >$2M annually), but how to audit: point solution vs TMS module vs outsourced service, percentage vs SaaS vs per-invoice pricing, and how to leverage audit data beyond just claim filing.

The freight audit software market has matured significantly since 2015—modern platforms deliver 90-95% automation, detect errors legacy manual processes miss entirely, and integrate seamlessly with cloud TMS and ERP systems. Implementation timelines have compressed from 6-12 months (2010s) to 6-12 weeks (2025) for mid-market deployments.

For procurement leaders and CFOs evaluating freight audit software in 2025, the opportunity is clear: $2-4 million in annual recoverable overcharges per $100M freight spend, achievable with $50K-$150K annual software investment and 1-3 FTEs of internal ownership. The barrier to entry is low; the ROI is measurable; the strategic applications extend far beyond claim filing.

Next steps:

For companies managing complex global supply chains, freight audit software is not optional—it's foundational infrastructure for cost control, carrier performance management, and data-driven network optimization. The question is not whether to implement freight audit, but how quickly can you capture the $1M-$10M in recoverable overcharges currently leaking from your freight invoices.

Related resources:

Disclaimer

This educational content provides general information about freight bill audit software evaluation and implementation. It does not constitute financial, legal, or procurement advice. Freight audit recovery rates vary significantly by company-specific factors including contracted rates, freight mix, carrier relationships, and data quality. The recovery percentages and ROI calculations presented reflect industry averages and may not represent outcomes for specific implementations. Companies should conduct independent analysis, request vendor demonstrations with actual invoice data, and validate recovery claims through pilot programs before making purchasing decisions. All pricing and vendor capabilities described are representative as of January 2025 and subject to change.

Sources