EXIT READINESS COST DIAGNOSTIC
Four questions. An indicative annual cost of producing the exit-strategy evidence your regulator expects.
Four questions, no signup. Change any of them and the figures update — including the day rate, if ours is wrong for your market:
Use annual cloud spend if you don't know the resource count.
Additional providers multiply inventory work, not methodology.
Whoever generates the exit-readiness documentation and evidence.
Across all entities in scope.
Our working assumptions, shown in full. Change the day rate if ours is wrong for your market — and tell us where else we've got it wrong.
| Effort — small landscape | 20 person-days per assessment |
|---|---|
| Effort — medium landscape | 35 person-days |
| Effort — large landscape | 62 person-days |
| Effort — very large landscape | 115 person-days |
| Two providers | ×1.6 on base effort |
| Three or more providers | ×2.1 on base effort |
| Internal loaded day rate | €550 — salary, contributions, overhead |
| Internal support effort | 35% of external days — workshops, evidence, sign-off |
| Fully internal execution | ×1.3 on base effort — less practiced than a specialist firm |
| Repeat run in the same year | 65% of first-run effort — scoping and inventory are reused |
| Range shown | ±15% around the point estimate |
Indicative annual cost of exit readiness
—
Recurring, not one-off — supervisors expect exit-strategy evidence to be kept current as your infrastructure changes.
At this scale, exit evidence is normally produced per entity and per scope rather than as a single exercise. This figure represents the total across your estate.
A visible, auditable model beats an accurate hidden one.
Here’s how each figure above is derived — and where our estimates come from.
Doubling your resource count doesn't double the work. The discovery approach and the methodology get reused; the inventory and dependency mapping don't. A large landscape runs roughly three times a small one, not six times.
A second cloud provider means a second inventory and a second set of alternatives to evaluate — but the same assessment framework. The multiplier is sub-linear rather than one per provider.
Workshops, data gathering, evidence collection, review, and sign-off land on your team regardless of who writes the report. We assume 35% of external days fall on internal staff — the cost most business cases forget to include.
Day rates vary widely by country and by firm, so we've set ours mid-range for EU financial-services advisory and made them editable. The effort figures are our own, based on what a full Article 28 evidence pack involves.
Cloud providers continuously launch services, alter APIs, update terms, and acquire third parties — invalidating static exit plans within months.
Maintaining multi-cloud portability requires niche architecture talent. Team turnover erases institutional knowledge between audit cycles.
Supervisory bodies (DORA, EBA, FINMA, FCA) regularly expand mapping expectations and critical ICT testing standards every audit cycle.
Every figure here comes from assumptions we’ve published in full. The one that matters most is the day rate – and there’s no single correct one. A Big Four engagement in Frankfurt and an independent consultant in Warsaw can differ threefold for the same scope, so we’ve set ours mid-range for EU financial-services advisory and made it editable.
If your numbers are different, tell us. That’s how estimates become data.
Our estimates, not measured benchmarks. €1,200 sits mid-range for EU financial-services advisory – Big Four runs higher, independents lower. €550 is a fully loaded internal cost: salary, contributions, overhead. Both editable.
You’ve modeled what your current approach costs.
See what the assessment produces instead – run it yourself, or explore the Light version.
