Ana by Vertice

Ana is an AI negotiation agent for software purchases, built by Vertice. It runs software negotiations on your behalf: it reads your requirements, builds the strategy, drafts every email and tracks every round, updating the plan the moment a vendor responds. Ana is aimed at procurement buyers and sourcing teams who purchase and renew software, and it specialises in long tail spend — the many smaller renewals that consume time but rarely receive expert attention. By bringing negotiation expertise to every purchase, Ana is built to deliver negotiations at scale and gives buyers hours back on every renewal, while keeping the human team in control of the outcome. Most teams overpay on SaaS renewals because they go in without knowing what a competitive price looks like. Negotiation is a chore rather than the core of the job, and it is the non-value-add back and forth that eats the time procurement teams would rather spend tapping into commercial value. Ana exists to close that gap: it replaces the chore, not the core. Because it handles the data-heavy parts of negotiation — analysing the contract, benchmarking the price, building a strategy and managing the back and forth — buyers no longer need to be expert negotiators to get a good outcome, and they can pursue negotiations at a scale that manual effort would not allow, especially across long tail spend. Ana is trained on the world's largest software pricing dataset. It has been built on thousands of comparable live negotiations, so it knows how vendors price, when they concede, and what it takes to secure the best terms. The dataset behind every negotiation spans 32k+ vendors benchmarked across every category, 2M+ vendor price points powering every negotiation, and $75bn+ of real vendor spend analysed and applied. Vertice states that Ana has negotiated $500 million in spend over more than 4,000 negotiations. Every insight Ana produces is backed by data, which means the buyer can always see the evidence behind a recommendation rather than relying on intuition. When a negotiation begins, Ana analyses your deal and benchmarks it against thousands of comparable contracts across 32,000+ vendors and 2M+ price points. It then builds a negotiation strategy specific to your vendor and your requirements, and drafts the outbound emails with the reasoning explained so you understand what is being asked and why. As your vendor responds, Ana adapts its approach and updates the plan, tracking every round of the negotiation. This is how it helps buyers negotiate a better price on SaaS renewals: it tells you what to ask for and how to ask for it, based on what a competitive price actually looks like. Control stays with the buyer. Ana is designed as a co-pilot, not an autopilot. It drafts every email, includes the reasoning behind it, and waits for your approval before anything is sent. Tone settings and constraints are configured upfront so Ana operates within boundaries you define, and you stay in control of every communication that goes to your vendor. If you disagree with its strategy, you can review, edit or ignore any recommendation before it goes anywhere. Tone, timing and escalation decisions are always yours; Ana handles the data-heavy parts of the negotiation. Ana also provides a deal overview and analysis, so you can always go back and see the evidence for why a purchase was approved — which matters from an audit trail perspective. Overall, the approach is a repeatable loop: analyse the deal, benchmark it against comparable contracts, build a vendor-specific strategy, draft the outbound emails with reasoning, send nothing without approval, then adapt as the vendor responds — with the team reviewing and approving every step while Ana carries the expertise and the execution. Everything lives in one place rather than a tab for email, another for an AI assistant and another for an Excel comparison, so a negotiation and its evidence stay together on the same page. Procurement buyers using Ana achieve measurable outcomes: 18% savings on average and 15 days cut from renewal cycles. Beyond the numbers, users describe it as scalable and as a way to remove the non-value-add back and forth, freeing up time to tap into commercial value they would not otherwise have had time for. The natural, professional wording Ana produces in its emails — described as looking like a human wrote it — means vendor communication does not read as automated, which protects the buyer's relationship with the vendor while the negotiation progresses. Concrete uses include negotiating SaaS renewals, where Ana benchmarks your contract, builds a strategy and drafts the emails so you know what to ask for on every renewal; managing long tail spend, the many smaller purchases that would otherwise go unnegotiated; benchmarking a software purchase before it is signed so the buyer knows what a competitive price looks like; and maintaining an audit trail, using the deal overview and analysis to evidence why a purchase was approved. It is also used by teams that want to run many negotiations at once, where manual back and forth across a large portfolio simply would not fit into the working week. Ana is used by procurement professionals — procurement leads, heads of strategic sourcing, procurement experts and global IT sourcing managers — across companies such as Baringa, Bloomberg, Lenqi and a global security services company. On confidentiality, Vertice states that Ana is trained on Vertice's aggregate dataset, built from years of vendor negotiations across thousands of contracts, and that your individual contract data is not shared with other customers or used to train against your interests. There is no free tier or published pricing on the site; buyers are invited to book a demo or get started directly. In short, Ana's value proposition is that it brings negotiation expertise to every software purchase. It combines the world's largest software pricing dataset with a strategy-and-drafting workflow that keeps the buyer in control, so procurement teams can secure better terms, cut days from renewal cycles and reclaim the hours previously spent on non-value-add back and forth.