Would automating this actually pay for itself?

Put in how often you do a task, how long it takes, and what an hour of that time is worth. We'll show what you'd get back against the real monthly cost of a stack that could do it.

Times a month

How often this task happens across the business.

Minutes each time

Honestly — including the getting-started and checking-it part.

Cost per hour ($)

What an hour of the person doing it costs you, loaded.

How much AI takes off you

We cap this at 70%. Something always needs a person to check it.

Stack budget to compare against

Hours back each month

5hours

That time, valued: $175
Stack cost: −$0
Net each month: $175/mo

Find the workflow worth starting with

Free, seven questions, about two minutes. No card.

What this assumes

That the task is repetitive enough for the same instructions to work every time. One-off judgement work doesn't automate.
That the hours you get back go somewhere useful. Time saved isn't money saved unless it's spent on something that earns.
That someone still reviews the output. Every plan we write has approval points for exactly this reason.
Stack costs are the live totals from a real plan's budget tiers, not a guess. Setup time isn't included.

Why does it cap the saving at 70%?

Because a task that AI does end-to-end with no one checking it is rare, and pretending otherwise is how these calculators mislead people. Someone reviews the output, handles the exceptions, and fixes what came out wrong — that time is real and it stays.

Where do the stack costs come from?

They're the live totals of a real plan's budget tiers, built from vendor prices we verify and date. They're not a made-up figure chosen to make the maths look good.

What isn't in this number?

Setup time, the learning curve, and the cost of getting it wrong the first time. Those are real and they're front-loaded — which is the argument for starting with one workflow rather than ten.