155% ROI. 275%. 358%. $2.5 million a year in tooling costs eliminated at a single automaker. Those aren't our numbers. They're Forrester's, Cisco's, Mercedes-Benz's, and Rivian's. We assembled them because the question we hear most from enterprise technology leaders isn't does the Atlassian platform work. It's what does it actually return, at our size? Below is the evidence, every source linked and openly accessible, with each study labeled by who paid for it. Including the research that cuts against the case, because at enterprise scale the seat count changes the answer.
The conclusion is uncomfortable but useful: at enterprise scale, the licensing line may go up, and the return has to be engineered rather than assumed. Here is why…
Three-year ROI, Forrester Total Economic Impact studies. All six commissioned by Atlassian.
Each models a composite organization, not a single real company.
Forrester has produced six Total Economic Impact™ studies across the Atlassian portfolio. All six were commissioned by Atlassian (the Open DevOps study jointly with Amazon Web Services), and all six model a composite organization assembled from customer interviews rather than reporting any single company's actual results. That's standard TEI methodology, and it's worth stating plainly rather than let you discover it.
Look inside the Open DevOps study rather than at its headline. Forrester attributes $35.34M in three-year benefits to four sources:
Licensing consolidation is a quarter of the return. Productivity is nearly three quarters of it. That ratio is the single most important finding on this page, and it holds across every study here. The Cloud Enterprise study puts license consolidation at $340,201 against $1.69M in end-user efficiency. The Jira Service Management study puts legacy tool retirement at $2.33M against $7.17M in combined productivity across service desk agents, end users, IT operations, and engineers.
Most consolidation business cases are built on the licensing line, because it's the number procurement can verify. It's a quarter of the prize.
These are published, attributable results from organizations operating at genuine scale. All are Atlassian-published except where noted.
Cisco — consolidated 70+ Jira Data Center instances and nearly 75 tools onto one cloud platform now connecting 15,000+ people, inside an engineering organization of 28,000. Reported: tooling spend down 54% annually, 40% of OpEx reinvested into the business within three years, 30% less time spent on tooling issues, 30% of engineering time shifted from troubleshooting to innovation, program management reporting accelerated 40x. Attributed to Jason Andrews, VP of Strategy & Planning, Engineering Operations. This is the most transferable narrative on the page for any large engineering organization carrying instance sprawl.
Mercedes-Benz Group — 50,000+ users across 260+ locations on Jira, Confluence, and Jira Service Management, sponsored at Chief Software Officer level (Magnus Östberg). Reported: 80% of platform team capacity shifted from maintenance to innovation, and a 10x performance improvement with no downtime. Two further results are attributed specifically to Rovo AI agents: 90% quality improvement in defect intake and triage, and 85% faster duplicate defect detection. Those transfer only to organizations deploying the same capabilities.
Saint-Gobain — moved its entire IT department and half of its end users off ServiceNow onto Jira Service Management in a matter of weeks, reaching ~20,000 end users. Reported: costs cut 70% in the first year, with 82% projected by year three (Atlassian ITSM Case Study Ebook, ©2022).
Rivian — 10,000 users on Jira, Jira Service Management, Confluence, Assets, and Atlassian Analytics. Reported: 36% reduction in annual tool costs, $2.5M saved annually by centralizing on Atlassian Cloud, 750 hours saved per person per year with one automation solution, 2,200 monthly internal purchase requests managed on the platform. The savings figure is on the record from Emily Novak, Product Manager: "We found we could save $2.5M annually by centralizing on Atlassian Cloud and adding governance. That's an annual cost savings of 36%." The 36% and 750-hour figures are repeated in a second Atlassian publication (September 2024).
US Space Force / Space Systems Command — replaced a custom Launch Issue Tracker and Launch Verification Database, both end-of-life, with Jira, Jira Service Management, and Confluence across ~2,000 people. Reported: 120 hours per week saved in one squadron, 70% increase in launch tempo, concept to launch in under six months. Lisa Bongiovanni, Project Lead: "We determined the best route would be an off-the-shelf solution versus investing millions of dollars for solutions that were unnecessary and didn't provide the same functionality."
Telstra — Australia's largest telecommunications company moved 25,000 users off self-hosted Jira and Confluence to Atlassian Cloud in four months, retiring roughly 20 third-party add-ons in favor of native capability. Reported by iTnews, independent trade press, rather than an Atlassian customer story. No dollar figure disclosed.
Skyscanner — integrated Jira Software and Jira Service Desk: 44% increase in IT team efficiency, 50% increase in ticket submissions from non-technical employees, and collaboration between IT and Development doubled.
Also documented: 24 Hour Fitness — 37% savings on annual ITSM tooling budget, 20% more changes captured, 100% change-to-incident traceability. MRI Software — a second ServiceNow displacement, expanding from 400 to 600 ITSM users while forecasting a 50% reduction in platform costs. The Warehouse Group — ~25% lower total cost of ownership, 2 FTE freed for strategic work, implemented 14x faster than the ITSM tool it replaced.
Every figure above originates with Atlassian, an Atlassian partner, or research Atlassian paid for. That's not a disqualification, but it does mean the numbers need corroboration from sources with no stake in the outcome. Here is what independent research says about the cost of fragmentation itself.
The US Government Accountability Office (May 2025) identifies "one hundred million dollars or more in cost savings by reducing duplicative IT investments" across federal agencies, and notes that OMB and 24 agencies still haven't fully implemented statutory IT portfolio review requirements. HHS alone identified 99 systems related to pandemic preparedness and response; GAO's point is that consolidating or decommissioning even one would generate savings. Zero commercial incentive: the most independent citation available anywhere in this space.
Microsoft's Work Trend Index (June 2025), drawing on aggregated product telemetry plus a survey of 31,000 knowledge workers across 31 markets, finds employees "interrupted every two minutes during core work hours—275 times a day—by meetings, emails, or chats," receiving 117 emails and 153 chat messages daily, with 48% saying work feels "chaotic and fragmented." The interruption figure is telemetry-derived rather than self-reported.
DORA / Google Cloud's State of DevOps (2019) found that engineers who used internal knowledge sources were 1.73x more likely to be productive, and that the highest performers were 1.5x more likely to have easy-to-use tools. One of the few quantifications of toolchain effects on software teams specifically. Two limits worth naming: the study is from 2019, and the relationship is correlational, not causal.
Okta's Businesses at Work (2025) reports the average company now runs 101 applications. Worth more than it looks: Okta sells identity, so more applications means more value for them. An app-count figure from a vendor whose incentive runs the opposite direction is unusually trustworthy. It also undercounts, since it only sees applications passing through single sign-on.
Soroco / Harvard Business Review (2022) instrumented 137 users at three Fortune 500 companies for up to five weeks and found ~1,200 application toggles per day, plus just under four hours a week spent reorienting, equal to 9% of annual work time. Two caveats we'll raise ourselves: the subjects were finance, HR, supply-chain, recruiting and inventory roles rather than engineers, and the lead author founded a company selling software that surfaces exactly this friction. Directional for knowledge work; not a measurement of software teams.
Atlassian's own State of Teams 2025 survey (12,000 knowledge workers) puts 2.4 billion hours a year lost to information search within the Fortune 500, with a quarter of the workweek spent searching for information. That is consistent in direction with the independent sources, though it is vendor research and self-reported.
For historical context, the frequently cited McKinsey finding that knowledge workers spend "nearly 20 percent" of the week looking for internal information comes from The Social Economy, published in 2012, before Slack, Teams, or the SaaS explosion, and without disclosed methodology behind that particular estimate. It is usually quoted as though it were current. It isn't.
This is the section most vendor pages leave out.
1. Your seat count may reverse the license math
Atlassian markets the move to Cloud using a case study showing a 36% cost saving. In September 2025, independent Atlassian consultant Rodney Nissen published a tier-by-tier comparison of Data Center and Cloud list pricing and reached what looks like the opposite conclusion: on average, organizations moving from Data Center to Cloud should expect to pay roughly 28% more, with savings landing reliably only at 10,000 users or fewer on Cloud Standard. The Register covered both figures side by side.
Both can be true, because they measure different things. The 36% is one customer's total tooling spend after retiring a range of separate products in favor of one platform. The 28% is the change in the Atlassian license line alone, before anything else is retired. Read together, they make the point this page keeps returning to: the savings live in consolidation, and your per-seat price can move against you while your total spend still comes down. Add-ons such as Atlassian Guard widen the license-line gap further.
So whether Cloud nets out ahead for you turns on three things: your seat count, how many separate tools you actually decommission, and how much manual effort disappears in the process. Where consolidation is deep (one platform replacing many, standardized templates replacing hundreds of bespoke configurations, real-time reporting replacing manual assembly), the total comes down even when the license line goes up. Where it's shallow, a Cloud migration at scale is simply a more expensive way to run the same mess. None of that is knowable from a price list, which is why the honest answer to will this save us money is that it has to be modeled against your own estate rather than inferred from anyone's case study, including the ones on this page.
2. The Forrester composites are smaller than you are
Look at the modeled populations rather than the ROI headlines: 750 licensed users (Atlassian Cloud), 1,200 service desk agents (Jira Service Management), 2,750 users (Cloud Enterprise), roughly 4,000 practitioners inside a 10,000-employee company (Open DevOps), 14,000 knowledge workers (Confluence), and no disclosed user count at all (Jira Align). None of these studies models a 20,000-seat Atlassian estate. If that's your scale, treat them as a framework for structuring a business case, not as evidence about your license bill.
3. Consolidation causing the productivity gain is inference, not proof
DORA's finding is explicitly correlational. GAO documents the cost of duplicated systems, not the recovery from consolidating them. The defensible claim is that fragmentation carries a measurable cost, not that any given consolidation recovers a specific percentage of it.
4. Composites are models, not companies
No Forrester figure on this page describes an audited result at a real organization. They are risk-adjusted projections aggregated from a small number of customer interviews: four, in the case of the highest ROI in the table. Useful for building a case; not the same as a reference customer.
5. One of these sources can't be fully verified
Nucleus Research's Jira benefit case study reports a 30% reduction in manual task time and a 25% increase in project capacity without additional hires. It is readable in synopsis only. The figures are public; the methodology behind them sits behind a paid membership, so you cannot independently check how they were derived.
And the deadline is real. Atlassian ends new Data Center subscriptions on 30 March 2026, stops issuing new licenses to existing customers on 30 March 2028, and expires all Data Center licenses on 28 March 2029. Every enterprise still on Data Center has a decision to make inside that window, whether or not the license math favors them.
Back to where we started. The return has to be engineered, which means it comes from tools you actually retire, instances you actually consolidate, workflows you actually automate, and engineering hours you actually recover, not from a per-seat price comparison.
Cisco didn't get to 54% by switching invoices. They got there by collapsing 70+ Data Center instances and nearly 75 tools into one platform, which is a program of work, not a procurement event.
That engineering work is what Envorso does. We assess the toolchain you actually have, including the instances nobody owns and the licenses nobody uses. We model what consolidation is worth in your estate rather than a composite's, then do the architecture, governance, standardization and migration work the savings depend on. On one recent engagement that meant collapsing 1,800 custom Jira projects into 14 standardized templates, moving the client from Data Center to Cloud, establishing a unified portfolio view, and replacing a six-week manual reporting cycle with real-time reporting. We do this inside large, complex engineering organizations, including in automotive and hardware, where the software estate is entangled with product programs and the cost of getting it wrong isn't a support ticket.
If you're building this case internally, take the numbers above and pressure-test them against your own environment. If you'd like help doing that, or a second opinion on a business case already in flight, let's talk.
At publication, every figure on this page has been checked against its cited source. All linked sources are readable without a login or registration form, with one exception noted in the text: the Nucleus Research study's headline figures are public but its methodology is not. Studies commissioned by Atlassian are labeled as such; customer results are labeled by publisher. The Cloud Enterprise TEI is linked via an Atlassian partner's mirror of the Forrester PDF, because Forrester's own hosted version requires registration. The Harvard Business Review article is linked via a licensed syndicated reprint, as the original is paywalled. Independent sources — GAO, Microsoft, DORA, Okta, iTnews, The Register, and The Jira Guy — carry no Atlassian sponsorship, though The Jira Guy discloses employment with an Atlassian partner.
Published August 2026 · Michael Dennis
Ready to get started? Us too.