← All tools

Local scenario worksheet

AI workflow cost & break-even

Does this workflow save human time, cash, or neither? Replace this hypothetical example with measured trial results and your actual prices. Your inputs stay in this page.

For salaried work with unchanged payroll, leave cash realization at 0%. Freed time may increase capacity; it becomes cash savings only when you can actually reduce spending. Rework is additional to normal verification. Include retry/API costs in the average per-attempt price.

Compare the scenario

Manual human time / month
60.0 hours
AI workflow human time / month
20.0 hours
Human time freed / month
40.0 hours
Freed capacity value / month (not cash)
$1,200.00
AI recurring cost / month
$100.00
Assumed spending avoided / month
$0.00
Net assumed cash savings / month
-$100.00
Net time-value benefit / month
$1,100.00
Cash setup payback
No payback at these assumptions
Setup payback including human time value
0.7 months
Monthly volume for recurring cash break-even
No break-even at these assumptions
Net assumed cash savings over 6 months
-$1,100.00
Net human time freed over 6 months, after setup
230.0 hours
Method and limits

Expected human minutes per AI attempt = operation + verification + failure fraction × extra rework. Monthly time freed = attempts × (manual minutes − AI human minutes) ÷ 60. Capacity value multiplies those hours by your hourly value. Assumed spending avoided uses only positive capacity value × cash realization fraction. Net cash savings subtract AI per-attempt and incremental fixed costs. Cash payback divides setup cash by positive monthly cash savings; the separate time-value payback also includes setup hours. Break-even volume covers recurring fixed cost only, excluding setup. Horizon results subtract setup once.

This expected-value model assumes constant volume, prices, human time and failure rate. It excludes discounting, taxes, ramp-up, downstream harm from missed errors and changing quality. All example values are hypothetical. Measure representative successful and failed attempts; a lower apparent failure rate is useful only if your verification can detect meaningful errors. Compare scenarios with longer verification, more rework and lower cash realization before adopting a workflow. There is no model or provider price feed.