A Salesforce compliance assessment establishes your effective licence position — what you are licensed for versus what your org actually uses across user types, editions, API limits and sandboxes — so you walk into the renewal true-forward with a defensible number instead of Salesforce's. This directory lists the firms that build that position for Salesforce estates, each with balanced pros and cons, in neutral order.
Last reviewed: 5 June 2026 · Reviewed quarterly · A directory, not a ranking
Salesforce is a subscription business, so its compliance question is contractual rather than forensic: there is rarely an audit script, but there is a baseline to reconcile. A compliance assessment for Salesforce maps three things against each other — the Master Subscription Agreement and order forms (what you are entitled to), the org's actual configuration and usage (active users, edition assignments, API consumption, sandbox footprint), and the contract definitions that decide how each is counted. The output is an effective licence position you can defend at renewal.
The gaps that surface are consistent: licensed seats far exceeding genuinely active users, users on a richer edition than their role uses, Platform licences reaching standard CRM objects they were not meant to touch, integrations whose API call volume crosses contracted ceilings, and sandbox or storage use beyond entitlement. Because Salesforce reconciles at renewal as a true-forward rather than a back-dated penalty, the cost lands as a higher go-forward baseline — which is exactly why holding your own ELP before the renewal conversation matters.
An assessment pulls the org's usage and assignment data, normalises it against the subscription contract, and produces the licence position with the over- and under-licensing flagged and the contestable points identified. Independent firms take no Salesforce resale margin or commission. The position then feeds Salesforce renewals, where the true-forward is negotiated, and complements Salesforce SAM for ongoing active-user reconciliation. It sits alongside Salesforce audit defense for the broader review.
Listed in neutral alphabetical order with balanced pros and cons — a directory, not a ranking.
Vendor- and tool-agnostic licensing boutique working across Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, Salesforce and IBM. Engagements run buyer-side, from compliance position through negotiation and ongoing optimization.
ServiceNow-centric licensing and estate-reconciliation practice that also covers Salesforce, Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, IBM and Adobe. Reconciles entitlement against actual consumption ahead of renewals and reviews.
Vendor-neutral Salesforce licensing and optimization specialist covering usage reviews, true-forwards, renewal negotiation and the effective-licence position.
Buyer-side independent licensing advisory with one of the broadest multi-vendor footprints, covering Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, IBM, Broadcom, Salesforce, ServiceNow and Workday.
DEMO — listings are compiled from public information and labelled demo until the verified registry is live. Firms are listed alphabetically, never ranked. Independence is shown as a pro; a reseller, Big-Four or vendor-side audit relationship is shown as a con — each a factual trade-off for you to weigh.
Indicative only — the levers that shape the number, not a promise of any specific result.
The figures below are indicative and illustrate where value typically sits in a Salesforce ELP. They are not quotes, not guarantees, and no specific outcome figures are published until the verified registry is live.
The vendor hub, adjacent services, and the same service for other publishers.
Usage reviews, true-forwards and the firms →
Negotiate the true-forward →
Ongoing active-user reconciliation →
The cross-vendor ELP service →
Effective licence position for Microsoft →
Java and database licence position →
Contest the renewal baseline →
Filter every firm by vendor, service and country →
Direct answers to the questions Salesforce buyers ask most.
Salesforce rarely runs a classic on-premises audit. Its enforcement is contractual — a usage review and a true-forward at renewal. A compliance assessment gives you your own effective licence position first, so you contest the renewal baseline with your own numbers rather than accepting Salesforce's read of your org.
It reconciles licensed entitlements against real usage: active versus licensed users by cloud and edition, Platform-versus-full-CRM classification, API call volume against contracted limits, and sandbox and storage use. The point is to separate genuine need from dormant or mis-classified seats before the renewal.
A true-forward adds the licences you need going forward at renewal rather than billing retroactively for past overuse. It can still inflate your baseline through co-terming and uplift, so an ELP that establishes genuine need is the foundation for negotiating it down.
Six to twelve months before renewal, so there is time to reclaim inactive seats, right-size editions and correct licence types before the true-forward is proposed. It is also worth doing after a large rollout, an acquisition, or a major integration project that changes API usage.
No. This is a directory, not a ranking. Firms are listed in neutral alphabetical order with balanced pros and cons so you can weigh them yourself. The matching service routes your brief to firms covering Salesforce compliance work; it never tells you who is best.
Yes. Browsing the directory and using the matching service are free for buyers. We publish no prices or fees and take no money from software publishers.
Salesforce holds the usage data and proposes the baseline. Tell us your situation and we route your brief to firms that build an independent Salesforce effective licence position. The directory and matching are free for buyers — no markup, no referral pressure, no firm is recommended over another.