[CONTENT]
$
USD
Total Economic Impact
Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By Intersight
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY Cisco, NOVEMBER 2025
Total Economic Impact
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY Cisco, NOVEMBER 2025
Recent trends in IT — driven by AI, data security and sovereignty, edge computing, cost pressures, and sustainability goals — are reshaping how organizations manage compute infrastructure, with significant implications for enterprise IT departments and server teams. As infrastructure continues to evolve with increased complexity and geographic asset distribution, server teams will require an advanced management platform to enable them to support their organizations’ future success.
Cisco Intersight is a cloud-based IT operations platform designed for infrastructure lifecycle management. It provides IT teams with comprehensive visibility, control, and automation capabilities for the Cisco Unified Computing System (Cisco UCS), converged, and hyperconverged infrastructure across data centers and edge environments. Delivered as-a-service or as a virtual appliance, Intersight uses a unified, policy-driven approach to infrastructure management and integrates with leading operating systems (including Oracle, Red Hat, Rocky, SUSE, Ubuntu, and Windows) storage providers (including Hitachi, NetApp, and Pure Storage), hypervisors (including Microsoft, Nutanix, Red Hat, and VMware), and third-party IT service management (ITSM) and security management (SIEM) tools (such as ServiceNow and Splunk).
Cisco commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying Intersight.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of Intersight on their organizations.
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed seven decision-makers at six organizations with experience using Intersight. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the experiences of the interviewees and combined the results into a single composite organization that is a multinational, technology-driven company with $10 billion in annual revenue and 120 branch locations. A team of six engineers manages the company’s 1,000 servers, which it has deployed in several centralized data centers as well as across distributed edge environments.
Interviewees said that prior to using Intersight, their organizations relied on previous-generation management tools that provided access to a limited set of data across a limited set of servers. These limitations led to a lack of scalability, increased security and compliance risks, and unproductive use of IT resources trying to support their organizations’ compute estate.
After the investment in Intersight, the interviewees had a holistic view of all their assets with access to previously unavailable information. As a result, they have scaled up quickly to meet new IT demands without increasing the size of their server teams and have improved security and policy compliance in their organizations by ensuring consistent deployment and maintenance for all their servers.
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for a composite organization with $10 billion in revenue and 1,000 servers include:
Improved uptime and resiliency leading to a financial benefit of $2.7 million. Through proactive fault detection, centralized visibility, and scalable automation, Intersight reduces mean time to recovery (MTTR) by 50%, thereby improving uptime, speeding recovery, and resulting in greater infrastructure resilience for the organization.
Increased IT productivity that saves the organization $1.7 million. The composite dramatically improves IT productivity by reducing build and deployment times by 80%, thus streamlining monitoring and troubleshooting, enabling automation and policy reuse, optimizing staffing, and simplifying compliance.
Accelerated time to value that earns the organization an incremental $289,000 in profit. The composite executes projects faster, has greater operational agility, and experiences earlier returns on infrastructure investments because Intersight allows the team to prestage infrastructure, automate domain and server builds, and support consistent, repeatable deployments via API and automation capabilities.
Reduced security and compliance risk worth $267,000. Cisco Intersight helps reduce the frequency and length of security breaches for the composite organization through proactive monitoring of security vulnerabilities, automated compliance with corporate and regulatory policies, and centralized visibility of server status.
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that provide value for the composite organization but are not quantified for this study include:
More cost-effective management of hardware investment. Intersight’s policy-driven automation and visibility allow the IT team to optimize workloads and avoid overprovisioning. Its centralized dashboards and historical metrics help the organization better understand actual usage patterns, optimize existing resources, and enable smarter decisions about hardware needs.
Improved compliance with corporate policies and industry regulations. Intersight’s role in standardizing configurations, reducing manual errors, and providing real-time visibility into infrastructure health is a key factor in lowering the composite organization’s regulatory risk.
Enhanced IT team job satisfaction. The composite’s IT professionals report that Intersight’s intuitive interface, centralized visibility, and automation capabilities are key contributors to a more satisfying and efficient work experience. They also indicate that IT team members have more opportunity and time to spend on higher-skilled work, which improves IT talent retention at their organization.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the same $10 billion, 1,000 server composite organization include:
Intersight licensing fees of $1.5 million. The organization invests in Intersight Advantage licenses (at list price) for each of its servers as it deploys them.
Upfront implementation costs of $145,000. A small group of IT leaders spends several months to accomplish the policy and deployment planning, testing, and launch/rollout of Intersight.
Ongoing maintenance costs of $50,000. One engineer spends 5% of their time on Intersight platform administration, and server team members receive 40 hours of on-the-job training in using its tools.
The financial analysis that is based on the interviews found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $5.0 million over three years versus costs of $1.7 million, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $3.3 million and an ROI of 192%.
Return on investment (ROI)
Benefits PV
Net present value (NPV)
Payback
Infrastructure management software has become a cornerstone of modern enterprise IT strategy. As organizations increasingly rely on complex, distributed, and hybrid infrastructure environments, the need to provide and efficiently manage infrastructure at scale — from provisioning and deployment to securing, monitoring, and maintaining essential assets — has never been more critical. Recent trends in IT — driven by AI, increased security threats, cloud adoption, edge computing, cost pressures, and sustainability goals — are reshaping how organizations manage compute infrastructure, with significant implications for enterprise IT departments and server teams.
Current Market Trends
Architectural specialization and AI workloads. The rise of AI is fundamentally altering infrastructure requirements.2 Enterprises now design systems to support distinct AI workloads — data preparation, model training, and inferencing — each demanding specialized compute, storage, and networking capabilities. This shift is driving adoption of custom chipsets and purpose-built infrastructure, especially for edge computing and low-latency applications, creating additional complexity for enterprise compute management professionals. To address this growing complexity, IT professionals are looking for solutions that embed AI infrastructure management into their existing infrastructure and operations (I&O) management tools to deploy and support new revenue-generating applications quickly and securely.
Multicloud and hybrid infrastructure. Organizations are embracing multicloud strategies to reduce vendor lock-in, increase flexibility and control, and address data sovereignty and security needs.3 Hybrid environments — combining on-premises, private cloud, and public cloud resources — are becoming the norm. Within this landscape, the management of on-premises infrastructure, spanning diverse data centers and edge environments, presents server teams with increased visibility issues and a heightened need for consistent operations.
Increased security risks. These increasingly complex environments that span multiple data centers, public clouds, and edge locations can hide security vulnerabilities across interconnected platforms. In addition, the rapid growth of AI introduces a new level of risk from more sophisticated and automated threat actors. As a result, security vulnerabilities can arise much more quickly than in the past. Organizations need to address zero-day vulnerabilities as soon as possible, especially if they are in the systems or system components. Since those systems are increasingly complex and distributed physically, remediation can be time consuming. Key security imperatives for managing these complex environments include implementing Zero Trust strategies that provide consistent policy enforcement and creating centralized policy management that provides visibility and orchestration across diverse enforcement points.
Cost optimization and financial accountability. Economic pressures are pushing IT leaders to scrutinize their spending and infrastructure investments. This requires access to granular cost tracking, unit economics, and the necessary financial data to enable them to align engineering decisions with business objectives and budget constraints. This is particularly important and challenging in light of the increasing specialization of workloads and technology options to address them noted above.
Sustainability and regulatory compliance. Environmental and data sovereignty concerns are influencing infrastructure choices. Enterprises are prioritizing energy-efficient computing, especially as they anticipate the explosive growth in energy requirements resulting from AI deployment. They are also looking for sovereign cloud solutions that comply with regional regulations (e.g., EU sustainability directives). Server teams are increasingly expected to support sustainability initiatives4and compliance reporting. These increased monitoring and reporting burdens have required IT professionals to devote significant time to extracting, collecting, and integrating relevant information from tools not designed to provide it.
Impact On Enterprise IT Departments
These trends are reshaping the role of IT departments in several ways and increasing the need for infrastructure management tools that support these new mandates:
Strategic AI infrastructure planning. IT leaders must now evaluate a broader range of compute models — bare metal, virtualization, containers, and serverless, as well as increasing emphasis on AI servers — and map them to specific business needs.5 They also need to plan for their organizations’ future AI workload needs and ensure they have AI-ready data centers.
Security and performance monitoring. With growing threats and performance demands, organizations are increasingly concerned about the reliability of their infrastructure. Modern infrastructure management tools are essential for real-time monitoring, vulnerability detection, and predictive analytics and insights to support reliability.
Technology lifecycle management. IT teams are leveraging compute management platforms to track a growing number of distributed software and hardware assets, normalize inventories, and prepare for AI-enabled edge computing operations.6
Automation. To work at the speed required to deploy and support traditional and AI infrastructure across data centers and edge environments, IT teams need to automate routine tasks and processes. Automation also reduces human error and improves compliance.
What It Means For Infrastructure Management Teams
Infrastructure management teams must evolve from operational support roles to strategic enablers, and adopting the right management platform can help enable that transition. Infrastructure management software is no longer a back-office utility — it is a strategic asset that empowers enterprises to navigate complexity, drive efficiency, and innovate at scale. As infrastructure continues to evolve with increased complexity and geographic distribution of assets, I&O management teams will play a pivotal role in shaping the future of enterprise IT, and they will require an advanced IT management platform to enable them to succeed in that role. Such a platform is essential for efficiently deploying and managing ongoing operations across this highly distributed estate. It will also be a key factor in the organization’s future readiness: its ability to incorporate and leverage continued innovation, including AI-native infrastructure and intelligent automation.
| Role | Industry | Region | Servers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Head of infrastructure | Cloud provider | Europe | 100 |
| Senior infrastructure engineer | Travel and hospitality | Global | 1,000 |
| Senior infrastructure domain architect | Healthcare | North America | 2,500 |
| Senior infrastructure domain architect (same organization) | Healthcare | North America | 2,500 |
| Subject matter expert (SME) for server hardware | Financial services | Global | 2,500 |
| Manager of compute | Financial services | North America | 3,000 |
| Infrastructure lead | Healthcare | North America | 10,000 |
Before switching to Intersight, interviewees were either using Cisco’s legacy management software to manage their Cisco servers or using competitive servers with those brands’ associated management software. Interviewees described these tools as suboptimal for several reasons, including the lack of real-time and historical metrics, the need to track hardware and firmware vulnerabilities manually via external sources, and the need to update firmware through manual downloads and uploads, often across multiple systems.
Interviewees noted how their organizations struggled with common challenges, including:
Difficulty scaling infrastructure responsively due to long build times. Interviewees described complex and repetitive manual processes required to deploy new hardware. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company recalled: “We were trying to do a lot of things at once, and we had to scale quickly. But the tools we had in place weren’t built for that kind of speed.” The head of infrastructure at a cloud provider echoed this sentiment: “We had to build everything manually, and it took a lot of time. If we needed to scale up quickly, it was a problem.” Interviewees believed this was a particular challenge in light of what they saw as their organizations’ upcoming need for vastly expanded compute infrastructure to support AI and edge computing.
Lack of visibility into increasingly complex and widely distributed server estates. The head of infrastructure at a cloud provider told Forrester, “Before, we had to maybe go to five or six different management interfaces to see if there were any issues with the servers, and then we had to pull everything together.” One of the senior infrastructure domain architects in the healthcare field concurred, saying: “Historically, we had difficulty finding out whether something had a contract on it or not, whether it was valid, or when it was bought. Trying to stay on top of all that with an expanding hardware base was a problem.” Besides creating additional work for the compute team, limited visibility led to increased outage risks, security and compliance gaps, and slower MTTR when problems occurred.
Inefficient use of IT resources due to lack of automation and integration in compute management tools. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company recalled: “We set up [our previous management platform] to take all these connections and push all these policies and everything, but you’d also have to set up every single individual domain [a logical group of servers in UCS architecture] to connect to it. So it was just a ton of work.” Interviewees complained that this led to IT employee frustration, stalled skills acquisition, and slow progress on strategic initiatives as team members spent valuable time on manual tasks.
The interviewees searched for an advanced management platform that would future-proof their organizations’ infrastructure management capabilities. After an RFP and business case process evaluating multiple vendors, the interviewees’ organizations chose Cisco UCS hardware with its Intersight management platform and began deployment. Although some chose to replace servers as part of the normal lifecycle replacement process, others were more proactive in their approach, switching one or more data centers over to Cisco at a time to accomplish the conversion in a year or two.
Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the interviewees’ organizations, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:
Description of composite. The organization is a multinational, technology-driven company with $10 billion in annual revenue and 120 remote branch locations. A team of six engineers manages the company’s 1,000 servers, which encompass national, regional, and global compute operations.
Deployment characteristics. After spending six months to one year evaluating proposals and preparing to move its operations to a new infrastructure, the composite organization replaces 65% of its compute infrastructure in Year 1 with Cisco hardware managed by Intersight and completes its deployment in Year 2.
$10 billion revenue
15,000 employees
1,000 servers
Six FTEs on compute team
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Improved uptime and resilience | $803,250 | $1,228,500 | $1,228,500 | $3,260,250 | $2,668,507 |
| Btr | Increased IT productivity | $492,075 | $820,125 | $820,125 | $2,132,325 | $1,741,302 |
| Ctr | Accelerated time to value | $86,548 | $133,151 | $133,151 | $352,850 | $288,759 |
| Dtr | Reduced security and compliance risk | $107,470 | $107,470 | $107,470 | $322,410 | $267,261 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $1,489,343 | $2,289,246 | $2,289,246 | $6,067,835 | $4,965,829 |
Evidence and data. One of the benefits interviewees mentioned most frequently was less downtime and faster issue resolution, whether through proactive fault detection, centralized visibility, or scalable automation.
The two senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company estimated that Intersight cut their MTTR by approximately 50%, thanks to features like automatic log uploads and proactive return material authorization. “We wake up in the morning and someone’s knocking on the door to get into the data center with a part,” they recalled. “We didn’t even know there was a problem yet.” This proactive fault detection allowed the company to shift from reactive firefighting to a more strategic, preventive posture. Similarly, the manager of compute at another financial services organization described how Intersight’s dashboards helped his team identify packet loss issues quickly, reducing troubleshooting time from one day to a few hours.
The improved visibility and centralized control Intersight provided were also critical to enhancing resiliency. The head of infrastructure at a European cloud provider emphasized the value of managing all their UCS domains from a single interface, noting that: “Before, we had to go to five or six different management interfaces. Now, we have everything in one view. We come to the dashboard first, and we can see immediately if everything is working fine or not. It really is much better than before.” This consolidation not only streamlined operations but also reduced the risk of oversight, such as missed updates or expired licenses that could result in downtime. The same head of infrastructure added, “Now we see much earlier … if there is a certificate missing or a contract is running out.”
Interviewees repeatedly cited Intersight’s automation and templating capabilities as transformative for infrastructure stability.
Interviewees also reported enhancing resiliency through Intersight’s proactive alerts and monitoring. The platform’s integration with security advisories and end-of-life notifications helped teams stay ahead of potential risks. “Instead of hearing from our security team, ‘You’ve got two days to fix this,’ we’re telling them what our game plan is,” said one of the senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare firm. Even in massive environments like another healthcare system with more than 10,000 servers, Intersight enabled more consistent and confident operations. The infrastructure lead there noted: “We can stand up new domains in a couple of hours instead of a few days. And we feel more confident about troubleshooting performance issues.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
Before deploying Intersight, the organization annually experiences two unplanned data center (DC) outages lasting 1 hour each, five unplanned edge computing outages lasting 45 minutes each, and 10 unplanned localized component breaks or outages lasting 45 minutes each.
These outages cost the organization an average of $175,000 per hour.
After deploying Intersight, the organization cuts the frequency and duration of outages by more than 70%.
The organization deploys Intersight to the 65% of its compute hardware being installed in Year 1, then to the remaining 35% in Year 2.
Risks. The risk that another organization may experience a different financial impact in this benefit area depends on several factors:
The frequency and type of unplanned outages the organization experiences before deploying Intersight.
The time it takes to identify and repair the breakdown and the cost to remediate the damage from an unplanned outage.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $2.7 million.
Reduction in MTTR
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Annual unplanned edge computing outage time (hours) | Composite | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.1 | |
| A2 | Annual unplanned localized/component outage time (hours) | Composite | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | |
| A3 | Total downtime before Intersight (hours) | A1+A2 | 11.6 | 11.6 | 11.6 | |
| A4 | Annual unplanned edge computing outage time with Intersight (hours) | Interviews | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | |
| A5 | Annual unplanned localized/component outage time with Intersight (hours) | Interviews | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | |
| A6 | Annual unplanned downtime with Intersight (hours) | A4+A5 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.8 | |
| A7 | New server/Intersight roll-in rate | Composite | 65% | 100% | 100% | |
| A8 | Downtime avoided (hours) | (A3-A6)*A7 | 5.1 | 7.8 | 7.8 | |
| A9 | Average hourly cost of downtime | Composite | $175,000 | $175,000 | $175,000 | |
| At | Improved uptime and resilience | A8*A9 | $892,500 | $1,365,000 | $1,365,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Atr | Improved uptime and resilience (risk-adjusted) | $803,250 | $1,228,500 | $1,228,500 | ||
| Three-year total: $3,260,250 | Three-year present value: $2,668,507 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees consistently credited Intersight with driving significant productivity gains in their IT organizations. These gains stemmed from multiple types of time savings, ranging from infrastructure build-out and configuration to troubleshooting, monitoring, and compliance. Each contributed to more efficient operations and freed up staff for higher-value work.
One of the most dramatic productivity improvements came from the ability to build and deploy infrastructure faster. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects in the healthcare vertical estimated that Intersight reduced infrastructure build time by approximately 80%, saving “hundreds of hours alone just in the build-out of the infrastructures.” They also reported that the team preconfigured entire data centers before hardware arrived, enabling them to stand up environments in an hour or two once the equipment landed. They rolled out 27 domains across multiple data centers in just 3 hours.
Similarly, the manager of compute at a financial services firm reported that domain deployment time dropped from “every bit of an hour” to just 10 minutes with Intersight, calling it “a huge win, with time savings across the board.”
Intersight’s centralized visibility and integrated dashboards also saved time in day-to-day monitoring and troubleshooting. The infrastructure lead at a healthcare company emphasized that Intersight allowed their team to identify performance issues faster and cited a case where they resolved a packet loss problem in hours instead of days. They explained, “Having that dashboard view meant that we were able to more quickly identify that those packets were being dropped.” The head of infrastructure at a cloud provider noted that with Intersight, the team no longer had to log into multiple interfaces and manually compile data, adding that this streamlined visibility helped catch issues like expired licenses or missing certificates earlier, reducing the risk of operational delays.
The ability to automate repetitive tasks and reuse policies across environments was another major productivity booster. A healthcare company’s team used domain profiles and service templates to standardize builds, allowing them to complete future deployments with minimal effort. “We’re not starting from scratch every time,” one of the senior infrastructure domain architects explained. “We already have good standards and configurations built out that we can essentially just clone.”
The SME for server hardware explained how their financial services company leveraged Intersight’s automation workflows to cut operating system build times in half — from 2 hours to 1 hour — by streamlining steps like IP provisioning, domain name system registration, and storage mapping. They credited Intersight with giving their team a “starting place for our automation,” which they then enhanced internally.
Interviewees consistently reported that Intersight required minimal ongoing effort to maintain. The infrastructure lead at a healthcare company estimated that managing Intersight appliances took just 5% of one team member’s time. The senior infrastructure engineer at a travel and hospitality firm — which used the SaaS option — noted that their team didn’t need a dedicated administrator for Intersight and that Cisco handled updates automatically.
These time savings translated into leaner, more productive teams, and every interviewee estimated that they would have needed to double the size of their team if they had not deployed Intersight. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company stated that they reduced the number of engineers actively managing their compute infrastructure and freed them up to focus on new technologies. Without Intersight, they said they would have needed to hire three to five additional staff to support new platforms and technologies they had introduced.
The SME for server hardware explained that their financial services company maintained a flat headcount while dramatically expanding its business from $20 billion to $75 billion in revenue. They noted that without Intersight, they would have needed a team of 30 people to manage their growing infrastructure. The senior infrastructure engineer in the travel and hospitality industry echoed this, stating: “A team of eight engineers managing all the servers, virtualization, containerization, and storage for a company our size is pretty crazy on paper. … That would not be possible without Intersight.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The organization avoids needing to add five members to its infrastructure team to support its business and hardware estate growth.
It avoids hiring three infrastructure team members beginning in Year 1, when it deploys 65% of its new hardware with Intersight. It avoids hiring an additional two team members beginning in Year 2, when it completes deployment.
The average fully burdened annual salary for an infrastructure engineer is $182,250.7
Risks. The risk that another organization may experience a different financial impact in this benefit area depends on several factors:
The size of the infrastructure team.
Their fully burdened annual salary.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.7 million.
Reduction in infrastructure build time
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Avoided compute team hires | Interviews | 3 | 5 | 5 | |
| B2 | Fully burdened annual salary for a compute engineer | Research data | $182,250 | $182,250 | $182,250 | |
| Bt | Increased IT productivity | B1*B2 | $546,750 | $911,250 | $911,250 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Btr | Increased IT productivity (risk-adjusted) | $492,075 | $820,125 | $820,125 | ||
| Three-year total: $2,132,325 | Three-year present value: $1,741,302 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees repeatedly credited Cisco Intersight with significantly accelerating time to value for new hardware. They achieved these improvements through automation, policy-driven configuration, centralized visibility, and prestaging infrastructure before physical equipment arrived.
At a healthcare company, one of the senior infrastructure domain architects described a dramatic reduction in deployment time thanks to Intersight’s domain profiles and policy templates. “We rolled out 27 domains within 3 hours … across three or four data centers,” they said. The team could preconfigure environments before hardware arrived, allowing them to push the code and stand up infrastructure in 1 or 2 hours once the equipment landed. They added, “We can actually have our site fully built for the most part from the configuration and Intersight side before the hardware hits the docks.”
One of the financial services companies saw its deployment times drop from more than 1 hour to just 10 minutes per domain. The SME for server hardware explained, “Without rack and stack, just the actual domain deployment time … I could stand a domain up in just 10 minutes.” The infrastructure lead at a healthcare organization also reported faster domain upgrades and standups. They noted that upgrades, which previously took 3 to 4 hours per domain, now take “more like 2 hours” and that standing up new domains used to require “a single person probably a few days of work,” but now took only a few hours to complete.
Intersight enabled interviewees’ organizations to decouple configuration from physical deployment and allowed their teams to prepare environments in advance. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects in healthcare recently used this capability during a major data center build. “That data center was built on paper and in code before the hardware ever arrived,” they said. Once they racked and stacked the hardware, the team “blasted it out and built it,” completing the core setup in just 1 or 2 hours. The manager of compute at a financial services company described a similar benefit during their software-defined data center rollout. Using Intersight’s API and automation tools, their team went from receiving storage access to having virtualization and hardware fully configured in less than a half a day across three colocation sites. “In the old days, it would have taken at least 200 to 300 hours,” they said.
Interviewees emphasized that Intersight’s policy-based architecture allowed them to standardize deployments and reuse configurations across environments. The SME for server hardware at a financial services organization explained that the company’s shared organizational structure enabled them to “clone and share [policies] across the organization,” eliminating repetitive setup tasks. He added that his team could “define all the policies and profiles before that gear even hit the ground,” enabling rapid deployment once hardware arrived.
Finally, interviewees expected this accelerated timeline to be particularly important as their organizations rapidly expanded their AI capabilities. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company explained: “We’re going down the road of using Cisco gear for AI right now. If we can stamp and repeat some of the profiles and policies for those blades to take advantage of the new GPUs, ... it’s going to save us an hour per blade, I would imagine.”
By reducing deployment time, organizations could realize value from new hardware faster. Some avoided delays in project rollouts, some supported rapid business growth without increasing headcount, and some accelerated AI infrastructure readiness. These capabilities translated into faster project execution, improved operational agility, and earlier returns on infrastructure investments.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The company receives 2% of its annual revenue from new business, whether through acquisition, geographic expansion, industry expansion, or product launches. This equates to average daily revenue of $547,945.
The team builds the compute infrastructure required to support this new business three days more quickly using Intersight than it would have with its previous compute management solution.
The organization earns a 9% net margin on that revenue.8
The organization replaces 65% of its server fleet in Year 1 and the remaining 35% in Year 2.
Risks. The risk that another organization may experience a different financial impact in this benefit area depends on several factors:
Its annual revenue and the percentage of annual revenue that comes from new business expansion.
The company’s net margin.
The rate at which the organization rolls out Intersight to manage its compute assets.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $289,000.
IT staff hours saved in data center rollout
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Average daily revenue from new market expansion | Composite | $547,945 | $547,945 | $547,945 | |
| C2 | Incremental days’ revenue from faster compute build | Interviews | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| C3 | Net margin | Research data | 9% | 9% | 9% | |
| C4 | New server/Intersight roll-in rates | Composite | 65% | 100% | 100% | |
| Ct | Accelerated time to value | C1*C2*C3*C4 | $96,164 | $147,945 | $147,945 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Ctr | Accelerated time to value (risk-adjusted) | $86,548 | $133,151 | $133,151 | ||
| Three-year total: $352,850 | Three-year present value: $288,759 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees credited Intersight with reducing the risk of security breaches and lowering the time and cost of remediation through proactive monitoring, automated compliance, and centralized visibility. A key benefit cited was Intersight’s ability to surface firmware advisories, hardware compatibility issues, and end-of-life notifications automatically before they became vulnerabilities. They reported that the complexity of their management systems before using Intersight meant team members could fail to notice these issues; in contrast, Intersight flagged vulnerabilities, making them easy to see. This allowed the team to act before the situations escalated.
The centralized approach to managing all UCS domains from a single interface eliminated the need to log into multiple systems and reduced the risk of misconfigurations or overlooked vulnerabilities. The head of infrastructure at a cloud provider pointed out that their team could see everything in one place with Intersight rather than needing to check multiple different management interfaces, making it easier and more likely that they would spot issues like expired certificates or missing contracts early.
Additionally, Intersight’s dashboards and real-time alerts provided visibility into system health and compliance statuses, enabling teams to address potential threats proactively. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company highlighted how Intersight’s integration with Cisco’s security advisories allowed them to identify and remediate vulnerabilities before the company’s security teams flagged them. This shift from reactive to proactive security management not only reduced the likelihood of breaches but also minimized the time and cost associated with remediation in cases where an incident occurred.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
The projected cumulative cost (internal and external) of a breach for the organization is $4.4 million.9
The organization has a 68% likelihood of experiencing a breach.10
Approximately 56% of those breaches originate from external attacks on the organization’s systems or internal incidents (as opposed to attacks targeting an employee’s home/remote work environment or attacks involving the external ecosystem).11
Of those breaches, 10% involve issues that Intersight can address (e.g., misconfigurations, overlooked firmware advisories, or end-of-life notifications).
Intersight reduces the risk of exposure from those issues by 75%.
Risks. The risk that another organization may experience a different financial impact in this benefit area depends on several factors:
The projected cost of a security breach for the organization.
The likelihood that it will experience such a breach each year.
The relative importance of external attacks on the organization’s systems and internal incidents in generating breaches.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $267,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Cumulative cost of breaches for the composite | Forrester research | $4,427,000 | $4,427,000 | $4,427,000 | |
| D2 | Likelihood of experiencing one or more breaches for the composite | Forrester research | 68% | 68% | 68% | |
| D3 | Percentage of breaches originating from external attacks targeting organizations, internal incidents | Forrester research | 56% | 56% | 56% | |
| D4 | Percentage of those attacks addressable with Intersight | Interviews | 10% | 10% | 10% | |
| D5 | Annual risk exposure addressable with Intersight | D1*D2*D3*D4 | $168,580 | $168,580 | $168,580 | |
| D6 | Reduced risk of exposure to breach costs from addressable attacks with Intersight | Interviews | 75% | 75% | 75% | |
| Dt | Reduced security and compliance risk | D5*D6 | $126,435 | $126,435 | $126,435 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Dtr | Reduced security and compliance risk(risk-adjusted) | $107,470 | $107,470 | $107,470 | ||
| Three-year total: $322,410 | Three-year present value: $267,261 | |||||
Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:
More cost-effective management of hardware investment. One of the senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company explained that the shift to newer UCS hardware combined with Intersight’s management capabilities allowed their organization to consolidate its server footprint from 3,000 to around 2,300. Although the bulk of this reduction was a function of the refresh to newer, more sophisticated hardware, they pointed out that Intersight’s policy-driven automation and visibility partly enabled it because the team could optimize workloads and avoid overprovisioning. Intersight’s centralized dashboards and historical metrics also helped organizations better understand actual usage patterns, enabling smarter decisions about hardware needs. Finally, the manager of compute at a financial services company emphasized that Intersight’s granular metrics — such as power usage and CPU utilization — allowed his team to optimize existing resources. “Power a lot of times can be indicative of other things,” he explained. By identifying inefficiencies, the organization could better manage its capacity already in-house.
Improved compliance with corporate policies and industry regulations. The SME for server hardware at a financial services company described how automation through Intersight allowed their team to meet audit requirements with confidence, stating, “I can tell the auditors that every time I build a server, I execute this automation. They’re always very happy to hear that and they don’t require additional documentation.” Without automation, they estimated that responding to compliance audit findings could require 2,000 to 3,000 hours’ worth of work. Across organizations, interviewees saw Intersight’s role in standardizing configurations, reducing manual errors, and providing real-time visibility into infrastructure health as a major factor in lowering regulatory risk.
Enhanced IT team job satisfaction. Interviewees across multiple organizations reported that Cisco Intersight contributed meaningfully to improved IT employee job satisfaction by simplifying infrastructure management, reducing repetitive tasks, and enabling more strategic, high-value work for IT professionals. The SME for server hardware at a financial services firm emphasized that automation through Intersight gave their team time to focus on transformational architecture rather than routine maintenance. “Don’t just do firmware, help me think about what the next five years looks like,” he said.
The senior infrastructure engineer in travel and hospitality described Intersight as a tool that made their team’s work more manageable and enjoyable, stating: “Cisco has built a tool that’s easy to manage and gives us a 10,000-foot view of all our hardware. … It simplified everything.” The infrastructure lead at a healthcare company added that their team preferred Intersight’s support for automation and development, which aligned with their desire to write code rather than manually configure systems. “Most of our guys would rather write code and then have things happen automatically than have to go in and click buttons every time,” he explained.
The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement Intersight and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
AI infrastructure expansion. Interviewees told Forrester that Intersight will help their organizations meet their future AI needs by providing a scalable, policy-driven infrastructure management platform that simplifies deployment, monitoring, and lifecycle operations. As the organizations expand into AI and invest in GPUs for AI workloads, Intersight’s ability to manage complex infrastructure through reusable templates and proactive GPU resource monitoring ensures faster provisioning, improved security posture, and readiness for high-performance, data-intensive workloads — all while leveraging existing investments in hardware and the existing IT team’s knowledge and skills.
Edge computing enablement. Interviewees whose organizations had committed to edge computing agreed that Intersight’s ability to provide holistic visibility into their entire compute environments was critical to making this technology work for their organizations. The advent and expansion of edge computing meant an almost exponential increase in the points they must monitor and maintain, and they reported that their legacy compute management platforms would not have been able to support this new environment.
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Total Economic Impact Approach).
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Etr | Intersight fees | $0 | $450,450 | $693,000 | $693,000 | $1,836,450 | $1,502,888 |
| Ftr | Upfront implementation costs | $82,086 | $69,696 | $0 | $0 | $151,782 | $145,446 |
| Gtr | Ongoing maintenance costs | $18,586 | $10,067 | $13,939 | $13,939 | $56,531 | $49,730 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $100,672 | $530,213 | $706,939 | $706,939 | $2,044,763 | $1,698,064 |
Evidence and data. Cisco offers two licensing options for Intersight: Essentials and Advantage. The Essentials license offers standard lifecycle operations capabilities along with predictive insights and proactive support. The Advantage license offers all of the Essentials capabilities plus storage and virtualization inventory, more automation, and workflow orchestration (including integration with third-party automation tools), advanced monitoring and metrics capabilities, and fleet management for distributed edge computing. This is the license Forrester used to develop the model for the composite organization.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes that the composite organization purchases an Intersight Advantage license for each server that goes online at the list price of $55 per month per server. Pricing may vary and discounts may be available. Contact Cisco for additional details.
Risks. The risk that another organization may experience a different financial impact in this cost area depends on several factors:
The number of servers purchased and the rate of deployment.
The monthly license fee.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.5 million.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Intersight Advantage license fees | Cisco | $0 | $429,000 | $660,000 | $660,000 |
| Et | Intersight fees | E1 | $0 | $429,000 | $660,000 | $660,000 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑5% | |||||
| Etr | Intersight fees (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $450,450 | $693,000 | $693,000 | |
| Three-year total: $1,836,450 | Three-year present value: $1,502,888 | |||||
Evidence and data. The initial implementation of Cisco Intersight varied across organizations but generally required a modest investment of time and personnel, with most interviewees describing the process as manageable and well-supported. The two senior infrastructure domain architects at a healthcare company explained that their full rollout — including hardware refresh and automation — took about two to three years, but the core Intersight setup itself was relatively quick. They estimated that implementing Intersight alone took “maybe one to three people, maybe a couple of weeks at most.”
Other interviewees reported similar experiences. The infrastructure lead at a different healthcare company described a year-long ramp-up led by a small team, with more intensive effort in the final two months before production rollout. The senior infrastructure engineer at a travel and hospitality company estimated that three senior engineers spent about a week and a half learning and configuring Intersight full time, followed by two months of broader team involvement at 20% to 30% of their time. Interviewees at the two financial services companies both emphasized that although the learning curve was real, the time spent upfront — a few weeks to a couple of months — was quickly offset by the time savings and operational benefits gained through automation and policy reuse. Across the board, interviewees’ organizations did not require external implementation consultants, and they found the platform intuitive enough to implement with minimal cost beyond existing staff time.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the below about the composite organization, which is transitioning its estate to Cisco. (For previous Cisco UCS customers, Cisco provides tools to migrate existing policies, pools, profiles, etc. to Intersight automatically, reducing the Intersight deployment time.)
Two compute team members work full time for three months in advance of the rollout to plan the organization’s infrastructure, develop profiles and policies, and lay out the launch and rollout plan.
Two compute team members spend approximately two-thirds of their time for one month before the launch performing the required testing.
Three compute team members devote half of their time for three months in Year 1 to support the Intersight platform launch and rollout.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a compute engineer is $88 (annualized to $182,250).12
Risks. The risk that another organization may experience a different financial impact in this cost area depends on several factors:
The planned speed of rollout for Intersight and associated hardware.
The average salary level of compute team members.
The number of team members participating in each implementation phase.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $145,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Time spent planning (hours) | Interviews | 640 | |||
| F2 | Time spent testing (hours) | Interviews | 208 | |||
| F3 | Time spent supporting the launch (hours) | Interviews | 720 | |||
| F4 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a compute engineer | Research data | $88 | $88 | $88 | $88 |
| Ft | Upfront implementation costs | (F1+F2+F3)*F4 | $74,624 | $63,360 | $0 | $0 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Ftr | Upfront implementation costs (risk-adjusted) | $82,086 | $69,696 | $0 | $0 | |
| Three-year total: $151,782 | Three-year present value: $145,446 | |||||
Evidence and data. Based on the interviews, the ongoing cost of maintaining Cisco Intersight is generally low and manageable, with most interviewees reporting minimal resource requirements once the system was up and running. Most noted that a small subset of their team handled ongoing management, while day-to-day operations and troubleshooting required little effort beyond occasional builds and modifications.
The infrastructure lead at one healthcare company estimated that maintaining Intersight appliances consumed only about 5% of one team member’s time. The head of infrastructure at a cloud provider indicated that updates and maintenance were straightforward and infrequent. On the other hand, the senior infrastructure engineer at the travel and hospitality company explained that his team had no ongoing administration costs since they use the SaaS version of Intersight and Cisco handles all updates automatically. (This should hold true for any organization using the SaaS version of Intersight.)
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
One compute infrastructure engineer spends 5% of their time on routine administration of Intersight virtual appliance.
All six technicians receive 40 hours of (primarily on-the-job) training in using Intersight. From Year 2 onward, the composite replaces one technician per year due to normal turnover, each of whom requires 40 hours of training.
Infrastructure engineers earn a fully burdened hourly rate of $88.
Risks. The risk that another organization may experience a different financial impact in this cost area depends on several factors:
The size of the compute team and its turnover rate.
The average time devoted to Intersight training.
The average salary level of compute team members.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $50,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Time spent on routine administration (hours) | Interviews | 104 | 104 | 104 | |
| G2 | Time spent on training (hours) | Interviews | 192 | 0 | 40 | 40 |
| G3 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a compute software engineer | TEI standard | $88 | $88 | $88 | $88 |
| Gt | Ongoing maintenance costs | (G1+G2)*G3 | $16,896 | $9,152 | $12,672 | $12,672 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Gtr | Ongoing maintenance costs (risk-adjusted) | $18,586 | $10,067 | $13,939 | $13,939 | |
| Three-year total: $56,531 | Three-year present value: $49,730 | |||||
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($100,672) | ($530,213) | ($706,939) | ($706,939) | ($2,044,763) | ($1,698,064) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $1,489,343 | $2,289,246 | $2,289,246 | $6,067,835 | $4,965,829 |
| Net benefits | ($100,672) | $959,129 | $1,582,306 | $1,582,306 | $4,023,069 | $3,267,765 |
| ROI | 192% | |||||
| Payback | <6 months |
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in Intersight.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Intersight can have on an organization.
Interviewed Cisco stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to Intersight.
Interviewed seven decision-makers at organizations using Intersight to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.
Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Benefits represent the value the solution delivers to the business. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and costs, allowing for a full examination of the solution’s effect on the entire organization.
Costs comprise all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the solution. The methodology captures implementation and ongoing costs associated with the solution.
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. The ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PV of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.
The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made unless other projects have higher NPVs.
A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.
The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.
The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Related Forrester Research
The Forrester Wave™: Multicloud Container Platforms, Q3 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., July 30, 2025.
The AI Infrastructure Solutions Landscape Q3 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., July 22, 2025.
Edge Computing Market Insights, 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., August 13, 2025.
How to Select Your Compute and Abstraction Technology, Forrester Research, Inc., August 14, 2025.
2025 Server Hardware Benchmarks, Global, Forrester Research, Inc., August 6, 2025.
1 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
2 Source: Edge Computing Market Insights, 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., August 13, 2025.
3 Source: The Forrester Wave™: Multicloud Container Platforms, Q3 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., July 30, 2025.
4 Source: How to Select Your Compute and Abstraction Technology, Forrester Research, Inc., August 14, 2025.
5 Ibid.
6 Source: The AI Infrastructure Solutions Landscape Q3 2025 , Forrester Research, Inc., July 22, 2025.
7 Source: Modeled Wage Estimates, US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
8 Source: Margins by Sector (US), NYU Stern School of Business, January 2025.
9 Regression analysis of the reported total cumulative costs of all breaches experienced by security decision-makers’ organizations in the past 12 months. The composite organization’s revenue is used as the input to the regression formula. Source: Forrester’s Security Survey, 2024, “Using your best estimate, what was the total cumulative cost of all breaches experienced by your organization in the past 12 months?” Base: 1,660 global security decision-makers who have experienced a breach in the past 12 months.
10 Regression analysis of the likelihood of experiencing one or more breaches, using the frequency that organizations experienced breaches in the past 12 months as reported by security decision-makers. The composite organization’s revenue is used as the input to the regression formula. Source: Forrester’s Security Survey, 2024, “How many times do you estimate that your organization’s sensitive data was potentially compromised or breached in the past 12 months?” Base: 2,769 global security decision-makers.
11 Percentage of breaches by primary attack vector for breaches, as reported by security decision-makers whose organizations experienced at least one breach in the last 12 months. Source: Forrester’s Security Survey, 2024, “Of the times that your organization’s sensitive data was potentially compromised or breached in the past 12 months, please indicate how many of each fall into the categories below.” Base: 1,542 global security decision-makers who have experienced a breach in the past 12 months.
12 Source: Margins by Sector (US) , NYU Stern School of Business, January 2025.
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by Cisco and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in Intersight.
Cisco reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
Cisco provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.
Kim Finnerty
November 2025
ABOUT FORRESTER CONSULTING
Forrester provides independent and objective research-based consulting to help leaders deliver key transformation outcomes. Fueled by our customer-obsessed research, Forrester’s seasoned consultants partner with leaders to execute on their priorities using a unique engagement model that tailors to diverse needs and ensures lasting impact. For more information, visit forrester.com/consulting.
© Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Information is based on best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. Forrester®, Technographics®, Forrester Wave, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies.
https://mainstayadvisor.com/go/mainstay/gdpr/policy.html
PDF