I'm currently in the process of evaluating a new observability platform for our Kubernetes workloads, and I've hit a significant roadblock during the procurement phase. The vendor, which I'll refer to as Vendor X to maintain anonymity, has provided a detailed quote but has stamped every page with "COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL" and insists that the pricing structure itself is confidential information.
This creates a multi-layered problem for me as a buyer trying to establish a fair market price:
* **Lack of Benchmarking Data:** I cannot compare their per-host, per-GB, or per-APM-span pricing against the three other shortlisted vendors in my spreadsheet. This makes an objective cost/benefit analysis impossible.
* **Internal Justification Challenges:** My finance team requires at least two comparable quotes for any significant capital expenditure. A confidential quote from Vendor X cannot be formally compared to a public pricing page from Vendor Y in our internal documentation.
* **Future Negotiation Ambiguity:** If I proceed, I have zero leverage for renewal negotiations in 3 years. I'll have no data point to indicate if their proposed increase is industry-standard or predatory.
My specific questions to the community are:
1. How common is this practice in the infrastructure/observability space currently? Is this a standard tactic for certain tiers of enterprise software, or a red flag?
2. What negotiation levers exist? I've already pushed back, stating that I cannot proceed without the ability to perform due diligence. Their response was a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) covering the pricing document, which doesn't solve my core issue of comparison.
3. Has anyone successfully deconstructed such a claim? For instance, by insisting on a line-item breakdown that separates the proprietary "list price" from the "discount" applied? A simplified, anonymized example of what I'm hoping to get:
```json
{
"service_tier": "Enterprise Observability",
"pricing_components": [
{
"unit": "Kubernetes Node",
"list_price": "Confidential",
"discounted_price": 45.00,
"commitment_term_months": 36
},
{
"unit": "Infrastructure Metric (per million DPM)",
"list_price": "Confidential",
"discounted_price": 0.85
}
],
"effective_discount_rate": "Undisclosed"
}
```
Even this level of opacity is problematic. Without the list price, the "discount" is meaningless.
I'm particularly interested in experiences with monitoring, APM, and log management vendors. Is this confidentiality a sign of an inflated list price that they don't want exposed, or simply standard legal overreach? Any strategies for converting a confidential quote into a usable, comparable metric would be greatly appreciated.
Data over dogma
You've nailed the core issues, especially the future negotiation black hole. That's where the real pain lives.
I've been the client stuck with a "confidential" deal, and let me tell you, three years later when they jacked up the price 40% on renewal, I had nothing. No market data, no internal precedent, just my own regret. My finance VP asked "How do we know this is fair?" and I had to shrug. It was brutal.
Push back hard on this. Ask them point-blank: "If your pricing is fair and competitive, why does it need to be hidden? Our audit and governance policies require transparent costing for vendor management." Sometimes just stating you have a *policy* that forbids accepting confidential pricing is enough to get them to fold and provide a clean quote. If they refuse, honestly, that's a huge red flag about their flexibility and partnership model. You can probably find a better fit with a vendor who isn't playing games.
Implementation is 80% process, 20% tool.
Exactly. That renewal scenario is the real ROI killer.
The "policy" line works well, but I've also asked "Can you redact the confidential bits and just leave the unit rates on the final quote?" Sometimes they'll cave and just give you the numbers.
If they still refuse, it's not just a red flag on flexibility. It's a signal their pricing isn't standardized. Means you're probably getting a "special" deal that's impossible to replicate or defend later. Hard pass.
Ask me about hidden egress costs.
That's a really good point about it signaling non-standard pricing. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense.
If they can't give me a clean rate, it feels like the price is built just for our conversation, not their actual product. That makes me wonder, how would I even budget for scaling up usage later if the rates aren't fixed?
You're right that the lack of benchmarking data is the immediate blocker. I've been in that exact spot with my spreadsheet.
One workaround: ask them for a detailed breakdown in your procurement portal (like Coupa or whatever you use), where the numbers get entered into fields but aren't on a PDF they've stamped. It sometimes bypasses their "legal" stance because it's a different format. If they won't even do that, then the other commenters are spot on - it's a huge red flag.
Also, for your finance team, could you get the other vendors to provide formal quotes (not just their public pages)? That might at least give you two non-confidential documents to compare, even if Vendor X's remains hidden.
Data is the new oil - but it's usually crude.
The procurement portal workaround is clever, and I've seen it work. But a quick caveat from the moderation side: we've had vendors argue that entering a number into a field still creates a confidential record, so they refuse that too. It's a good litmus test.
Your second suggestion is the stronger one. Getting formal, non-confidential quotes from the other vendors establishes a clear market baseline. If Vendor X's confidential pricing is wildly outside that range, you have your answer, even without their specific numbers. It shifts the burden of proof back onto them.
If their pricing is truly competitive, why would they hide it from a market comparison they know you're building?
Keep it constructive.
Oh man, I feel your pain on the spreadsheet comparison being impossible. That's where the rubber meets the road for a technical evaluation.
I've had vendors pull this, and my theory is it's often a tactic to obscure the fact that their pricing model is weirdly complex or has hidden multipliers. If you can't see the per-unit cost clearly, you can't model what happens when your cluster scales up 3x next year. It might look cheap at 50 nodes but have some exponential fee at 200.
Have you tried asking for a pricing *calculator* instead of just a quote? Sometimes they'll give you a tool that lets you input your own numbers and spits out a total, which can reveal the structure without them handing over a "confidential" document. If they won't even do that, it's a major red flag for me.
The pricing calculator trick can work, but watch out. I've seen them where the output is still labeled confidential, or it's a web form that won't let you screenshot or export the breakdown.
If they give you a tool, immediately test the scaling edge cases. Punch in 50 nodes, 500 nodes, and 1000 nodes. A clean model will scale predictably. A bad one will have sudden tier jumps or new fees that appear, proving the point about hidden complexity.
If they balk at providing even a self-service calculator, walk away. It means they're afraid of you seeing the model.
Yeah, that's a great point about the hidden multipliers. I'm still learning this whole procurement side of things.
If the calculator spits out a total but you can't see the math, isn't that just a black box? How do you know what the actual unit cost is? You'd still have to trust them on the breakdown.
Your third point about future negotiation ambiguity is the most critical long-term risk in this situation. Without a transparent pricing baseline, you're essentially locked into their future assessment of "fair market value," which rarely aligns with the buyer's interests.
I'd add that this also creates an internal knowledge gap for your team. If you leave the company or move to another role, the next person managing this vendor relationship starts with zero institutional knowledge of the original pricing logic. They'll be negotiating in the dark, which puts your entire organization at a disadvantage.
Have you considered asking for a side letter that at least defines the formula for future increases, like CPI plus a fixed percentage cap? If they won't agree to that either, it confirms they're reserving the right to set renewal pricing arbitrarily.
I completely agree about the knowledge gap issue. It turns a simple vendor management task into a major business continuity risk.
Your suggestion of a side letter defining an increase formula is a good escalation. In my experience, though, if a vendor is already hiding their base pricing, they'll often refuse to put any caps on paper. It's the same logic - they want full flexibility on their end, not yours.
That final sentence you wrote is key. Refusing to define a formula doesn't just signal a lack of transparency, it's an explicit admission they plan to control all future pricing unilaterally. At that point, the conversation is less about negotiation and more about accepting their terms.
Yeah, the finance team requirement for two comparable quotes is a real blocker. But couldn't you get *two* formal, non-confidential quotes from the other vendors? That would give finance their apples-to-apples comparison, even if Vendor X's numbers stay hidden. Their reaction to that request might tell you everything.
That's a solid point about the portal workaround. I've also seen vendors balk at it, but in my experience, when they do, it's because they know the real issue is pricing *structure*, not just the final number.
Your point about shifting the burden of proof is key. Once you have two clear, non-confidential quotes, you can frame it very simply to the vendor: "I have a firm market range from other providers. Without visibility into your pricing, I cannot justify selecting you, regardless of features."
If their pricing is competitive, that usually gets them to at least provide a redacted breakdown or a calculator. If it doesn't, well, you've saved yourself a painful renewal cycle down the road.
Trust the data, not the demo.
Shifting the burden of proof is smart. I've wondered if sometimes the non-confidential quotes from others become your only leverage, but then you're left comparing their full transparency to one vendor's black box. It still feels like an uneven comparison.
How do you even present that internally? Do you just tell your team "Vendor A is $X, B is $Y, and we trust C is somewhere competitive"?
Confidential pricing means the market isn't working. It's a signal, just not the one they think it is.
You've already listed the three problems it creates. The real question is why you'd proceed past that. Your finance team's requirement for two comparable quotes is there for this exact scenario. Use it.
If you can't get a non-confidential quote, you have zero. Move on. The "future negotiation ambiguity" isn't a risk, it's a guarantee of getting screwed later.
Your vendor is not your friend.