Skip to main content
    Research

    Research comparison · 2022 / 2025

    Software Audit Survey Comparison

    More recent audit exposure. A larger share reporting high vendor charges. Greater working-time diversion. How the published survey findings changed—and where comparison needs care.

    Unisphere Research · Sponsored by LicenseFortressSources & methodology
    2022

    283 usable responses

    Published September 2022

    2025

    More than 300 responses

    Published January 2025

    Next edition

    Results not yet available

    Added only after source review

    The evidence

    What changed between editions

    Differences are percentage points, not percentage growth. Publication years label each edition.

    6 findings

    Audit frequencyAligned categories

    Audited within the past year

    +22percentage points

    Recent audit exposure is more common in the later published sample. This is a change in reported experience, not proof that an individual company's audit probability increased by the same amount.

    Definitions & comparison notes

    Share of respondents in the last-six-months and less-than-a-year categories.

    Calculated from mutually exclusive recency categories. The 2025 chart labels its series 2024 and 2023; this report labels the supplied documents by publication year, not fieldwork year.

    2022: 16 + 24 = 40%

    2025: 41 + 21 = 62%

    Financial exposureQuestion changed

    Additional audit charges above $1M

    +22percentage points

    The higher-cost category takes a larger share of reported outcomes in the later edition. Category percentages do not establish a typical dollar amount or total market losses.

    Definitions & comparison notes

    Reported additional charges from compliance audits over the preceding three years: the more-than-$1M category.

    The threshold and three-year window align, but 2022 asks about charges paid and 2025 about charges incurred. These are reported additional vendor charges, not initial claims, legal costs or total operational costs. Question-level sample counts and identical survey routing are not confirmed.

    Financial exposureQuestion changed

    No additional audit charges

    -12percentage points

    Fewer respondents fall into the no-additional-charges category. Even this category should not be described as a cost-free audit.

    Definitions & comparison notes

    Reported additional charges over the preceding three years: the no-charges category.

    2022 asks about charges paid; 2025 asks about charges incurred. The 2025 chart prints 'No changes'; its question concerns additional charges. No vendor charges does not mean an audit had no staff-time or advisory cost. Question-level respondent bases are not confirmed identical.

    Cloud complianceAligned categories

    Cloud increased compliance concerns

    +15percentage points

    The cloud is increasingly associated with compliance concerns in these samples. Migration alone should not be presented as removing licensing complexity.

    Definitions & comparison notes

    Respondents selecting 'It has increased compliance concerns' for cloud-based applications.

    Near-identical questions and the same response category. Measures respondents' concerns, not independently verified licensing violations.

    Operational burdenAligned categories

    Over 10% of working hours on audit requests

    +21percentage points

    A larger share reports substantial working-time diversion. This measures time commitment, not a calculated salary loss, and does not include a modeled cost estimate.

    Definitions & comparison notes

    Sum of the 11–15%, 16–20%, 21–25%, 26–30% and more-than-30% categories.

    Derived from printed chart values, which are rounded. The 2025 narrative gives different working-hour summaries; this comparison uses Chart 9D rather than those summaries.

    2022: 16 + 17 + 10 + 2 + 1 = 46%

    2025: 34 + 16 + 6 + 9 + 2 = 67%

    Outside assistanceQuestion changed

    Used outside assistance in audit negotiation

    +18percentage points

    Use of outside assistance is higher in the later published results, but the broader service/tool definition could contribute to the difference.

    Definitions & comparison notes

    Yes responses to use of third-party help when negotiating with the auditing vendor.

    2022 asks about a third-party service; 2025 broadens this to a service/tool. The increase cannot be attributed solely to greater use of advisory firms.

    The evolving landscape

    Financial exposure is only part of the story

    Recent audit exposure and the above-$1M charges category both rise in these published samples. The working-hours comparison also rises. Vendor charges and operational burden are separate measures; combining them into a market-wide loss would go beyond the evidence.

    Cloud does not remove compliance concerns

    The increased-concerns response rises from 38% to 53%. This supports a focus on licensing implications when infrastructure changes, rather than assuming that moving workloads resolves compliance complexity. It does not establish that cloud migration caused audit charges.

    The operational burden deserves its own budget

    The share reporting over 10% of working hours spent on audit requests moves from 46% to 67%. These results support considering staff availability alongside vendor charges. They do not establish a dollar cost, an average duration or that every audit grew longer.

    Assistance is more visible, but definitions matter

    Reported use of third-party help moves from 34% to 52%, with the later question including tools as well as services. This is consistent with broader use of outside assistance; it is not a like-for-like measurement of advisory-firm adoption or proof of a particular provider's effectiveness.

    Sources & methodology

    This is LicenseFortress's descriptive comparison of two published Unisphere Research reports, not a new survey or a longitudinal study of the same companies. Both draw on Database Trends & Applications readership; the samples, organization mix and question-level denominators are not proven identical. No statistical significance, causal effect or market-wide estimate is claimed.

    Publication year is not fieldwork year

    The supplied first report is dated September 2022. The January 2025 report refers to a 2023 predecessor, and some charts label the later series 2024. Matching earlier values does not prove those editions or cohorts are identical. Comparisons here use the original 2022 document and the later values printed in the 2025 document; they are not represented as a verified three-year panel.

    Chart values take priority when summaries conflict

    The 2022 overview pairs 155 respondents with 69% despite a stated total of 283; that arithmetic is inconsistent and is not used here. The 2025 time-and-team narrative differs from its printed duration and working-hours charts. Working-hour totals here are summed from chart categories. Duration is not presented as an increasing trend because its categories changed and the narrative conflicts. Citation page numbers refer to PDF positions.

    What is deliberately not modeled

    No estimated typical audit cost, interpolated annual trend, combined financial total or future percentage. We do not add multi-response executive-role percentages together or assume that all company-size and vendor comparisons use the same population. Published rounded percentages are retained.

    Adding the next survey

    The next edition will be checked against the exact questions, time windows, category thresholds and respondent bases. Aligned measures can extend the comparison; changed questions will be qualified or shown separately. Until that source is available, no future results appear in the charts.