The 24-Month Pricing Reset: How Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon Are Rewriting Renewal Economics

Over the past decade, enterprise software in the engineering and construction (E&C) sector has steadily migrated away from traditional perpetual licensing toward subscription‑based and consumption‑driven models, though adoption varies across vendors. In this paper, we evaluate how three E&C software providers—Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon—are navigating this shift. While Autodesk and Bentley have already executed decisive structural shifts, Hexagon is yet to transition from perpetual licenses to subscription models, preserving elements of historical licensing stability for now.

Together, Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon anchor design, engineering, asset, and infrastructure workflows that are deeply embedded in capital programs and operational delivery. As a result, even incremental licensing or pricing changes can have a material downstream impact on project economics and long‑term budgets.

Historically, E&C enterprises benefited from relatively predictable multiyear agreements, pooled or concurrent usage rights, and manageable annual escalations. Procurement strategies focused on seat counts, version control, and renewal timing. That stability has eroded. What was once a gradual evolution has accelerated—at different speeds—into a broader reset of pricing power, packaging control, and commercial governance.

What Has Changed: Pricing Resets, Bundling, and Reduced Flexibility

Over the past 18–24 months, Autodesk and Bentley have implemented changes that go well beyond routine price increases. These moves reflect deliberate strategies to increase monetization, reduce customer optionality, and embed next‑generation capabilities, particularly cloud delivery, analytics, and AI, into core enterprise agreements.

Hexagon, by contrast, occupies a more nuanced position. Despite raising prices and tightening commercial execution, it has so far avoided the kind of sweeping licensing restructures seen among its peers. This distinction matters, but it should not be mistaken for long‑term immunity.

1. Autodesk: Discount Rollbacks, Tokenization, and Named User Enforcement

Autodesk has aggressively tightened its commercial framework by dismantling long-standing discount structures and accelerating the transition to named user licensing.

Key developments include:

• • • Elimination of the 5% annual renewal discount
    • Reduction of multiyear renewal discounts from 10% to 5%
    • Global 5% price increases for Move to Subscription (M2S) and Transition to Named User (TNU) licenses
    • Restriction of these trade-in subscriptions to annual terms only, removing multiyear options entirely

At the same time, Autodesk continues to push customers toward a mix of named user subscriptions, token-based Flex licensing, and Enterprise Business Agreements (EBAs). While positioned as “flexible,” these models often increase cost exposure for large or distributed teams unless usage is actively measured and optimized.

2. Bentley: E365 and the Shift to Consumption-Based Enterprise Licensing

Bentley’s Enterprise 365 (E365) program represents one of the clearest examples of a structural reset in the E&C software market. By removing per‑user constraints and billing based on actual consumption across the portfolio, Bentley has traded predictability for breadth and speed of adoption.

Since its launch in 2020, Bentley’s E365 program has grown to account for approximately 45% of Bentley’s total annual recurring revenue in 2024, and Bentley has signaled its intent to transition most large enterprise customers to this model.

While E365 enables experimentation and enterprise‑wide access, it also introduces:

• • • Reduced predictability in annual spend
    • Greater dependence on vendor-defined usage categories
    • Increased exposure to discretionary pricing adjustments

Without strong contractual guardrails, enterprises risk unplanned escalation as usage scales or definitions change.

3. Hexagon: Relative Stability Today, Strategic Pressure Tomorrow

Compared with Autodesk and Bentley, Hexagon has so far taken a more conservative approach to licensing transformation. Across several portfolios, perpetual licenses and traditional maintenance structures remain available, and there has been no broad forced migration to subscription-only or consumption-based models.

That said, this relative stability should be viewed as a temporary advantage, not a structural assurance. Enterprises are already seeing pressure manifest in subtler ways:

• • • Higher maintenance uplifts at renewal
    • Reduced discount flexibility on new licenses and expansions
    • Stronger positioning of subscription alternatives during contract renegotiations
    • Tighter controls on license portability across regions and business units

Hexagon’s posture today mirrors where Autodesk and Bentley were several years ago—incremental tightening rather than abrupt overhaul. For enterprises, this creates a narrow window to lock in protections before more disruptive models emerge

The Core Challenge for Engineering and Construction Enterprises

Taken together, these shifts introduce a new set of enterprise-wide challenges:

• • Increased renewal volatility and budgeting uncertainty
  • Fewer perpetual, pooled, or flexible licensing options
  • Bundling strategies that reduce customer choice
  • Limited transparency in consumption-based programs
  • Greater exposure of capital programs to vendor‑driven commercial risk

These are not isolated vendor actions. They reflect a broader recalibration of power between software providers and enterprise buyers.

Key Questions Enterprises Must Answer

In this environment, engineering‑led enterprises must confront several strategic questions:

• • What do these pricing and packaging shifts mean for long-term capital planning and forecasting?
  • How can procurement and IT retain negotiation leverage as vendors consolidate control?
  • What strategies mitigate financial and operational risk as subscription‑only and consumption‑metered models become the norm?
  • What is Hexagon’s role within the portfolio: does it serve as a short-term stabilizing asset or represent a potential source of future disruption risk?

How Enterprises Should Respond: Strategic and Operational Imperatives

1. Reassess License Portfolios Against the New Pricing Reality

• • • Autodesk: Named user enforcement requires optimization based on actual usage. Token-based Flex licenses may suit occasional users, while EBAs should be renegotiated using usage telemetry and consolidation insights.
    • Bentley: Under E365, enterprises should negotiate notice periods for pricing changes, caps on annual escalation, clearer alignment to usage bands, and stronger liability protections.
    • Hexagon: While flexibility still exists, enterprises should push now for multiyear protections, maintenance caps, and clarity on future subscription transition paths.

2. Strengthen Negotiation Posture through Data

Data-backed negotiation is no longer optional. Enterprises need visibility into:

• • • License utilization and underuse
    • Token consumption patterns
    • Named user over assignment
    • Feature adoption versus entitlement

Quantifying these elements enables buyers to challenge forced bundling, automatic upgrades, and discretionary pricing.

The core issue lies in the consumption‑based pricing model. Traditional negotiations focus on unit price reductions, but real value requires a strategy around usage governance. This would entail monitoring consumption against committed floors, improving demand forecasting, and pre‑negotiating differentiated price points for acquisitions and growth scenarios. Without this, consumption‑based models erode savings over time, as volumes and scope expand. Establishing robust governance and commercial controls is therefore essential for sustainable cost avoidance—something conventional, price‑only negotiations fail to deliver.

3. Adopt a Portfolio‑Level Risk Mitigation Strategy

Given the convergence toward more restrictive models, E&C organizations should evaluate architectural alternatives where feasible, establish internal governance for platform usage, and pursue contractual safeguards that vendors are increasingly reluctant to offer.

How Avasant Can Help E&C Enterprises Navigate This Reset

As Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon recalibrate their licensing models and pricing power, E&C–focused enterprises increasingly need structured, data‑driven interventions rather than reactive renewal management.

Drawing on its work across large‑scale licensing disruptions in the E&C ecosystem, including named user enforcement, consumption‑based enterprise licensing, discount rollbacks, and early‑stage subscription transition pressure, Avasant helps organizations reassert control over engineering software economics.

Specifically, Avasant supports E&C enterprises by:

• • Benchmarking pricing, discounting, and escalation trends across Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon using proprietary market intelligence that encompasses fact‑based visibility into what peers are paying and where vendors are applying discretionary pressure.
  • Conducting engineering‑license usage and entitlement optimization to identify over‑licensing, under‑utilization, and exposure arising from named user enforcement, token consumption, and portfolio‑wide access models.
  • Designing negotiation and renewal strategies grounded in empirical usage data, entitlement normalization, and E&C‑specific peer benchmarks to strengthen enterprise leverage in negotiations with Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon.
  • Re‑architecting enterprise agreements with stronger commercial guardrails, including escalation caps, clearer consumption definitions, portfolio protection clauses, audit rights, and forward‑looking protections against forced model changes.
  • Aligning licensing strategy with engineering and capital program outcomes to ensure that platform access, advanced capabilities, and cloud adoption support delivery objectives rather than vendor‑driven packaging constructs.
  • Establishing robust governance frameworks for consumption‑based pricing—covering usage monitoring, demand forecasting, and acquisition pricing—to lock in negotiated value and ensure sustainable cost savings.

In an environment where E&C software vendors are steadily tightening commercial control, Avasant enables enterprises to move from reactive renewals to proactive, benchmark‑driven negotiation and governance, thus preserving leverage, protecting budgets, and sustaining long‑term value.

Avasant Case Study Avasant assisted one of the largest engineering and construction firms based in the US with the renewal of a significant enterprise software agreement utilizing a consumption-based pricing model. This engagement included leading comprehensive market benchmarking and conducting negotiations on behalf of the client. We delivered a detailed deal analysis, price benchmark, and negotiation deal sheet, followed by active negotiation support focused on discounting, escalation controls, and usage governance. The engagement enabled the client to challenge the vendor’s proposed pricing and escalation structure, reset commercial guardrails, and strengthen consumption governance—ensuring sustainable cost control beyond traditional, price-only negotiations. The outcome was an immediate cost avoidance of $1.2 million, just around “minimum consumption” figures, and an expected cost avoidance of $2.8 million over the next three years through the robust governance put in place around consumption.

Closing Perspective

Autodesk, Bentley, and Hexagon are converging on a common long‑term objective: higher, more predictable enterprise spend driven by tighter commercial control, cloud delivery, and expanding platform scope. The difference lies in timing and intensity.

E&C enterprises that respond passively will face escalating costs and diminishing control. Those that act now, especially in areas like Hexagon, where structural change has not yet fully materialized, can safeguard their leverage, protect capital program economics, and maintain strategic flexibility. The key factor will be effective governance of these platforms, not just adoption.

---

By Krishnendu Moulick, Partner, and Gaurav Dewan, Research Director