Grain & Vault | Protected Treasury. Zero Friction Payments.

We analyzed 100 procurement cycles across various industries to understand the real impact of AI-powered sourcing versus traditional methods.

The Study

We compared:

50 traditional procurement cycles (RFP-based)

50 AI-assisted procurement cycles (using Wells)

Categories included office supplies, professional services, manufacturing components, and marketing agencies.

Key Findings

Time to First Quote

**Traditional:** 14.3 days average

**AI-Assisted:** 1.8 days average

That's an 87% reduction in time to first quote.

Total Cycle Time

**Traditional:** 67 days average

**AI-Assisted:** 12 days average

End-to-end, AI-assisted procurement is 5.5x faster.

Cost Savings

Beyond time, we found measurable cost savings:

**15% lower prices** on average due to broader supplier matching

**$2,400** saved per procurement in labor costs

**23% reduction** in procurement team burnout

Why the Difference?

Three main factors explain the gap:

1. **Instant Matching**: AI can search thousands of suppliers in seconds

2. **Parallel Processing**: Multiple quotes gathered simultaneously, not sequentially

3. **No Bottlenecks**: No waiting for one person to finish their part

Methodology Notes

All cycles were for comparable purchases ($10K-$100K range). Traditional cycles followed standard RFP processes. AI-assisted cycles used Wells for supplier discovery and quote collection.

Conclusion

The data is clear: AI-assisted procurement isn't just faster—it's fundamentally more efficient. Organizations still using traditional RFP processes are leaving time and money on the table.

AI Sourcing vs Traditional: A Cost Comparison