AI vendor disclosure · AI & Automation · Reviewed August 2026

We are not paid to recommend one AI over another.
And we are not tied to any of them.

Every provider in this market says they are vendor-neutral. Almost none will tell you what they get paid, by whom, for recommending what.

This page covers our AI and Automation work: the tool choices we make on your behalf and the builds we deliver. If anything here changes, this page changes.

What we receive from AI vendors

Nothing.

You hold the accounts. You hold the billing. On every one of these except Microsoft licensing, we never sit between you and the vendor, and we receive nothing whether you pick it or not.

Vendor Commission or referral fee Reseller agreement How you buy it
Anthropic (Claude)NoneNoneDirect, your own account
OpenAI (ChatGPT)NoneNoneDirect, your own account
xAI (Grok)NoneNoneDirect, your own account
Google (Gemini)NoneNoneDirect, your own account
Open-source modelsNoneNoneYou host, or your own cloud
Microsoft CopilotNone if you bring your own licenceYes, see belowDirect, or through us
The one place money changes hands

Microsoft licences, including Copilot.

You can buy Microsoft licences through us if you want to. If you do, we earn a margin of a few per cent. Three things about that, plainly.

You pay the same either way

Our price is Microsoft's Australian recommended price. Buying through us does not cost you more, and buying direct does not cost you less.

The margin varies

It moves with Microsoft's promotions and programme changes, so a fixed percentage here would be wrong within a quarter. Ask what it is on the day and we will tell you in writing.

You do not have to buy through us

And we will say so. Most of our AI work runs on licences clients already held or bought themselves. It changes nothing about the engagement, the build, or the support.

Microsoft partner incentives

We do receive them, and here is the awkward question.

Microsoft occasionally pays partner incentives and rebates on licence volume, and we have received them. They are small, irregular, and have never been a meaningful part of our revenue. We will tell you the actual amount for any period if you ask.

The fair question
Microsoft pays us something. Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI and Google pay us nothing at all. So does that tilt us toward recommending Copilot? Here is our answer, and how you can check it.
01 Too small and unpredictable to plan around. An incentive that arrives occasionally, at a rate Microsoft sets and changes without consulting us, is not something a business can build a recommendation on.
02 They only apply if you buy through us. We tell clients they can buy direct, and we mean it. Most of our AI work runs on licences clients already held or bought themselves.
03 We are paid the same either way. A Copilot build and a Claude build are the same engagement at the same price. The model choice does not change our invoice.
04 Look at what we actually recommend. Across our AI engagements to date, Anthropic's Claude is the model we recommend most often, followed by OpenAI, then Microsoft Copilot and others. The one vendor we can earn anything on is not the one we put forward most. A pattern is harder to fake than a policy, and you are welcome to ask us for the current split.
On lock-in

What we are not.

Just as important as commission, and asked about far less often. A provider with a partner tier to protect is not neutral, even if no commission changes hands on the day.

No exclusive partnership

Nothing obliges us to lead with one model, and no AI vendor sees our pipeline.

No partner tier to protect

We have no revenue target with an AI vendor that a recommendation could jeopardise.

No platform of our own

Work is delivered inside your Microsoft 365 and Azure tenant. There is no Evisent product a build has to run on.

You own the output

Reports, policies, prompts, flows and documentation are delivered in editable formats and are yours to keep, including if you take them to someone else.

Why we are a Microsoft partner and still call ourselves vendor-neutral
We are a Microsoft partner and we say so on every page. That relationship is about the platform we build on, not about which AI we recommend to run on it. It is why "Microsoft-aligned on infrastructure, vendor-neutral on AI" is two separate statements rather than one.
What this looks like in practice

Answers we are paid the same for.

"The Microsoft 365 licence you already hold does this."

"This process is deterministic. Automate it, do not put AI on it."

"Nothing here is worth building yet. Come back when the volume doubles."

We make our money on the engagement: the audit, the build, the support. Not on the licence. That costs us revenue when the right answer is "use what you have", and we think that is the correct way round, because the alternative is advice you cannot check.

How to hold us to this

Ask, and we will answer in writing.

Ask what we earn on anything we recommend, at any point in an engagement.

If we ever recommend something we earn on without telling you first, tell us and we will correct it publicly.

This page is reviewed every 12 months, and immediately whenever a vendor arrangement changes.

LAST REVIEWED: AUGUST 2026 · REVIEWED BY: HAYDEN BURT, DIRECTOR

A note on scope
This page covers AI and Automation. Our Managed IT and Security service is sold separately and works differently: you are buying an operated stack, and the tooling we use to run it is our choice of how to deliver the service rather than a recommendation you act on. If you want to know what we earn on any part of that, ask and we will tell you.