Here's a scenario we see constantly: a GIS manager at a mid-sized engineering firm tells us their team of 40 analysts all have ArcGIS Advanced licenses. That's £280,000 per year in licensing alone—before extensions.
When we ask what Advanced-only tools they actually use, the answer is usually: "I'm not sure. IT set this up years ago."
We audit their workflows. The result? 32 of those 40 users only need Basic-tier functionality. They're viewing data, running simple queries, maybe the occasional buffer or clip. Tools available in the £1,500/year Basic license, not the £7,000/year Advanced.
That's £176,000 per year in unnecessary licensing costs. Every year. For a decade. For a broader view of ESRI economics, see our complete TCO analysis.
This isn't unusual. It's the norm.
Why Licensing Gets Out of Control
ArcGIS licensing is genuinely confusing. Esri doesn't make it easy to understand which tools require which tier. And the consequences of getting it wrong (a tool failing mid-workflow) are painful enough that most organisations default to "just get Advanced for everyone."
THE TYPICAL PATTERN
- 1.Initial purchase: IT buys 10 Advanced licenses because "we might need the advanced tools"
- 2.Team grows: New hires get the same license type. Nobody questions it.
- 3.Extensions accumulate: Spatial Analyst, Network Analyst—added "just in case"
- 4.Audit never happens: Nobody tracks which tools are actually used
- 5.Decade later: 50 Advanced licenses + 4 extensions = £500K+ annually
The sunk cost fallacy kicks in. "We've always done it this way." The thought of auditing and changing feels overwhelming. So the cheques keep getting written.
What Are the ArcGIS License Tier Differences?
Basic (£1,500/user) covers 80% of daily work: viewing, querying, editing, simple analysis. Standard (£3,500) adds geodatabase tools. Advanced (£7,000) adds spatial statistics and full geoprocessing. Most organisations over-provision at Advanced when Basic would suffice. Let's be precise about what each tier actually includes.
| Tier | Annual Cost | Key Capabilities |
|---|---|---|
| Basic | £1,500/user | View, query, basic editing, simple analysis (buffer, clip, intersect) |
| Standard | £3,500/user | + Geodatabase editing, topology, versioning, geometric networks |
| Advanced | £7,000/user | + Full geoprocessing (Erase, Identity, Union), spatial statistics |
License tiers: most organisations over-provision at the top.
Tools That Require Advanced License
These are the tools that only work with Advanced:
VECTOR ANALYSIS
- • Erase
- • Identity
- • Symmetrical Difference
- • Update
- • Feature to Polygon/Line
SPATIAL STATISTICS
- • Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*)
- • Cluster and Outlier Analysis
- • Optimised Hot Spot Analysis
- • Space Time Pattern Mining
Tools Available in Basic (Often Misunderstood)
Many assume these require Advanced, but they don't:
The majority of common GIS operations work fine with Basic.
The 5-Minute Audit: Who Actually Needs What
Here's a simple framework to categorise your users:
Viewers & Light Analysts → Basic or QGIS
Opens maps, runs simple queries, exports data. Occasional buffer/clip.
ROLES: Project managers, field staff, executives
Production Analysts → Basic or Standard
Regular spatial analysis, data prep, map production. No Erase/Identity/spatial stats.
ROLES: GIS technicians, data analysts, cartographers
Advanced Analysts → Standard or Advanced
Geodatabase management, topology, network analysis. Some Advanced tools occasionally.
ROLES: Senior GIS analysts, database administrators
Power Users → Advanced
Spatial statistics, modelling, regular use of Erase/Identity. Training others.
ROLES: GIS developers, data scientists, lead analysts
Automation Only → Python (No Desktop License)
Batch processing, ETL pipelines, scheduled workflows. No interactive map use. For those who need to learn Python, see our guide to training GIS teams.
ROLES: DevOps, data engineers, scheduled tasks
TYPICAL USER DISTRIBUTION
Most organisations pay for Advanced licenses they don't need.
QUICK AUDIT: 4 QUESTIONS
- 1. Do they use Erase, Identity, or Spatial Statistics?
Yes → Keep Advanced | No → Continue - 2. Do they manage geodatabase topology or versioning?
Yes → Standard may suffice | No → Continue - 3. Do they edit, or just view and run simple analysis?
Edit → Basic | View only → QGIS or ArcGIS Online viewer - 4. Is their work batch processing with no interactive use?
Yes → Python only (no desktop license needed)
Be honest about actual usage, not theoretical "might need someday" usage.
Real-World Optimisation Examples
CASE 1: ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY (40 USERS)
8 Advanced, 12 Standard, 10 Basic, 10 QGIS
5-year savings: £1.3 million
CASE 2: MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT (25 USERS)
BEFORE
£225K/yr
AFTER
£63K/yr
3 Advanced (GIS team), 5 Standard (planning), 7 Basic (public works), 10 ArcGIS Online viewers
Annual savings: £162,000
CASE 3: UTILITY COMPANY (100 USERS)
BEFORE
£950K/yr
AFTER
£298K/yr
15 Advanced + Network Analyst, 25 Standard, 30 Basic, 30 QGIS/QField for field crews
Annual savings: £652,500
The Hybrid Approach: Mix Esri with Open Source
The most cost-effective strategy isn't "all Esri" or "all open source." It's a deliberate mix.
Hybrid architecture: Esri for power users, open source for the rest, PostGIS as the central hub.
KEEP ESRI FOR
- ArcGIS Enterprise integration
- Network Analyst workflows
- Geodatabase versioning
- Vendor support requirements
REPLACE WITH OPEN SOURCE
- Viewing and simple analysis (QGIS)
- Batch processing (Python/GeoPandas)
- Web mapping (Leaflet, MapLibre)
- Database (PostGIS)
When NOT to Downgrade
Let's be honest about when license optimisation isn't worth it.
Deeply Embedded in ArcGIS Enterprise
Portal, Server, years of published services—the switching cost is enormous. Optimise within Esri instead.
Network Analyst is Mission-Critical
Complex network datasets with restrictions and custom cost attributes built over years. Rebuilding in open source is a major project.
Your Team Resists Change
A forced migration for 20 reluctant 15-year ArcGIS veterans will tank productivity for 6-12 months. Savings may not offset the pain.
Training Costs Exceed Savings
If you're saving £50K/year but spending £40K on training and support, reconsider. Sometimes standardisation wins.
CALCULATE THE REAL ROI
| License savings (annual) | +£X |
| Training (one-time) | -£Y |
| Productivity dip (6-12 months) | -£Z |
| Migration effort | -£A |
| Ongoing support delta | ±£B |
If Year 1 ROI is negative, that's fine—many optimisations break even in Year 2-3. But if Year 3 ROI is still negative, don't do it.
The Hidden Costs of Change
We've done dozens of these migrations. Here's what organisations underestimate:
The Productivity Dip
When a 10-year ArcGIS veteran moves to QGIS, expect 20-30% productivity loss for 3-6 months. Budget for this.
Tribal Knowledge
"We've always done it this way" hides critical workflow details. Migration forces documentation—good long-term, painful short-term.
Data Migration
File geodatabases don't open natively in QGIS. Convert to GeoPackage or PostGIS. Most is smooth; edge cases need manual handling.
Plugin/Extension Parity
That ArcGIS extension you rely on may not have a QGIS equivalent. Audit tool-by-tool, not just license-by-license.
Printing and Cartography
ArcGIS Pro's layout tools are mature. QGIS is capable but different. Cartography-heavy teams feel this most.
Migration Roadmap
If you've decided optimisation is worth it, here's a phased approach:
Audit
- Inventory all users and current licenses
- Survey actual tool usage (not theoretical)
- Categorise users by the framework above
- Calculate potential savings
Pilot
- Select 5-10 users for pilot
- Migrate Category 1 (viewers) to QGIS first—lowest risk
- Document issues and solutions
- Measure productivity impact
Staged Rollout
- Wave 1: All viewers → QGIS
- Wave 2: Light analysts → Basic or QGIS
- Wave 3: Automation → Python
- Wave 4: Review remaining for right-sizing
Optimisation
- Annual license audit
- Monitor for creeping license growth
- Continuous training for new hires
- Evaluate new tools as they mature
License optimisation isn't glamorous work. But for an organisation spending £300K+ annually on GIS software, it's often the highest-ROI project you can do.
The question isn't whether you're overspending. Based on our experience, you almost certainly are. The question is whether the savings justify the effort to fix it.
Get Workflow Automation Insights
Monthly tips on automating GIS workflows, open-source tools, and lessons from enterprise deployments. No spam.