About Conseiltek
Build what the business actually needs.
Conseiltek is an AI-native software engineering company with one wedge: replacing expensive, poorly fitting SaaS with software our clients own, built by Forward Deployed Engineers who work next to the business problem. Same firm, same name, same team, trading since 2021. What changed in September 2026 is the focus, and that we now publish the work as it is built.
The thesis
One line of arithmetic changed, and most software budgets have not noticed.
For twenty years the honest answer to build-or-buy was buy. Building a work management tool, a service desk or an identity governance system meant a team, a roadmap and a maintenance burden that dwarfed the licence. Renting was cheaper, and everybody who said otherwise was selling something.
What did not change
The price of renting
Per-seat pricing still charges you for visibility. Renewals still compound. The features you use and the features you pay for are still two different lists. And the vendor still knows exactly how many boards, tickets, hosts or responders you have when the renewal letter goes out.
What did
The price of building
Managed cloud primitives removed most of the undifferentiated work. Infrastructure as code made environments reproducible. AI-assisted engineering compressed the rest. The same scope that took six engineers and two quarters now takes two engineers and eight weeks — and the running cost is a cloud bill, not a headcount.
So the answer flipped, quietly, somewhere in the last few years — for a specific set of systems, above a specific size. Our entire job is knowing which systems and what size, and being willing to say when yours is not one of them. Run the arithmetic yourself →
What we believe
Four positions, all of which cost us work.
These are not values on a wall. Each one has lost us a deal, which is roughly the test of whether a stated belief is real.
The cost of building software collapsed. The cost of renting it did not.
A team that would have needed six engineers and two quarters in 2019 now needs two engineers and eight weeks. Per-seat licence prices moved in the other direction. That gap is the whole business — and it is arithmetic, not ideology.
Ownership is a schema, not a sentiment.
You own software when the database is in your account, the code is in your repository, and nobody can change the price of running it. Anything short of that is a licence with better marketing.
The number has to be traceable.
Every price on this site is a published vendor list price with the date we read it, or an infrastructure estimate with its assumptions written down. If we cannot source a figure, we do not publish it.
Saying no early is the cheapest thing we sell.
Every application in Techtons ships with a parity table containing at least two rows where the honest answer is no. Establishing that on the first call costs a morning. Establishing it in month five costs a project.
How the firm operates
Structured so that nobody is paid to produce documents.
Consultancies drift towards documents because documents are billable and code is risky. We are set up the other way round, and these four decisions are what enforce it.
Small senior teams
Two to four engineers on a build, all of whom write code. We do not run a pyramid with a partner at the top and graduates at the bottom, because the pyramid is a pricing structure rather than a delivery model.
A Forward Deployed Engineer on every project
Not an account manager with a laptop. A named senior engineer who sits in your standup, commits to your repository, joins your incident channel, and is measured on whether your thing works. Replaceable on two weeks notice, in either direction.
Everything published
Every reference application we build goes up on GitHub under Apache-2.0 as Techtons, with an AWS architecture, an Azure architecture, a parity matrix and a cost model. 37 of them are catalogued, one published a day. You can read the work before you buy any of it.
AI as method, not garnish
Our engineers work with AI tooling all day and the delivery process has been rebuilt around it. That is why an eight-week build is credible. It is a way of working, not a product feature, and we do not put the word in front of things that do not need it.
The record
The numbers we can stand behind, and what they cover.
The SaaS replacement practice is new. The firm is not. Conseiltek has traded under this name since 2021, and everything in this section was earned over that period across a much wider range of work than the practice we lead with today. We label it that way on purpose.
200+
Client projects completed since 2021. Consultancy, cloud and application delivery across the full range — not 200 SaaS replacements.
98%
Client satisfaction across that period, measured by us at project close. Self-reported, as almost every such figure on the internet is, and we would rather label it than round it up.
5yrs
Trading continuously since 2021, at conseiltek.com. Same entity, same contracts, same obligations, and nothing for a client to update.
What those numbers are not
They are not evidence that we have replaced two hundred SaaS products. The SaaS replacement practice is the newest thing we do and Techtons is how we are choosing to prove it — publicly, with the code, the architectures and the cost models where anyone can check them, rather than with logos on a slide. If you want to judge the engineering rather than the marketing, read a repository. github.com/ConseilTek-Tektons
What did not change in September 2026
- The name. We are Conseiltek, we have always been Conseiltek, and the site is still at conseiltek.com.
- The legal entity. No sale, no merger, no new company, and no contract that needs re-signing.
- The contracts, statements of work, rates and renewal dates, and the obligations attached to them — confidentiality, data processing, insurance, warranties and support.
- The bank details and the invoicing entity. If anyone emails you claiming otherwise, it is not us — call your usual contact.
- The team. The engineers who did your work are the engineers who do your work.
What did
- The focus. We were a broad AI-first consultancy. We are now a firm with one wedge: replacing licensed SaaS with software clients own. The adjacent work — cloud platform, identity, data, security — continues, because it has to be true underneath a replacement.
- How we publish. Every reference application we build now goes up on GitHub under Apache-2.0 as Techtons, with an AWS architecture, an Azure architecture, a parity matrix and a cost model. That is the main practical difference you will notice.
- The identity and this website. A new mark, a new wordmark and a rebuilt site, all of it at the same address as before.
Who runs this
The people, plainly.
Founder and team details pending
We have deliberately left this blank rather than filling it with a stock paragraph. Founder name, team size, headquarters and incorporation details go here before this page goes live. In the meantime, the honest version is: the engineers who will be on your project are the ones who wrote the code in Techtons, and you can meet them on the first call rather than after the contract is signed.
What we will not do
Three lines of business we have decided not to be in.
Each of these is a profitable thing that firms like ours normally do. We do not, and the reasons are structural rather than moral — every one of them would make our advice worse.
We do not do staff augmentation by the hour
Bodies on a timesheet is a business that rewards the slowest possible delivery. An engineer billed hourly has a financial reason for the work to take longer, and their employer has a reason to staff the project with whoever is on the bench. Our engagements are fixed monthly or fixed price per phase, and our engineers are measured on your outcome. If what you need is a contractor to fill a seat for six months, there are good firms for that and we are not one of them.
We do not resell licences
We hold no reseller agreements and take no margin on any software you buy, including cloud. Your AWS or Azure account is yours, contracted directly with the provider, and the bill goes to you at the price they charge you. A firm that makes margin on your cloud consumption has an interest in your architecture being larger than it needs to be. A firm that resells the SaaS it is advising you about has a worse conflict than that.
We do not take referral fees from vendors we might recommend
A material part of our advice is telling clients to keep paying a vendor — because they are under about 150 seats, because the attestation is the product, or because the value is a network we cannot rebuild. That advice is only worth anything if we are paid the same either way. So we take no commission, no revenue share and no referral fee from any software vendor, and we will put that in the contract if you want it there.
There is a fourth thing we avoid, which is harder to write as a policy: we try not to take work we do not believe in. The four cases where replacement is the wrong call are on the home page, and we would rather cite them at you in week one than discover them together in month five.
Pick one contract. We will show you the replacement.
Two weeks, fixed price. Your most expensive SaaS line item, audited against what your people actually use, with a parity matrix, an AWS and an Azure architecture, a cost model and a delivery plan. If the honest answer is to keep the licence, the report will say so.