The time you spend on it
Documents per month × hours per document × 12. That is the yearly review workload your teams absorb today.
Return on investment
How much is a review costing you without Eryon?
3 inputs. Instant result. Baseline: 50% time saved on your review cycles.
—
Hours lost / year
—
Hours recovered / year
—
Estimated annual saving
—
Return on investment
Assumption: 50% time saved · Eryon from €12,000 excl. VAT/year. Indicative result.
01 Why it takes so long
Why these numbers matter
Time = cost
A QARA expert spends on average 20 hours per file. Over 8 files per month, that's 1,920 hours per year.
Errors = risks
An undetected inconsistency can block a submission for months. The indirect cost far exceeds the direct cost.
Automation ≠ replacement
Eryon removes the mechanical part — cross-check, formatting, reference verification. The expert focuses on strategy.
02 The method
Where the figure you just read comes from
A calculator that will not say how it counts is worth nothing. Here are the four steps, and the three assumptions behind them.
The time you get back
Half of it. That is the central assumption: assisted review does not remove the work, it removes the spotting and the report writing. The judgement call stays with you, whole.
What that hour costs
Annual employer cost divided by 1,820 hours — 228 working days of 8 hours. Leave and public holidays are already deducted.
The break-even point
The yearly saving is compared with €12,000 a year, the platform rate we use as a reference. Below that, the calculator shows no payback period: it means a subscription is not the right shape for you.
03 Three situations
Same inputs, three different answers
Enter these values in the calculator above and you will get the same figures.
4 documents a month, 25 h each, €65,000 per FTE
1,200 review hours a year, 600 recovered, around €21,400 a year. Break-even lands at 6.7 months.
20 documents a month, 30 h each, €80,000 per FTE
7,200 hours a year, 3,600 recovered, around €158,000 a year. Break-even in under a month: at that volume the question is no longer return on investment but sheer capacity.
2 documents a month, 12 h each, €90,000 per FTE
288 hours a year, 144 recovered, around €7,100 a year. That is below the threshold: the calculator shows no payback, and rightly so. At this volume EryonOne, billed per document, is the fit — not a subscription.
04 The limits
What this calculation does not tell you
An estimate stays an estimate. Here is where it stops, so you know what to do with it.
- The 50% is an average seen on structured regulatory files. On a short, already clean document the gain is smaller; on a large technical file with cross-references it is higher.
- The cost of an hour is not the cost of a lost hour. A delayed review can push back a submission, and that delay appears in none of these boxes.
- The calculation ignores ramp-up. Expect a few files before your teams calibrate how they read the findings.
- It puts no figure on traceability. The annotated report, the timestamp and the per-finding comment carry weight in an audit, not in a spreadsheet.
- The €12,000 is a reference rate, not a quote. Your actual scope gets set in conversation.
05 Frequently asked
What people ask us about this calculation
Where does the 50% come from?
From the share of the work that is spotting: finding the sensitive passages, checking consistency against the references you supply, wording the finding. Assisted review takes that share. The decision on each finding stays with your team and is not counted as a gain.
Why 1,820 hours a year?
1,820 is 228 working days of 8 hours, leave and public holidays deducted. It is a more cautious base than the annualised legal working time: it yields a lower hourly cost, hence a lower estimated saving.
The calculator shows no payback period — is that a bug?
No. It means the estimated yearly saving stays below the reference platform rate. At that volume a subscription is not the right shape; EryonOne, billed per document, probably is.
Can these figures support a contractual commitment?
No, and we would rather say so here. It is an order of magnitude, meant to tell you whether the subject deserves a conversation. A figure you can stand behind is built on your documents, your validation chain and your frameworks.
What if our reviews are already well run?
Then the gain in hours will be smaller, and the calculator will show it as soon as you lower the time per document. What changes in that case is not the time but the trail: a defensible report for every review, which a well-run process rarely produces on its own.