Companies now pay for four or five AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and more) but can't answer the basics: what are we spending, who's using it, and which seats sit idle? DepthData connects every AI tool into one audit ready view of spend and adoption. What makes it different: every number is labeled by how it's verified, we never read prompts, and we show exactly what each vendor's API can and can't expose. The trusted system of record for your company's AI spend.
Hey everyone, Ali here 👋
I'm a product designer, and over the past year I kept noticing the same thing: companies are buying more and more AI tools, but nobody actually knows what they're spending across all of them or who's really using what. The answer usually means logging into five different admin consoles and cobbling together a spreadsheet, and even then you're mostly guessing.
So I built DepthData to pull all of it into one clear, audit ready view of AI spend and adoption.
The part I care most about: I made a hard rule that we never show a number we can't actually verify from the tool's own API. Every figure is labeled by how we know it, and we never read prompts, only metadata like usage and seats. I got tired of dashboards that look confident but fall apart the moment you ask "where did this number come from?" I wanted the opposite.
It's early and I'm building it mostly solo, so I'd genuinely love your honest feedback. What would make this actually useful for your team? What am I missing? Happy to answer anything.
the verification labeling and the per-user vs seat point already cover most of what I'd have asked. one thing I didn't see come up: overlap across tools rather than idle seats within one tool. we've ended up paying for two AI tools that do 80% the same job for the same people, because each one got adopted separately by a different team before anyone compared them side by side. that's not an idle seat in either tool, both look fully used, the waste is that the org didn't need both. is that something DepthData could ever surface, or is it necessarily out of scope since it's a cross-tool judgment call rather than a per-tool number?
This is a smart wedge ,most spend dashboards mix hard numbers with guesses and never tell you which is which, so the second someone actually audits it, trust falls apart. Curious how you handle vendors that barely expose anything beyond seat counts , do you just flag those as low-confidence, or is there a minimum bar of data before a tool even gets added? Also wondering if you're planning to cross-check against SSO/IdP logins (Okta, Entra etc.) at some point, since that's often where you get a more honest "who's actually using this" than the vendor's own console gives you.
Congrats on the launch! Getting a single source of truth for AI spend is exactly what teams need right now — love the audit-ready angle. Best of luck today!
Never reading prompts, only metadata, is the detail that gets this past a security review. Most spend trackers ask for way more access than the actual problem needs.
Did the same exercise on AWS spend this year and the total was never the hard part, attribution was. What actually moved the number wasn't the dashboard, it was being able to put a name next to each line so somebody had to defend it.
Your rule about never showing a figure you can't verify from the tool's own API is the right call. The follow up I'd want: what happens to the spend no provider API will tell you about, like the personal ChatGPT subscription someone quietly expenses? That shadow half is usually where the surprise lives.
The verification label is the actual product here, the dashboard is just where it lives. What you're missing is that idle seats are the easy half. On anything usage priced, one person's month can outspend the other forty put together, and a seat view shows those two people as identical, so you cut the wrong licence and save nothing. Worth naming which vendors can't expose per user consumption at all, because that gap is where the spreadsheet quietly goes wrong.
About DepthData on Product Hunt
“The system of record for your company's AI spend.”
DepthData launched on Product Hunt on July 31st, 2026 and earned 141 upvotes and 14 comments, placing #5 on the daily leaderboard. Companies now pay for four or five AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and more) but can't answer the basics: what are we spending, who's using it, and which seats sit idle? DepthData connects every AI tool into one audit ready view of spend and adoption. What makes it different: every number is labeled by how it's verified, we never read prompts, and we show exactly what each vendor's API can and can't expose. The trusted system of record for your company's AI spend.
DepthData was featured in Analytics (173k followers), SaaS (43.4k followers) and Artificial Intelligence (475k followers) on Product Hunt. Together, these topics include over 177.9k products, making this a competitive space to launch in.
Who hunted DepthData?
DepthData was hunted by Ali Uyanik. A “hunter” on Product Hunt is the community member who submits a product to the platform — uploading the images, the link, and tagging the makers behind it. Hunters typically write the first comment explaining why a product is worth attention, and their followers are notified the moment they post. Around 79% of featured launches on Product Hunt are self-hunted by their makers, but a well-known hunter still acts as a signal of quality to the rest of the community. See the full all-time top hunters leaderboard to discover who is shaping the Product Hunt ecosystem.
Want to see how DepthData stacked up against nearby launches in real time? Check out the live launch dashboard for upvote speed charts, proximity comparisons, and more analytics.
Ali Uyanik