Strategic Comparison
Each plan addresses different strategic priorities while leveraging the same Design-Build-Scale methodology.
| Plan A: Revenue | Plan B: Products | Plan C: Verticals | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90-Day Revenue | $250K+ closed | $25K–$50K pilots | $100K–$200K closed |
| Pipeline | $2.5M | $200K+ ARR | $500K vertical |
| Speed to Revenue | Fastest (Day 45) | Slower (Day 70) | Medium (Day 55) |
| Recurring Revenue | Low (project-based) | Highest (subscription) | Medium (retainers) |
| Long-Term Moat | Low (replicable) | Highest (product IP) | High (expertise) |
| Governance Depth | Client-facing assessments | Product-embedded controls | Industry-specific frameworks |
| Best If… | Need quick wins to justify AI investment | Want scalable products with recurring revenue | Want to own market in key industries |
Lead with Plan A revenue acceleration for quick wins. Layer Plan B product development for recurring revenue streams. Use Plan C healthcare depth as the marquee differentiator. EisnerAmper's governance-first approach is the connective tissue — the Six-Pillar AI Risk Framework differentiates every offering and builds the trust that drives long-term client relationships.