THE SHORT ANSWER
Estimate manual feed cost from the work you actually perform: feeds × monthly runs × handling minutes, converted to hours and multiplied by a labor rate. Compare a clearly labelled future-time assumption plus software cost. Treat the result as a scenario, not a promised saving or revenue forecast.
Define what counts as a run
List recurring tasks such as retrieving a source, fixing predictable formatting, reviewing changes, preparing output and investigating failures. Decide whether your handling-time estimate includes all these tasks or only one part. An inconsistent definition makes the arithmetic look precise while comparing different work.
Separate automated machine time from human attention. A thirty-minute import may need two minutes of operator work, while a five-minute exception may consume an hour of investigation. Measure both when they affect capacity, but do not charge them identically without explanation.
Use observed inputs where possible
Collect a short sample of ordinary and difficult runs. Record handling minutes and the reason for unusually slow work. Use an appropriate labor rate for the person doing the task, including the cost assumptions your organization actually uses.
Keep one-off implementation work separate from monthly recurring cost. It still matters to the purchase decision, but folding it invisibly into a recurring estimate makes comparison harder. State the period over which you evaluate any setup investment.
Compare scenarios with explicit assumptions
The free calculator asks for current and hypothetical future handling minutes plus a software cost. The future value is your assumption. Try a conservative case where substantial review remains and a more optimistic case only if you have evidence for it.
Check whether the proposed workflow changes the number of runs or feeds. Keeping volume constant helps isolate handling-time changes. If you plan to expand coverage, report the extra capacity separately instead of calling every new task a cash saving.
Interpret the result as a decision aid
A positive difference indicates lower modeled monthly cost under your inputs. It does not prove that the tool caused the saving, increased sales or reduced every operational risk. Validate the estimate during a real pilot using the same task definition.
Look beyond cost when appropriate. Better traceability or faster incident investigation may matter even when direct labor savings are modest. Describe those benefits separately and ask for observable evidence rather than forcing them into an invented revenue multiplier.
ILLUSTRATIVE WORKED EXAMPLE
Make it concrete.
Illustrative example: three feeds run four times monthly and take twenty handling minutes each. That is four hours, or $140 at $35 per hour. A hypothetical five-minute workflow plus $49 software totals $84, giving a modeled $56 difference. These are illustrative inputs, not Feedaptor performance results.
Your practical checklist
- Define the tasks included in handling time.
- Measure ordinary and difficult runs.
- Separate setup investment from recurring cost.
- Label future-time estimates as assumptions.
- Validate modeled savings against observed pilot work.
Common questions
Does the calculator predict Feedaptor’s ROI?
No. It performs arithmetic on your inputs and does not know your implementation effort, conversion rate or future workload.
What if hourly cost is zero?
The model cannot derive labor savings or a useful labor break-even point from a zero rate. Consider time and other benefits separately.
Sources & scope
Official references checked 29 October 2026. Examples are illustrative, not customer results. Platform requirements can change; use current destination documentation for implementation decisions.
Our editorial method & corrections ↗