Over the past several days, software stocks have once again come under pressure. The storyline is familiar: AI is accelerating, automation is improving, agents are emerging, and traditional SaaS businesses are suddenly perceived as vulnerable. The concern seems logical. If AI can draft documents, analyze data, summarize workflows, orchestrate tasks, and even write code, investors naturally begin to ask what remains for SaaS companies to sell.
Markets tend to react quickly when they sense structural disruption. Ambiguity rarely receives the benefit of the doubt, and when uncertainty increases, selling often precedes analysis. That dynamic appears to be playing out again. However, the assumption embedded in the recent selloff — that AI broadly disintermediates software — oversimplifies what is actually happening. AI is unlikely to eliminate SaaS as a category. What it will do is expose SaaS businesses that were built on fragile foundations rather than durable moats. The distinction lies not in the presence of AI, but in the structural defensibility of the platform.
When Software Is a Veneer
Much of the first generation of SaaS created value by organizing work behind clean interfaces. CRM systems structured pipelines and sales activities. Marketing platforms sequenced campaigns and tracked engagement. HR tools standardized approvals and documentation. Project management software coordinated tasks across teams. These products reduced friction and made processes more manageable, but in many cases the intelligence remained with the user rather than within the system itself.
AI alters that balance. Intelligence increasingly resides within the model, and agents can execute tasks without navigating menus or dashboards. If a product primarily abstracts workflow but does not control the underlying data, compliance structure, or institutional authority, AI can operate above it. When that occurs, the software ceases to be indispensable and instead becomes a layer that can be bypassed. Disintermediation risk becomes real when a platform’s value is concentrated in presentation rather than control.
The Real Source of Durable SaaS Moats
Not all SaaS is created equal.
Some companies control the flow of critical information from its point of origin. Others are embedded in regulated processes that cannot be bypassed. Some serve as the official system of record — the authority courts, auditors, regulators, and enterprises rely upon.
These characteristics are not cosmetic. They are structural. AI may enhance these platforms. It does not easily replace them.
The moat is not in the interface. It is in control. Durability comes from ownership, not presentation.
Moat 1: First-Hand Data Origination
The most defensible SaaS platforms do not simply process data; they originate it. When a company controls how data is captured — whether through proprietary devices, embedded systems, or deeply integrated operational workflows — it owns the foundation upon which value is created. That control extends beyond storage and retrieval. It encompasses provenance, contextual integrity, and the reliability of the data itself.
AI models are powerful analytical tools, but they cannot recreate first-hand capture. They cannot reconstruct a chain of custody or replicate the institutional trust that accompanies data originating within a controlled system. In an AI-driven environment, proprietary data becomes a form of insulation. It limits commoditization and strengthens strategic leverage by anchoring the platform to the source of truth rather than to an abstracted representation of it.
Moat 2: Compliance and Regulatory Authority
AI is capable of remarkable automation and insight generation, yet it does not bear accountability. In industries governed by regulatory and compliance requirements, workflows are inseparable from auditability. Records must remain intact and immutable. Evidence must be preserved in ways that withstand scrutiny. Processes must align with legal and operational standards that extend beyond efficiency considerations.
When software embeds itself into regulated workflows, it becomes part of institutional infrastructure. Replacing such a system is not merely a technical decision; it carries legal, operational, and reputational implications. While AI may streamline aspects of compliance, it does not eliminate the need for controlled environments. In fact, the introduction of AI may heighten oversight expectations. Compliance, therefore, functions not as a feature enhancement but as a structural barrier to displacement.
Moat 3: System of Record, Not Interface
There is an important distinction between serving as the interface through which users interact and serving as the authoritative system of record. A system of convenience simplifies tasks and enhances usability. A system of record defines what is official and serves as the definitive repository for operational truth. Organizations rely on such systems to make decisions, validate actions, and resolve disputes.
AI can operate above convenience layers by automating interactions and generating outputs. However, it cannot override institutional authority unless it becomes embedded within it. When software becomes the system of record, it integrates deeply into organizational processes. At that stage, switching costs are not confined to contractual terms but are embedded within operational architecture. The platform’s role becomes foundational rather than optional.
Moat 4: Switching Costs That Matter
Many SaaS companies equate long-term contracts with durability, but contractual duration alone does not create structural dependency. True switching costs arise when historical data cannot migrate easily, when compliance records must remain intact, when workflows span multiple departments, when training and operational knowledge are institutionalized, and when system failure carries material consequences.
In these circumstances, replacement decisions extend beyond financial comparisons. They involve operational risk, potential disruption, and reputational exposure. AI does not inherently reduce these switching costs. As platforms integrate more deeply into daily operations and embed additional intelligence, they often become more intertwined with organizational processes. Fragile switching costs may dissolve under competitive pressure, but structural ones tend to endure.
Moat 5: AI as Enhancer, Not Replacer
The most resilient SaaS companies will embed AI within their existing architecture rather than attempt to compete with it externally. AI that automates reporting can increase productivity. AI that enhances search functionality can improve usability. AI that surfaces insights can elevate decision quality. When these capabilities are integrated within a controlled system, they expand the value delivered per user and reinforce the platform’s relevance.
However, when AI replicates the core functionality of a product outside the platform, it weakens defensibility. The strategic question for SaaS leaders is not simply whether they are adopting AI, but whether AI deepens their integration within the customer’s workflow or renders their core offering replaceable.
What This Means for SaaS Leaders
The current market reaction is a reminder that narratives move faster than fundamentals. But this moment should not be dismissed as temporary volatility. It is a structural filter, and these five questions now define durability:
- Do you control the origination of mission-critical data?
- Are you embedded in regulated or compliance-driven workflows?
- Are you the system of record, or a productivity overlay?
- Are your switching costs contractual — or architectural?
- Does AI deepen your integration, or threaten your relevance?
The answers determine whether AI is your accelerator — or your adversary. AI rewards structural strength and exposes structural weakness.
The Future of SaaS in the AI Era
AI is likely to compress margins for abstraction layers and commoditize thin workflow wrappers that lack structural depth. It may eliminate software that merely organizes tasks without controlling underlying authority. At the same time, it will strengthen platforms built on ownership, regulatory embedding, and deep integration.
The recent selloff reflects anxiety about disruption, and some of that anxiety is warranted. Not because AI inherently destroys software, but because it clarifies which businesses lack durable moats. The coming decade will favor companies whose architecture makes AI an enhancer of their authority rather than a substitute for it. Software as a category will continue to evolve, but the platforms that endure will be those constructed on foundations of control, accountability, and integration rather than convenience alone.
More Blogs From Rathin Sinha
Read Company Blog