Gartner published two Market Guides this spring covering adjacent but distinct markets: the Market Guide for Telecom Expense Management Services, Global (April 2026) and the Market Guide for Managed Mobility Services, Global (May 2026). Both were authored by the same Gartner analysts but scoped to different buyer problems and operational contexts.
The guides are worth a read if you have access to them, as they cover a broad range of issues and surface trends about where enterprise technology expense management is heading and what separates capable providers from the rest. But what struck me in my own reading of both was that the same researchers, examining two separate markets through two separate lenses, surfaced very similar signals.
One research team, two distinct scopes, four conclusions in common. To me, that consistency seems to reflect what the underlying market data is really saying. Tangoe was named a representative vendor in both. But rather than lead with that, I want to use it as a starting point to pull out what I think matters most for IT and procurement leaders actively evaluating this space and be direct about where Tangoe stands against each of these indicators.
Both reports agree: this problem has outgrown its original definition
The TEM guide documents the expansion of traditional telecom management into cloud infrastructure, SaaS, UCaaS, IoT, utilities, and now AI license sprawl and API consumption costs. The MMS guide tells a parallel story, that mobility management has expanded well beyond smartphones and tablets into laptops, ruggedized devices, security, and sustainability. Two different markets, both moving in the same direction: toward broader IT asset and expense governance under fewer platforms.
CIOs and CFOs are increasingly owning this agenda directly, and the providers they evaluate need to reflect that broader scope. A provider that does TEM well but can’t extend meaningfully into cloud or SaaS management is a point solution at a time when enterprises need an integrated view. At Tangoe, we manage more than $15B in spend across fixed telecom, mobile, and cloud under one platform. Tangoe delivered the Tangoe One unified expense management platform well before most of our competitors and before the analysts formalized it as an enterprise demand.
Both reports agree: AI capability matters, but data governance matters more
The TEM guide flags the shift from basic RPA to agentic AI. These are systems that surface data and recommend and execute the next logical step. The MMS guide highlights AI’s role in predictive device diagnostics, automated financial workflows, and intelligent logistics. Different applications, same underlying question raised by both: how are providers building and governing the AI models behind these capabilities?
Both guides explicitly call out data privacy as a buyer concern and specifically whether providers are running siloed, private models or feeding shared systems with customer data. This is the question I’d press hardest in any vendor conversation: does your AI train on my data alongside other customers’?
At Tangoe, our AI models are privately hosted, with no cross-customer data sharing. That’s an architectural requirement based on strict policy and it governs capabilities that are already in production today, including our Tangoe One Analytics AI assistant and AI cost optimization tools. For sourcing and procurement leaders building RFP criteria, this question belongs on the list.
Both reports point toward zero-touch — ask every vendor exactly where they are on that journey
The TEM guide names zero-touch, a term describing the full automation of procurement, ordering, invoice processing, dispute management, and payment as the explicit direction for the industry. The MMS guide frames the same directional shift using differentlanguage: from reactive, SLA-driven operations toward predictive device management that gets ahead of issues before they reach the help desk. Same destination, different roads.
The gap between what vendors claim and what they can demonstrate here tends to be significant. My advice, particularly for sourcing leaders: don’t just ask what’s automated today. Ask for a specific roadmap, ask for proof points, and consider building delivery milestones into your contract terms.
Tangoe’s commitment to process automation runs across the full technology expense lifecycle from invoice acquisition and dispute management in telecom, to device procurement and lifecycle workflows in mobile, to cloud cost optimization through our FinOps-certified platform. Our ServiceNow integrations automate workflows across procurement, inventory, and cost allocation without requiring teams to leave the systems they already work in. The goal is the same one both reports describe: fewer manual touchpoints, faster cycle times, and operations that run on data rather than on headcount.
Both reports agree: in a consolidating market, vendor stability is a legitimate selection criterion
This is perhaps the most striking convergence. Both guides independently flag M&A activity as a material risk to buyers, advising the review of financial health of providers before committing. This also goes for cloud cost management vendors, given the ongoing consolidation and even outright disappearance of certain startups. Service degradation over the life of an engagement is one of the most consistent complaints Gartner says it hears from enterprise buyers. Vendor transitions mid-contract are disruptive and expensive in ways that don’t show up in the original cost justification.
Tangoe has been tracked by Gartner in both the TEM and MMS research for as long as those reports have existed and through their previous incarnations as Magic Quadrants and into today’s Market Guides. And as an ITEM pioneer for more than 25 years, that kind of continuity reflects something real about how Tangoe’s business has been built and maintained over time. We hold ISO 27001 and SOC 2 certifications. These are compliance commitments that matter in enterprise procurement and that require sustained organizational discipline to maintain.
When the same analysts examine two adjacent markets separately and arrive at the same conclusions in both, it’s a reasonable indicator that the industry has reached genuine consensus on what good looks like. These four themes are the ones I’d tell any IT or procurement leader to pressure-test in every vendor conversation, including ours.
If you’re actively evaluating and want to see how Tangoe holds up against these criteria in practice, we’d welcome that conversation.
Gartner Objectivity Disclaimer:
Gartner does not endorse any company, vendor, product or service depicted in its publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s business and technology insights organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this publication, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.