Contact us

Colombia

Bogota Headquarters

93rd Street #16-46, Office 404, Zenn Office PH Building
Medellin
Cra 43rd No. 7-50, Office 1102 - Dann Carlton Business Center
Cali
Cra 100B #11A -19 Office 516 Pance Tower

Espain

Madrid

Calle Conde de peñalver, 45, entre planta oficina 2, 28006, Madrid

USA

Miami-Florida

1000 Brickell Av, PMB 5137

Mexico

Mexico DF

Av. Rio Misisipi 49 Int. 1402, Cuauhtémoc

Panama

City of Panama

Calle 50, edificio, torre BMW, San Francisco

The Agentic AI Balance Sheet That Every Financial Committee Must Consider

The principle underlying all three is the same one that guides our value proposition: accelerating innovation and driving productivity only make sense if it yields measurable results for the business.

See more articles

What holds AI back in Latin America is neither cost nor access

On October 6, the World Bank. On October 20, ECLAC and Chile’s National Center for AI. Two distinct assessments reached the exact same conclusion: the bottleneck lies not in the tool itself, but in the organizational capacity to absorb it. An academic concept originating in 1990 brings order to what today’s numbers describe.

Mexico claims to have saved 14 billion pesos by building its own software. The other half of the bill is missing

Organizations currently celebrating what they avoided spending will, in a year or two, have to account for what it costs to maintain what they built.

77% of large enterprises trust that they know all their AI agents. Only 44% have a way to prove it

The challenge is not merely implementing AI agents. It is knowing precisely which ones are running, who bears accountability for them, how their outputs are validated, and how swiftly they can be shut down when something fails.

We Warned You in Our Webinar, and Bre-B Confirmed It

There is no way to guarantee that a participant in an interoperable payment ecosystem will never fail again; that exceeds what any single institution can control.

Autonomous AI Agents Making Purchases: Who Is Liable When They Fail?

Applying agentic AI to payments requires the exact same level of rigor as any system handling third-party funds—extended to a type of actor that did not exist two years ago: one that decides and executes, rather than merely recommends.

680 customers exposed without a single line of code being breached

The same neobank that just received its full banking license in Colombia confirmed, three days earlier, a data breach that didn’t involve a single hacked server.

Gartner projects that the inference cost per agentic workflow will increase more than fivefold by 2028, even as the cost per individual token continues to fall. While 98% of FinOps teams already manage AI expenditure, over half of operations professionals report that they lack effective control over it. What is missing is not another monitoring tool; it is the correct metric: the cost of a successfully completed task.
Imagine two AI models evaluated for extracting data from legal contracts. The first costs $0.20 per execution and yields an acceptable result 15% of the time. The second costs $0.80 and achieves a 78% accuracy rate. If the procurement decision is based strictly on price per execution, the first model appears superior. However, when measured by the cost of each usable result, the calculation flips: roughly $1.33 for the first model versus approximately $1.03 for the second—even before accounting for the human labor required to manually correct errors.
This example is hypothetical, proposed by Donald Farmer of TreeHive Strategy in a TechTarget article. Yet it encapsulates a debate currently unfolding in technology and finance committees across the region: in agentic AI, the price per token is no longer the metric that matters.
The paradox that Gartner called by its name
On August 17, Gartner published a projection that defies conventional budgeting intuition: the inference cost per agentic workflow will increase more than fivefold by 2028, even as the cost per token continues to drop. The reason is structural. Each advance in AI capability demands more tokens—often more expensive ones—and sophisticated workflows consume far more tokens than a simple chatbot conversation. According to Gartner, routing a task to an agentic reasoning model multiplies the inference cost at least fivefold compared to a basic chatbot, and significantly more as task complexity scales. In the words of analyst Will Sommer, the rate of innovation is outstripping the cost curve.
Gartner's practical conclusion is not to abandon AI agents, but to stop using them by default. The firm warns that relying on generic autonomous intelligence for every task drives uncapped expenses, far exceeding those of an optimized product ecosystem. Instead, it recommends routing and orchestrating workflows so that each task leverages the lowest-cost intelligence capable of achieving the desired outcome.
What the vendor's invoice doesn't show

An agentic task is not a single model call. It is an end-to-end sequence that can encompass retries, inter-agent orchestration, database queries, and human-in-the-loop review. The guidelines established by the FinOps Foundation help break down these distinct operational layers:

The guide published on October 6 by Tammy Burnitt of the FinOps Foundation adds a nuance that any chief financial officer will immediately recognize: supporting tooling is purchased in silos across different teams, and observability is a frequent source of budget overruns because generative AI applications produce massive volumes of telemetry data. Compounding this challenge, some cloud vendors have begun billing separately for components such as persistent memory, agent sessions, and skill registry management—as reported by Revista Cloud Computing in September regarding Google Cloud infrastructure updates.

The scale of the blind spot

The State of FinOps 2026 report—surveying 1,192 practitioners managing over $83 billion in annual cloud spend—reveals that 98% now track AI expenditure, up from just 31% two years ago. Tracking has arrived. Control, however, has not.

Splunk's State of Observability 2026, which surveyed 2,050 IT operations and engineering leaders across ten countries, found that 55% lack effective control over AI costs, 56% struggle to accurately evaluate the quality of their AI workloads, and 54% have yet to align system monitoring with concrete business outcomes. While conducted by an observability vendor, these findings mirror regional operational realities. A joint study by Sensedia, Squadra, and MIT Sloan Review Brazil—presented at APIX 2026 on August 4—indicates that 74% of Latin American enterprises incur unexpected cost overruns driven by fragmented, uncoordinated AI implementations.

Why this carries greater weight in banking and insurance
IDC estimates that Latin America will spend nearly $10 billion on AI in 2026, representing a 3.8-fold growth between 2025 and 2029. The financial services sector leads this spend at $1.739 billion, with 65% of the total originating from large enterprises. In other words, the decision to scale agentic systems is being made—backed by massive capital commitments—by the very institutions subject to the highest levels of financial oversight and accountability for every dollar spent.
Furthermore, Gartner projected in 2025 that over 40% of agentic AI initiatives would be canceled by the end of 2027 due to escalating costs, unclear business value, or inadequate risk controls. These three failure modes share a common root cause: without a unit metric of cost directly tied to a validated outcome, neither the board committee, nor the regulator, nor the auditor can determine whether an autonomous agent actually pays for itself.
Five decisions to shift from raw consumption to cost-per-outcome

The formula is simple. The difficulty lies in having the underlying data to apply it:

{Cost per Accepted Task} = {Cost of All Attempts} + {Harness Infrastructure} {Human Review} {Accepted Tasks}

  1. Define what constitutes a completed task before measuring its cost: An output only counts if it is accepted by the business process, the end customer, or the responsible manager. Without this explicit validation threshold, the denominator remains a subjective opinion.

  2. Account for the harness, not just the model: The FinOps Foundation warns that in production agentic architectures, the supporting infrastructure surrounding the model can account for 40% to 60% of total operational expenditure—none of which appears on the primary vendor's API invoice.

  3. Route by task complexity: Reserve high-reasoning models exclusively for tasks whose delivered value justifies the elevated cost, resolving simpler routines through lower-cost alternatives. This represents Gartner's primary architectural recommendation.

  4. Embed economic guardrails directly into the software architecture: Enforce maximum execution steps, token limits, and time caps per run, alongside session-level budgets and deterministic escalation triggers to human operators. The FinOps Foundation recommends monitoring each application's performance baseline for 30 to 60 days, establishing operating budgets at 110% to 120% of that baseline, and configuring real-time telemetry alerts at 80% and 100% thresholds.

  5. Attribute and govern AI procurement centrally: Tag every API request by team, business function, and task type at the point of origin—as proposed by Donald Farmer—and channel all experimental AI spending through a centralized review board to eliminate redundant software subscriptions, as advised by the FinOps Foundation.

There is a crucial sixth implication that executive committees often uncover too late: when costs are evaluated on a per-accepted-task basis, the decision ceases to be a technical debate and becomes an operational work design question: For any given workload, is the task best executed by an autonomous agent, a human professional, or a hybrid team? The answer shifts task by task, and can only be determined through hard data.

Three Capabilities for a Single Financial Equation
At Q-Vision—a technology company with more than 22 years of experience driving the intelligent transformation of organizations—this financial calculation connects directly to the three core capabilities we integrate:
  • Cloud Infrastructure & FinOps: Delivering end-to-end visibility and control over AI expenditure through cost attribution, execution limits, and economic architecture design.
  • Digital Product Engineering: Designing autonomous agents with built-in routing, token caps, and complexity-based dispatching from version 1.0, rather than as an afterthought.
  • Human-Agent Talent: Structuring operational workflows to decide precisely which tasks belong to an agent, which to a human professional, and which to a hybrid model—measured strictly by cost per outcome.
The unifying principle behind all three capabilities reflects our core value proposition: accelerating innovation and enhancing productivity only make sense when they deliver measurable, auditable business outcomes.
The next time an enterprise team proposes scaling an agentic workflow, the primary question in the executive committee should no longer be how much the model costs or how many tokens it consumes per second. It must be: What is the total cost of each successfully completed task, and how much of that cost is hidden from the vendor's invoice?
Organizations equipped to answer that question with hard data will retain the strategic authority to decide where to scale autonomous agents, where to route to a lower-cost model, and where to maintain human expertise. Those that cannot will inevitably discover the answer on their next cloud bill.

Press enter or click outside to cancel.

Puedes configurar tu navegador para aceptar o rechazar cookies en cualquier momento. Si decides bloquear las cookies de Google Analytics, la recopilación de datos de navegación se verá limitada. Más información.

Rechazar
Aceptar