A published sample of what a buyer-map client receives. Government entities are named as on Etimad; winning companies are numbered by their value in the category (Supplier 1 is the largest) and are not named in the public sample.
Buyer Map: Information Technology (October 2025 – September 2026)
The summary in five lines
- The category contracted more than the market in value: SAR 9,092.8 million across 1,851 awards, i.e. −24.7% in value and −27.4% in number, against −11.4% and −33.8% for Etimad as a whole. In percentage terms, the category lost more than twice as much value as the market, but its fall in the number of awards was smaller.
- Half of the decline came from five entities: SDAIA, the Education and Training Evaluation Commission, the Ministry of Health, National Guard Health Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs together fell by 1,578 million, i.e. 52.8% of the category's decrease.
- Competition is broad: the median number of bidders is 5 (4 in the previous period), and 53% of public tender value was decided with seven or more bidders. A one-point difference in the median is not enough on its own to conclude that competition has intensified.
- Price is not the whole story: in 1,330 public tenders with two or more bids, the award value equalled the lowest bid in 44.1% of cases and exceeded it by ten per cent or more in 40.8%.
- Incumbency is no fortress: across 250 entities that bought in both periods, 65.7% of value went to a supplier that had not won at the same entity in the previous year. New entrants to the category took 9.6% of value.
Size and direction of the category
Anyone building a 2027 plan on the previous period's figure (October 2024 – September 2025) will overestimate the market by roughly a third: SAR 12,080.3 million against 9,092.8 million in the current period, meaning the old figure exceeds the new one by 32.9%. The decline itself, calculated on the previous value, is −24.7%. The number of awards fell from 2,551 to 1,851 (−27.4%), purchasing entities from 325 to 291, and winners from 791 to 630.
Comparison with Etimad as a whole puts the decline in context. The overall market fell −11.4% in value and −33.8% in number. The category therefore lost more than twice the market's percentage of value, but a smaller share of its number of awards. The average award in the category rose slightly from 4.74 to 4.91 million (calculated as value divided by number). The file does not contain the size distribution for the previous period or for the market, so we cannot say which tier of deals disappeared. The category's share of Etimad fell from 13.2% to 11.2% (calculated as category value divided by Etimad value in each period); this figure reflects relative weight, not deal sizes.
The monthly distribution this year is skewed towards the start. October 2025 alone accounted for 1,751.1 million, i.e. 19.3% of the year's value, including SDAIA's licence-renewal awards on 20 and 22 October. October 2024, by contrast, carried 11.5% of its year, so we do not treat it as a recurring season. After October the pace slowed: January–March 2026 reached 1,665.9 million against 2,702.3 million in the same quarter of the previous year (−38.4%), and April–June 1,768.9 million against 2,965.8 (−40.4%). August 2026 recovered to 1,118.0 million. The first half of the period (October–March) carried 5,037.1 million and the second half 4,055.7 million.
Public tenders are, in practice, the category: 8,807.9 million, 96.9% of value and 81% of number. Framework agreements accounted for 31 awards worth 264.9 million at 16 entities. Direct purchasing accounted for 321 awards worth only 20.0 million, an average of SAR 62 thousand per award, making it a channel for small purchases.
Geographically, the Riyadh Region accounted for 6,677.0 million across 1,319 awards (73.4% of value); including records classified as "Riyadh" (506.6 million), the figure reaches 79.0%. Makkah accounted for 389.1 million and the Eastern Province 378.4.
What the record does not say: The final month is not yet complete; the median publication delay is 5 days and 90% are published within 16 days, so the September 2026 figure may rise. Etimad does not publish estimated costs, so we cannot tell whether the decline lies in budgets or only in awards.
Who buys
| # | Entity | Value (SAR m) | Awards | Change | Median bidders | Largest supplier's share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority | 1,432.3 | 35 | −28.3% | 6 | 31% (Supplier 1) |
| 2 | Ministry of Health (Headquarters) | 425.8 | 9 | −32.2% | 2 | 59% (Supplier 5) |
| 3 | Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development | 301.5 | 42 | +80.0% | 4 | 19% (Supplier 36) |
| 4 | Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs | 247.3 | 63 | −43.3% | 3 | 43% (Supplier 9) |
| 5 | General Authority for Statistics | 203.2 | 10 | +430.5% | 5 | 91% (Supplier 8) |
| 6 | Social Development Bank | 191.1 | 27 | −18.5% | 8 | 12% (Supplier 11) |
| 7 | Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority | 179.3 | 34 | −30.3% | 3 | 18% (Supplier 60) |
| 8 | Ministry of Tourism | 160.1 | 17 | −14.7% | 9 | 34% (Supplier 2) |
| 9 | Saudi Water Authority | 152.2 | 40 | +53.7% | 4 | 13% (Supplier 90) |
| 10 | National Health Insurance Center | 136.5 | 15 | +556% | 6.5 | 72% (Supplier 20) |
| 11 | Capital Market Authority | 126.4 | 21 | +322.7% | 7.5 | 64% (Supplier 1) |
| 12 | Agricultural Development Fund | 121.3 | 17 | +78.9% | 6 | 74% (Supplier 4) |
(Change is calculated on the entity's value in the previous period.)
First reading: SDAIA occupies a position no other entity rivals. Its 1,432.3 million equals 15.8% of the category and more than three times the second-ranked entity. Six of the twelve largest awards in the category are SDAIA's, totalling 649.1 million, or 45.3% of its spending, and three of them are titled as licence renewals. Even so, it fell by 564.4 million, accounting on its own for 18.9% of the category's decline.
Second reading: mid-sized entities rose sharply. The National Health Insurance Center went from 20.8 to 136.5 million, the Capital Market Authority from 29.9 to 126.4, the General Authority for Statistics from 38.3 to 203.2, and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development from 167.5 to 301.5, the only one of these that already carried significant weight. Conversely, the Education and Training Evaluation Commission fell from 581.6 to 112.3 million, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 241.4 to 88.1. The file does not contain the ranking of entities in the previous period, so we cannot say where each entity stood.
Third reading, from the summary of all entities: concentration looks greater than it is. At 197 of 291 entities, more than half of value went to a single supplier, but together these entities account for only 39.5% of value. The picture among the largest buyers is mixed: the Social Development Bank had 26 winners across 27 awards, the Saudi Water Authority 37 across 40, and National Guard Health Affairs 54 across 63; at the other end, the General Authority for Statistics gave 91% to a single supplier, the Agricultural Development Fund 74%, the National Health Insurance Center 72% and the Ministry of Health 59%. Of 257 entities that issued public tenders, 85 (33.1%) had a median of 7 or more bidders, and 24 (9.3%) a median of 2 or fewer. The ten largest entities account for 37.7% of value, so roughly two-thirds of the market lies outside them.
What the record does not say: The record does not show why one entity declined and another rose: a contract-renewal cycle, items moved to another activity category, or postponement. Activity is recorded at tender level, not item level.
Who wins
| # | Supplier | Value (SAR m) | Awards | Entities | Change | Listed | Median award (SAR m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Supplier 1 | 645.7 | 31 | 16 | −31.8% | Listed | 7.70 |
| 2 | Supplier 2 | 458.7 | 24 | 17 | −19.4% | Listed | 13.09 |
| 3 | Supplier 3 | 399.0 | 29 | 18 | +44.9% | Not listed | 4.83 |
| 4 | Supplier 4 | 368.8 | 15 | 15 | −48.0% | Listed | 14.86 |
| 5 | Supplier 5 | 294.3 | 11 | 9 | ×18 (from 16.2) | Listed | 9.09 |
| 6 | Supplier 6 | 267.3 | 13 | 9 | from 1.8 | Not listed | 1.05 |
| 7 | Supplier 7 | 237.2 | 35 | 30 | +131.6% | Not listed | 3.94 |
| 8 | Supplier 8 | 210.1 | 3 | 2 | +321.9% | Not listed | 20.70 |
| 9 | Supplier 9 | 176.7 | 8 | 8 | +72.1% | Not listed | 12.15 |
| 10 | Supplier 10 | 162.5 | 2 | 1 | −44.3% | Not listed | 81.24 |
| 11 | Supplier 11 | 159.1 | 5 | 5 | −15.1% | Not listed | 23.39 |
| 12 | Supplier 12 | 155.0 | 2 | 2 | +384.4% | Not listed | 77.52 |
Reading: the top changes hands, and no one owns the market. The Herfindahl index stands at 189 points, the five largest suppliers hold 23.8% of value and the ten largest 35.4%. Listed companies number only 17 of 630 suppliers, but they hold 24.2% of value, and four of them are among the top five.
Part of the year's ranking reflects a few deals rather than broad presence. Supplier 8 reached eighth place with three awards at two entities, including the statistical contact centre award worth 185.0 million, i.e. 88% of its value. Supplier 10 had two awards at a single entity, and Supplier 12 two awards, one of them 154.0 million for computing capacity at SDAIA. Supplier 20 had five awards, all at the National Health Insurance Center.
The opposite model is Supplier 7: 35 awards at 30 entities with a median of 3.94 million, and value up 131.6%. Supplier 3 rose 44.9% with 29 awards at 18 entities and is not listed. At the other extreme, Supplier 15 fell from 755.1 to 112.6 million (−85.1%), with 16 awards this year at 15 entities and a median of 3.3 million. The file does not contain its number of awards and entities in the previous period, so we cannot say what changed for it.
New entrants: 279 winners did not appear in the previous period, i.e. 44.3% of winners; they took 389 awards and 9.6% of value. Their median award is 0.48 million against 1.38 million for all winners, and only 21 of their awards exceeded 10 million. Supplier 6 comes closest in practice to being "new": from 1.8 million to 267.3 million. The list of largest awards shows that a single award (141.2 million, AI infrastructure at SDAIA) equals 52.8% of its value, and its median award is 1.05 million.
What the record does not say: Winner names are not consolidated across subsidiaries or similar registrations, so two suppliers in the table may be a single entity, or vice versa. Nor does the record show consortium shares or subcontracting.
How tenders are decided
Bidders. More than half of public tender value was awarded in tenders with seven or more bidders, even though some of the largest awards involved only two or three. 590 public tenders (39.4% by number) attracted seven or more bidders and carried 4,664.3 million, i.e. 53.0% of public tender value and 51.3% of category value. By contrast, 156 tenders with a single bidder (10.4%) carried 527.6 million (6.0%). The median number of bidders is 5 against 4 in the previous period; the file does not contain the bidder distribution for the previous period, so the percentages above describe a level, not a trend. Among the largest awards: 25 bidders for managed services at the Agricultural Development Fund, 28 for managed services at the Capital Market Authority, and 13 for computing capacity at SDAIA; against 2 and 3 for the health record upgrade at the Ministry of Health.
Value against the lowest bid. In 1,330 public tenders with two or more bids, the award value equalled the lowest bid in 44.1% of cases, exceeded it by ten per cent or more in 40.8%, and fell in between in about 15% (calculated as the remainder). The median spread between the highest and lowest bid is 121.1%, meaning bids within a single tender range to more than double. The record compares award value with the lowest bid as recorded and does not show who submitted it; equality does not mean the lowest bidder won, and an award above it may reflect technical evaluation, disqualification or negotiation.
Time from issue to award. For public tenders the median is 107 days, and 90% are decided within 204 days. For direct purchasing the median is 40 days, and 90% within 98. In other words, half of public tenders are awarded within about three and a half months, and a tenth exceed 204 days, roughly six and two-thirds months.
Continuity with the entity. Across 250 entities that bought in both periods, 34.3% of value and 21.5% of awards went to a supplier that had previously won at the same entity. Accordingly, roughly two-thirds of value at these entities went to a supplier that had not won there in the previous period. Because the value share exceeds the share by number, awards that returned to a previous winner were larger on average. This describes what happened, not why.
Award size. The median award is 1.375 million, the top quartile is above 4.5 million, and the top decile above 11.46 million. 208 awards of ten million or more (11.2% by number) carried 63.0% of value.
What the record does not say: It does not show who submitted the lowest bid, the technical evaluation weightings or the reason for the difference. Because estimated costs are not published, we cannot measure awards against estimates.
What this means for bidders
- Do not avoid tenders with seven or more bidders. 53% of public tender value lies there. Compare this with your own record: what is your win rate when there are more than six bidders?
- Do not base pricing on "lowest wins". In tenders with two or more bids, 40.8% of awards exceed the lowest bid by ten per cent or more. Go back to your recent losses: were you the lowest bidder? If so, the decision was not made on price alone.
- Track the rising entities. The National Health Insurance Center, the Capital Market Authority and the General Authority for Statistics exceeded +100%, and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development reached +80%. Look at your watch list today: are these four on it?
- Treat incumbency as an advantage, not a fortress. At entities that bought in both periods, 65.7% of value went to someone other than the previous winner. Count the clients you regard as "secure" for whom no new bid is being prepared.
- If you are new, start in the middle, not at the top. New entrants have a median award of 0.48 million, and only 21 awards above 10 million. Ask yourself: do you have a delivery record suitable for an award of 1 to 5 million at a multi-winner entity such as the Social Development Bank or the Saudi Water Authority?
- Plan on 107 days from issue to award, and allow for more than 204 days in a tenth of cases. This year October carried 19.3% of value against 11.5% in October 2024, so do not treat it as a season. The file covers the time from issue to award, not payment dates or the start of delivery.
Methodology and limitations
Measurement is based on the Etimad awards record, extracted on 30 October 2026, for the period from 1 October 2025 to 30 September 2026, compared with the same period a year earlier. Values are in riyals, including VAT, as published. The category is the "Information Technology" activity field at tender level, so a mixed tender is counted in full under its recorded activity. Supplier names are coded by their value rank in the current period, are not published in the sample, and are not consolidated across affiliated entities. Percentage changes are calculated on the previous value for each entity or supplier, and shares on category value unless another basis is stated. "Lowest bid" percentages are based on 1,330 public tenders with two or more bids, continuity percentages on 250 entities that bought in both periods, and bidder percentages on public tender value.
Main limitations: (1) Etimad does not publish estimated costs, so awards cannot be measured against estimates; (2) publication for the final month is incomplete, with a median delay of 5 days and 90% within 16 days; (3) the "lowest bid" is compared as recorded, without distinguishing disqualified bids and without knowing who submitted it; (4) the region classification carries two labels for the Riyadh Region, and 29 awards have no region (190.6 million); (5) the comparison with Etimad as a whole is at aggregate level only; (6) the file does not contain the distribution of award sizes, the distribution of bidders, the ranking of entities or supplier details for the previous period, so comparisons are at aggregate level for each entity or supplier.