2026 State of IT Asset Value Recovery

Given the financial value that continues to exist within IT assets even after they reach the end of their first use within an organization, it’s unsurprising that both enterprises and IT asset disposition (ITAD) providers are focused on recovering as much of that value as possible.

As our new research suggests, however, a significant number of these organizations aren’t completely satisfied with how that’s currently happening.

To understand what’s blocking value recovery efforts, Coleman Parkes surveyed 825 senior decision makers for Blancco between July and September 2026: 660 at enterprises and 165 at IT asset disposition providers. Approximately 60% of the enterprise respondents worked in banking services, finance, or insurance, so this data should be considered in the context of that sector weighting rather than treated as representative of all industries. Findings reflect respondents’ reported experiences and views during the survey period, and interest in concepts such as AI asset grading and valuation should not be interpreted as evidence of adoption or proven outcomes.

Four findings that stand out tell the story of a market grappling with how to make IT asset disposition a more efficient and value-focused process.

1. Satisfaction has a ceiling. Only 40% of enterprises and 35% of ITADs are “very satisfied” with how end-of-life (EOL) IT assets are currently handled. Six in ten enterprises and 65% of ITADs rate their satisfaction lower.
2. Value is an issue for nearly half of enterprises. 43% of enterprises say identifying which devices can be reused is in their top 5 asset management challenges. 42% find recovering financial value from used IT assets similarly challenging.
3. Disconnection is challenging for many IT processors. For ITADs, in addition to meeting the sustainability and compliance needs of their customers, 39% said that disconnected tools and systems are a top 5 challenge.
4. Enterprise and ITAD decision-makers have similar priorities. 83% of enterprises say reducing manual effort in end-of-life asset management is above moderately valuable, and 85% of ITADs say the same. On the value side, 79% of enterprises rate increasing the value recovered from IT assets as extremely or very valuable, with 84% of ITADs rating increasing value the same way.

What’s the state of EOL asset disposition?

6 in 10

Enterprises are not completely satisfied with their end-of-life IT asset management. 65% of ITADs are not completely satisfied with their delivery either.

43%

Of enterprises struggle to identify which devices can be reused, and 42% find recovering financial value from used IT assets challenging.

8 in 10

Enterprises (79%) say having the ability to increase the amount of recovered value from IT assets would be extremely or very valuable for their organizations.

39%

Of ITADs list disconnected and fragmented tools as a top 5 barrier to effective IT asset disposition.

85%

Of ITADs say solutions that help them reduce manual effort and improve efficiency would be extremely or very valuable. 84% say support to increase value recovery would be similarly valuable.

This report focuses on what respondents told us about why value matters, where it is lost, what blocks it, and what a better process would need.

Even organizations that are not training AI models themselves are feeling the downstream impact through procurement delays and limited availability. TrendForce’s February 2026 outlook forecast recorded quarterly increases for the first quarter of 2026, with conventional DRAM contract prices up 90% to 95% on the previous quarter, and enterprise SSD prices up 53% to 58%. Its 30 September 2026 outlook expects the market to stay undersupplied in the fourth quarter, with conventional DRAM up a further 10% to 15% and enterprise SSD price growth accelerating.

The net effect is that the IT asset lifecycle is ready for a period of reassessment. Our data appears to show that instead of defaulting to “shred and upgrade” policies, many enterprises want to recoup the value to be found in used hardware, with ITADs also seeking ways to optimize how they too serve this expanding market.

That puts six in ten enterprises and 65% of ITADs below the top rating, suggesting a substantial number in both categories are aware of the potential for improvement.

The most positive news to emerge from the survey is that very few respondents are unhappy. Only 4% in each group are dissatisfied.

Respondents ranked their five biggest barriers from a list, so each figure is the share placing that barrier in their top five. Some of the value recovery concerns flagged by our respondents include the following.

Identifying which assets can be reused. 43% of enterprises and 36% of ITADs named this as a challenge.

Unnecessary destruction of usable devices. 44% of enterprises said they’re concerned about reducing the unnecessary destruction of usable IT assets. This was less of a concern for ITADs (32%), who placed it lower down on the list of challenges.

Recovering financial value. 42% of enterprises and 36% of ITADs stated it is challenging to get the maximum value from used IT equipment.

Timing adds a fourth pressure, but the two groups see it from opposite ends. 26% of enterprises say assets are retired earlier than necessary, and 24% of ITADs say client assets reach them too late to maximize recovery value. These were separate questions for each group, so the figures describe the same issue from each side and are not a direct comparison.

It’s noteworthy that each category received a combined score (“extremely” and “very” valuable) of between 78% and 85% across both audiences. In other words, leaders rated all four areas as worth pursuing, and are taking a balanced approach to their end-of-life assets. So, while value is important, our respondents remain aware of the need for robust security, compliance, and sustainability processes.

The biggest difference in focus between enterprises and ITADs is easier to see when we look closer at the strongest held views. Enterprises rated increasing recovered value as extremely valuable more often than any other improvement: 46%, against 33% to 36% for the rest. In total, 79% of enterprises rated it extremely or very valuable.

ITADs put reducing security and compliance risk first on the strongest rating: 47%. Even so, 84% of ITADs rated increased value recovery as extremely or very valuable, and 85% said the same of reducing manual effort.

This difference showed up, for example, in how our respondents rated the relevance of AI-assisted asset grading and value optimization solutions. For these questions, our respondents were asked their opinions about concepts rather than their intention to buy specific solutions.

87% of enterprises rated the idea of using AI to assess the condition and value of IT assets as extremely or very relevant to their organization, and about half rated it extremely relevant. ITADs rated it slightly lower: 76% for their own organization and 66% when judging what their clients would want. Surprisingly, only 20% of ITADs said it would be extremely relevant to their clients, against about 50% of enterprises.

The gap narrows when respondents rated the value of an AI asset grading and value solution rather than its relevance alone. In that case, 86% of enterprises rated it valuable for themselves and 79% of ITADs rated it valuable for their clients.

How do we interpret these differences?

With their technical and operational expertise, ITAD providers have a different sense of how impactful new solutions are likely to be for their clients. And, in the case of AI asset grading technologies (e.g., tools that use AI to assess likely damage to the cosmetic condition of a device), our ITAD respondents may have taken the view that even large enterprises are unlikely to invest in cosmetic grading; perhaps it’s not a request they’re currently hearing from their customers.

Either way, this survey suggests that around half of corporate respondents do have a significant interest in streamlining asset disposition with tools that help them grade devices and discover their residual value more easily. As AI develops and more such solutions become commonplace, increased awareness about the potential for optimizing value recovery may drive that conversation between ITADs and their enterprise customers into greater alignment.

So, how do we remove the obstacles currently stopping organizations from building completely satisfying processes?

Our interpretation of the data is that there are at least four areas of focus when building the next generation of value-focused circular asset strategies.

1. Value recovery demands holistic thinking. When thinking about their EOL asset management priorities, our respondents rated security, compliance, sustainability, and value as similarly important. While the current asset purchasing market may be encouraging companies to consider how they can sweat existing assets further, very few are prepared to compromise on the other pillars of successful ITAD programs. This points to the need for solutions that can connect the dots between secure data erasure, diagnostics, ESG reporting, and asset value insights.

2. Embracing AI within asset management. We’re living in the age of AI-enabled productivity, and asset management decision-makers appear ready to reap its benefits, too. With around 90% of those surveyed saying they found the concept of AI asset grading and valuation appealing, we see this as a clear direction for the market. Expect to see integrated and standalone tools that accomplish this without any need for specialist training or hardware.

3. Connecting systems and reducing manual effort is key. 39% of ITADs cite fragmented tooling as a top 5 barrier, and 85% of ITADs rate reducing manual effort as extremely or very valuable. Whether it’s through APIs or MCP, our software systems are more interconnected than ever, and there may be areas of the ITAD world that are still playing catchup. As we go forward, we’re expecting to see far easier connectors so that every organization can obtain a clear overview of every asset condition, status, risk, and value.
4. One view across sites and partners. Cited by both enterprises (38%) and ITADs (33%), coordinating asset processing and disposition across multiple locations and delivery partners is a challenge to secure value recovery. Having a centralized data sanitization management platform will remain a driver of value as organizations look to keep chain of custody intact and audit-ready documentation available.

The findings also show that value recovery cannot be pursued in isolation. Respondents consistently place efficiency, security, compliance, and sustainability alongside financial returns. The implication is not to trade one priority against another, but to connect asset assessment, secure data erasure, reporting, and disposition decisions within a coherent process.

Ultimately, the opportunity is to make secure reuse and value recovery more consistent, visible, and measurable. For enterprises and their ITAD partners, progress means understanding what each asset can still deliver, while maintaining the controls and evidence needed to manage it responsibly.