Some managers/owners seemingly don't mind spending $4,000+/m in payroll to chase $2,000/m savings in paid services, though, for whatever reason.
I say, just pay the $$-$$$/month for each thing, and be done with it. If paying for the service isn't worth it, paying someone to manage the tool internally almost certainly isn't, either, so prefer attempting to do without it over that option.
[EDIT] obviously, this can change with scale. If you're a huge company then putting an average of 1/4 of the hours for five sysadmins to managing a self-hosted chat tool can absolutely save you lots of money over paying for one—provided the reliability's at least as good. A small slip on that and you're back on the wrong side of things.
In the end, do you think the self-hosting route is worth all the trouble and costs?
There are also trade-offs. A few sysadmins can't host emails against hostile (sometimes state-sponsored) parties like Google can. We can't roll out a better messaging service than Signal. We could roll out our own VPN, but if the goal is getting lost in the noise, you want a popular VPN, not routing journalists' traffic through unique IPs.
On the other hand, just Nextcloud and GitLab (two fairly common services) require about 10h/month if you don't want to be major versions behind or miss security patches in minor versions.
You can't just set it and forget it. When you approach a dozen or so self-hosted projects, you have to dedicate resources to keep everything running and up to date. Therefore, we consciously off-load some of the stuff to third parties — sometimes just for a couple of rough months, sometimes for far too long, sometimes permanently. It's far from being our only responsibility.