This is original Revspire data: At least 10 customer organizations behind each figure, closed deals with buyer objections logged on them, with the discount, sales cycle, buyer role and industry recorded for those objections, 12 months to October 2026. The figures are aggregated and anonymized, and they describe patterns in Revspire customer data rather than proving cause and effect.
What is the win rate on deals with each type of sales objection?
Win rates on closed deals ranged from 34% to 27% depending on the objection logged. Deals with a timing objection were won 34% of the time, security 32%, price and competitor 30% each, and the status quo 27%: a seven-point spread from best to worst. The status quo is also the objection reps handled worst in AI role-play practice, at 2.9 out of 5 in our sales skills gap benchmark. That score is a different measure from a different data set, but the two point the same way: "our current process works fine" is hard to answer in practice and in live deals. Objection type is not assigned at random. Deals that get to a timing or security conversation may already be further along than deals stuck on the status quo, so read the gaps as a guide to where deals stall, not as the effect of the objection alone.
- Timing34%
- Security32%
- Price30%
- Competitor30%
- Status quo27%
Source: Revspire customer data, 12 months to October 2026.
- Win rate = closed-won ÷ (closed-won + closed-lost), for closed deals where an objection of that type was logged.
- Timing vs status quo: absolute difference = 34 − 27 = 7 percentage points. Relative difference = 34 ÷ 27 − 1 ≈ 26%.
- The 2.9 is the average AI role-play score against the status quo objection in the Revspire sales skills gap benchmark (1–5 scale): a practice measure, not a deal outcome, from a different data set.
What is the win rate when a buyer says "we already have a vendor"?
Deals where the buyer said "we already have a vendor" were won 24% of the time, the lowest win rate on this page. That is six points below the 30% for all deals with a competitor objection logged, and three points below the status quo (27%). The phrase often comes early, before the seller has found a problem worth switching for, and the buyer may have chosen the incumbent themselves. Deals that open with it may also start with less buyer intent than deals where the buyer is actively comparing vendors: a selection effect, not proof that the phrase loses deals. The practical answer is the same either way. Ask what the buyer would change about the current tool, find out when the contract renews and how much notice it needs, and offer a fair comparison on one real task.
- "We already have a vendor"24%
- Status quo objection logged27%
- Competitor objection logged30%
Source: Revspire customer data, 12 months to October 2026.
- Against all competitor-objection deals: 30 − 24 = 6 percentage points; 24 ÷ 30 − 1 = −20%, a fifth lower in relative terms. Against the status quo: 27 − 24 = 3 points.
- The "we already have a vendor" figure covers deals where the buyer used that phrase. How those deals overlap with the competitor and status quo types is not reported in this edition.
How much do sellers discount when a buyer raises each objection?
Deals with a price objection logged had the deepest median discount, 12%, followed by competitor (10%), status quo (7%), timing (5%) and security (4%). A deeper discount did not go with a higher win rate across these types. Price-objection deals were won 30% of the time, the same as competitor-objection deals at a 10% median discount, while timing objections came with a 5% median discount and the highest win rate, 34%. These are medians by objection type, not a test of discounting within deals, and sellers may discount most on deals they already see as at risk, which is a selection effect. Still, the pattern supports a familiar rule: when a buyer says "too expensive", find out what the price is being compared with, and trade any price change for a longer term, an earlier signature or a larger scope.
- Price12%
- Competitor10%
- Status quo7%
- Timing5%
- Security4%
Source: Revspire customer data, 12 months to October 2026.
- Median discount = the middle discount recorded on deals where an objection of that type was logged.
- Price vs security = 12 − 4 = 8 percentage points. Price vs competitor = 12 − 10 = 2 points, at the same 30% win rate.
Which objections do CFOs, CISOs and procurement teams raise?
Each role leads with a different objection. Price and ROI made up 45% of the objections CFOs raised, and security and compliance 55% of those CISOs raised. Procurement was the most evenly spread: price and ROI 35%, security and compliance 20%, and existing vendor or status quo 20%. Existing vendor or status quo objections were 15–20% of every role's mix, and contracting and procurement objections 10%. CFOs and procurement raise price and ROI most, and price objections carried the deepest median discount on this page (12%), so build the business case from the buyer's own numbers before pricing comes up. Who raises what also depends on when each role joins a deal: CISOs are often brought in for a security review, so their mix partly reflects the job they are asked to do rather than a view of the deal as a whole.
| Objection category | CFO | CISO | Procurement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price / ROI | 45% | 10% | 35% |
| Security / compliance | 10% | 55% | 20% |
| Existing vendor / status quo | 20% | 15% | 20% |
| Timing / priorities | 15% | 10% | 15% |
| Contracting / procurement | 10% | 10% | 10% |
- CISO: security and compliance55%
- CFO: price and ROI45%
- Procurement: price and ROI35%
Source: Revspire customer data, 12 months to October 2026.
- Shares are of the objections logged for each buyer role. Each column adds up to 100%: CFO 45 + 10 + 20 + 15 + 10, CISO 10 + 55 + 15 + 10 + 10, procurement 35 + 20 + 20 + 15 + 10.
- These categories group existing vendor with status quo and add contracting and procurement, so they do not map one to one onto the five types used for win rate and discount.
Which sales objections are most common in each industry?
Price and ROI was the largest objection category in SaaS (30%) and manufacturing (35%), while security and compliance led in fintech (32%) and healthcare (30%), about double its 15% share in SaaS and manufacturing. Competitor objections were most common in SaaS, at 25%, against 15–20% elsewhere. Status quo objections were 15–20% in every industry and timing 10–13%. For teams selling into fintech or healthcare, roughly one objection in three is about security and compliance, and on this page security objections went with a median of 14 additional cycle days but the smallest median discount, 4%: the cost to plan for is time more than price. The mix also reflects which Revspire customers sell in each industry and how objections are logged there, so compare it with your own deals before reweighting a training plan.
| Objection category | SaaS | Fintech | Healthcare | Manufacturing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price / ROI | 30% | 22% | 25% | 35% |
| Security / compliance | 15% | 32% | 30% | 15% |
| Competitor | 25% | 18% | 15% | 20% |
| Status quo | 18% | 15% | 20% | 20% |
| Timing | 12% | 13% | 10% | 10% |
- Fintech32%
- Healthcare30%
- SaaS15%
- Manufacturing15%
Source: Revspire customer data, 12 months to October 2026.
- Each industry column adds up to 100%: SaaS 30 + 15 + 25 + 18 + 12, fintech 22 + 32 + 18 + 15 + 13, healthcare 25 + 30 + 15 + 20 + 10, manufacturing 35 + 15 + 20 + 20 + 10.
- Security and compliance, fintech vs SaaS = 32 − 15 = 17 percentage points; healthcare vs SaaS = 30 − 15 = 15 points.
- How deals were assigned to an industry is not detailed in this edition.
How much longer do deals with security or AI-governance objections take?
Deals with a security objection logged took a median of 14 additional days in the sales cycle, and deals with an AI-governance objection 18 additional days, four days more. Security objections were not associated with a weak result: security-objection deals were won 32% of the time, second only to timing, with a median discount of 4%, the smallest on this page. In this data the cost of a security objection is mostly time. Security and AI-governance questions may come up more often on larger or more regulated deals, which run longer anyway, so part of the extra time may reflect the deal rather than the objection. Start the review early: send the security documentation and a written answer on how your AI features use, store and govern customer data before the buyer asks, and give the review a dated milestone with a named owner on the buyer side.
- AI-governance objection+18 days
- Security objection+14 days
Source: Revspire customer data, 12 months to October 2026.
- Additional cycle days = the median number of extra calendar days in the sales cycle on deals where the objection was logged, as supplied; how the baseline was set is not detailed in this edition.
- Difference = 18 − 14 = 4 days; 18 ÷ 14 − 1 ≈ 29%.
- AI-governance objections are reported separately from security objections; win rate and discount are not reported for them in this edition.
How to use this benchmark
- Log one objection type on every closed deal, using the same categories each time, then compare your win rate by type with the 27–34% range here. A type far below the rest is where your objection plays need work first.
- Give "we already have a vendor" its own play. It went with a 24% win rate here, six points below competitor objections overall: ask what the buyer would change and when the contract renews, then offer a fair comparison on one real task.
- Track median discount by objection type next to win rate. Price objections carried a 12% median discount yet won at the same 30% as competitor objections at 10%, so check whether your deeper discounts go with any higher win rate before approving the next one.
- Prepare by audience: a business case in the buyer's numbers for CFOs and procurement (price and ROI were 45% and 35% of their objections) and a security pack for CISOs (security and compliance, 55%). Give security content more weight for fintech and healthcare deals.
- Start security and AI-governance reviews in the first weeks of an evaluation and plan for the extra time: a median of 14 additional days with a security objection and 18 with an AI-governance objection.
Method and sample
- Organizations
- At least 10 customer organizations behind each figure
- Records
- Closed deals with buyer objections logged on them, with the discount, sales cycle, buyer role and industry recorded for those objections
- Period
- 12 months to October 2026
The figures come from aggregated, anonymized Revspire customer data covering the 12 months before Revspire supplied them in October 2026: closed deals with buyer objections logged on them, the discount and sales cycle of those deals, and the buyer role and industry recorded for the objections.
Each figure is based on at least 10 organizations. No figure identifies a customer, a rep or a deal. Customer contracts allow aggregated, anonymized benchmarks.
Win rate = closed-won ÷ (closed-won + closed-lost), for deals where an objection of that type was logged. Discount is the median discount on those deals. Additional cycle days are the median extra days in the sales cycle on deals with a security or AI-governance objection. Objection mix is each category's share of the objections logged for a buyer role or an industry.
These are observed correlations in Revspire customer data, not a random sample of all sales teams, and they do not show that any product caused a result.
Limitations
- Every comparison here is a correlation. Objection type is not assigned at random: deals that reach a timing or security conversation may already be further along than deals stuck on the status quo (a selection effect), so the win-rate gaps are not the effect of the objection alone.
- Objection types are only as accurate as the way they were logged on each deal. Whether a deal with several objections counts under each type is not detailed in this edition.
- The buyer-role and industry breakdowns use their own category lists (by role, existing vendor and status quo are grouped and contracting and procurement is added), so they do not line up one to one with the five types used for win rate and discount.
- Discounts and additional cycle days are reported by objection type only, not by deal size, and the "we already have a vendor" figure is not broken down further. Sample sizes are not reported in this edition.
Frequently asked questions
What is the hardest sales objection to overcome?
In Revspire customer data, deals with a status quo objection logged had the lowest win rate of the five types, 27%, against 34% for timing. The status quo was also the hardest objection in AI role-play practice, at 2.9 out of 5, which is a separate measure from a separate data set.
What is the win rate when a prospect says "we already have a vendor"?
Deals where the buyer said "we already have a vendor" were won 24% of the time, six points below the 30% for all deals with a competitor objection logged and three points below the status quo (27%).
How much discount do sales teams give on a price objection?
Deals with a price objection logged had a median discount of 12%, the deepest of five types, against 10% for competitor, 7% for status quo, 5% for timing and 4% for security objections. Price-objection deals were won 30% of the time, no higher than competitor-objection deals.
What objections do CFOs and CISOs raise most?
Price and ROI made up 45% of the objections CFOs raised, and security and compliance 55% of those CISOs raised. Procurement raised price and ROI most often too (35%), with security and compliance and existing vendor or status quo at 20% each.
How much longer do deals with security objections take?
Deals with a security objection logged took a median of 14 additional days in the sales cycle, and deals with an AI-governance objection 18 additional days. Security-objection deals were still won 32% of the time, with a median discount of 4%.
Can I use this benchmark in my own report?
Yes, cite it as "Revspire B2B sales objections benchmark, 2026" with a link to this page, and include the sample and period shown in the method section.
How to cite this benchmark
Revspire, "B2B sales objections benchmark: win rate, discount and cycle time by objection", 2026. https://www.revspire.io/research/b2b-sales-objections-benchmark
The data on this page is published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0): you may reuse the figures and charts if you credit Revspire and link to this page.
Related on Revspire
- Sales objection statistics: the published researchThird-party data on which objections come up most and which lose deals.
- Sales skills gap benchmarkRevspire data: AI role-play practice scores by objection type, from 2.9 for the status quo to 4.1 for security.
- How to handle common sales objectionsA guide per objection type, with talk tracks and practice prompts.
- What is objection handling?Definition, a worked example and how to measure it.
- Mutual action plan benchmarkRevspire data on which plan milestones slip, led by security and legal review.
- Revspire AI Sales Training & CoachingAI role-play, objective scoring and readiness tracking.