This page collects published third-party research for 16 questions. 11 have no reliable published benchmark as of October 2026. None of these figures are Revspire results. Vendor numbers are labelled with their evidence type.
Does battlecard usage correlate with competitive win rate?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
No published study links measured battlecard usage to competitive win rate. The available data is self-reported by competitive-intelligence teams.
Proxy evidence
- Crayon’s 2022 State of Battlecards report says CI teams of six or more people were 4x more likely than one-person teams to say battlecards improved their win rates. The sample size is not stated.Crayon (with SCIP), 2022 · Vendor survey · Sample size not stated on the landing page
How to measure this in your team: For competitive opportunities, compare win rates where the rep opened the relevant battlecard with those where they did not, controlling for segment.
How quickly do battlecards go stale?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
No battlecard-specific shelf-life data is published. General content surveys suggest most material needs regular refreshing.
Proxy evidence
- In Spekit’s 2025 survey, 48.8% of enablement professionals said 80% or more of their sales content needs refreshing.Spekit with the Sales Enablement Collective, 2025 · Vendor survey · 100+ enablement professionals
How to measure this in your team: Track the days from each battlecard update until a field correction or competitor change makes it inaccurate.
Which battlecard sections do reps actually read?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
No published section-level reading data exists for battlecards. Published lists of what to include are opinion.
How to measure this in your team: Log section-level views and dwell time on battlecards. Report the read rate per section.
At which deal stage do reps open competitive content?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
We found no published data on when in the deal cycle reps open competitive content.
How to measure this in your team: Join battlecard opens to the CRM stage of the active opportunity, then report the distribution by stage.
What is the head-to-head win rate against incumbents vs challengers vs status quo/DIY?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
No published benchmark splits win rates by competitor type. The evidence does show that no decision accounts for a large share of losses, and that buyers usually pick from an early shortlist.
Proxy evidence
- Dixon and McKenna’s analysis of 2.5M sales conversations found 40–60% of lost deals ended in no decision.Challenger Inc. (research by Matt Dixon and Ted McKenna), 2024 · Vendor platform data · 2.5M recorded sales conversations
- 6sense’s 2025 buyer survey found 95% of buyers purchased from their day-one shortlist, and 77% first contacted the vendor they eventually chose.6sense, 2025 · Vendor survey · Nearly 4,000 buyer responses plus a 766-response companion survey
How to measure this in your team: Code every closed opportunity by its primary alternative (named competitor, incumbent, DIY, no decision), then report the win rate for each.
How much does procurement involvement extend the sales cycle?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
We found no published data on how many days procurement adds. Stalls and slippage, though, are well documented.
Proxy evidence
- Forrester reports that 86% of B2B purchases stall at some point.Forrester, 2024 · Analyst survey · Sample size not stated in the press release
- Ebsta’s 2023 benchmark (2022 data) reported deal slippage of 37%, up 21% year over year.Ebsta and Pavilion, 2023 · Vendor platform data · 3.2M opportunities, 364 companies, $37B pipeline (2022 data)
How to measure this in your team: Compare the median days from verbal commit to signature for deals with and without a formal procurement step.
Do playbook-adherent deals win more or close faster?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
No independent study measures playbook adherence against outcomes. Surveys find a gap between believed and actual consistency.
Proxy evidence
- In Highspot’s 2026 survey (n=450), 98% of leaders believe execution is standardised, but 53% report highly consistent outcomes.Highspot, 2026 · Vendor survey · n=450 GTM leaders in 6 countries
- In Highspot’s 2025 survey (n=350), companies on a unified enablement platform were 42% more likely to report improved win rates. This is self-reported and correlational.Highspot, 2025 · Vendor survey · n=350 GTM professionals, 21 countries
How to measure this in your team: Score each opportunity on required plays completed. Compare win rate and cycle length for high-adherence and low-adherence deals.
What share of playbook content is never opened by sellers?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
No published figure exists for playbooks specifically. The nearest data is perception surveys about enablement materials in general.
Proxy evidence
- In Forrester’s 2023 survey, 53% of respondents said sales used fewer than half of their sales enablement materials.Forrester, 2023 · Analyst survey · Sample size not stated on the page
How to measure this in your team: Report the share of playbook pages with zero opens by quota-carrying reps in the last 90 days.
What share of lost deals are actually “no decision”?
Between 40% and 60%, according to the largest published analysis. It comes from Matt Dixon and Ted McKenna’s study of recorded sales conversations, described in The JOLT Effect.
Best available evidence
- Analysis of 2.5M recorded sales conversations found 40–60% of lost deals ended in no decision. Some level of customer indecision appeared in roughly nine in ten calls.Challenger Inc. (research by Matt Dixon and Ted McKenna), 2024 · Vendor platform data · 2.5M recorded sales conversations
- Forrester reports that 86% of B2B purchases stall at some point.Forrester, 2024 · Analyst survey · Sample size not stated in the press release
How to measure this in your team: Report the share of closed-lost opportunities where no vendor was chosen, using buyer confirmation rather than the rep’s CRM code.
How accurate are CRM closed-lost reasons compared with buyer behaviour?
Not very. In the one published comparison we found, CRM loss reasons matched what buyers said in interviews only 15% of the time.
Best available evidence
- Clozd compared 1,000 closed-lost deals with buyer win-loss interviews. CRM reasons matched 15% of the time, and the CRM competitor was wrong in nearly 7 of 10 deals. About 44% of CRM loss reasons described an outcome rather than a cause.Clozd (Nate Bagley), n.d. · Vendor platform data · 1,000 closed-lost deals compared with buyer win-loss interviews
How to measure this in your team: Interview a random sample of lost buyers each quarter. Report the share whose primary reason matches the CRM loss code.
What are the top reasons B2B SaaS deals are won?
Published research points to how winners sell rather than to one product factor. The most-cited study is from 2013.
Best available evidence
- RAIN Group studied 700+ B2B purchases (2013). Winners outperformed second-place sellers in how they connected, convinced and collaborated. The starkest gaps were in convincing (making the ROI case and reducing risk) and collaborating.RAIN Group, 2013 · Independent research-firm survey · 700+ B2B purchases, buyers representing $3.1B in annual purchasing
- Clozd reports that buyers typically name four to five primary decision factors in win-loss interviews.Clozd (Nate Bagley), n.d. · Vendor platform data · 1,000 closed-lost deals compared with buyer win-loss interviews
- In Klue’s 3,400+ win-loss interviews, product and sales experience came before price as loss reasons.Klue (Adam McQueen), 2024 · Vendor platform data · 3,400+ buyer win-loss interviews, mostly late-stage deals
How to measure this in your team: Interview won buyers. Report how often each decision factor is named as primary, by segment.
How fast do win/loss insights become playbook or training changes?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
We found no published data on the time from a win/loss insight to a playbook or training change.
How to measure this in your team: Log the date each win/loss insight is accepted and the date the related play or course goes live. Report the median gap.
What is the average B2B SaaS win rate by deal size and segment?
Published benchmarks exist but use different definitions, so they are not interchangeable. Ebsta reports win rates by deal-size segment and number of buyer relationships. CSO Insights reported win rates on forecast deals only.
Best available evidence
- Ebsta and Pavilion (2022 data, 3.2M opportunities) report average win rates of 29% for small deals with 1–3 relationships, 48% for medium deals with 7–9, and 42% for enterprise deals with 10–12. Overall win rates fell 15% year over year.Ebsta and Pavilion, 2023 · Vendor platform data · 3.2M opportunities, 364 companies, $37B pipeline (2022 data)
- CSO Insights’ 2019 study reported a 46.4% average win rate on forecast deals: 49.0% with sales enablement and 42.5% without.CSO Insights (Miller Heiman Group, now part of Korn Ferry), 2019 · Independent research-firm survey · 900+ participants worldwide
- Ebsta’s H1 2024 update reports win rates down 7% against 2023.Ebsta, 2024 · Vendor platform data · $57.3B of revenue analyzed, compared with 2023
How to measure this in your team: Report the win rate as closed-won divided by all opportunities that reached your qualified stage, by ACV band and segment, over a rolling four quarters.
How long does a B2B SaaS deal take to close by ACV band?
No published benchmark reports cycle length by ACV band. The closest data uses deal-size segments: Ebsta reports when deals of each size are most likely to close, and buyer surveys measure the whole buying journey.
Best available evidence
- Ebsta’s 2023 report gives a “golden period” for closing of 31–60 days for small deals, 61–90 days for medium deals and 150–180 days for enterprise deals. Sales cycles grew 32% year over year.Ebsta and Pavilion, 2023 · Vendor platform data · 3.2M opportunities, 364 companies, $37B pipeline (2022 data)
- Buyers in 6sense’s 2025 survey reported an average buying cycle of 10.1 months, against 11.3 months in 2024.6sense, 2025 · Vendor survey · Nearly 4,000 buyer responses plus a 766-response companion survey
- Across 54 B2B SaaS companies, HockeyStack found sales cycle length explains 26.8% of the variance in deal size.HockeyStack (Emir Atli), 2025 · Vendor platform data · 54 B2B SaaS companies (US, UK, Canada)
How to measure this in your team: Report the median days from opportunity creation to close for won deals, by ACV band, alongside the 25th and 75th percentiles.
How far ahead of a CRM stage change does engagement data flag a deal at risk?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
No published study measures how much warning engagement data gives before a stage change. The best related data covers prospect response timing.
Proxy evidence
- Outreach’s analysis of 12M+ prospects found expected conversion dropped 3x after two days of silence from the first touchpoint. Reps had about 14 days before outreach showed diminishing returns.Outreach (Pavel Dmitriev), 2020 · Vendor platform data · 12M+ prospects, June 2019-August 2020
How to measure this in your team: For lost deals, measure the days between the first engagement drop (no buyer activity for a set period) and the stage regression or close-lost date.
Do battlecard reads before a competitive role-play raise the practice score?
No reliable published benchmark exists as of October 2026.
We found no published research linking battlecard reading to practice scores. Answering it requires content and practice data in the same system.
How to measure this in your team: Compare competitive role-play scores for reps who opened the relevant battlecard in the previous seven days with those who did not.
Summary: the best available figure for each question
11 of the 16 questions on this page have no reliable published benchmark as of October 2026.
Widely repeated figures to treat with care
- RAIN Group “What Sales Winners Do Differently”. Published in 2013. Its framework is still cited, but buyer behaviour has changed since then.RAIN Group, 2013 · Independent research-firm survey · 700+ B2B purchases, buyers representing $3.1B in annual purchasing
- CSO Insights win rates on forecast deals. From the 2019 study. CSO Insights’ later reports are no longer published in the same form.CSO Insights (Miller Heiman Group, now part of Korn Ferry), 2019 · Independent research-firm survey · 900+ participants worldwide
Methodology
Each question comes from Revspire’s list of buyer questions that lack a data-backed public answer. For each one, we searched for published evidence in October 2026 and opened every source cited here. We preferred primary research from analysts, research firms, academic studies and large vendor datasets that state a sample size and method.
Every figure keeps its original wording, date and sample. Vendor numbers are labelled by evidence type (vendor survey, vendor platform data, sponsored study or single-customer case study). Case studies describe one company and are not benchmarks. Where we found nothing reliable, we say so and show proxy evidence from adjacent fields, clearly marked.
Revspire has not published benchmark data, and no figure on this page comes from Revspire customers or the Revspire platform.
How evidence strength is graded
- Strong
- Independent or peer-reviewed research with a disclosed method that answers the question directly.
- Moderate
- Disclosed-method analyst, research-firm or large vendor dataset that answers the question directly but has limits (vendor-run, self-reported, or partial scope).
- Weak
- Indirect proxy, undisclosed sample, single-customer case study, or a figure more than ten years old.
- None
- No published evidence found.
Frequently asked questions
What is a good B2B win rate?
It depends on the definition. Ebsta’s 2022 data shows average win rates from 29% for small deals with few relationships to 48% for medium deals with 7–9 relationships. CSO Insights reported 46.4% on forecast deals in 2019. Compare yourself only with benchmarks that use the same denominator.
How many deals are lost to no decision?
Research on 2.5 million recorded sales conversations by Matt Dixon and Ted McKenna found 40–60% of lost deals end in no decision.
Can we trust CRM loss reasons?
Use them with caution. In Clozd’s comparison of 1,000 closed-lost deals with buyer interviews, CRM reasons matched only 15% of the time.
Related on Revspire
Revspire’s AI Playbook Engine includes win/loss analysis of deals and calls, and publishes changes to plays and battlecards under governance. Those are the events a team needs to time and measure.
Sources
All 16 sources were opened and checked on 2026-10-15.
- 6sense. 2025 B2B Buyer Experience Report. 2025-11-01. Vendor survey; Nearly 4,000 buyer responses plus a 766-response companion survey.
- Challenger Inc. (research by Matt Dixon and Ted McKenna). How to Overcome Customer Indecision Using the JOLT Effect Approach. 2024-02-22. Vendor platform data; 2.5M recorded sales conversations.
- Clozd (Nate Bagley). 5 Lies Your CRM Is Telling You About Your Buyers. Undated post, accessed 2026-10-15. Vendor platform data; 1,000 closed-lost deals compared with buyer win-loss interviews.
- Crayon (with SCIP). 2022 State of Battlecards Report. 2022-01-01. Vendor survey; Sample size not stated on the landing page.
- CSO Insights (Miller Heiman Group, now part of Korn Ferry). 2019 Sales Enablement Report: Fifth Annual Sales Enablement Study. 2019-10-01. Independent research-firm survey; 900+ participants worldwide.
- Ebsta. H1 Update 2024 B2B Sales Benchmarks. 2024-07-01. Vendor platform data; $57.3B of revenue analyzed, compared with 2023.
- Ebsta and Pavilion. 2023 B2B Sales Benchmark Report. 2023-02-01. Vendor platform data; 3.2M opportunities, 364 companies, $37B pipeline (2022 data).
- Forrester. A Call For Zero-Waste B2B Marketing (citing Forrester’s Portfolio Marketing Survey, 2023). Blog undated; survey fielded 2023. Analyst survey; Sample size not stated on the page.
- Forrester. Forrester: To Master B2B Buying Mayhem, Providers Must Prioritize Buyers’ Needs (The State of Business Buying, 2024). 2024-12-04. Analyst survey; Sample size not stated in the press release.
- Highspot. GTM Performance Gap Report 2026. 2026-08-19. Vendor survey; n=450 GTM leaders in 6 countries.
- Highspot. The State of Sales Enablement Report 2025. 2025-03-31. Vendor survey; n=350 GTM professionals, 21 countries.
- HockeyStack (Emir Atli). ACV, Sales Cycles and Sales Reps. 2025-12-15. Vendor platform data; 54 B2B SaaS companies (US, UK, Canada).
- Klue (Adam McQueen). Beyond the Price Tag: The Real Deal-Breakers, According to Your Buyers. 2024-10-10. Vendor platform data; 3,400+ buyer win-loss interviews, mostly late-stage deals.
- Outreach (Pavel Dmitriev). New Data to Help You Break Buyer Silence in the Sales Cycle. 2020-10-08. Vendor platform data; 12M+ prospects, June 2019-August 2020.
- RAIN Group. Sales Research: What Sales Winners Do Differently. 2013-04-12. Independent research-firm survey; 700+ B2B purchases, buyers representing $3.1B in annual purchasing.
- Spekit with the Sales Enablement Collective. The Impact of Enablement 2025. 2025-01-01. Vendor survey; 100+ enablement professionals.