The basis for
the comparison.

581 perspectives. 320 companies.

The eligible population is US-based marketing and GTM leaders at US-headquartered B2B enterprise technology companies with annual revenue of at least $50 million. There are six screeners and 18 main questions, including five four-row grids.

Every company has one CMO, senior marketing leader, SVP or VP. Of 320 companies, 118 have that one respondent, 147 add a functional head, 51 add two functional heads and 4 add three. Multiple perspectives are intentional, allowing comparison within the same company.

Annual revenue

The four bands show achieved company counts, not estimates of the market’s composition. Each band includes its lower boundary and excludes the next band’s lower boundary.

Business and functional coverage

The company sample includes 156 enterprise application businesses, 109 cloud, infrastructure and cybersecurity businesses, and 47 IT services and technology consultancies.

The 240 functional heads represent product and industry marketing or product management (72), demand generation and sales development or enablement (60), marketing operations (42), partner marketing (36), and brand, creative or communications (30).

Weights, bases and missing answers

Report figures give each respondent equal weight unless labeled as matched companies. “n=581” counts respondents, not independent companies. Responses from colleagues are related observations.

The explorer also offers equal-company weighting. Every represented company contributes a total weight of one, shared among the respondents retained after filtering. Weights are recalculated within each cross-tab column.

All answer options, including “don’t know,” remain in question distributions. Percentages may not total 100 after rounding. Groups below 30 respondents, or 30 companies in the equal-company view, are suppressed. Aggregate downloads retain three decimal places.

Finding 02.2 uses only respondents who considered or made a provider change. Its chart states the eligible base and the number excluded. The explorer retains all response options so the excluded groups can be inspected.

Inside the same company

The matched comparison includes companies with a valid Q1 marketing-leader rating and at least one valid functional-head rating. One leader’s rating is compared with the mean of up to two functional heads. Each company contributes once. The grouped squares show comparison outcomes without identifiers or individual ratings.

Practices are shown separately.

Q1 asks for an initial overall view of four areas. The detailed grids then ask about specific practices, from “not in place” through experiments, several recurring workflows and standard practice with regular review.

Each practice is reported on its own. “Several recurring workflows” is shown separately from “standard practice.” The report does not collapse four practices into a maturity threshold or interpret a broad self-rating as an independently verified capability.

Q17 asks respondents to attribute additional GTM work to AI without additional headcount. It is a reported capacity measure, not verified productivity or financial return. “Not measured” and unknown answers remain visible.

A practical first view, then a company benchmark.

The quick assessment asks one practice per area: Q3 item 2, Q6 item 2, Q11 item 3 and Q15 item 1. The descriptions make those practices concrete while retaining the same five response stages. It shows the visitor’s answer beside the full peer distribution, including unknown responses.

Optional revenue and leadership perspective select the peer group. At least 30 responses are required. If fewer remain, the comparison broadens to the revenue band, then all respondents. Each card states the group used and its base.

The next-step recommendation starts with the lowest known practice. Ties are resolved using the selected business priority: creative work prioritizes people and agents, partner work prioritizes adaptable tools, account and sales work prioritizes AI that can act, and other work prioritizes shared expertise. The business priority also chooses the example task; it does not change the data.

Unknown answers are never scored as zero. If all four are unknown, the recommendation is to establish a shared view of a real task. If all four are standard practice, the recommendation is to check consistency across teams. There is no overall score, percentile or company ranking.

A personalized benchmark and workshop adds several GTM voices and evidence from one actual workflow. The team uses that comparison to agree a 90-day plan, owners and measures. Assessment answers accompany an inquiry only when the visitor submits the contact form.

Take the aggregate evidence with you.

The report, explorer and assessment draw from the same survey dataset. Available downloads contain aggregate results or the questionnaire; respondent and company records are not published. The products, open-source projects and published papers cited in the findings illustrate what exists; none is a measured result of this survey.

The readouts and the codebook open with a signed-in, approved account; the questionnaire is open to everyone.