2024 B2B Sales Benchmark Report: Why Top Performers Win Deals and Average Reps Lose in the U.S., U.K., and Global Markets

Introduction

The 2024 B2B Sales Benchmark Report analyzed 4.2 million opportunities, over 1 million hours of sales conversations, and $54 billion in revenue across 530 companies. The findings highlight a widening gap between top performers (who exceed quota and drive most of the revenue) and average performers (who miss quota and struggle with stalled deals).

Understanding why deals are won and lost reveals not only the habits that drive success but also the blind spots that lead to failure. Below, we break down both outcomes across five critical factors: Pipeline Generation, Qualification, Objection Handling, Relationship Management, and Deal Management.

Pipeline Generation

Won Deals

Top Performers

Top performers excel at pipeline generation by focusing on quality over quantity. They deliberately prioritize high-intent accounts, which convert at a 3.4x greater velocity than generic outbound prospects. Partnerships are another critical source of advantage, with referral deals delivering 3.8x velocity yet underutilized by most organizations. These reps also understand which personas are most influential, aligning their outreach accordingly. Instead of relying heavily on outbound or paid channels, they blend inbound, partnerships, and targeted outbound to maximize efficiency. Their pipeline reflects a balanced, high-quality mix that progresses predictably through the funnel. This disciplined approach allows them to avoid wasting cycles on low-potential accounts and to concentrate on opportunities where they’ve demonstrated repeatable success. The result is higher velocity, stronger conversion rates, and a more stable revenue contribution.

Average Performers

Average performers struggle because they often default to the easiest or most familiar pipeline generation tactics—primarily outbound and paid campaigns. While these channels create volume, they frequently deliver lower-quality prospects that stall mid-funnel. Instead of strategically prioritizing high-intent accounts, these reps pursue broad lists, hoping that volume will compensate for low conversion. As a result, their deals are more likely to slip or lose momentum as qualification gaps surface later. Average performers also underutilize partnerships, a proven high-velocity source, leaving valuable opportunities untapped. Their persona targeting tends to be inconsistent, with late engagement of key economic buyers or influencers. By spreading effort across many low-quality prospects, they dilute their time and energy, creating bloated pipelines with low win rates. Their revenue performance is more reliant on favorable external conditions—like budget alignment—than on disciplined, repeatable prospecting behavior.

Lost Deals

Top Performers

Even top reps occasionally lose at the pipeline level. Their losses typically occur when they prioritize high-intent accounts that later turn out not to have the required feature match or ROI alignment. Because they are disciplined, they rarely chase poor-fit leads; instead, their pipeline losses are more a reflection of structural product gaps than of poor execution. For example, they may surface needs during discovery that cannot be fulfilled by the current product roadmap. In these cases, they still exit gracefully, leaving the relationship intact for future cycles. Their strategic discipline means they lose fewer deals overall but when they do, it is often because they’ve uncovered a true mismatch between solution and customer need rather than because of poor targeting. This explains why their losses cluster around feature gaps and ROI issues rather than indecision, budget, or priority objections.

Average Performers

Average performers lose at the pipeline stage because they often pursue the wrong accounts or spread effort too broadly. By chasing volume rather than quality, they create bloated pipelines filled with poor-fit opportunities. Many of these prospects lack budget, urgency, or alignment with the solution. As a result, objections surface early, and instead of being addressed, they stall into indecision or die quietly. Their inability to consistently identify and prioritize high-intent accounts means they waste cycles on leads unlikely to convert. With partnerships underutilized and persona targeting inconsistent, their pipeline loss rate is higher. In short, average performers lose deals at the top of the funnel not because of product gaps, but because of weak targeting discipline and a reliance on ‘spray and pray’ prospecting.

Qualification

Won Deals

Top Performers

Top performers treat qualification as the foundation of their sales process. They are 588% more likely to follow a structured methodology such as SPICED or MEDDPICC, using frameworks to probe deeply into pain points, decision criteria, and timelines. These reps proactively disqualify poor-fit opportunities early, freeing bandwidth for accounts with genuine buying intent. Their discovery conversations are thorough and purposeful, surfacing critical information like the involvement of the Economic Buyer, who they engage 489% more often before the solution is presented. Top performers are also 366% more likely to close an opportunity directly from the Discovery stage, reflecting their ability to align solutions early. They treat qualification as a dynamic, continuous exercise, updating insights throughout the sales cycle to anticipate objections and tailor their approach. This discipline not only accelerates deals but also builds credibility with buyers, making the path to a close smoother and more predictable.

Average Performers

Average performers often take a superficial approach to qualification, treating it as a checkbox activity rather than a value-driven process. They frequently create ‘hope’ opportunities based on minimal discovery, only to realize late in the cycle that the account lacks budget, urgency, or fit. Instead of disqualifying early, they hang onto deals in the hope that circumstances might change, resulting in bloated pipelines and wasted time. Their use of methodologies like SPICED or MEDDPICC is inconsistent, and they are far less likely to engage the true decision-makers early on. This often leads to a mismatch between solution and need, with gaps surfacing at the demo or proposal stage. Because qualification is weak, objections later in the process become deal-breakers rather than opportunities to advance the sale. For these reps, success depends more on luck—right timing, right budget—than on systematic qualification discipline.

Lost Deals

Top Performers

Top reps rarely lose because of poor qualification. Instead, they lose when their rigorous discovery uncovers critical gaps that cannot be overcome. For example, they may engage the Economic Buyer early only to learn that the ROI case is insufficient compared to alternatives. By qualifying deeply and early, they disqualify many weak prospects before they become formal losses. When they do record a lost deal at this stage, it reflects strategic honesty rather than failure. They protect their time by declining to pursue poor-fit opportunities, and in doing so, maintain credibility with buyers. Their ‘losses’ here are actually deferred opportunities, often coming back when the product evolves or conditions change. This disciplined approach explains why they report losses due to feature or ROI gaps rather than the budget or priority issues cited by weaker peers.

Average Performers

Average performers lose heavily in qualification because they fail to dig deep. They often treat discovery as surface-level questioning, skipping structured methodologies like SPICED or MEDDPICC. This means they don’t identify decision makers early, fail to uncover hidden objections, and proceed with weak opportunities. Later, when these gaps resurface—such as budget misalignment or unclear decision criteria—the deals collapse. Many of their ‘lost’ deals at this stage reflect opportunities that should have been disqualified earlier. Their lack of rigor leads to wasted cycles, stalled conversations, and losses to competitors who have done better qualification. As a result, their losses cluster around indecision (61% of cases), lack of budget, or ‘not a priority,’ because they never validated these factors upfront.

Deal Management

Won Deals

Top Performers

Top performers shine in deal management by keeping momentum alive and ensuring every stage of the process is executed with discipline. They are 412% more likely to define a clear next step at each stage and 483% more likely to update opportunities weekly. This constant attention prevents deals from stalling. They resist the temptation to offer discounts too early, knowing win rates drop 39% when discounts are applied before negotiation. Instead, they build value throughout the process, maintaining control and confidence. Top performers also understand timing: closing deals within the “golden period” of stage benchmarks yields 203% higher win rates. They rarely skip stages, preferring to thoroughly execute each step and build consensus. Beyond in-cycle deals, they are 218% more likely to self-source future pipeline, ensuring continuity. This proactive, disciplined approach means they consistently manage deals toward closure rather than letting them drift.

Average Performers

Average performers often mishandle deal management, allowing opportunities to lose momentum. They are prone to skipping stages—29% of all opportunities do—which reduces close likelihood by 46%. Their opportunity hygiene is weak: if deals are not updated weekly, win rates decline sharply, but these reps frequently neglect this discipline. They also move close dates repeatedly, and when dates shift more than three times, win rates plummet by 77%. To rescue stalled deals, average performers often resort to early discounting, hoping to spark urgency, but this tactic reduces win rates by 39% and damages long-term credibility. Instead of defining clear next steps, they leave deals ambiguous, allowing buyer indecision to creep in. Their management style is reactive, focused on firefighting rather than proactive planning. As a result, their deals are more likely to slip or collapse, undermining confidence in their forecasts and making revenue contribution inconsistent.

Lost Deals

Top Performers

Top performers lose fewer deals to deal management missteps, but it still happens when momentum falters late in the cycle. If opportunities are not updated weekly or close dates shift repeatedly, even disciplined reps see win rates drop sharply. Their losses here often occur when they resist premature discounting but the buyer demands price concessions they cannot honor. Similarly, if objections like ROI are raised post-solution, momentum can stall beyond recovery. These losses are tied less to poor process and more to market or product constraints. Nonetheless, they remain vigilant, knowing that even small lapses in deal hygiene—like skipping a stage or failing to define a next step—can derail opportunities.

Average Performers

Average performers lose heavily at the deal management stage due to weak process discipline. They often skip stages—reducing win probability by 46%—and move close dates repeatedly, cutting win rates by 77%. Their reliance on early discounting backfires, with win rates dropping 39% when discounts are applied before negotiation. These reps also fail to keep opportunities current, with stale deals cluttering their pipeline. Without consistent next steps or updates, buyer momentum dissipates, and deals either slip indefinitely or are marked as lost. Their deal management losses are self-inflicted, reflecting poor habits and a reactive approach. This makes their forecasts unreliable and their revenue contribution inconsistent.

Objection Handling

Won Deals

Top Performers

Top performers are masters at turning objections into opportunities. They are 843% more likely than their peers to overcome objections effectively, largely because they anticipate them during discovery and qualification. By engaging stakeholders early, they uncover likely sticking points—such as ROI concerns, feature gaps, or implementation complexity—before they derail momentum. Instead of fearing objections, they treat them as signals of genuine buyer engagement. For example, when ROI questions arise early, they can frame a strong business case that accelerates closing. These reps are also adept at active listening and mirroring, making prospects feel understood while redirecting conversations constructively. Crucially, they manage the timing of objections. If ROI challenges surface only after the solution is presented, win rates can drop by 79%. By addressing such concerns earlier, top performers maintain control, build credibility, and reduce the risk of deals stalling late in the cycle.

Average Performers

Average performers often view objections as roadblocks rather than opportunities to deepen buyer engagement. Instead of probing into the root cause, they react defensively or move prematurely into feature pitching. Their lack of rigorous discovery means many objections—especially around budget, priority, and competition—emerge late in the cycle, when they are hardest to resolve. In fact, 77% of slipped opportunities had objections raised early that were not successfully addressed. Because they are less skilled at framing objections positively, these reps tend to lose momentum, leaving buyers unconvinced about the value or urgency of change. When objections surface around ROI or product gaps, average performers lack the consultative skills to reframe the conversation, leading to indecision or outright losses. Their win rates plummet as stalled deals accumulate, and their inability to anticipate objections makes them reactive, undermining trust and positioning them at a disadvantage against more disciplined competitors.

Lost Deals

Top Performers

Top performers rarely lose due to objections, but when they do, it is often tied to late-stage challenges such as feature limitations or ROI concerns raised by the Economic Buyer. These objections, if raised after the solution presentation, are much harder to reframe. Even though they are 843% more effective at overcoming objections, some hurdles cannot be solved without changes in the product or pricing model. For example, when ROI is deemed insufficient late in the cycle, win probability drops by nearly 80%. Top performers treat these losses as feedback loops to product teams and often exit with the relationship intact. Their objection-driven losses are thus less about poor selling skill and more about systemic gaps that selling can’t overcome.

Average Performers

Average performers lose frequently to objections because they lack the skills to anticipate or resolve them. In fact, 77% of slipped deals involve objections raised early that were never successfully addressed. When buyers challenge them on budget, timing, or priority, they either fail to reframe the value or respond too defensively, undermining trust. Without robust discovery, many objections arise late and stall deals indefinitely. Their inability to turn objections into accelerators leads directly to indecision, with buyers left unconvinced of urgency or ROI. This is why indecision accounts for 61% of their lost deals. Objections that top performers would reframe as opportunities become insurmountable roadblocks for average performers, resulting in higher loss rates.

Relationship Management

Won Deals

Top Performers

Top performers win because they build broad, deep, and trusted relationships across target accounts. On average, they involve nine stakeholders by the time they present a solution, compared to only two in lost deals. They are 519% more likely to have the right high-quality relationships in place and 241% more likely to engage the Economic Buyer before the solution stage. Their activity is not just higher, but smarter—100% more during discovery and 240% more during negotiation, when influence matters most. They approach prospects with empathy, seeking to understand motivations, team dynamics, and organizational priorities. By building genuine trust, they ensure decisions are influenced by advocates across the buying committee, making deals less vulnerable to single points of failure. These reps also know when to push and when to listen, striking a balance that positions them as trusted advisors rather than transactional vendors.

Average Performers

Average performers often fall short because their relationship-building is shallow and mis-timed. They engage too few stakeholders—typically just one or two—leaving deals vulnerable if those contacts disengage or lack true influence. Their activity is often front-loaded: 58% more than top performers in early stages as they try to convince prospects, but 75% less during negotiation, when influence is critical. Without senior executive engagement, particularly the Economic Buyer, they lack the leverage to drive decisions forward. Their relationships are transactional, focused on pitching rather than understanding the broader organizational context. As a result, they frequently encounter late-cycle resistance or indecision when additional stakeholders surface. Because trust and credibility were never deeply established, deals stall or are lost to more relationship-savvy competitors. This reactive, narrow approach leaves them overdependent on favorable circumstances rather than relationship strategy, making consistent success much harder to achieve.

Lost Deals

Top Performers

When top performers lose because of relationships, it usually reflects political or organizational dynamics outside their control. For example, they may have secured multiple contacts but discover late that a critical executive sponsor has shifted priorities. While they are 519% more likely to have high-quality stakeholder relationships, no seller is immune to internal buyer politics. Losses here are typically due to insufficient features or ROI relative to competitors, rather than because they failed to build trust. Still, when they do lose on relationships, it highlights the importance of timing and influence mapping. Even the best reps occasionally engage a key stakeholder too late, reducing their ability to overcome late objections.

Average Performers

Average performers lose frequently due to weak relationship management. With only one or two contacts engaged on average, they lack breadth of influence. This makes deals highly vulnerable: if that single contact disengages, the opportunity collapses. They also over-invest early in the cycle, with 58% more activity during discovery, but neglect later stages, with 75% less activity during negotiation. This imbalance means they fail to build consensus when decisions are actually being made. Without senior executive buy-in, they lose to indecision, internal politics, or competitors with stronger networks. These losses reflect a fundamental gap in their ability to build trust and navigate complex buying committees.

Attribution & Methodology

This analysis is based on findings from the 2024 B2B Sales Benchmark Report, jointly produced by Ebsta and Pavilion.

Data Sources

• CRM & Pipeline Data: Anonymized data from Ebsta’s Revenue Intelligence platform, drawn from 530 B2B companies spanning IT services, telecommunications, healthcare, professional services, and construction.
• Opportunities: 4.2 million opportunities representing $54 billion in revenue analyzed across small, mid-market, and enterprise sales cycles.
• Engagement & Relationship Data: Ebsta’s CRM integrations captured emails, meetings, calls, and stakeholder interactions to measure relationship strength and activity patterns.
• Sales Conversations: Over 1 million hours of calls and demos transcribed and coded to evaluate objection handling, economic buyer engagement, and deal progression.

Methodology

• Primary Performance Metric: Sales Velocity (value × win rate × speed) used as the ultimate benchmark.
• Supporting Metrics: Win rates, sales cycle length, deal value, pipeline coverage, and quota attainment.
• Comparative Analysis: Benchmarked top performers (high velocity, quota exceeders) against average performers (quota shortfall).
• Stage-Level Insights: Deals tracked across stages (Qualification, Discovery, Demo, Proposal, Negotiation) to identify slippage and success patterns.

Conclusion

The 2024 B2B Sales Benchmark Report highlights a sobering but actionable truth: while the majority of sales reps struggle to consistently close business, a small group of top performers generate the lion’s share of revenue. These individuals don’t just sell more—they sell smarter. Their success is grounded in disciplined behaviors measured by hard performance metrics: higher win rates, shorter sales cycles, larger deal values, and more consistent pipeline velocity. They achieve this by qualifying rigorously, engaging the right stakeholders at the right time, anticipating objections, and managing deals with discipline and momentum.

By contrast, average performers lose deals primarily due to execution gaps. Their losses cluster around budget objections, lack of urgency, and indecision—symptoms of poor qualification, shallow relationships, and reactive deal management. Their win rates are lower, their sales cycles longer, and their opportunities more likely to stall.

The contrast is stark: top performers lose because of structural limitations—product gaps or ROI hurdles—while average performers lose because of poor habits and weak process discipline. For leaders, the implication is clear: study the repeatable behaviors of top performers, reinforce them through enablement and coaching, and remove systemic obstacles. In a tighter market, efficiency isn’t enough—effectiveness is the new differentiator.