Average Deal Size Insights

"We need bigger deals to hit our revenue targets." Every VP of Sales says this. Then they discover what sucks about enterprise sales: As deal size goes up, win rates go down. Dramatically. Let's look at some super fun data to set the stage: - SMB ($5K-$25K): 35-45% win rate, 30-60 day cycle. - MM ($25K-$100K): 22-28% win rate, 90-120 day cycle. - ENT ($100K-$500K): 12-18% win rate, 180-270 day cycle - Strategic ($500K+): 8-12% win rate, 300+ day cycle. Now, the math gets fugly quickly: - SMB Rep: 40% win rate x 24 deals/year = 9.6 wins x $15K = $144K. - ENT Rep: 15% win rate x 8 deals/year = 1.2 wins x $250K = $300K. Sure, the ENT rep makes 2x the revenue. But look a tiny bit closer, starting with the risk analysis: - SMB rep: Predictable $144K +/- 20%. - ENT rep: Volatile $300K +/- 80%. And pair that with an ENT rep's reality: - Great year: $500K (2 big wins). - Average year: $300K (1-2 wins). - Bad year: $75K (zero wins). Versus a SMB rep's reality: - Great year: $175K (11 wins). - Average year: $144K (9-10 wins). - Bad year: $115K (7-8 wins). Which would you rather forecast? lol exactly. Look, we all know this, but worth repeating that as deal size increases, complexity explodes: - 4x more decision makers. - 5x longer cycles. - Higher budget scrutiny. - More competitors. Each factor multiplies the others. A $500K deal isn't 10x harder than $50K. It's 50x harder. Soooo what's a leader to do? Try building portfolios following the 60/30/10 rule: - 60% pipeline in reliable $25-75K deals (bread and butter). - 30% in growth $75-200K deals (stretch but achievable). - 10% in moonshot $200K+ deals (lottery tickets). You get base revenue from reliable deals, growth from MM expansion, AND upside from enterprise wins. Of course, be sure to build a specialized team. SMB reps need speed, process discipline, and volume management. Meanwhile, ENT reps need patience, relationship building, and the ability to navigate complexity. Don't try to have the same reps execute both motions...you'll just have a team that's mediocre at everything. tl;dr = bigger deals aren't better deals. They're different deals. Higher risk, higher reward, higher unpredictability. Before chasing ENT logos, ask yourself: - Can your team handle 85% rejection rates? - Can your forecast handle massive quarterly swings? - Can your pipeline handle 9-month cycles? If not, stay in your lane until you can. Because there's nothing wrong with winning consistently at $50K deals. But there's EVERYTHING wrong with losing consistently at $500K deals.

How did increase deal size by 50% during one my stints as Head of Sales? (If you were following last week, you know the answer is DE-AVERAGING the data) I was pouring over data on how to improve unit economics, and noticed that our average deal size was flat for several years. But that doesn't indicate opportunity. What showed the opportunity was the rep variability on deal size ...10% of reps were selling 50%+ larger packages than the rest ...and when I double clicked, it wasn't that all of their deals were 50%+ larger, but instead half of their deals were 100%+ larger ...and when I double clicked, it wasn't that they were selling for higher price points on those deals, but instead they were recommended twice as many units per order So it took me diving really deep to get away from the average to understand what magical best practice a small group of reps had stumbled upon. From there, the rest is cake. - Focus groups and call shadows with those reps to learn their best practices - Document those best practices, and work with Sales Leadership and Enablement to build a training program - Build a rollout program that includes a compelling kickoff, KPIs, Training, Expectations, Certification, and why this is the right strategy for the customer, company and the reps - And then stay close to the details to ensure execution at the highest level including weekly reports at rep level to assess progress, contests to drive the behavior, reinforcement training in huddles, recognizing reps making the change publicly and showering them with praise, and sharing the war stories publicly so others can see it's working To many in my network this story will sound boring. But to me this type of stuff is exhilarating.

We went from $21K to $45K ACV by adjusting one thing: our ICP. No new product features or process changes. Here’s how we doubled our revenue per deal with the same sales capacity & changed Docket’s trajectory overnight: When we started Docket, our average deal size was $21K. Then we had a lightbulb moment: it takes nearly the same effort to close a $ 45,000 deal. Similar demos Similar discovery calls. Similar proposal reviews. The only difference? The sales cycle expanded by maybe a week. Most of you never test this. You get comfortable with the current deal size and assume bigger deals mean exponentially more work. But you never stop to ask if the same product has more value for an upmarket customer. They may have larger budgets than you're requesting. Your sales team might be capable of closing larger deals than you think. ACV can sometimes be your lowest-hanging fruit!

For almost 15 years, I’ve had the privilege of seeing reps grow from green SDRs into quota-crushing account executives here at ZoomInfo. Empowering my AEs and coaching them to meet and exceed their number is one of the best parts about my job, and it makes me incredibly proud to see how ZoomInfo is driving AE’s success for our valued customers. According to our 2024 Customer Impact Report, AEs using ZoomInfo were more than twice as likely to hit their quota attainment goal. While the average AE achieves only 47% of their quota, ZoomInfo users achieve an average of 99% quota attainment! AEs using ZoomInfo don't just close more deals; they close significantly larger deals as well – 32% larger on average. Recently, it’s been awesome to see this impacting our customers overseas as we’ve worked hard to expand our international data. Reps in the APAC region saw a 37% increase in average deal size, while those in EMEA and North America experienced increases of 35% and 31%, respectively.   Link to the full report Customer Impact Report in the comments. 👇

Check out my Q2 2025 average deal values analysis (below) across therapeutic indications and deal types as it can help you see the strategic investments happening in the biopharma landscape. What stands out immediately? It is the consistent dominance of M&A deals in terms of average value. The industry still has an appetite for established assets and later-stage opportunities. It is a recurrent theme the last few months. Promising immediate returns and small-biotech-to-big-pharma collabs bring the feeling of stability and certainty to those having leverage at the top, the one who are 'thirsty' to fill their pipeline gaps due to looming LOEs approaching. You can see from my bar chart that indications like solid tumors and rare genetic diseases continue to attract premium valuations across all deals taken into consideration: - Venture Capital derived - M&A dealflow ones - Licensing of attractive assets The desire to go after areas of high unmet medical need and perceived lower development risk is the most pronounced motive behind those investments. On the other hand, venture capital and licensing deals command lower average figures. Their presence create the "riskier ecosystem" that highlights early-stage innovation and strategic partnerships, crucial for seeding future pipelines. Interestingly, if you check out Alzheimer's Disease and NASH, despite their immense patient populations, show comparatively lower average deal values. Developing therapies in these complex areas, especially CNS which is a hard to make it area, early-stage investments are a no-go given historical R&D problems. My visualization analysis here offers you with some valuable insights into where capital is flowing and where the industry perceives the greatest potential. Whether near-term impact and long-term value creation can happen, is only a matter of executive management teams to deliver with more actions than just "Press Releases"! For leaders facing challenges with portfolio optimization, the objective isn't simply to execute a deal. Your goal is to unlock hidden potential post-dealmaking or post-integration with bigger pharmas. If your vision for the future of life sciences extends beyond the feeling of "immediate gratification" that an average deal can give you, I invite you for a collaborative dialogue to explore what's possible.

📐 Tell me your deal size, and I’ll tell you who you are. «What is the average deal size of your company?» This is usually one of the first questions I ask when I support a company building out its GTM engine. Why? The average deal size is the cornerstone of your Go-to-Market (GTM) strategy in B2B SaaS. It dictates your approach to marketing, sales, and customer success. Here's the deal: 📉 Loads of small deals: You need scalable, one-to-many approached. Think product and marketing growth mindset. High-touch service with small deals kills profitability. This is the death zone. 📈 Small number of large deals: Low-touch won’t close big deals. High-touch resources like sales and customer success are essential. You are building two different kinds of companies with different DNA. 🛑 Now to the problem. Mixed Bag. A mix of deal sizes without clarity leads to chaos, making repeatable success almost impossible. 🔎 Important takeaway: Before scaling, niche down, know where you are playing and where not, and build the right resources and systems around it. I like the visualization below by Revenue Science a lot about this topic.👇 Thoughts? #B2B #GTM #Sales #Marketing #SaaS #Growth — Hi, I’m Tom. I help deep tech CEOs build robust GTM functions in line with their tech advantage. The result? No more confused customers and faster growth with less burn. 🚀 Founders Co. 🙌 Deep Tech GTM Advisory Boutique 📚 Check out my free resources and guides ➡️ Follow for more Deep Tech and Entrepreneurial Insights