What margin are different reps booking?

MetricGross margin on booked deal value, by rep

Unit% gross margin on closed-won deal value

Bar of gross margin per deal by rep. Margins decay when reps over-discount to hit quota. Build by computing GM per closed deal per rep. Wide spread reveals discounting behavior worth coaching on. Example: Top rep 72% margin; bottom 48% (over-discounting to close).

GM

Gross margin. Revenue minus COGS, divided by revenue.

B2B SaaS, blended across subscription and attached professional services, 2024 performance data. Traditional subscription software rather than AI-native infrastructure, which carries materially different margins. · Confidence is set low because no publisher reports gross margin at the level of individual deals or individual reps. The benchmarks here are built from company-level margin splits and applied down to deal level, which is a reasonable operator approximation but is not a sampled figure. Benchmarkit 2025 gives total gross margin 77%, subscription 81% and professional services 30%, with services at roughly 15% of total revenue at median, and notes that a services mix above 15% to 20% or a services margin below 30% pulls total margin under the 77% benchmark. The AI split matters more than the services split for anyone selling AI-heavy product: ICONIQ's State of AI snapshot has surveyed companies expecting gross margins near 52% in 2026, and OnlyCFO makes the point that high attainment on a 30% margin AI product is a completely different outcome from lower attainment on 75% margin software. A mixed portfolio therefore produces a bimodal margin chart that says nothing about rep skill.

Category split omitted: Deal-level margin is not published by any Tier 1 or Tier 2 source, so there is no category split that two independent publishers cover.

Margin per deal falls as deal size rises, so the largest deals are being bought with discount and services attach rather than won on value.

Deals above $100K close at 58% blended margin while deals under $25K close at 82%.

• Price professional services separately and cap attach as a share of contract value. Benchmarkit puts services gross margin at 30% against 81% for subscription, so every point of services mix costs roughly half a point of blended margin.
• Move commission to gross profit for AI-heavy lines. With ICONIQ-surveyed companies expecting roughly 52% gross margin in 2026, a rep paid on bookings has no reason to care which product they sell, and the margin chart will keep deteriorating while the bookings chart looks healthy.
• Put discount authority behind a threshold with a named approver and log every exception on this chart. Discount discipline is visible here before it is visible in the P&L.
• Split the chart by product line before drawing any conclusion about reps. A bimodal distribution in a mixed portfolio is a mix signal, and reading it as a performance signal will produce the wrong intervention.

1. Benchmarkit (with Pavilion)2025 B2B SaaS Performance Metrics Benchmarks · 2025 · N=583 participants, 2024 performance data, segmented by ARR, ACV, pricing model, GTM motion, financing source, region New CAC Ratio median $2.00 of S&M per $1 of new customer ARR, up 14%, with the fourth quartile at $2.82. Blended CAC Ratio $1.40, down 12%. Expansion CAC Ratio $1.00. CAC payback 18 months median. Gross margin 77% total, 81% subscription, 30% professional services. S&M 37% of revenue median, 45% for VC-backed versus 33% for PE-backed. ARR per FTE $240,000 at $50M-$100M ARR and $283,379 above $100M. GRR 88%, NRR 101%. benchmarkit.ai ↗
2. Benchmarkit2025 B2B SaaS Performance Metrics Benchmarks (full deck, PDF) · 2025 · N=583 participants; metric-level n varies from 21 to 228 by chart Glossary defines CAC Payback as S&M expenses divided by (new customer ARR x gross subscription margin) x 12. Solutions in the $10K-$50K ACV band are consistently more expensive to acquire than $50K-$100K. New CAC Ratio above $100K ACV is lower than the $10K-$100K range. PLG companies show higher S&M as a share of revenue over time, contrary to common belief. Expansion ARR is 40% of total new ARR at median. hibob.com ↗
3. ICONIQ GrowthState of AI: Bi-Annual Snapshot · 2026 · ICONIQ community survey of AI-building companies Companies surveyed expect gross margins to reach roughly 52% on average in 2026, materially below traditional SaaS subscription margins. iconiq.com ↗
4. OnlyCFO (analysis of ICONIQ State of GTM 2026)2026 State of GTM: GTM Benchmarks · 2026 · Commentary on ICONIQ 2026 GTM data Notes that higher quota attainment on an AI product carrying roughly 30% gross margin is a materially different efficiency outcome than lower attainment on 75% gross margin, and that cost per lead and per opportunity fell over the past year except in SMB. onlycfo.io ↗
5. Maxio (analysis of Benchmarkit 2025)What are the Latest SaaS Metrics Benchmarks Telling Us? · 2025 · Commentary on Benchmarkit N=583 dataset Blended CAC Ratio fell from $1.61 in 2023 to $1.40 in 2024, while New CAC Ratio rose, indicating the improvement came from expansion ARR rather than more efficient new-logo acquisition. maxio.com ↗
6. Baker Tilly (Benchmarkit syndication partner)Performance metrics: 2025 B2B SaaS benchmark report and interactive display · 2026 · Benchmarkit survey of over 500 B2B SaaS companies, more than 20 KPIs Confirms the Benchmarkit survey base at over 500 B2B companies covering more than 20 key performance indicators. bakertilly.com ↗
7. ICONIQ GrowthState of Go-to-Market 2026 · 2026 · Survey of GTM executives at 150+ B2B and AI software companies, January 2026 Free trials and POCs convert near 50%, the highest of any motion. Self-serve revenue projected at about 20% for high-growth companies in 2026 versus roughly 10% for peers. High-growth companies draw 60-80% of pipeline from sales and channel versus 15-20% from marketing. 48% report hybrid as primary pricing model. Higher AI adopters show stronger AE quota attainment across SMB, mid-market, enterprise and strategic. iconiq.com ↗