B2B Marketing Measurement: What You Sell, How You Measure

This companion report presents additional findings from our 2025 Marketing Measurement Benchmark. Below, we examine how marketing teams track performance, report results, and tie metrics to compensation based on whether they sell software, services, or physical products.

The 600+ B2B marketers who participated in our study represented organizations selling a range of offerings. To better understand how the type of offering shapes marketing measurement, we grouped them into three categories: software, services, and physical goods.

Software

Services

Physical Goods

Metrics Used to Track Performance  

Approaches to Measuring ABM Impact 

In our main report, we found that 8 in 10 B2B organizations reported having an account-based marketing program. There is no statistically reliable difference in that adoption rate based on whether a company sells software, services, or physical products. 

While ABM adoption is similar across product types, the way teams measure ABM’s impact on revenue varies in meaningful ways. Teams selling software use a broader set of metrics to assess ABM performance — averaging 3.3 metrics, compared to 2.7 for services and 2.5 for physical goods. The difference in the number of metrics tracked between software and both other groups are statistically reliable while the difference between services and physical goods is not.

Marketers of software — like their counterparts in physical goods — rely on Marketing Qualified Accounts as their leading indicator, but they’re more likely to also track metrics tied to progression through the buying journey, including opportunities, pipeline, and closed-won deals from target accounts.

Services organizations tend to balance lead-centric and account-based approaches, tracking MQLs and MQAs at nearly equal rates (47% and 45%, respectively). While they capture some mid- and late-stage metrics like opportunities and pipeline, their use of closed-won deal metrics remains relatively limited — indicating a partial but incomplete shift toward revenue-oriented measurement. 

Marketers of physical products show continued reliance on early-stage indicators like MQLs, with relatively limited use of revenue-stage metrics such as pipeline and closed-won deals — suggesting a focus on lead qualification over full-funnel ABM performance.

Measurement Practices in Traditional Demand Gen

Outside of ABM programs, we observe similar patterns. Compared to services and physical goods organizations, software marketers are reliably more likely to track later-stage measures, such as pipeline opportunities and closed-won deals. In contrast, services and physical goods organizations don’t differ meaningfully from one another on most metrics.

Account Engagement and Intent Metrics

Across all product types, marketers report using account engagement and intent signals to indicate revenue impact. However, there are meaningful differences in how frequently specific signals are used — and by whom. Marketers of physical products are reliably more likely than their peers to use website engagement as a signal of revenue impact. Meanwhile, software marketers are less likely to report using advertising reach compared to those selling services or physical goods. Despite visible differences in the use of intent signals, those gaps are not statistically reliable.

Use of Third-Party Intent Data

Beyond engagement signals captured directly, we also asked whether teams use third-party intent data to identify pipeline opportunities. Among the three groups, software companies are the most likely to track pipeline opportunities that originate from third-party intent — though even here, only two-thirds report doing so. Services and physical goods companies lag behind, and a notable portion of each group either doesn’t use third-party intent or uses it without tying it to pipeline creation. This suggests missed opportunities to connect intent data with downstream revenue outcomes.

Tracking Engagement at the Buying Group Level 

Finally, we asked whether organizations track engagement at the buying group level — a signal of growing measurement sophistication. Roughly three-quarters of B2B organizations say they do. While tracking appears slightly more common among software companies (82%) than among services (76%) or physical goods providers (73%), the overall trend suggests broad adoption across product types.

Metrics Shared with the Board 

Board Visibility into ABM Metrics

Across all product types, relatively few ABM-related metrics make it to the boardroom — most are shared by fewer than 1 in 5 organizations. Marketing Qualified Accounts (MQAs) from target accounts are the most reported metric, especially among organizations selling physical goods (30%). Still, outcome-oriented measures like pipeline and closed-won deals remain notably underreported across each category, with no single revenue-stage metric crossing the 15% threshold. This suggests that while ABM metrics may be tracked internally, few are elevated to the level where strategic decisions are made.

Board Visibility into Traditional Demand Gen Metrics 

Legacy demand generation metrics are also inconsistently shared with the board. Among these, MQLs — both produced and converted — are the most frequently reported, especially among software companies, where over 1 in 5 report MQL conversions. Still, as with ABM, later-stage outcome metrics like pipeline and closed-won deals are shared less often, particularly by services and physical goods organizations.

Overall, the boardroom view still tilts toward top-of-funnel activity, even as marketing strategies evolve. This is unfortunate.

Which Engagement Metrics Reach the Board

Relatively few account engagement or intent metrics make it into board-level reporting, regardless of product type. While software organizations are slightly more likely to report each type of signal — especially website engagement (25%) and intent detection (19%) — none of the differences between product categories are statistically reliable. In other words, while the chart suggests software teams may be more likely to elevate engagement metrics, the gap is not large or consistent enough to draw firm conclusions.

Board Visibility into Third-Party Intent Data

Among organizations that track pipeline opportunities sourced from third-party intent, relatively few report this information at the board level — just 14% to 21%.

Board Visibility into Buying Group Engagement

 Among organizations that track buying group engagement, only about 1 in 5 report those metrics to the board — with little difference based on what they sell.

Metrics That Influence Variable Compensation 

After examining which metrics are shared with the board, we also looked at which are tied to variable compensation — such as bonuses or commissions. This helps clarify how different types of performance are prioritized.

ABM Metrics in Compensation Plans

There is no statistically reliable difference in the number of ABM-related metrics tied to variable compensation based on whether marketers are selling software, services, or physical products. Across all categories, just one to two metrics on average are linked to variable compensation such as bonuses or commissions.

Legacy Demand Gen Metrics in Compensation Plans 

On average, all groups report tying fewer than one legacy demand generation metric to variable compensation. But there are statistically reliable differences: marketers of physical goods are reliably less likely than those in services to have these metrics tied to pay. Software companies fall in the middle, and do not differ reliably from either group. While the absolute differences are small, they point to meaningful distinctions in how performance is incentivized across product types. 

The chart below shows that MQLs — both produced and converted — are the most common legacy metrics tied to compensation across all offering types. However, the emphasis is strongest among services organizations, where nearly a third link MQLs produced to pay. Software and physical goods companies also use MQLs in comp plans, but at lower rates. Revenue-stage metrics like closed-won deals or pipeline are less frequently tied to compensation overall, and particularly uncommon among physical goods companies. This suggests that compensation structures still largely reflect lead-centric thinking, especially outside of software.

Account Engagement & Intent Signals That Influence Pay 

Across all product types, just 0 to 1 engagement or intent metrics are tied to variable compensation, on average. There are no statistically reliable differences based on whether companies sell software, services, or physical goods.

Attribution

Across product types, most organizations use both sourced and influenced attribution models — despite the limitations of each. More than half of software (59%) and services (53%) companies apply both. Physical goods marketers are slightly less likely to use both (47%) and more likely to rely on sourced attribution alone.

How Teams Assign Credit 

Multi-touch attribution remains the go-to model across product types used by the majority of software, services, and physical goods companies alike. But as we’ve noted in prior reports, multi-touch attribution typically credits just a handful of visible interactions, failing to capture the full complexity of modern buying behavior. Meanwhile, more accurate statistical models are the least used, reinforcing the idea that most attribution is still about convenience, not accuracy.

How Marketers Attribute Influence 

While marketers across product types use a mix of methods to measure marketing influence, there are a few statistically reliable differences worth noting. Teams selling physical goods are reliably more likely than their peers to assess influence at the program level. Software marketers, on the other hand, tend to report higher use of overall contribution metrics than services organizations. Beyond those differences, no single level emerges as the clear standard — or the most trusted indicator of marketing’s impact.

ROI

Regardless of what they sell, nearly all marketers say they measure ROI. Across software, services, and physical goods providers, the rates are consistently high — ranging from 96% to 100%. This signals broad agreement that demonstrating return on marketing investment remains a universal expectation.

The chart below shows that most organizations — regardless of what they sell — rely on overall marketing contribution when measuring ROI. About two-thirds of software and services companies use this approach, compared to nearly three-quarters of physical goods organizations. While all three groups report similar rates of program- and tactic-level ROI measurement, only the differences at the program level are statistically reliable: physical goods organizations are less likely to measure ROI by program than their software and services peers.

Mapping Relationship Journeys: Funnel and Waterfall Models 

Waterfall models offer a structured way to map the relationship between buyers and sellers over time. They help organizations track how accounts move through defined stages of engagement and opportunity creation. Some models begin with initial sales interactions, while others take a broader view — starting from the moment an account is identified or targeted, well before direct engagement from sales. In either case, the goal is to bring consistency and visibility to the stages leading up to, and including, opportunity development.

Opportunity-based and account-based models are the most widely used, each reported by roughly half of respondents. Lead-based models remain common as well, especially among physical goods companies. While sales-only models are the least used overall, they’re reliably more common among physical goods organizations — a statistically reliable difference from both software and services companies.

Keep Reading: More Benchmark Breakdowns

This is just one slice of our 2025 Marketing Measurement Benchmark. For a broader look at how B2B teams approach measurement, explore our other reports covering ABM maturity, traditional demand generation, and more.

• What’s (Currently) Measured Isn’t What Matters
• B2B Marketing Measurement: What You Charge, What You Track
• Legacy Practices, Legacy Metrics

Appendix