Every results figure we publish has a verifiable source (with its year when the source states it) and says whether it comes from independent research or from a vendor. Here we document where each one comes from so you can check it yourself.
In an enterprise artificial intelligence market saturated with inflated promises, we choose the opposite path: to show the source behind every data point. The tables on this page collect the sources behind all of our stat cards, every figure our source audit changed, and the figures linked in our Pulse articles (in Spanish), each with a link to the original study. This is what we mean by transparency: verifiable data, citable benchmarks and zero unfounded guarantees.
Trust is not declared, it is demonstrated. Most B2B AI vendors publish results figures without saying where they come from, and many of those figures do not hold up to verification. We prefer to expose our sources so you can judge the strength of each claim on your own terms.
This page serves two functions. For you as a client or evaluator, it is the proof that our marketing claims have real backing: studies from consultancies, independent analysts and academic papers, and vendor data labeled as such. For us, it is an internal commitment: no number goes on the site without a source to back it, and this page brings those sources together in one place.
Not all numbers mean the same thing, and part of being transparent is explaining what kind of data you are reading in each case. That is why we classify each numerical claim into one of three categories, and we identify it in the "Type" column of each table:
Industry benchmark. This is a data point that comes from independent research: consultancies such as McKinsey, Bain or Deloitte, analysts such as Gartner or Forrester, peer-reviewed academic papers, industry associations, public and standards bodies (regulators, central banks, official statistics, standards organizations) and reference reports for the sector. When we say "industry studies show that...", we are in this category. It represents the industry average or range, not a result we guarantee to you. It is the kind of source we prioritize.
Vendor data. Some relevant figures are published only by companies that sell the solution the data describes. We include them because they provide useful reference when no equivalent independent source exists, or as a reference next to one, but we always label them as such, because they come from an interested party and may be subject to selection bias. This category also covers what each company publishes about itself or its product, such as its number of customers, its list prices or its API limits. Whenever an equivalent independent source exists, we prioritize it over the vendor's.
Improvement documented in our own cases. When we publish a number as a Vantegrate result of our own, it is because it is measured in real production with a client who agreed to be a case study. These cases are always identified as such and are never presented as a general industry benchmark.
Apart from those three categories are the figures we give about ourselves: how many integrations we have, the team's track record and how fast we reply. They are in the first table on this page, marked as our own figure, with what each one means and what it does not.
These tables collect, by topic, the sources behind every stat card on the site, every figure our source audit changed, and the figures linked in our Pulse articles (in Spanish). Each row shows the claim, the figure, a link to the original source (with its year when the source states it) and the type of data. Some figures in the body of integration pages and Pulse articles link to their source in the same paragraph and do not have their own row here.
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Integrations our agents work with | 150+ integrations: a round floor of our integration catalog, which has 160 published pages (Spanish catalog). It counts tools with their own page, not custom connectors | Integration catalog | Our own figure |
| Founding team's track record | More than 30 years: Juan Manuel Garrido founded EGA Futura in 1994, a Salesforce partner since 2009. It is the team's experience, not Vantegrate's age | About us | Our own figure |
| Sales team response time | A reply within 4 business hours to anyone who writes on WhatsApp or through a form on the site. It is a commitment from the sales team, not a support service-level agreement | Book a demo | Our own figure |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| WhatsApp open rate vs. email | WhatsApp 72% median per brand (414 e-commerce brands; 79.6% weighted by message); email 20.73% without Apple MPP (33.87% with it) | Chatarmin, WhatsApp Open Rate Benchmark (2026); Brevo, Marketing Orchestration Benchmark (2026) | Vendor data |
| WhatsApp open rate versus a strong email campaign | About three times, at the median per brand | Chatarmin, WhatsApp Open Rate Benchmark (2026) | Vendor data |
| WhatsApp clicks vs. email click-through | WhatsApp 12% clicks per delivered message (counts every click, not people); email 2.27% click-through rate: about five times more clicks | Chatarmin, WhatsApp Benchmark Report (2026); Brevo, Marketing Orchestration Benchmark (2026) | Vendor data |
| Email open rate by region and in automated sends | Without Apple MPP: 14.72% in Latin America (23.28% with MPP) and 17.32% in North America; 30.63% for automated and transactional emails | Brevo, Marketing Orchestration Benchmark (2026) | Vendor data |
| Email open rate including Apple MPP | 43.46% across 3.6 million campaigns, inflated by Apple Mail's automatic opens | MailerLite, Email Marketing Benchmarks (2025) | Vendor data |
| Purchases in WhatsApp abandoned cart flows | 8.7% of contacts who enter the flow (173 e-commerce brands) | Chatarmin, WhatsApp Flow Benchmark (2026) | Vendor data |
| Cart recovery on WhatsApp (one brand's case) | 42% of carts, 8 times more than email | Kanal (2026), Jean Fourche case | Vendor data |
| Abandoned cart conversion with WhatsApp (Osklen case, on VTEX) | From 3% to 18% | VTEX, Commerce Stories (2026) | Vendor data |
| Reactivating inactive customers on WhatsApp (a distributor's case) | Over 47% conversion in a Rommac campaign | Yalo, Rommac case | Vendor data |
| Orders on WhatsApp and conversational commerce (published cases) | Over 15% of Coca-Cola FEMSA's orders went through WhatsApp; Sears' conversion through conversational commerce grew 260% | Yalo, Coca-Cola FEMSA case; B Capital, on Yalo | Vendor data |
| Consumers who prefer messaging to talk to a business | 73% (73.3%), across 22 markets including Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia | Kantar for Meta, State of Business Messaging (2025) | Vendor data |
| People who use WhatsApp every month | Over 3 billion, according to Meta | Meta, via TechCrunch (2025) | Vendor data |
| US adults who use WhatsApp | 32% overall; 56% of Hispanic adults, versus 23% of White adults | Pew Research Center (2025); Pew Research Center, Social Media Fact Sheet (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Docusign agreements delivered over WhatsApp | Nearly 7 times faster than by email; over 50% are completed in 15 minutes or less | Docusign, WhatsApp delivery launch (2023) | Vendor data |
| Companies that plan to use RCS and have not launched it yet | 59% | Bandwidth, State of Messaging (2026) | Vendor data |
| RCS messages sent per day in the US | Over 1 billion, according to Google | 9to5Google (2025) | Vendor data |
| SMS and MMS messages in the US in one year | About 2.2 trillion | CTIA, Annual Survey (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| How Meta charges for the WhatsApp Business Platform | Per delivered message, by category and recipient country (previously, per conversation) | Meta for Developers, WhatsApp pricing (2026) | Vendor data |
| Free service messages | 1,000 per number per month; after that, each one pays the utility rate. Direct API access is free (USD 0): Meta charges only for messages | Meta for Developers, non-template messages (2026); WhatsApp Business, FAQ | Vendor data |
| Customer service window | 24 hours from the customer's last message; outside it, only approved templates | Meta for Developers, non-template messages (2026) | Vendor data |
| Free entry point window after a click-to-WhatsApp ad | Up to 7 days, if the business replies within 24 hours (developer documentation); 72 hours according to the commercial pricing page | Meta for Developers, WhatsApp pricing (2026); WhatsApp Business, platform pricing (2026) | Vendor data |
| Rate per delivered marketing message | Argentina USD 0.0618; Mexico USD 0.0397; Colombia USD 0.0125; North America USD 0.0250 | Meta, per-message USD rate card (2026) | Vendor data |
| Rate per utility message (and service message, past the 1,000 free ones) | Argentina USD 0.0260; Mexico USD 0.0085; Colombia USD 0.0008; Chile USD 0.0200; North America USD 0.0034 | Meta, per-message USD rate card (2026) | Vendor data |
| Marketing versus utility | Marketing costs more than utility in all 47 markets on the rate card; in Argentina, 2.4 times more | Meta, per-message USD rate card (2026) | Vendor data |
| Cost of Meta Business Agent | USD 2 per million tokens, about 4 to 5 cents per typical reply | Meta for Developers, WhatsApp pricing (2026); Wati (2026) | Vendor data |
| Businesses already using Meta Business Agent when Meta opened it to everyone | Over 1 million, on WhatsApp and Messenger | Meta Newsroom (2026); WhatsApp Business, blog (2026); Meta, Q2 earnings call, via The Motley Fool (2026) | Vendor data |
| Country where Meta first launched its AI agent for WhatsApp Business | Mexico, the first in the world | Expansión (2025) | Vendor data |
| Messaging limit (unique people you message first, every 24 hours) | 250 at the start; 2,000 after completing a scaling path, such as verifying the business; then 10,000, 100,000 and unlimited, moving up after using half the limit within 7 days | Meta for Developers, messaging limits (2026); Meta, Business Help Center | Vendor data |
| Sending speed per number (throughput) | Up to 80 messages per second by default, and up to 1,000 with the automatic upgrade | Meta for Developers, throughput | Vendor data |
| Template review | Up to 24 hours | Meta for Developers, template review (2026) | Vendor data |
| Pause of a low-quality template | 3 hours the first time and 6 the second; the third time it is disabled | Meta for Developers, template pausing (2026) | Vendor data |
| Restrictions for policy violations | 1 or 3 days without templates for the first ones; after that, 5, 7 or 30 days without sending; an appeal takes 24 to 48 hours | Meta for Developers, policy enforcement (2026) | Vendor data |
| History synced when connecting an app number to the API (coexistence) | 6 months of individual chats | Meta for Developers, coexistence onboarding (2026) | Vendor data |
| Meta's revenue from paid messaging and from ads that lead to a conversation | Click-to-WhatsApp ads: +60% year over year (Q3 2025); US click-to-message ads: over 50% year over year; WhatsApp paid messaging passed a USD 2 billion annual run rate (Q4 2025) | Meta, Q3 2025 earnings call; Meta, Q4 2025 earnings call (2026) | Vendor data |
| 360dialog monthly license per number | USD 59 (Regular plan) and USD 119 (Premium) | 360dialog, pricing (2026) | Vendor data |
| RCS price on Twilio | From USD 0.0083 per message sent or received, plus carrier fees | Twilio, RCS (2026) | Vendor data |
| Twilio's surcharge per WhatsApp message | USD 0.005 per message sent or received, on top of Meta's rate | Twilio, WhatsApp pricing | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service cases AI already handles | 30%, as estimated by service teams (survey of 6,500 professionals in 40 countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru) | Salesforce, State of Service (2025) | Vendor data |
| Queries AI resolves on its own, end to end | 1 in 5 of the ones it touches (20.3%) and 4.9% of all tickets (131 e-commerce shops, 2.9 million tickets) | Chatarmin, AI Customer Service Benchmark (2026) | Vendor data |
| Resolution rate of a customer service AI agent (a vendor's cases and references) | Between 30% and 50% as a starting point, according to Intercom's support team; Lightspeed went from 20% to over 70% with Fin | Intercom Community, "What is considered a good Fin resolution rate?" (2023); Intercom, Lightspeed case | Vendor data |
| Average resolution rate of HubSpot's Customer Agent | 70%, according to HubSpot | HubSpot, AI customer service agent (2026) | Vendor data |
| Customers who would prefer companies not to use AI in customer service | 64% (survey of 5,728 customers); the top concern, for 60%, is that it will be harder to reach a person, and 42% fear wrong answers | Gartner (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| Productivity of support agents with a generative AI assistant (5,179 agents) | 14% more issues resolved per hour; 34% for new or less experienced workers; 9% less handle time per chat | Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond, NBER (2023) | Industry benchmark |
| Organizations that see better customer service as a top use case for AI agents | 65% | Okta, Businesses at Work (2026) | Vendor data |
| Legal AI tools that search documents before answering | Give incorrect information in at least 1 in 6 queries | Stanford RegLab and HAI (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Generative AI pilots that do not reach production with measurable business impact | 95% | MIT NANDA, The GenAI Divide (2025); Fortune, on the report (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| AI projects that reach deployment, by how they were built (as reported by the companies themselves) | 67% with external vendors' tools, versus 33% of internal builds | MIT NANDA, The GenAI Divide (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Companies experimenting with AI agents (survey of Cisco's large customers) | 85%, but only 5% have taken them to production | Cisco (2026) | Vendor data |
| AI projects scrapped between proof of concept and broad adoption | 46% on average (1,006 respondents) | S&P Global Market Intelligence (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Organizations with AI agent pilots | Nearly a quarter have launched them; 14% are implementing them | Capgemini Research Institute (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Enterprise apps with task-specific AI agents | 40% by the end of 2026, up from less than 5% in 2025 (projection) | Gartner (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Organizations without the data management practices AI needs | 63% do not have them or do not know whether they do | Gartner (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Employee time that generative AI and other technologies could automate | 60% to 70% (modeled potential) | McKinsey, The economic potential of generative AI (2023) | Industry benchmark |
| Respondents at AI-using companies reporting at least one negative consequence | 51% | McKinsey, The State of AI (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Companies using generative AI that fundamentally redesigned at least some of their workflows | 21% | McKinsey, The State of AI (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Consultants who used GPT-4 on tasks inside AI's frontier (758 BCG consultants) | 12.2% more tasks, 25.1% faster and over 40% higher quality | Dell'Acqua et al., Organization Science (2025); Harvard Business School (2023); Harvard, study summary | Industry benchmark |
| Productivity of people who use generative AI | 33% more productive in each hour they use it, on average | Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Executives who see no AI impact on their own firm's employment over the past three years | Over 90% (US, UK, Germany and Australia) | NBER, Firm Data on AI (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Automation and employment in US agriculture | 41% of workers in 1900 and 1.9% in 2000; 2023 output was nearly three times that of 1948 | USDA ERS (2005); USDA ERS, Agricultural Productivity (2023) | Industry benchmark |
| US travel agencies after the internet | Employment down by more than half from its peak; weekly earnings from 87% of the average in 2000 to 99% in 2025 | Stripe Economics (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| IT leaders who struggle to integrate data across systems (1,050 respondents) | 95%; on average, only 29% of a company's 897 applications are integrated | MuleSoft, Connectivity Benchmark Report (2025) | Vendor data |
| Security priorities with AI | 58% name AI and identity governance as their top concern; 78%, access control for non-human identities | Okta, Businesses at Work (2026) | Vendor data |
| Breach cost savings with extensive use of AI and automation in security | USD 1.93 million | IBM, Cost of a Data Breach (2026) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost to process an invoice | USD 9.40 on average; USD 2.78 at best-in-class teams | Ardent Partners, "AP Metrics That Matter in 2025", via Tungsten Automation (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Most efficient accounts payable teams (the top 20% by cost and cycle time) versus the rest | 78% lower cost per invoice, 82% faster and 59% fewer exceptions | Ardent Partners, "AP Performance Advantages of Best-in-Class" (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| Invoices processed with no human touch (straight-through) | 49.2% at best-in-class teams; 32.6% on average | Ardent Partners, "AP Metrics That Matter in 2025", via Tungsten Automation (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| ML extraction accuracy on machine-readable documents (not images) | High 90% range | Gartner, Market Guide for AP Invoice Automation, via OpenEnvoy | Industry benchmark |
| ABBYY's accuracy and volume on invoices; Nanonets' out-of-the-box accuracy | ABBYY: 99.5% on structured invoices and 1.5 billion invoices a year; Nanonets: 93% to 96% out of the box | ChatFin, IDP tools comparison (2026) | Vendor data |
| Time per invoice with IDP (Fugro case, 300,000 invoices a year) | From about 2 minutes to about 35 seconds, 70% less | Rossum, Fugro case | Vendor data |
| Projected annual growth of the intelligent document processing market, 2026-2034 | 26.8% | Fortune Business Insights (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Size of the intelligent document processing market | USD 10.41 billion in 2025, projected to reach USD 88.91 billion by 2034; North America, 46% of the market | Fortune Business Insights (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| IDP vendors | Over 100, across complete solutions and components; Gartner evaluates 15 in its Magic Quadrant | Gartner (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top-quartile monthly financial close | 4.8 days or less (median: 6.4 days) | APQC, via CFO.com (2018) | Industry benchmark |
| "Where is my order" inquiry reduction with proactive tracking | 30-40% at food distributors; merchant cases with 39.2% and 50% fewer inquiries | Nuvizz (2026); Sendcloud (2025) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chargebacks merchants win when they dispute them | 20% on average (merchants dispute 54% of the chargebacks they receive) | Mastercard and Datos Insights, State of Chargebacks (2025), via Chargeback Gurus | Vendor data |
| Chargebacks won with automatically compiled evidence | Up to 80% | Chargeflow (2025) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pix daily record in Brazil (December 5, 2025) | 313.3 million transfers worth R$ 179.9 billion | Banco Central do Brasil, via Agência Brasil (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Interoperable transactions per month in Peru (first half of 2025) | Over 186 million | BCRP, Retail Payments Interoperability Strategy (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Bre-B in Colombia after its first six months | 617 million transactions worth over 97 trillion pesos | Banco de la República (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Nequi accounts at year-end 2025 | 27.4 million, of which 21.9 million are active | Grupo Cibest, 4Q25 results (2026); Grupo Cibest, via Valora Analitik (2026) | Vendor data |
| Yape monthly active users (first quarter of 2026) | 16.4 million | Credicorp, 1Q26 results (2026) | Vendor data |
| Per-transaction cap for a Yape payment through a gateway | S/ 2,000 | Culqi, Yape documentation (2026) | Vendor data |
| dLocal coverage | 17 Latin American countries and over 40 in total; dLocal Go, over 15 | dLocal, coverage (2026); dLocal, About us; dLocal Go | Vendor data |
| Countries where Openpay operates | 4: Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Argentina (since December 2022) | BBVA Group (2023); BBVA Argentina (2022) | Vendor data |
| Payment methods Payway accepts | Over 100 | Payway (2026) | Vendor data |
| Payway settlement times | Debit, 1 business day; credit, 5 to 18 business days depending on size and industry | Payway, settlement times (2026) | Vendor data |
| PCI DSS certification of Kushki and Conekta (as each company states) | Level 1 (Kushki, version 4.0.1) | Kushki, certifications (2026); Conekta (2026) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employees who use BI tools | 25% to 35% depending on the study: 35% per Gartner (2019) and 25% per BARC and Eckerson Group (2022, 214 companies) | TechTarget (2023); Eckerson Group and BARC (2022) | Industry benchmark |
| AI model accuracy when turning questions into SQL | GPT-4, 54.89% versus 92.96% for a human analyst (12,751 questions across 95 databases); on Spider 2.0, GPT-4o solved 10.1% and o1-preview 17.1% | Li et al., NeurIPS (2023); Spider 2.0, ICLR (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Cortex Analyst text-to-SQL accuracy | 90%+ in Snowflake's internal benchmark | Snowflake engineering blog (2024) | Vendor data |
| Reduction in time to insight (a BI vendor's case) | 88% in the Cox 2M case | ThoughtSpot, Cox 2M case | Vendor data |
| Database popularity ranking | Oracle #1, MySQL #2, SQL Server #3 and PostgreSQL #4 | DB-Engines Ranking (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Data warehouse adoption among US companies buying through Ramp | Snowflake 64%, Redshift 25%, Databricks 17% and BigQuery 9%; 57% of first-time buyers choose Snowflake | Ramp, data warehouses (2026) | Vendor data |
| Amazon Redshift versus other cloud data warehouses | Up to 8.3 times better price-performance on new dashboard queries, according to AWS | AWS, Amazon Redshift (2026) | Vendor data |
| Query speed for Databricks customers | 5 times faster than three years ago, according to Databricks | Databricks, Lakehouse (2026) | Vendor data |
| BigQuery on-demand price | USD 6.25 per TiB queried; the first TiB each month is free (varies by region) | Google Cloud, BigQuery pricing (2026) | Vendor data |
| Unstructured data among what organizations generate (study sponsored by Box) | 90%; the remaining 10% is structured data | IDC, via StorageNewsletter (2023) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contacting a lead in 5 minutes instead of 30 | 100 times more likely to contact the lead and 21 times more likely to qualify it; between minute 5 and minute 10, the odds of contacting it fall fivefold | Lead Response Management Study, InsideSales.com with James Oldroyd, MIT (2007); archived original page | Vendor data |
| Contacting a lead within the first hour | Nearly 7 times more likely to qualify it than an hour later, and over 60 times more than waiting 24 hours or longer; 42-hour average response time in an audit of 2,241 US companies | Harvard Business Review, "The Short Life of Online Sales Leads" (2011) | Industry benchmark |
| B2B companies that respond to a lead on time (433 companies, mystery shopper) | Only 7% responded within the first 5 minutes; 55% did not respond within five business days | Drift, Lead Response Survey (2017) | Vendor data |
| US dealerships that gave a perfect response to a web inquiry, fast and by email, text and phone (3,290 sites measured) | 51%; when a person is needed, twice as likely to get no personal response | Pied Piper PSI, Internet Lead Effectiveness (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Share of a seller's week spent on tasks other than selling (survey of 4,050 sales professionals in 22 countries) | 60% | Salesforce, State of Sales (2026) | Vendor data |
| B2B buyers who prefer a rep-free buying experience | 61% | Gartner (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Touches to land a first meeting with a new prospect | 8 on average; 5 for top sellers | RAIN Group (2025) | Vendor data |
| How a B2B customer buys | Uses 10 interaction channels on average across the purchase; at B2B companies with e-commerce, that channel generates 34% of revenue, more than any other | McKinsey, B2B Pulse (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost of acquiring a customer versus retaining one | 5 to 25 times more, depending on the study and industry; 5% more retention raises profits by 25% to 95% (Bain) | Harvard Business Review (2014) | Industry benchmark |
| Companies that make intensive use of customer analytics versus the rest | 23 times more likely to outperform competitors in new-customer acquisition, 9 times more likely in customer loyalty and nearly 19 times more likely to achieve above-average profitability | McKinsey, Five facts (2014) | Industry benchmark |
| Revenue lift from personalization | 10% to 15%, the most common range | McKinsey (2021) | Industry benchmark |
| Marketers and AI | 75% are experimenting with AI or have implemented it; high-performing teams, 2.5 times more than underperformers | Salesforce, State of Marketing (2024) | Vendor data |
| Customers who expect companies to understand their needs | 73% | Salesforce, Customer Engagement Research (2022) | Vendor data |
| Customers for whom the experience matters as much as the product | 80% | Salesforce, State of the Connected Customer | Vendor data |
| Marketers who use AI to create content (879 respondents) | 87%; they publish 42% more content per month and 80% review it by hand | Ahrefs (2025) | Vendor data |
| Consumers and customer care on social media | 76% value prioritized, fast care; 69% expect a same-day reply | Sprout Social Index (2023) | Vendor data |
| Benchmark Net Promoter Score (over 150,000 organizations) | +32 on average; good above 20 and excellent above 70 | SurveyMonkey (2025) | Vendor data |
| Average search ad CTR (Google Ads and Microsoft Ads) | 6.64% | LocaliQ and WordStream (2026) | Vendor data |
| Projected Instagram share of Meta's US ad revenue (2025) | 50.3% | EMARKETER (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average Net Revenue Retention of cloud companies | 140% between USD 1 and 10 million in ARR; 120% from 10 million; only the bottom quartile falls below 100% | Bessemer Venture Partners, Scaling to $100 Million (2021) | Industry benchmark |
| LTV:CAC ratio | Invest in acquisition from 3:1 or more; below 1:1 you lose money; the best companies exceed 3, sometimes 7 or 8 | Bessemer Venture Partners (2021); David Skok, SaaS Metrics 2.0 (2013) | Industry benchmark |
| Target CAC payback by segment | Under 12 months for SMBs, 18 for mid-market and 24 for enterprise | Bessemer Venture Partners, Scaling to $100 Million (2021) | Industry benchmark |
| Average MQL-to-SQL in B2B SaaS | 13% | First Page Sage (2026) | Vendor data |
| Free-to-paid conversion (200 B2B products) | 8% median; 30% for trials that require a card | ChartMogul, SaaS Conversion Report (2026) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital bank onboarding abandonment in Europe | 63% on average, up to 70% in some countries | Signicat (2020), via Innovatrics | Vendor data |
| Consumers in Europe who abandoned a financial product application during onboarding in the year before the survey | 68%; on average, after 18 minutes | Signicat, The Battle to Onboard (2022) | Vendor data |
| Financial institutions that lost clients to onboarding delays | 70%, the highest figure on record | Fenergo (2025); FinTech Global (2025) | Vendor data |
| Healthy cost-to-collect | Below 2% of the amount recovered | Prodigal, citing ResolvePay | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average no-show rate for medical appointments (review of 105 studies) | 23% | Dantas et al., Health Policy (2018) | Industry benchmark |
| Non-attendance reduction with phone and SMS reminders | 34% weighted average | Hasvold and Wootton, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (2011) | Industry benchmark |
| Improvement in medication adherence with follow-up apps | +19 percentage points (18.85) in the studies that measure it as a percentage (JMIR 2025); JMCP 2020 also finds a significant improvement, measured on a different scale | Lanke et al., JMIR (2025); Peng et al., JMCP (2020) | Industry benchmark |
| Claims denied on first submission | Close to 30%; in 32% of denials, the primary cause is a coding error | HBMA, via Voyant Health (2025) | Vendor data |
| Denial rate benchmark | 5-10% | MD Clarity | Vendor data |
| First-pass acceptance target | 98% (efficient practices exceed 90%) | BellMedEx (2024) | Vendor data |
| Patients for whom booking at any time, online or with mobile tools, matters | 89% | Experian Health, State of Patient Access (2024) | Vendor data |
| Appointment confirmations with WhatsApp integrated into the CRM (Dentalia case, over 60 clinics) | +20-30% | Treble, Dentalia case (2025) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digitization of pharmaceutical quality control | +30-40% productivity; over 50% lower QC costs; over 65% fewer deviations and over 90% faster closure | McKinsey, "The Future of Pharma Quality Control" (2019) | Industry benchmark |
| Pharmaceutical product lost per year to temperature failures in transit | USD 2.5 to 12.5 billion (IATA estimate) | IATA, via DHL (2019) | Industry benchmark |
| Total cost of cold-chain failures, including replacement and root-cause analysis | Close to USD 35 billion | DHL (2019) | Vendor data |
| Substandard or falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries | At least 1 in 10 | WHO (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demurrage and detention per container per day at North American ports | USD 2,008 on average | Container xChange, D&D Benchmark Report (2023), via Container News | Vendor data |
| OTIF Walmart requires from its suppliers | 90% on-time deliveries and 95% in-full orders | Walmart, via Logistics Viewpoints (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| OTIF Amazon requires and that of top performers | Amazon, 90% or more; top performers, 95-98% | Red Stag Fulfillment (2025) | Vendor data |
| Share of the last mile in total supply chain cost (500 retail and consumer goods executives) | 41%, more than double any other stage | Capgemini Research Institute (2019); Capgemini, expert perspective | Industry benchmark |
| Fuel with route optimization (a named customer's case) | 8% less fuel per order and 5% better fuel efficiency at Tesco | Satalia, Tesco case | Vendor data |
| Savings from UPS's ORION routing system at full deployment | About 10 million gallons of fuel and 100,000 metric tons of CO2 a year; USD 300 to 400 million annually | INFORMS, UPS case (2026 archive) | Industry benchmark |
| Savings route optimization vendors report for their customers | 15% to 25% less fuel (CIGO Tracker); 5% to 15% fewer miles (Solera); up to 20% of costs versus standard route optimization (Greenplan, DHL); 5% to 10% (DispatchTrack) | CIGO Tracker; Solera (2024); DHL (2020); Mexico Business News (2022) | Vendor data |
| Delivery time with dynamic routing (US e-commerce case) | 20% less | Oloko, EJLPSCM (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| On-time deliveries in an online grocer's case | 99.5% | Locus | Vendor data |
| Savings at early adopters of AI in the supply chain | 15% lower logistics costs than slower competitors | McKinsey (2021) | Industry benchmark |
| Cost of a failed delivery in the US | US$ 17.20 per order | Loqate, Fixing Failed Deliveries (2021) | Vendor data |
| Share of warehouse operating costs that goes to picking | Up to 55% of operating cost; travel is about 50% of the picker's time | De Koster, Le-Duc and Roodbergen, EJOR (2007) | Industry benchmark |
| FCL versus LCL break-even point, and usable container space | 13 to 15 CBM; 25 to 28 CBM in a 20-foot and 54 to 58 CBM in a 40-foot | FreightFigures (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-time fix rate | 80% on average; 88% best-in-class; 63% for laggards | Aberdeen Group, via PTC (2024) | Industry benchmark |
| First-time fix rate according to IBM | About 80% on average; 89% to 98% in mature or narrow settings | IBM Think (2026) | Vendor data |
| Cost of each technician dispatch (truck roll) | USD 200 to 300 on average | PTC | Vendor data |
| Daily cost of each service truck on the road | Over USD 1,100 | TSIA, via Field Technologies Online | Industry benchmark |
| Smart crew scheduling (pilot at a US utility) | +20-30% field productivity; 80% fewer false truck rolls | McKinsey, Smart scheduling for utilities (2023) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aftermarket EBIT margin versus new equipment (30 industries) | 25% versus 10%; parts gross margin above 30%, versus 10% for maintenance | McKinsey, "Industrial Aftermarket Services: Growing the Core" (2017) | Industry benchmark |
| Aftermarket operating margin versus new equipment | About 2.5 times | Deloitte, via Genalpha (2021) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| World-class OEE | 85% (Nakajima's target); most plants are closer to 60% | Vorne, OEE.com | Vendor data |
| Plants that rely more on preventive and predictive maintenance | 52.7% less unplanned downtime | NIST, Thomas and Weiss (2021) | Industry benchmark |
| Cost of unplanned downtime | 11% of the revenue of the world's 500 largest companies (about USD 1.4 trillion); an hour of downtime costs from USD 36,000 in consumer goods to 2.3 million in automotive | Siemens, The True Cost of Downtime (2024) | Vendor data |
| Productive capacity lost to downtime | At least 5%, and up to 20% at many plants | Interstates, on Automation.com (2011) | Vendor data |
| Professionals who fully understand the financial impact of the cost of quality | 31% | ASQ (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Power plant efficiency with AI recommendations (Vistra, Martin Lake, a McKinsey client case) | Over 2% after three months; about USD 4.5 million a year | McKinsey, Vistra case (2022) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average e-commerce cart abandonment (50 studies) | 70.22% | Baymard Institute (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Checkout abandonment reasons, excluding those just browsing (US shoppers) | 40% extra costs; 19% did not trust the site with their card; 17% long or complicated process | Baymard Institute (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Conversion of Top 1000 chains with omnichannel features | In-store pickup 3.4% and curbside 3.9%, versus 3.1% on average | Digital Commerce 360 (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Online shoppers who checked whether a product was available at a nearby store | 68% | Digital Commerce 360 (2023) | Industry benchmark |
| Shoppers who made additional purchases when picking up an online order in store | 85% | Doddle, via Retail Dive (2019) | Vendor data |
| Omnichannel customers (46,000 shoppers) | 23% more repeat visits within six months (correlation) | Harvard Business Review (2017) | Industry benchmark |
| Returns in the US (NRF study with a returns vendor) | 19.3% of online sales; 15.8% of total sales | NRF and Happy Returns (2025) | Vendor data |
| Out-of-stocks on the shelf | 8.3% global average; when facing one, 31% go to another store and 26% buy another brand | FMI, GMA and CIES (2002) | Industry benchmark |
| Consumer Goods sales that go through the traditional channel | 37% in Latin America; 46% in Central America | NielsenIQ, via Estrategia y Negocios (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fully loaded cost of an SDR (US market) | USD 106,000 to 141,000 a year | The Bridge Group (2016) | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salesforce implementation for companies migrating from HubSpot (444 companies) | 21 days on average | Salesforce, Salesforce vs HubSpot (2026) | Vendor data |
| Starting price of Agentforce Service Agent | USD 2 per conversation | Salesforce (2024) | Vendor data |
| Data 360 list price per profiles | USD 240 per 1,000 profiles per year | Salesforce, Data 360 pricing | Vendor data |
| Agentforce deals and revenue | Over 29,000 deals since launch; over USD 1.5 billion in annual recurring revenue, under a broadened definition that adds Slackbot and Headless 360 | Salesforce, fiscal 2026 results; Salesforce, fiscal 2027 second-quarter results | Vendor data |
| Claudeforce (Salesforce inside Claude) | 37 sales skills and 8.1 million annualized productivity hours with Slackbot, according to the announcement; according to VentureBeat, 83% of Salesforce's workforce uses Slackbot with Claude, 3.8 million hours are cited, and building a plan goes from about 10,000 clicks in the app to about 30 seconds | Salesforce, Claudeforce announcement (2026); VentureBeat (2026) | Vendor data |
| Headless 360 | Over 60 MCP tools, over 30 skills and a USD 50 million fund | Salesforce (2026) | Vendor data |
| Dreamforce 2025 attendees | Nearly 50,000 | Salesforce (2025) | Vendor data |
| MuleSoft Vibes quality versus the most popular language models | 60% improvement, according to MuleSoft | MuleSoft | Vendor data |
| Oracle's results for the second quarter of fiscal 2026 | Net income of USD 6.135 billion (+95%); remaining performance obligations (RPO) of USD 523 billion | Oracle (2025) | Vendor data |
| Oracle layoffs | Up to 30,000 jobs out of about 162,000 employees; according to TD Cowen, the cuts would free up USD 8 to 10 billion in cash flow; infrastructure commitments estimated at USD 156 billion | CIO, citing TD Cowen (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| NetSuite customers | Over 44,000, in 220 countries and territories, according to Oracle | Oracle (2026) | Vendor data |
| AppExchange reviews of apps we integrate | Docusign eSignature for Salesforce: 4,647 reviews, 4.55 out of 5; RingEX by RingCentral: 117 reviews, 4.3 out of 5 | Salesforce AppExchange (2026); Salesforce AppExchange, RingEX (2026) | Vendor data |
| Price of an agent action with Agentforce Flex Credits | USD 0.10 at list price (20 credits at USD 0.005) | Salesforce, Agentforce pricing | Vendor data |
| Salesforce's share of the global CRM market | 20%, first for the thirteenth year in a row | IDC (2025), cited by Salesforce | Industry benchmark |
| Organizations using Oracle Cloud ERP | Over 11,000, according to Oracle | Oracle (2025) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deadline to report a serious and unexpected adverse event to the FDA | 15 calendar days | FDA, 21 CFR 314.80 | Industry benchmark |
| Pharmacovigilance reporting deadline in Argentina | 15 calendar days for a serious adverse reaction; 7 if there was death or a threat to life | ANMAT, Provision 5358/2012 | Industry benchmark |
| US drawback refund on imported goods that are exported or destroyed | Up to 99% of the duties, taxes and fees paid | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (2016) | Industry benchmark |
| Deadline to honor an email opt-out request (CAN-SPAM Act) | 10 business days | Federal Trade Commission | Industry benchmark |
| Countries and economies that use the Harmonized System | Over 200 | World Customs Organization | Industry benchmark |
| Countries with GS1 member organizations | Over 120 | GS1 (2026) | Industry benchmark |
| Prompt injection's place in OWASP's Top 10 risks for LLMs | #1 (LLM01:2025) | OWASP Gen AI Security Project (2025) | Industry benchmark |
| Validity of the access ticket of ARCA's WSAA (formerly AFIP) | About 12 hours | AFIP, WSAA developer manual | Industry benchmark |
| FCC and TCPA rules for marketing SMS in the US | Opt-outs honored within 10 business days at most; sends between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., recipient's local time (Florida and Oklahoma stop at 8 p.m.); US$ 500 per violating message, up to US$ 1,500 if willful | FCC (2024); 47 CFR 64.1200; 47 U.S.C. 227; Florida; Oklahoma | Industry benchmark |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Software adoption among US companies buying through Ramp | CRM: Salesforce 75%, HubSpot 35%. Communication: Zoom 72%, Slack 54%; Teams, 24% of enterprises versus 10% of small businesses. AI support bots: Intercom 46%, Zendesk 17%. Messaging: Twilio 57%, SendGrid 85%. Sales execution: Zapier 90% | Ramp, CRM (2026); Ramp, communication (2026); Ramp, AI support bots (2026); Ramp, messaging infrastructure (2026); Ramp, sales execution (2026) | Vendor data |
| Companies where Enlyft detects each software | QuickBooks 281,091 (4.6 times Xero; 75% in the US); NetSuite 78,794 (2.5 times Business Central); Business Central 31,066; Acumatica, most common in the US and at firms with 50 to 200 employees | Enlyft, QuickBooks (2026); Enlyft, NetSuite (2026); Enlyft, Business Central (2026); Enlyft, Acumatica (2026) | Vendor data |
| App ranking by number of customers on Okta | Microsoft 365 #1, Google Workspace #2, Slack #6 | Okta, Businesses at Work (2026) | Vendor data |
| Zapier app directory, sorted by popularity | Over 9,000 apps; Gmail #2, Google Calendar #4, Google Drive #5, Microsoft Outlook #13 | Zapier (2026) | Vendor data |
| Customers each company reports | HubSpot, over 306,000; Acumatica, over 10,000 with 350 resellers; Business Central, 55,000; Docusign, over 1.9 million paying; Stripe, over 5 million; respond.io, over 10,000 B2C brands; Wati, over 16,000 in more than 190 countries; Manychat, over 1 million creators and brands; Softland, over 35,000 companies in 20 countries | HubSpot (2026); Acumatica (2026); Microsoft (2026); Docusign (2026); Stripe (2026); respond.io (2026); Wati (2026); Manychat (2026); Softland (2026) | Vendor data |
| SMBs and customers of Aspel and Siigo | Aspel helped over 1 million SMBs go digital in 40 years; Siigo, over 1.2 million customers in six countries | Accel-KKR (2022); Siigo, Endeavor Outliers announcement (2026) | Vendor data |
| QuickBooks Online Accounting revenue in one fiscal year | USD 5.05 billion, up 23% from the year before | Intuit, Form 10-K (fiscal 2026) | Vendor data |
| US e-commerce sales processed through Shopify | 10%, according to Shopify | Shopify (2026) | Vendor data |
| Coverage and track record of logistics carriers | FedEx, over 220 countries and territories; 99minutos, over 99 million shipments; Olva, over 39 years and over 400 stores and agents in Peru; OCA, over 64 years in Argentina | FedEx (2026); 99minutos (2026); Olva Courier (2026); OCA (2026) | Vendor data |
| Integrations and channels each platform reports | Infios, over 1,500 integrations; n8n, over 500; Calendly, over 150; B2Chat, 5 channels in one inbox | Infios (2026); n8n (2026); Calendly (2026); B2Chat (2026) | Vendor data |
| Bejerman's track record in the Argentine market | Over 40 years | Thomson Reuters Argentina (2026) | Vendor data |
| Twilio's network | Over 180 countries and 4,800 carrier connections | Twilio, global infrastructure | Vendor data |
| RingCentral as a Leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant for UCaaS | 12 years in a row | RingCentral (2026) | Vendor data |
| Beetrack (DispatchTrack) platform users | Over 850 customers in 20 countries | DispatchTrack | Vendor data |
| RingCentral's fiscal 2025 results | Revenue of USD 2.5 billion, up 5% from the year before; over 8,000 AI Receptionist customers | RingCentral, via Business Wire (2026) | Vendor data |
| Other size figures cited on the integration pages | Zendesk, over 80,000 companies, according to Zendesk; Store Leads tracks over 3.1 million live Shopify stores, 38.2% in the US; HubSpot, third among G2's Best Software Companies, behind Salesforce and Google | Zendesk (2026); Store Leads; G2 (2026) | Vendor data |
| Claim | Figure | Source | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sending and request limits of messaging and collaboration APIs | Teams bots: 50 requests per second per app and organization, 7 messages per second per conversation; Slack: 1 message per second per channel; Gmail: 1 push notification per second per inbox; Mailchimp: 10 simultaneous connections; ActiveCampaign: 5 requests per second | Microsoft Learn (2025); Slack; Gmail API; Mailchimp (2026); ActiveCampaign (2026) | Vendor data |
| Limits of data, ERP and operations APIs | QuickBooks: 500 requests per minute per company; Business Central: 6,000 per user every five minutes, and it waits 30 seconds after the first change before sending the webhook notification; Acumatica: delays calls from 50% of the license limit and retries a push up to 5 times; Google Sheets: 300 reads per minute per project and 60 per user; Mixpanel: 60 queries per hour and 5 concurrent; Samsara: 200 requests per second per organization | Intuit; Microsoft Learn (2025); Microsoft Learn, Business Central webhook subscriptions; Acumatica, API license restrictions (2026); Acumatica (2026); Google Sheets API; Mixpanel; Samsara | Vendor data |
| Limits of logistics and payments APIs | Correios: 3 requests per second to its token API, which issues a new token 30 minutes before expiry; MyDHL: 500 daily calls per credential in the test environment; Chilexpress: 3 APIs (Coverage, Quote and Shipments); PayU: about 3 seconds average response, up to a minute in unusual cases | Correios (2026); DHL Developer Portal (2026); Chilexpress (2026); PayU | Vendor data |
| Lifetime of each platform's tokens and sessions | Culqi: 5-minute, single-use card token; Adobe Commerce (Magento): 4 hours for admin and 1 hour for customer; Wix: 4 hours; Instagram: 60-day long-lived token; MyGeotab: 14-day session and up to 100 concurrent sessions per user; Microsoft Graph: Outlook message subscription of up to 10,080 minutes | Culqi (2026); Adobe Commerce (2026); Wix; Meta for Developers, Instagram access token (2026); Geotab (2026); Microsoft Learn (2026) | Vendor data |
| Windows and retries of other platforms | Instagram: 24 hours to reply in most cases, 7 days with the Human Agent tag; Meta Conversions API: events up to 7 days old; Exchange: application permission changes take 30 minutes to 2 hours; respond.io: disables a webhook after 30 errors in 30 minutes; Docusign: poll an envelope's status at most once every 15 minutes; Google Calendar: 50 calendars per availability query | Meta for Developers, Instagram (2026); Meta for Developers, Conversions API (2026); Microsoft Learn (2026); respond.io (2026); Docusign Developers (2026); Google Calendar API | Vendor data |
| Other technical data we use when explaining integrations | Gemini: a token is about 4 characters, and 100 tokens are 60-80 English words; PrestaShop: 32-character Webservice key; a printed QR code, at least 2 x 2 cm, with a 10:1 ratio between scanning distance and size | Google, Gemini API (2026); PrestaShop; QR Planet (2026) | Vendor data |
Some of the numbers above come from companies that sell the solution the data describes. We include them because they provide useful reference, but we always mark them as "vendor data" so you know they come from an interested party and may be subject to selection bias. When an independent source exists (consultancy, analyst, paper, industry association), we always prioritize it over the vendor's.
Most available benchmarks are global or centered on the United States. Data specific to enterprise artificial intelligence in LATAM (Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru) is still scarce in analyst literature. When we use a regional data point (for example, WhatsApp Business cases in the region), we flag it explicitly. In the remaining cases, absolute values may differ by country, and it is best to take them as directional reference, not as an exact figure for your market.
Every results figure comes from one of three sources: an independent research benchmark (consultancies, analysts, papers), a figure published by an industry vendor (labeled as such), or our own case measured in production with a real client. The sources for our stat cards and page figures are in the tables on this page, each with its link; a figure inside body text links to its source right there.
No. Benchmarks describe the industry average or range according to industry studies, not a guaranteed result. Actual results depend on the implementation, the quality of the data and the adoption of each organization. We explain this in detail in the disclaimer at the bottom of this page.
An industry benchmark comes from an independent source with no commercial interest in the result (for example, a McKinsey study, an academic paper or a public or standards body). Vendor data comes from a company that sells the solution the data describes, so it may be biased; we include it when there is no equivalent independent source, or as a reference next to one, and we always label it.
We review and refresh the sources periodically, and we correct any figure that becomes outdated relative to the latest research. The time anchor is in each source, not in a stamp at the bottom: the table links the original study, with its publication year when the source states it. That tells you how current the number is, which is the real question. If you see a figure that has gone stale, write to us and we will fix it.
We do not publish it as a number. We replace it with a qualitative description, such as "significant and consistent improvement." We prefer to communicate less than to claim something we cannot back with evidence.
Because trust is demonstrated with verifiable evidence, not with statements. It is our way of standing out in an enterprise AI market full of unsupported figures, and an internal commitment not to communicate any number we cannot document.
The benchmarks on this page describe the average or range of each industry according to the research available at the time of publication. They are informational and for reference purposes.
None of the figures presented here constitutes a guarantee of result. Vantegrate does not guarantee that your organization will obtain the same numbers, or equivalent results, simply by adopting our tools. The benchmarks reflect what other organizations in the sector have reported, not what you will achieve.
Actual results vary from one company to another and depend on factors that are outside Vantegrate's control. Among them: the degree of responsibility and rigor each organization brings to implementing its processes, the correct configuration and use of the tools, the quality and cleanliness of the data available, the level of commitment and adoption from users, and the particularities of each company's operational, regulatory and market context. A partial implementation, low internal adoption or poorly defined processes can produce results substantially different from the reference benchmarks.
The content of this page also does not constitute legal, financial, regulatory or professional advice of any kind. For decisions that depend on these benchmarks, consult with qualified advisors in your jurisdiction.
Message us on WhatsApp and we'll get back to you. It's the fastest channel to resolve any question about this document or about how we handle your information.
Let's talk on WhatsApp




