TRANSPARENCY

Data Transparency Our AI results are evidence-based

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.

01

Why we publish this page

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.

02

How to read our numbers

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.

The rule that runs through all three categories is simple: you will not find any number presented as a universal guarantee of result. When a figure lacks solid backing, we do not publish it with a number; we replace it with a qualitative description such as "significant and consistent improvement." We prefer to say less than to claim something we cannot prove.
03

Sources and benchmarks by topic

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.

Vantegrate's own figures

ClaimFigureSourceType
Integrations our agents work with150+ integrations: a round floor of our integration catalog, which has 160 published pages (Spanish catalog). It counts tools with their own page, not custom connectorsIntegration catalogOur own figure
Founding team's track recordMore 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 ageAbout usOur own figure
Sales team response timeA 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 agreementBook a demoOur own figure
We publish these figures about ourselves and no third party verifies them. That is why we say where each one comes from and what it does not mean.

Conversational communication (WhatsApp, email and SMS)

ClaimFigureSourceType
WhatsApp open rate vs. emailWhatsApp 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 campaignAbout three times, at the median per brandChatarmin, WhatsApp Open Rate Benchmark (2026)Vendor data
WhatsApp clicks vs. email click-throughWhatsApp 12% clicks per delivered message (counts every click, not people); email 2.27% click-through rate: about five times more clicksChatarmin, WhatsApp Benchmark Report (2026); Brevo, Marketing Orchestration Benchmark (2026)Vendor data
Email open rate by region and in automated sendsWithout Apple MPP: 14.72% in Latin America (23.28% with MPP) and 17.32% in North America; 30.63% for automated and transactional emailsBrevo, Marketing Orchestration Benchmark (2026)Vendor data
Email open rate including Apple MPP43.46% across 3.6 million campaigns, inflated by Apple Mail's automatic opensMailerLite, Email Marketing Benchmarks (2025)Vendor data
Purchases in WhatsApp abandoned cart flows8.7% 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 emailKanal (2026), Jean Fourche caseVendor 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 campaignYalo, Rommac caseVendor 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 YaloVendor data
Consumers who prefer messaging to talk to a business73% (73.3%), across 22 markets including Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and ColombiaKantar for Meta, State of Business Messaging (2025)Vendor data
People who use WhatsApp every monthOver 3 billion, according to MetaMeta, via TechCrunch (2025)Vendor data
US adults who use WhatsApp32% overall; 56% of Hispanic adults, versus 23% of White adultsPew Research Center (2025); Pew Research Center, Social Media Fact Sheet (2025)Industry benchmark
Docusign agreements delivered over WhatsAppNearly 7 times faster than by email; over 50% are completed in 15 minutes or lessDocusign, WhatsApp delivery launch (2023)Vendor data
Companies that plan to use RCS and have not launched it yet59%Bandwidth, State of Messaging (2026)Vendor data
RCS messages sent per day in the USOver 1 billion, according to Google9to5Google (2025)Vendor data
SMS and MMS messages in the US in one yearAbout 2.2 trillionCTIA, Annual Survey (2025)Industry benchmark
Note on email open rates: since 2021, Apple Mail Privacy Protection (MPP) marks as opened emails nobody read, which inflates the figures. The figure comparable with WhatsApp is around 21%: 20.73% without MPP according to Brevo (2026), and 21.33% in the Mailchimp (2019) benchmark, from before MPP. Values above 30% that appear in some recent reports, such as MailerLite's 43.46%, count those automatic opens and are not comparable one-to-one with WhatsApp.

WhatsApp Business: Meta's pricing and rules

ClaimFigureSourceType
How Meta charges for the WhatsApp Business PlatformPer delivered message, by category and recipient country (previously, per conversation)Meta for Developers, WhatsApp pricing (2026)Vendor data
Free service messages1,000 per number per month; after that, each one pays the utility rate. Direct API access is free (USD 0): Meta charges only for messagesMeta for Developers, non-template messages (2026); WhatsApp Business, FAQVendor data
Customer service window24 hours from the customer's last message; outside it, only approved templatesMeta for Developers, non-template messages (2026)Vendor data
Free entry point window after a click-to-WhatsApp adUp to 7 days, if the business replies within 24 hours (developer documentation); 72 hours according to the commercial pricing pageMeta for Developers, WhatsApp pricing (2026); WhatsApp Business, platform pricing (2026)Vendor data
Rate per delivered marketing messageArgentina USD 0.0618; Mexico USD 0.0397; Colombia USD 0.0125; North America USD 0.0250Meta, 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 0.0034Meta, per-message USD rate card (2026)Vendor data
Marketing versus utilityMarketing costs more than utility in all 47 markets on the rate card; in Argentina, 2.4 times moreMeta, per-message USD rate card (2026)Vendor data
Cost of Meta Business AgentUSD 2 per million tokens, about 4 to 5 cents per typical replyMeta for Developers, WhatsApp pricing (2026); Wati (2026)Vendor data
Businesses already using Meta Business Agent when Meta opened it to everyoneOver 1 million, on WhatsApp and MessengerMeta 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 BusinessMexico, the first in the worldExpansión (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 daysMeta for Developers, messaging limits (2026); Meta, Business Help CenterVendor data
Sending speed per number (throughput)Up to 80 messages per second by default, and up to 1,000 with the automatic upgradeMeta for Developers, throughputVendor data
Template reviewUp to 24 hoursMeta for Developers, template review (2026)Vendor data
Pause of a low-quality template3 hours the first time and 6 the second; the third time it is disabledMeta for Developers, template pausing (2026)Vendor data
Restrictions for policy violations1 or 3 days without templates for the first ones; after that, 5, 7 or 30 days without sending; an appeal takes 24 to 48 hoursMeta for Developers, policy enforcement (2026)Vendor data
History synced when connecting an app number to the API (coexistence)6 months of individual chatsMeta for Developers, coexistence onboarding (2026)Vendor data
Meta's revenue from paid messaging and from ads that lead to a conversationClick-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 numberUSD 59 (Regular plan) and USD 119 (Premium)360dialog, pricing (2026)Vendor data
RCS price on TwilioFrom USD 0.0083 per message sent or received, plus carrier feesTwilio, RCS (2026)Vendor data
Twilio's surcharge per WhatsApp messageUSD 0.005 per message sent or received, on top of Meta's rateTwilio, WhatsApp pricingVendor data
On the free window after an ad: Meta's developer documentation, which is what defines billing, says up to 7 days. WhatsApp's commercial pricing page still says 72 hours, which is why both appear in the table.

AI agents in customer service

ClaimFigureSourceType
Service cases AI already handles30%, 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 end1 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 FinIntercom Community, "What is considered a good Fin resolution rate?" (2023); Intercom, Lightspeed caseVendor data
Average resolution rate of HubSpot's Customer Agent70%, according to HubSpotHubSpot, AI customer service agent (2026)Vendor data
Customers who would prefer companies not to use AI in customer service64% (survey of 5,728 customers); the top concern, for 60%, is that it will be harder to reach a person, and 42% fear wrong answersGartner (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 chatBrynjolfsson, Li and Raymond, NBER (2023)Industry benchmark
Organizations that see better customer service as a top use case for AI agents65%Okta, Businesses at Work (2026)Vendor data
Legal AI tools that search documents before answeringGive incorrect information in at least 1 in 6 queriesStanford RegLab and HAI (2024)Industry benchmark

AI in the enterprise

ClaimFigureSourceType
Generative AI pilots that do not reach production with measurable business impact95%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 buildsMIT 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 productionCisco (2026)Vendor data
AI projects scrapped between proof of concept and broad adoption46% on average (1,006 respondents)S&P Global Market Intelligence (2025)Industry benchmark
Organizations with AI agent pilotsNearly a quarter have launched them; 14% are implementing themCapgemini Research Institute (2025)Industry benchmark
Enterprise apps with task-specific AI agents40% by the end of 2026, up from less than 5% in 2025 (projection)Gartner (2025)Industry benchmark
Organizations without the data management practices AI needs63% do not have them or do not know whether they doGartner (2025)Industry benchmark
Employee time that generative AI and other technologies could automate60% to 70% (modeled potential)McKinsey, The economic potential of generative AI (2023)Industry benchmark
Respondents at AI-using companies reporting at least one negative consequence51%McKinsey, The State of AI (2025)Industry benchmark
Companies using generative AI that fundamentally redesigned at least some of their workflows21%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 qualityDell'Acqua et al., Organization Science (2025); Harvard Business School (2023); Harvard, study summaryIndustry benchmark
Productivity of people who use generative AI33% more productive in each hour they use it, on averageFederal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2025)Industry benchmark
Executives who see no AI impact on their own firm's employment over the past three yearsOver 90% (US, UK, Germany and Australia)NBER, Firm Data on AI (2026)Industry benchmark
Automation and employment in US agriculture41% of workers in 1900 and 1.9% in 2000; 2023 output was nearly three times that of 1948USDA ERS (2005); USDA ERS, Agricultural Productivity (2023)Industry benchmark
US travel agencies after the internetEmployment down by more than half from its peak; weekly earnings from 87% of the average in 2000 to 99% in 2025Stripe 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 integratedMuleSoft, Connectivity Benchmark Report (2025)Vendor data
Security priorities with AI58% name AI and identity governance as their top concern; 78%, access control for non-human identitiesOkta, Businesses at Work (2026)Vendor data
Breach cost savings with extensive use of AI and automation in securityUSD 1.93 millionIBM, Cost of a Data Breach (2026)Vendor data

Document processing (OCR / IDP in accounts payable)

ClaimFigureSourceType
Cost to process an invoiceUSD 9.40 on average; USD 2.78 at best-in-class teamsArdent 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 rest78% lower cost per invoice, 82% faster and 59% fewer exceptionsArdent 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 averageArdent Partners, "AP Metrics That Matter in 2025", via Tungsten Automation (2025)Industry benchmark
ML extraction accuracy on machine-readable documents (not images)High 90% rangeGartner, Market Guide for AP Invoice Automation, via OpenEnvoyIndustry benchmark
ABBYY's accuracy and volume on invoices; Nanonets' out-of-the-box accuracyABBYY: 99.5% on structured invoices and 1.5 billion invoices a year; Nanonets: 93% to 96% out of the boxChatFin, 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% lessRossum, Fugro caseVendor data
Projected annual growth of the intelligent document processing market, 2026-203426.8%Fortune Business Insights (2026)Industry benchmark
Size of the intelligent document processing marketUSD 10.41 billion in 2025, projected to reach USD 88.91 billion by 2034; North America, 46% of the marketFortune Business Insights (2026)Industry benchmark
IDP vendorsOver 100, across complete solutions and components; Gartner evaluates 15 in its Magic QuadrantGartner (2026)Industry benchmark

Financial close and order status (WISMO)

ClaimFigureSourceType
Top-quartile monthly financial close4.8 days or less (median: 6.4 days)APQC, via CFO.com (2018)Industry benchmark
"Where is my order" inquiry reduction with proactive tracking30-40% at food distributors; merchant cases with 39.2% and 50% fewer inquiriesNuvizz (2026); Sendcloud (2025)Vendor data

Chargeback disputes

ClaimFigureSourceType
Chargebacks merchants win when they dispute them20% on average (merchants dispute 54% of the chargebacks they receive)Mastercard and Datos Insights, State of Chargebacks (2025), via Chargeback GurusVendor data
Chargebacks won with automatically compiled evidenceUp to 80%Chargeflow (2025)Vendor data

Payments in Latin America

ClaimFigureSourceType
Pix daily record in Brazil (December 5, 2025)313.3 million transfers worth R$ 179.9 billionBanco Central do Brasil, via Agência Brasil (2025)Industry benchmark
Interoperable transactions per month in Peru (first half of 2025)Over 186 millionBCRP, Retail Payments Interoperability Strategy (2025)Industry benchmark
Bre-B in Colombia after its first six months617 million transactions worth over 97 trillion pesosBanco de la República (2026)Industry benchmark
Nequi accounts at year-end 202527.4 million, of which 21.9 million are activeGrupo Cibest, 4Q25 results (2026); Grupo Cibest, via Valora Analitik (2026)Vendor data
Yape monthly active users (first quarter of 2026)16.4 millionCredicorp, 1Q26 results (2026)Vendor data
Per-transaction cap for a Yape payment through a gatewayS/ 2,000Culqi, Yape documentation (2026)Vendor data
dLocal coverage17 Latin American countries and over 40 in total; dLocal Go, over 15dLocal, coverage (2026); dLocal, About us; dLocal GoVendor data
Countries where Openpay operates4: Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Argentina (since December 2022)BBVA Group (2023); BBVA Argentina (2022)Vendor data
Payment methods Payway acceptsOver 100Payway (2026)Vendor data
Payway settlement timesDebit, 1 business day; credit, 5 to 18 business days depending on size and industryPayway, 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

Business intelligence (BI) and data

ClaimFigureSourceType
Employees who use BI tools25% 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 SQLGPT-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 accuracy90%+ in Snowflake's internal benchmarkSnowflake engineering blog (2024)Vendor data
Reduction in time to insight (a BI vendor's case)88% in the Cox 2M caseThoughtSpot, Cox 2M caseVendor data
Database popularity rankingOracle #1, MySQL #2, SQL Server #3 and PostgreSQL #4DB-Engines Ranking (2026)Industry benchmark
Data warehouse adoption among US companies buying through RampSnowflake 64%, Redshift 25%, Databricks 17% and BigQuery 9%; 57% of first-time buyers choose SnowflakeRamp, data warehouses (2026)Vendor data
Amazon Redshift versus other cloud data warehousesUp to 8.3 times better price-performance on new dashboard queries, according to AWSAWS, Amazon Redshift (2026)Vendor data
Query speed for Databricks customers5 times faster than three years ago, according to DatabricksDatabricks, Lakehouse (2026)Vendor data
BigQuery on-demand priceUSD 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 dataIDC, via StorageNewsletter (2023)Vendor data
We do not publish conversational BI adoption figures because no independent measured benchmark exists yet. Gartner's projection about conversational interfaces and data storytelling is a prediction, not a verified data point.

Sales and lead response

ClaimFigureSourceType
Contacting a lead in 5 minutes instead of 30100 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 fivefoldLead Response Management Study, InsideSales.com with James Oldroyd, MIT (2007); archived original pageVendor data
Contacting a lead within the first hourNearly 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 companiesHarvard 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 daysDrift, 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 responsePied 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 experience61%Gartner (2025)Industry benchmark
Touches to land a first meeting with a new prospect8 on average; 5 for top sellersRAIN Group (2025)Vendor data
How a B2B customer buysUses 10 interaction channels on average across the purchase; at B2B companies with e-commerce, that channel generates 34% of revenue, more than any otherMcKinsey, B2B Pulse (2024)Industry benchmark

Marketing and customer experience

ClaimFigureSourceType
Cost of acquiring a customer versus retaining one5 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 rest23 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 profitabilityMcKinsey, Five facts (2014)Industry benchmark
Revenue lift from personalization10% to 15%, the most common rangeMcKinsey (2021)Industry benchmark
Marketers and AI75% are experimenting with AI or have implemented it; high-performing teams, 2.5 times more than underperformersSalesforce, State of Marketing (2024)Vendor data
Customers who expect companies to understand their needs73%Salesforce, Customer Engagement Research (2022)Vendor data
Customers for whom the experience matters as much as the product80%Salesforce, State of the Connected CustomerVendor data
Marketers who use AI to create content (879 respondents)87%; they publish 42% more content per month and 80% review it by handAhrefs (2025)Vendor data
Consumers and customer care on social media76% value prioritized, fast care; 69% expect a same-day replySprout Social Index (2023)Vendor data
Benchmark Net Promoter Score (over 150,000 organizations)+32 on average; good above 20 and excellent above 70SurveyMonkey (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

B2B SaaS

ClaimFigureSourceType
Average Net Revenue Retention of cloud companies140% 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 ratioInvest in acquisition from 3:1 or more; below 1:1 you lose money; the best companies exceed 3, sometimes 7 or 8Bessemer Venture Partners (2021); David Skok, SaaS Metrics 2.0 (2013)Industry benchmark
Target CAC payback by segmentUnder 12 months for SMBs, 18 for mid-market and 24 for enterpriseBessemer Venture Partners, Scaling to $100 Million (2021)Industry benchmark
Average MQL-to-SQL in B2B SaaS13%First Page Sage (2026)Vendor data
Free-to-paid conversion (200 B2B products)8% median; 30% for trials that require a cardChartMogul, SaaS Conversion Report (2026)Vendor data
On CAC payback: Bessemer's periods are targets by segment, not the market average. Any reference we make to this topic is about moving toward those ranges, not about guaranteeing a period.

Financial Services

ClaimFigureSourceType
Digital bank onboarding abandonment in Europe63% on average, up to 70% in some countriesSignicat (2020), via InnovatricsVendor data
Consumers in Europe who abandoned a financial product application during onboarding in the year before the survey68%; on average, after 18 minutesSignicat, The Battle to Onboard (2022)Vendor data
Financial institutions that lost clients to onboarding delays70%, the highest figure on recordFenergo (2025); FinTech Global (2025)Vendor data
Healthy cost-to-collectBelow 2% of the amount recoveredProdigal, citing ResolvePayVendor data

Healthcare

ClaimFigureSourceType
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 reminders34% weighted averageHasvold 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 scaleLanke et al., JMIR (2025); Peng et al., JMCP (2020)Industry benchmark
Claims denied on first submissionClose to 30%; in 32% of denials, the primary cause is a coding errorHBMA, via Voyant Health (2025)Vendor data
Denial rate benchmark5-10%MD ClarityVendor data
First-pass acceptance target98% (efficient practices exceed 90%)BellMedEx (2024)Vendor data
Patients for whom booking at any time, online or with mobile tools, matters89%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

Pharmaceutical

ClaimFigureSourceType
Digitization of pharmaceutical quality control+30-40% productivity; over 50% lower QC costs; over 65% fewer deviations and over 90% faster closureMcKinsey, "The Future of Pharma Quality Control" (2019)Industry benchmark
Pharmaceutical product lost per year to temperature failures in transitUSD 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 analysisClose to USD 35 billionDHL (2019)Vendor data
Substandard or falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countriesAt least 1 in 10WHO (2024)Industry benchmark

Logistics and foreign trade

ClaimFigureSourceType
Demurrage and detention per container per day at North American portsUSD 2,008 on averageContainer xChange, D&D Benchmark Report (2023), via Container NewsVendor data
OTIF Walmart requires from its suppliers90% on-time deliveries and 95% in-full ordersWalmart, via Logistics Viewpoints (2024)Industry benchmark
OTIF Amazon requires and that of top performersAmazon, 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 stageCapgemini Research Institute (2019); Capgemini, expert perspectiveIndustry benchmark
Fuel with route optimization (a named customer's case)8% less fuel per order and 5% better fuel efficiency at TescoSatalia, Tesco caseVendor data
Savings from UPS's ORION routing system at full deploymentAbout 10 million gallons of fuel and 100,000 metric tons of CO2 a year; USD 300 to 400 million annuallyINFORMS, UPS case (2026 archive)Industry benchmark
Savings route optimization vendors report for their customers15% 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% lessOloko, EJLPSCM (2024)Industry benchmark
On-time deliveries in an online grocer's case99.5%LocusVendor data
Savings at early adopters of AI in the supply chain15% lower logistics costs than slower competitorsMcKinsey (2021)Industry benchmark
Cost of a failed delivery in the USUS$ 17.20 per orderLoqate, Fixing Failed Deliveries (2021)Vendor data
Share of warehouse operating costs that goes to pickingUp to 55% of operating cost; travel is about 50% of the picker's timeDe Koster, Le-Duc and Roodbergen, EJOR (2007)Industry benchmark
FCL versus LCL break-even point, and usable container space13 to 15 CBM; 25 to 28 CBM in a 20-foot and 54 to 58 CBM in a 40-footFreightFigures (2026)Industry benchmark
Clarification: the Container xChange demurrage figure is the average of North American ports, which take the top seven spots in its ranking, not a global average.

Field Service (on-site technical service)

ClaimFigureSourceType
First-time fix rate80% on average; 88% best-in-class; 63% for laggardsAberdeen Group, via PTC (2024)Industry benchmark
First-time fix rate according to IBMAbout 80% on average; 89% to 98% in mature or narrow settingsIBM Think (2026)Vendor data
Cost of each technician dispatch (truck roll)USD 200 to 300 on averagePTCVendor data
Daily cost of each service truck on the roadOver USD 1,100TSIA, via Field Technologies OnlineIndustry benchmark
Smart crew scheduling (pilot at a US utility)+20-30% field productivity; 80% fewer false truck rollsMcKinsey, Smart scheduling for utilities (2023)Industry benchmark

Machinery and equipment

ClaimFigureSourceType
Aftermarket EBIT margin versus new equipment (30 industries)25% versus 10%; parts gross margin above 30%, versus 10% for maintenanceMcKinsey, "Industrial Aftermarket Services: Growing the Core" (2017)Industry benchmark
Aftermarket operating margin versus new equipmentAbout 2.5 timesDeloitte, via Genalpha (2021)Industry benchmark

Manufacturing and energy

ClaimFigureSourceType
World-class OEE85% (Nakajima's target); most plants are closer to 60%Vorne, OEE.comVendor data
Plants that rely more on preventive and predictive maintenance52.7% less unplanned downtimeNIST, Thomas and Weiss (2021)Industry benchmark
Cost of unplanned downtime11% 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 automotiveSiemens, The True Cost of Downtime (2024)Vendor data
Productive capacity lost to downtimeAt least 5%, and up to 20% at many plantsInterstates, on Automation.com (2011)Vendor data
Professionals who fully understand the financial impact of the cost of quality31%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 yearMcKinsey, Vistra case (2022)Vendor data

Retail, E-commerce and Consumer Goods

ClaimFigureSourceType
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 processBaymard Institute (2025)Industry benchmark
Conversion of Top 1000 chains with omnichannel featuresIn-store pickup 3.4% and curbside 3.9%, versus 3.1% on averageDigital Commerce 360 (2025)Industry benchmark
Online shoppers who checked whether a product was available at a nearby store68%Digital Commerce 360 (2023)Industry benchmark
Shoppers who made additional purchases when picking up an online order in store85%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 salesNRF and Happy Returns (2025)Vendor data
Out-of-stocks on the shelf8.3% global average; when facing one, 31% go to another store and 26% buy another brandFMI, GMA and CIES (2002)Industry benchmark
Consumer Goods sales that go through the traditional channel37% in Latin America; 46% in Central AmericaNielsenIQ, via Estrategia y Negocios (2026)Industry benchmark

Reference costs

ClaimFigureSourceType
Fully loaded cost of an SDR (US market)USD 106,000 to 141,000 a yearThe Bridge Group (2016)Industry benchmark

Salesforce, Oracle and their ecosystem

ClaimFigureSourceType
Salesforce implementation for companies migrating from HubSpot (444 companies)21 days on averageSalesforce, Salesforce vs HubSpot (2026)Vendor data
Starting price of Agentforce Service AgentUSD 2 per conversationSalesforce (2024)Vendor data
Data 360 list price per profilesUSD 240 per 1,000 profiles per yearSalesforce, Data 360 pricingVendor data
Agentforce deals and revenueOver 29,000 deals since launch; over USD 1.5 billion in annual recurring revenue, under a broadened definition that adds Slackbot and Headless 360Salesforce, fiscal 2026 results; Salesforce, fiscal 2027 second-quarter resultsVendor 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 secondsSalesforce, Claudeforce announcement (2026); VentureBeat (2026)Vendor data
Headless 360Over 60 MCP tools, over 30 skills and a USD 50 million fundSalesforce (2026)Vendor data
Dreamforce 2025 attendeesNearly 50,000Salesforce (2025)Vendor data
MuleSoft Vibes quality versus the most popular language models60% improvement, according to MuleSoftMuleSoftVendor data
Oracle's results for the second quarter of fiscal 2026Net income of USD 6.135 billion (+95%); remaining performance obligations (RPO) of USD 523 billionOracle (2025)Vendor data
Oracle layoffsUp 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 billionCIO, citing TD Cowen (2026)Industry benchmark
NetSuite customersOver 44,000, in 220 countries and territories, according to OracleOracle (2026)Vendor data
AppExchange reviews of apps we integrateDocusign eSignature for Salesforce: 4,647 reviews, 4.55 out of 5; RingEX by RingCentral: 117 reviews, 4.3 out of 5Salesforce AppExchange (2026); Salesforce AppExchange, RingEX (2026)Vendor data
Price of an agent action with Agentforce Flex CreditsUSD 0.10 at list price (20 credits at USD 0.005)Salesforce, Agentforce pricingVendor data
Salesforce's share of the global CRM market20%, first for the thirteenth year in a rowIDC (2025), cited by SalesforceIndustry benchmark
Organizations using Oracle Cloud ERPOver 11,000, according to OracleOracle (2025)Vendor data

Official rules, deadlines and standards

ClaimFigureSourceType
Deadline to report a serious and unexpected adverse event to the FDA15 calendar daysFDA, 21 CFR 314.80Industry benchmark
Pharmacovigilance reporting deadline in Argentina15 calendar days for a serious adverse reaction; 7 if there was death or a threat to lifeANMAT, Provision 5358/2012Industry benchmark
US drawback refund on imported goods that are exported or destroyedUp to 99% of the duties, taxes and fees paidU.S. Customs and Border Protection (2016)Industry benchmark
Deadline to honor an email opt-out request (CAN-SPAM Act)10 business daysFederal Trade CommissionIndustry benchmark
Countries and economies that use the Harmonized SystemOver 200World Customs OrganizationIndustry benchmark
Countries with GS1 member organizationsOver 120GS1 (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 hoursAFIP, WSAA developer manualIndustry benchmark
FCC and TCPA rules for marketing SMS in the USOpt-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 willfulFCC (2024); 47 CFR 64.1200; 47 U.S.C. 227; Florida; OklahomaIndustry benchmark

Platforms we integrate: company figures

ClaimFigureSourceType
Software adoption among US companies buying through RampCRM: 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 softwareQuickBooks 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 employeesEnlyft, QuickBooks (2026); Enlyft, NetSuite (2026); Enlyft, Business Central (2026); Enlyft, Acumatica (2026)Vendor data
App ranking by number of customers on OktaMicrosoft 365 #1, Google Workspace #2, Slack #6Okta, Businesses at Work (2026)Vendor data
Zapier app directory, sorted by popularityOver 9,000 apps; Gmail #2, Google Calendar #4, Google Drive #5, Microsoft Outlook #13Zapier (2026)Vendor data
Customers each company reportsHubSpot, 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 countriesHubSpot (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 SiigoAspel helped over 1 million SMBs go digital in 40 years; Siigo, over 1.2 million customers in six countriesAccel-KKR (2022); Siigo, Endeavor Outliers announcement (2026)Vendor data
QuickBooks Online Accounting revenue in one fiscal yearUSD 5.05 billion, up 23% from the year beforeIntuit, Form 10-K (fiscal 2026)Vendor data
US e-commerce sales processed through Shopify10%, according to ShopifyShopify (2026)Vendor data
Coverage and track record of logistics carriersFedEx, 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 ArgentinaFedEx (2026); 99minutos (2026); Olva Courier (2026); OCA (2026)Vendor data
Integrations and channels each platform reportsInfios, over 1,500 integrations; n8n, over 500; Calendly, over 150; B2Chat, 5 channels in one inboxInfios (2026); n8n (2026); Calendly (2026); B2Chat (2026)Vendor data
Bejerman's track record in the Argentine marketOver 40 yearsThomson Reuters Argentina (2026)Vendor data
Twilio's networkOver 180 countries and 4,800 carrier connectionsTwilio, global infrastructureVendor data
RingCentral as a Leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant for UCaaS12 years in a rowRingCentral (2026)Vendor data
Beetrack (DispatchTrack) platform usersOver 850 customers in 20 countriesDispatchTrackVendor data
RingCentral's fiscal 2025 resultsRevenue of USD 2.5 billion, up 5% from the year before; over 8,000 AI Receptionist customersRingCentral, via Business Wire (2026)Vendor data
Other size figures cited on the integration pagesZendesk, 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 GoogleZendesk (2026); Store Leads; G2 (2026)Vendor data
Each company publishes these figures about itself (customers, coverage, years in business), or they come from its own customer base, as with Ramp and Enlyft. They serve as a reference for size, not as an independent measure of the market.

Platforms we integrate: limits and technical data

ClaimFigureSourceType
Sending and request limits of messaging and collaboration APIsTeams 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 secondMicrosoft Learn (2025); Slack; Gmail API; Mailchimp (2026); ActiveCampaign (2026)Vendor data
Limits of data, ERP and operations APIsQuickBooks: 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 organizationIntuit; Microsoft Learn (2025); Microsoft Learn, Business Central webhook subscriptions; Acumatica, API license restrictions (2026); Acumatica (2026); Google Sheets API; Mixpanel; SamsaraVendor data
Limits of logistics and payments APIsCorreios: 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 casesCorreios (2026); DHL Developer Portal (2026); Chilexpress (2026); PayUVendor data
Lifetime of each platform's tokens and sessionsCulqi: 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 minutesCulqi (2026); Adobe Commerce (2026); Wix; Meta for Developers, Instagram access token (2026); Geotab (2026); Microsoft Learn (2026)Vendor data
Windows and retries of other platformsInstagram: 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 queryMeta for Developers, Instagram (2026); Meta for Developers, Conversions API (2026); Microsoft Learn (2026); respond.io (2026); Docusign Developers (2026); Google Calendar APIVendor data
Other technical data we use when explaining integrationsGemini: 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 sizeGoogle, Gemini API (2026); PrestaShop; QR Planet (2026)Vendor data
04

On sources with a commercial interest

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.

05

Geographic scope: global and LATAM benchmarks

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.

06

Frequently asked questions

Where do the numbers Vantegrate shows on its site come from?

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.

Does Vantegrate guarantee these results for my company?

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.

What is the difference between an industry benchmark and vendor data?

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.

How often are the sources updated?

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.

What happens if a number does not have a solid source?

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.

Why does Vantegrate publish a data transparency page?

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.

07

Legal disclaimer

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.

We review and refresh the sources on this page periodically. If you find a figure you believe is outdated or incorrectly cited, write to us on WhatsApp and we will fix it.

Questions about this document?

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