Courtesy Joe Girardi
Every sales team loves a good win rate. It is the number that says: we are winning. It goes on the board slide. It makes everyone in the room feel good. But here is the catch. A win rate can lie. Not on purpose. It just doesn't tell you the whole story on its own. I look at a lot of sales teams. Small ones and larger ones, across very different kinds of software and industries. And the same thing keeps happening. A team shows off a lovely win rate. Everyone nods. And underneath it, money is leaking out of a hole nobody has spotted yet.
So let's take win rates apart. There is a good version, a bad version, and an ugly truth hiding underneath. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. And you will probably find money you didn't know you were losing.
First, the basics, in plain terms. A win rate measures how often you win. Here is how to build it. Pick a time frame (a quarter or fiscal year). Take every deal that was in play: the ones you won, the ones you lost, and the ones still open and in progress. Your win rate is the deals you won, divided by all of them together: Won deals ÷ (won + lost + still open). That's it. We call this the count-based win rate. It counts deals. One deal, one vote. And here is the important bit: a tiny deal and a giant deal count exactly the same. Each is just “one.”
The count-based view. Most of the team wins a healthy share of their deals; even David, the lowest, wins more than half. Looks like a solid team.
Look at this team. Four salespeople. Most of them win a healthy share of their deals. James and Michael both win around three-quarters. Even David, the lowest, wins more than half. If you stopped reading here, you'd say: good team, nothing to fix, next slide. And that is where and why I go deeper into the data.
Here is the problem with counting deals. Not all deals are the same size. A €500 deal and a €50,000 deal both count as “one win.” But they are obviously not worth the same to your business. One barely covers lunch. The other pays a salary. So let's ask a better question. Instead of “how many deals did we win?”, ask “how much of the money did we win?”
That is the revenue-based win rate. It is exactly the same sum as before: won, divided by won plus lost plus open, but now each deal is weighted by the money attached to it. In software that money is usually the ARR: the annual recurring revenue, or what the customer pays you each year. Same deals. Same people. But now the big deals count more, because they should. Watch what happens to the exact same team.
The same four people, now weighted by money. Michael slips from 79% to 61%, David from 56% to 44%, and Sarah collapses from 62% to 16%.
Michael slipped from 79% to 61%. David dropped from 56% to 44%. And Sarah? She went from a respectable 62% all the way down to 16%. Same people. Same quarter. Same numbers underneath. A completely different story.
That is what the gap means. These people fill their win column with easy, cheap wins. Meanwhile the large, valuable deals slip away. And because those big deals are just “one” each, they barely dent the count but they walk out the door with most of the money.
The count-based number felt good. The revenue-based number tells the truth. This is the whole point: you have to look at both. One tells you how busy your team is. The other tells you where the money actually goes.
Now the uncomfortable part. Once you follow the money, you can see exactly where it leaks. And it is almost always the same place.
Big deals.
Let's sort the deals into buckets by size, and check the win rate for each bucket.
Left: win rate falls as deals get bigger: from 86% on the smallest to 25% on the largest. Right: almost all the lost revenue sits in those big deals.
See the pattern? Small deals close easily. As deals get bigger, the win rate falls off a cliff. The smallest deals win 86% of the time. The biggest win just 25%.
And the second chart is the sting. Almost all of the lost revenue sits in those big deals. The small ones are barely a rounding error. In plain English: the company is losing exactly the deals it most wants to win.
Why does this happen? Big deals are simply harder. They need more meetings. More people around the table. A proper business case. They take longer to land. A fast, light sales motion that is brilliant at closing small deals just isn't built for the big ones. So the large deals stall, drift, and quietly die on the vine.
Here is one more thing I see again and again. It tends to surprise people. How you split a salesperson's job changes how well they close.
Look back at that first chart. Some of those people only do new sales — finding brand-new customers. Others split their time between new sales and “expansion,” which means selling more to customers you already have. Expansion is lovely work. It is warm. The customer already likes you. It closes fast and easy. New sales is hard. It is cold. It takes real effort and patience.
So guess what a busy person does when they have both jobs on their plate? They drift toward the easy stuff. The warm expansion deals get done. The hard new-sales deals — especially the big ones — get less attention. And they lose.
In our example, the two people most split between both jobs had the worst revenue win rates. The two who stayed focused on new sales had the best. Same product. Same market. The difference was focus.
The lesson is not “hire more people.” It is: don't ask one person to run two very different sales motions at once. You'll get a healthy deal count and a leaky money column — and now you know why.
You might think this is a small-company problem. It is the opposite. When a business is young, deals are mostly small and mostly similar. The count-based win rate and the revenue-based one sit close together. The hole is there, but it is tiny, so nobody notices.
Then the company grows up. It starts landing bigger customers. Deal sizes spread out: some still small, but a few now very large. And that is exactly when the two win rates split apart. The big deals are where the growth is supposed to come from. They are also, as we just saw, the ones most likely to slip away.
So the leak doesn't shrink as you scale. It widens. A team that looked perfectly healthy can be quietly losing its best opportunities a year later with the same cheerful count-based win rate on the slide the whole time. The number never changed. The business underneath it did.
That is why I care about this so much. The gap between the two win rates is an early warning signal. It flashes long before it shows up in the revenue you actually book.
You don't need a data team for this. You need to ask three better questions.
1. Always look at both win rates. Count-based tells you activity. Revenue-based tells you value. If the two are far apart, you are losing the big deals. Go and find them.
2. Split your deals by size. Check the win rate in each size bucket. If it falls as deals get bigger, your sales motion isn't built for large deals. That is a fixable process problem, not a “bad people” problem.
3. Check who is doing what. If your salespeople are split across two jobs, don't be surprised when the hard, valuable deals leak. Focus is a lever you can pull tomorrow.
None of this is complicated, that's the good news. The ugly truth is only ugly while it stays hidden. Shine a light on it with two numbers instead of one, and it turns into a to-do list. And a to-do list is just money waiting to be collected. Square One Digital can help to improve win rates and unlock hidden value for your business.