Know where the work comes from - and which we win.Sources ranked by win rate, not cost-per-click.
Channels ranks every acquisition source - repeat, referral, website, paid, partner - by the work it actually wins: enquiries, win rate, average deal value and cycle time. The cheapest source of enquiries is rarely the one that books the most revenue.
Enquiry share by source · blended win-rate overlay
RepeatReferralWebsiteGoogleMetaPartnerWin rate
Stacked share is where enquiries come from; the white line is blended win rate (right axis). Repeat +4pp and Referral +2pp over 13 weeks.
Enquiries
1,112
▲ 8%
Blended win
32%
▲ 2pp
Avg cycle
58d
▼ 4d
Top source
Repeat
30% share
Paid ROAS
9.2×
▲ 0.4×
Attrib. quality
91%
▼ 1pp
Service analytics from the team behind $150M+ in revenue influenced
What it answers
The questions your sales leadership lives with.
Not clicks and impressions. Which sources bring work you win, what each is worth, and where the next bit of effort belongs.
01
Which sources bring the work we actually win?
Win rate measured enquiry-to-won by source, so the channel that fills the calendar and the one that fills the bank are told apart.
02
What is our true win rate, by source?
Enquiry to closed, not lead to opportunity, with cycle time built in so slow-burning sources are not unfairly marked down.
03
Which sources are worth the sales effort?
Average deal value and cycle time per source, so you weigh a fast cheap channel against a slow lucrative one with eyes open.
04
Where do long-cycle sources eat margin?
Cycle time by source against win rate, so the channels that quote big but take months to close are visible.
05
Is our source mix shifting?
Enquiry share over time with the biggest movers flagged, so a quiet drift toward a weaker source is caught early.
06
Which sources should we double down on?
Every source on one board by win rate and value, so the next bit of sales effort goes where it pays.
Mix & win rate
See which sources actually close.
Sorted by enquiry-to-won conversion, with the change on the quarter, the enquiry count and the average deal value beside each. The picture a cost-per-lead report can never give you: which sources are worth your team's time.
Ranked by win rate - not volume, not cost - what closes
Repeat and Referral close at nearly double the rate of paid search - but paid brings volume Repeat never will.
Per-source funnel
See where each source leaks.
A source can bring strong enquiries and still lose them late. The funnel grid runs every source through every stage on the same scale, so you can see exactly where a channel falls down and whether it is a top-of-funnel or a closing problem.
Stage by stage - every source on the same scale
Leak location - top-of-funnel vs closing, per source
Best-in-column - the strongest source at each stage, marked
Each row is a source, each column a pipeline transition. Repeat stays tight through every stage; paid sources leak hardest at Negotiation → Won, the price-pressure stage.
Cycle × value
Weigh the fast-and-cheap against the slow-and-lucrative.
Two sources with the same win rate can behave completely differently: one closes small deals in a month, the other lands big ones over a quarter. Plotting cycle against value, sized by volume, shows the real shape of each source so you resource them deliberately.
Three dimensions - cycle, value and volume in one view
The sweet spot - fast, valuable and high-volume, surfaced
The drag - slow sources that tie up the team, exposed
Your ad platforms report return on platform-tracked conversions, often a lead or a form fill. We measure return on the revenue that actually closed in your CRM, lag-corrected for your sales cycle, so the figure reflects money, not events.
No. Spend is tied to the deals it created and projected through your real lag distribution, so recent channels are not unfairly marked down for revenue that has not landed yet.
Yes. We show credit under five attribution models side by side, so you can see how sensitive a channel's ROAS is to the model rather than trusting a single default.
No. We improve the signal, pushing value-weighted conversions back to your platforms, and hand your team the leaderboard. Your in-house team or agency keeps running the accounts.
Google, Meta, LinkedIn and Microsoft on spend; HubSpot, Salesforce and Pipedrive on revenue. Server-side tracking closes the loop between them.
See your true ROAS in your first weeks.
Connect your channels and your CRM. We tie spend to closed revenue, lag-correct it, and hand you the leaderboard that decides the next dollar.
Demonstrative data. A sample of the top-level views - the full drill-downs live in the product.
Pipeline MoneyDemonstrative data · click between views
Pipeline Money · spend traced to closed revenue
Click139,760
Enquiry3,898
Qualified2,350
Quote806
Negotiation544
Won465
Stage funnel · leakage waterfall
Enquiry
3,898 · $48.7M
entered
Qualified
2,350 · $34.1M
60.3%−$6.1M
Quote
806 · $24.9M
34.3%−$9.2M
Negotiation
544 · $18.2M
67.5%−$3.4M
Won
465 · $12.4M
85.5%−$1.6M
Largest leak: Qualified → Quote. $9.2M of qualified pipeline never reaches a quote (34.3% conversion vs 41% prior, significant).
Enquiry cohort · % reached won, by weeks since
Cohort
W0
W2
W4
W6
W8
W10
W12
Jun '26
0.4
1.1
2.0
·
·
·
·
May '26
0.5
1.4
2.8
3.9
4.6
·
·
Apr '26
0.6
1.6
3.0
4.4
5.5
6.1
·
Mar '26
0.5
1.5
3.1
4.7
5.9
6.7
7.0
Feb '26
0.7
1.8
3.4
5.0
6.2
6.9
7.3
Jan '26
0.6
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.0
6.8
7.1
% of enquiries won still maturing (lag-corrected on hover)
Customers · churn & expansion risk
Customers by stage · last 13 weeks, churn & expansion risk scored
EnquiryQualifiedQuoteNegotiationWon
Churn-risk model · at-risk customers, scored
Customer
Value
Churn risk
Signal
Get ahead of it
Atlas Build Co
$142K
High
No job in 9mo, 2 quotes unanswered
Owner call + retention offer this week
Marrickville Group
$98K
High
Spend down 41% QoQ, slower replies
Account review, find the blocker
Coastal Facilities
$76K
Med
Smaller jobs, longer gaps
Check-in + maintenance upsell
Northgate Pty
$64K
Med
Single job, no repeat in 6mo
Nurture sequence + case study
Vertex Services
$51K
Low
Steady, on cycle
Monitor
$1.9M of revenue sits in 21 accounts scored high or medium churn risk. Each carries the signal that flagged it and the move to get ahead of it - the model drives the save, not just the dashboard.
Retention · % of customers and revenue kept over time
You keep 76% of customers and 84% of their revenue at 12 months. The gap between the lines is where small accounts churn but big ones stay - and where a retention play pays back fastest.
Channels · where the work comes from, and which we win
Enquiry share by source · blended win-rate overlay
RepeatReferralWebsiteGoogleMetaPartnerWin rate
Stacked share is where enquiries come from; the white line is blended win rate (right axis). Repeat +4pp and Referral +2pp over 13 weeks.
Win rate by source · enquiry to won, last 90 days
Repeat
46% win
312 enq · avg $54k+3pp
Referral
38% win
264 enq · avg $48k+1pp
Partner
30% win
48 enq · avg $65k+4pp
Meta
30% win
120 enq · avg $32k+0pp
Website
26% win
184 enq · avg $42k-1pp
Google
21% win
64 enq · avg $24k-1pp
Repeat and Referral close at nearly double the rate of paid search - but paid brings volume Repeat never will.
Enq→Qual
Qual→Quote
Quote→Neg
Neg→Won
Repeat
92%
88%
78%
72%
Referral
86%
82%
70%
65%
Meta
82%
76%
64%
55%
Website
78%
73%
58%
48%
Partner
74%
68%
52%
43%
Google
68%
60%
51%
40%
Each row is a source, each column a pipeline transition. Repeat stays tight through every stage; paid sources leak hardest at Negotiation → Won, the price-pressure stage.
People & Performance · rep, team and region
13-week attainment ranking · teams
Each line is a team; y-axis is rank (1 = top). Crossings reveal real shifts. Southern slid from #2 to #5 over the quarter.
Repeat
Google
Meta
Referral
Outbound
S. Tran
-10
+22
+118
+5
-20
R. Okafor
+30
-15
+12
+44
-30
J. Mehta
+15
+40
-25
+30
+10
L. Cheng
-20
+33
+28
-10
+25
D. Ross
+45
-18
+9
+20
-24
A. Pulu
+12
+25
-30
+40
+15
N. Haddad
-40
+18
+35
-12
+28
M. Anderson
+20
-22
+8
+15
-54
Cell = a rep's conversion on that source vs their team median. S. Tran converts +118% on Meta; M. Anderson is -54% on Outbound. A routing signal, surfaced for your judgement.
Activity per rep · weighted touches / week
Each dot is a rep; size is attainment. Spread runs 45 to 112 a week, but activity and conversion correlate only 0.42 - three light-activity reps still close above median (large dots left of the line).
Won / Lost · why deals die
Price
Timing
Competitor
Scope / fit
No budget
Stage $
Enquiry
$0.2M
2%
$0.9M
7%
$0.1M
1%
$0.2M
2%
$0.7M
6%
$2.1M
Qualified
$0.4M
3%
$0.8M
7%
$0.4M
3%
$0.3M
2%
$0.5M
4%
$2.4M
Quote
$1.1M
9%
$0.6M
5%
$0.9M
7%
$0.5M
4%
$0.3M
2%
$3.4M
Negotiation
$2.3M
19%
$0.5M
4%
$1.1M
9%
$0.4M
3%
$0.1M
1%
$4.4M
Reason $
$4.0M
$2.8M
$2.5M
$1.4M
$1.6M
$12.3M
Darker = more revenue lost there. Price dominates and concentrates late, at Negotiation ($2.3M); Timing losses cluster early. Click any cell in-product for the lost-deal cohort.
Reason trend · $M lost per week, last 12 weeks
Price+74%
$5.4M last wkP50 $4.3M
Timing-33%
$2.4M last wkP50 $3.0M
Competitor+71%
$2.4M last wkP50 $2.1M
Scope / fit+25%
$1.5M last wkP50 $1.4M
No budget-44%
$1.0M last wkP50 $1.3M
Unresponsive-44%
$0.5M last wkP50 $0.6M
Price is accelerating (+74%) while Timing and No budget decay - the loss mix is shifting toward a fixable reason.
Negotiation → Won leak · sub-reasons
Lower bidder won
38%
of stage loss
Margin-floor breach
24%
of stage loss
Spec / scope change
18%
of stage loss
Slow response
12%
of stage loss
Other
8%
of stage loss
41% of proposals at negotiation never close. Lower-bidder wins (38%) and margin-floor breaches (24%) lead - both are recoverable with the right pricing move, median dwell 42 days before lost.
Velocity & Lag · how fast money moves
Survival curves · enquiry to won, by source
Each line is the share of enquiries still open over time. Repeat converts fast - half are won by day 30; Google carries a long tail.
Time-in-stage · P10-P90 days, by step (funnel order)
Box = P25-P75, the line is the median, whiskers are P10-P90. Quote is the slowest and most variable stage - median 18 days, with a P90 tail stretching to 44.
Lag-corrected forecast · next 90 days
Bankable
$8.1M
won + near-certain
In-flight
$15.0M
open, weighted
Projected
$18.2M
90% CI $15.1-21.6M
Coverage
1.8×
vs plan
In-flight pipe is lag-corrected from your own cycle, so the $18.2M projection reflects how deals really mature, not a straight line.
Geography · zone by zone
Pipeline by delivery zone · $ won, sized by colour
Metro North
$4.8M
42% win
Metro West
$3.9M
38% win
Inner East
$2.7M
36% win
Northern
$2.1M
34% win
Southern
$1.6M
30% win
Western
$1.4M
28% win
Regional A
$1.1M
26% win
Regional B
$0.8M
24% win
Coastal
$0.6M
22% win
Metro North and Metro West are 38% of won work this quarter. Coastal and Regional B see thin flow and lower win rates.
Top zones · won $, enquiries, win rate
Metro North
$4.8M
132 enq · 42% win
Metro West
$3.9M
118 enq · 38% win
Inner East
$2.7M
84 enq · 36% win
Northern
$2.1M
72 enq · 34% win
Southern
$1.6M
58 enq · 30% win
Coastal
$0.6M
26 enq · 22% win
Bars are won revenue; the north carries the quarter. Coastal brings enquiries but converts at half the rate of Metro North.
Win rate · source × zone
M.North
M.West
East
North
South
Repeat
46%
42%
40%
34%
30%
Referral
38%
40%
36%
30%
28%
Website
26%
24%
30%
28%
22%
Google
21%
20%
24%
26%
20%
Meta
30%
28%
26%
22%
24%
Referral wins hardest in Metro West; Repeat dominates the north. Route effort to the source that wins each zone.
Pipeline Economics · CAC, payback, LTV:CAC
Cost per enquiry · as it escalates through the funnel
Per enquiry
$116
raw acquisition
Per qualified
$198
after qualification
Per quote
$305
after quoting effort
Per won (CAC)
$584
fully loaded
Acquisition looks cheap at $116 an enquiry; loaded through to a won deal the true CAC is $584. The gap is where efficiency is won or lost.
Pipe coverage · region × quarter (× plan)
Q1
Q2
Q3
This Q
Metro
1.4×
1.6×
1.7×
1.9×
Northern
1.2×
1.3×
1.5×
1.6×
Southern
1.0×
1.1×
1.2×
1.4×
Regional
0.8×
0.9×
1.0×
1.1×
Metro is well covered at 1.9× plan; Regional trails at 1.1× - where the next bit of pipeline-building should aim.
Lifetime value vs loaded CAC · by source
Up and to the left is best - high lifetime value at low cost. Repeat sits top-left ($54k LTV, $66 CAC, 8.2:1); Google is bottom-right, barely clearing its loaded cost at 1.7:1.