Know whether you are acquiring efficiently.True CAC, coverage, payback and LTV:CAC.
Pipeline Economics is the CFO's view of growth: what a customer really costs once loaded through the funnel, how much pipe you hold against plan, how fast acquisition pays back, and which sources compound. The unit economics, reconciled.
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.
CAC at won
$584
▼ 9%
Cost / enquiry
$116
▼ 6%
Pipe coverage
1.8×
▲ 0.3×
Payback
94d
▼ 11d
LTV:CAC
4.1:1
healthy
Top-5 share
32%
of won $
Service analytics from the team behind $150M+ in revenue influenced
What it answers
The questions a CFO asks about growth.
Not cost-per-lead. True CAC, coverage, payback and the sources that actually compound.
01
Are we acquiring efficiently?
True cost to win a deal, loaded through the whole funnel, not the flattering cost-per-enquiry number.
02
What does a customer really cost, by stage?
Cost per enquiry, per qualified, per quote and per won, so you see where acquisition gets expensive.
03
How much pipeline do we have against plan?
Pipe coverage by region and group, so you know whether the quarter is covered before it is over.
04
How long until acquisition pays back?
Payback in days against deal value, so spend decisions account for the cash gap, not just the return.
05
Is our LTV-to-CAC healthy, by source?
Lifetime value against fully-loaded cost per source, so you scale the channels that compound and cap the ones that do not.
06
Where is revenue concentrated, and is that a risk?
Top-account share of won revenue, so concentration is a number you manage, not a surprise.
Pipe coverage
Know if the quarter is covered, by region.
A group coverage number can hide a region running on empty. The coverage grid shows pipe against plan by region and quarter, so you direct pipeline-building where it is actually short, before the gap becomes a miss.
Region by quarter - coverage against plan, over time
The short region - where to build pipe next
Early, not in hindsight - a gap flagged with time to act
Metro is well covered at 1.9× plan; Regional trails at 1.1× - where the next bit of pipeline-building should aim.
LTV:CAC by source
Scale what compounds, cap what does not.
A source can win deals and still lose money once cost is loaded and lifetime value is counted. LTV:CAC by source separates the channels that compound from the ones that barely clear cost, so budget follows the economics.
Loaded cost - CAC through the whole funnel, not per lead
Lifetime value - repeat and expansion included
The compounding channels - ranked for you to scale
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.
Payback
Account for the cash gap, not just the return.
A high-return channel that takes four months to pay back is a different decision from one that pays back in a month. Payback by source puts the cash-flow cost of acquisition on the table, so growth is funded sustainably.
Days to recover - loaded CAC against deal value
Cash-flow aware - the gap before a channel pays
Fund growth safely - scale within your cash reality
Cost-per-lead counts the enquiry; our CAC loads the full cost of qualifying, quoting and winning, so it reflects what a closed customer actually costs - usually several times the headline number.
Closed plus repeat and expansion revenue from your CRM and finance systems, so lifetime value is money received over the relationship, not modelled potential.
Days to recover the fully-loaded CAC against realised deal value, by source, so the cash-flow cost of each channel is explicit.
Yes. Pipe against plan is shown by region and quarter, so you build pipeline where it is genuinely short rather than where it is loudest.
Yes. Spend, revenue and pipeline tie out to your source systems, so the unit economics are CFO-grade, not a dashboard estimate.
See your true unit economics.
Connect your spend, CRM and finance systems. We load CAC honestly, measure payback and coverage, and rank sources by what they compound.
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.