The 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Configure, Price, and Quote (CPQ) Applications is out, and it will (once again) shape how executives shortlist vendors, fund migrations, and justify platform decisions. But the most valuable takeaway isn’t who sits where, it’s what the evaluation lens implicitly optimizes for. If you use the Gartner Magic Quadrant for CPQ as a map, make sure you also read it as a mirror of the CPQ market’s legacy assumptions.
Analyst Brief: The 2026 Gartner CPQ Magic Quadrant
- What is it? An annual analyst report evaluating vendors in the “Configure, Price and Quote Application Suites” market.
- The Focus: The 2026 report continues to reward deep product constraints ideal for manufacturing.
- The Insight: For SaaS and Services companies, the primary challenge has shifted from product configuration to GTM configuration (commercial motion).
- Recommendation: Buyers should evaluate vendors based on “change velocity” rather than static feature list
Analyzing the 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for CPQ: Leaders, Criteria, and Blind Spots
The annual Gartner Magic Quadrant for CPQ is a useful reference point for understanding the established CPQ market and what enterprise buyers have historically valued. It helps teams narrow a longlist, pressure-test platform direction, and align stakeholders around known categories. While the report plots vendors on Ability to Execute and Completeness of Vision, these metrics prioritize manufacturing complexity over SaaS velocity.
Thus if you’re a technology or services company with a subscription, AI-first, and/or a hybrid offering, the 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for CPQ can unintentionally steer you toward a “solved problem”: configuring the product, while your real bottleneck is configuring the go-to-market motion.
That distinction matters because the commercial surface area in SaaS is exploding: hybrid pricing, tokenized usage, seat + consumption bundles, platform add-ons, channel rules, and fast iteration cycles. Many teams aren’t blocked by product complexity, they’re blocked by change velocity and operational governance. .
How to Read the Magic Quadrant If You’re a SaaS or AI-First Company
- Where does complexity live in your business today: in the product catalog, or in pricing, packaging, and entitlements?
- How quickly can you change pricing/packaging without custom code, fragile workflows, or months of re-testing?
- Can your sales + RevOps teams operate the system day-to-day without becoming dependent on developers or external partners?
- Does the tool preserve downstream data integrity (billing, provisioning, forecasting), or does it force manual workarounds?
The Legacy Paradigm: Configuring the Product
CPQ was born to solve a specific problem: help sales teams assemble and price complex physical goods accurately. In that world, the “hard part” is a labyrinth of constraints. compatibility rules, dependencies, multi-level configurations, and structured product hierarchies.
It makes sense that the CPQ market. and the way executives often interpret analyst rankings, still leans heavily toward that paradigm. Many legacy environments are optimized for correctness in product configuration, not speed in revenue strategy change.
But that weighting creates a mismatch for SaaS companies where the product can be relatively straightforward while the commercial motion is a beast.
The New Imperative: Configuring the GTM Motion
For high-growth SaaS and AI-first companies, the strategic complexity has moved:
- Usage-based, tokenized, and hybrid pricing must be quoted, governed, and tracked.
- Teams need flexibility with special terms and automated pricing that can keep up with enterprise contracting pressure.
- Self-serve and assisted sales need to coexist, where customers can initiate changes, but rules trigger seller involvement at the right thresholds.
- Approval workflows often still happen outside the system (email/Teams/Slack), creating delays and audit risk.
One revenue leader described the oncoming “tipping point” clearly: enterprise RFPs can force a fast evaluation when multi-year, multi-dimensional options and automated pricing exceed what the current CPQ can support. Another noted that as their company moved “AI first,” the pricing and packaging shift toward usage created new requirements for tracking and integration, especially around consumption reporting and how it connects across tools.
This is the GTM Configuration problem. And it’s not a feature checklist problem, it is a systems-of-work problem.
The Opportunity: The Rise of the GTM Configuration Engine
The CPQ alternatives that matter most to modern SaaS buyers aren’t just “another CPQ.” They’re systems designed to let RevOps deploy and govern monetization change without turning every pricing update into a brittle project.
A GTM Configuration Engine is a CPQ that behaves like an execution layer for revenue strategy:
- Commercial agility: Rapid updates to pricing/packaging without months of rework
- Operational governance: Approval automation aligned to deal risk, not manual routing
- Usage model readiness: Native support for hybrid and consumption-based monetization patterns
- Downstream data integrity: Quotes and contracts that don’t break billing, provisioning, or reporting
- Maintainability: Configuration that doesn’t require an army of specialists to keep running
Legacy CPQ vs. GTM Configuration Engine (What Actually Changes)
| Primary job | Core logic | Measures of success | Operational reality | |
| Legacy CPQ | Assemble complex products correctly | Constraint-based product rules | Product accuracy and consistency | Configuration becomes a long-lived customization surface |
| GTM Configuration Engine | Orchestrate complex revenue strategies safely: | Pricing/packaging/approval/entitlement rules that change frequently | GTM speed, deal velocity, adoption, and data integrity | Configuration becomes a managed change surface |
2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant: Evaluated CPQ Vendors
The 2026 report evaluates 16 vendors based on their Ability to Execute and Completeness of Vision. The following table highlights the market focus and typical use cases for each included vendor:
| Vendor | Typical Use Case & Market Focus |
| Tacton | Heavy manufacturing and industrial machinery requiring complex constraint solvers and CAD automation. |
| PROS | Large enterprises (airlines, cargo, manufacturing) focused on AI-driven price optimization and supply chain fluidity. |
| SAP | SAP-centric ERP environments requiring deep native integration for variant configuration. |
| Oracle | Oracle ERP/CX customers managing complex service-selling and high-volume transactions. |
| Salesforce | Salesforce-centric ecosystems (Revenue Cloud) combining CPQ with billing and subscription management. |
| DealHub | SaaS and High-Tech companies prioritizing GTM agility, fluid subscription management, and Connected Sales execution. |
| Infor | Manufacturing and distribution industries with strong 3D visualization needs. |
| Bit2win | Utilities and subscription-based industries, particularly in the European market. |
| Conga | Mid-to-large enterprises prioritizing document generation (CLM) and unified revenue lifecycle management. |
| CSG | Telecommunications and media companies needing massive scale order management and billing. |
| servicePath | Technology and service providers (TSPs) handling complex hardware-plus-service configurations. |
| Vendavo | Distribution and manufacturing organizations focused on price optimization and margin guidance. |
| Zilliant | B2B manufacturing and distribution companies using AI to drive pricing intelligence. |
| Apparound | Field sales teams (utilities/telecom) needing a mobile-first, simple user interface. |
| Epicor | Manufacturing firms needing visual configuration (2D/3D) for complex goods. |
| Yagna iQ | High-tech manufacturers and resellers focused on channel sales and installed-base selling. |
Analyst Takeaway
The 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant for CPQ remains a useful way to understand the established CPQ market. But if you’re a SaaS or AI-first company, don’t let the quadrant become a proxy for what you actually need.
Your competitive advantage isn’t deeper product configuration. It’s the ability to deploy, govern, and measure your commercial motion faster than the competition, without breaking billing, forecasting, approvals, or data trust.
That’s the market’s biggest blind spot, and the next growth vector as CPQ evolves beyond quoting a product and to becoming the configuration engine for GTM strategy execution..
Further reading
Analyst’s Note (January 2026): The “Outcomes Gap” discussed in this article has significant financial implications. For a deeper dive into how to calculate the hidden costs of legacy CPQ and avoid the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) blind spot in major analyst reports. This disconnect is what we call the Outcomes Gap in CPQ evaluation, where analyst rankings diverge from operator reality.
Frequently Asked Questions
Gartner defines CPQ applications as software that enables sales organizations to “automate and optimize the creation of quotes and capture of orders.” While the primary focus is on assisted sales channels, Gartner now mandates that capabilities must be shareable with self-service commerce. Mandatory features include product configuration, pricing, proposal generation, order placement, and an extensibility framework.
Inclusion is strictly performance-based; vendors cannot buy their way onto the list. To qualify, a vendor must meet rigorous thresholds for annual revenue (typically millions in recognized CPQ software revenue), global presence (customers across multiple continents), and enterprise growth (net new large-enterprise customers). This means every vendor on the Magic Quadrant, whether a Leader or a Niche Player, has already passed a strict validation of their financial stability and enterprise readiness.
Use it to identify established players, but do not rely on it for innovation in revenue operations. Supplement the report by testing vendors on “commercial agility”. For example, how fast can you launch a new pricing model without code or waiting on IT to push the updates in backend CPQ?
Yes, but only through the critical capabilities that are required for participation in the report. The evaluation criteria heavily weight capabilities required for Complex Manufacturing (25%) and Tangible Goods (15%). This creates a “manufacturing bias” where vendors are rewarded for handling legacy complexity (like 3D visualization and deep ERP integrations) rather than modern SaaS usability. Consequently, the “Leader” profile is often best suited for industrial manufacturing or telco rather than high-growth technology companies.
The Magic Quadrant primarily scores functional depth and market viability, not the cost or speed to deploy that depth. It does not factor in implementation fees, reliance on third-party integrators, or long-term administrative overhead. Buyers must independently validate Time-to-Value and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) to avoid hidden costs.
The CPQ Integrations Team shares expert insights on revenue operations, CPQ, and quote-to-cash innovation. We explore how connected systems and AI-driven automation transform CPQ from record-keeping tools into revenue-accelerating engines for modern B2B companies.
