Where MEDDICC fits, and where it does not

01

Fifteen pages and their lines

The nine searches asked whether MEDDIC is outdated, when not to use MEDDICC and whether it is right for a company. They asked how MEDDPICC works for small deals and for product-led growth, and what the deal size threshold is. They also asked whether MEDDICC suits startups, how MEDDIC fits inbound and outbound sales, and when to use MEDDPICC.

In that run, the first ten results on DuckDuckGo held 73 different addresses. Search results move from run to run, and a later run of the same nine searches gave a partly different set. Nine addresses were left out: two videos, a Reddit thread, four review listings and two pages that did not open. Of the 64 pages read, a page is counted when it names an amount per deal for MEDDIC or one of its variants. The amount says when to use it, when not to use it, or when to use BANT instead.

MEDDIC, MEDDICC and MEDDPICC are variants of one framework. MEDDICC adds Competition to the six elements of MEDDIC, and MEDDPICC adds the Paper Process as well. As I said on the podcast, you can have it with one C or with two.

Each page is read here at two deal sizes, 40,000 and 60,000 dollars. The fifteen draw no line between 40,000 and 50,000 or between 50,000 and 60,000. In the table, not set by the amount means that the page's lines leave that amount out.

At 40,000 dollars, six of the fifteen put the deal under one of the three variants. Five name MEDDIC, and SalesArmor names MEDDIC or, with a procurement, security or legal review, MEDDPICC. Four put the deal under BANT, a simpler framework or a lightweight version. For five, the amount does not set the answer.

At 60,000 dollars, twelve of the fifteen put the deal under a variant. Seven name MEDDIC, one MEDDICC and two MEDDPICC, while SalesArmor and Superwork name more than one. One puts the deal under a simpler framework, and for two the amount does not set the answer.

Seven of the fifteen draw a line at exactly 50,000 dollars. Four write their line as above 50,000, and three put 50,000 in two of their own ranges at once. So a deal of exactly 50,000 dollars gets no clear answer from six of the seven. SalesArmor gives it one: MEDDIC from 25,000 dollars, and MEDDPICC once procurement, security or legal review is part of the deal.

Written in figures, the lowest deal amount on the fifteen pages is 500 dollars: Sales Kriya says BANT is fine if you sell a 500-dollar tool to a founder. The lowest line drawn as a boundary is Pitchbase's, a simplified version under 5,000 dollars. The BANT ranges of DealRadar and Salesmotion also start at 5,000.

The highest deal amount in figures is Superwork's 1 million, above which it says some teams add an R for risk. For the three variants themselves, the highest line written in figures is 500,000 dollars: Hyperbound's for MEDDPICC and the top of Salesmotion's MEDDIC range. One line is in pounds, Closing Foundry's sub-£100k.

Supered writes its line as above six figures, and Sales Kriya gives MEDDIC 5 to 6 figure deals. In words, the pages also name deal sizes that reach a million dollars and more. Saber says MEDDPICC emerged to qualify complex deals with six-figure to multi-million dollar contract values. Closing Foundry names a seven-figure enterprise pursuit, and Sales Kriya says PTC sold six-figure to seven-figure deals.

The fifteen give no source for any of their amounts. Beside the lines, one link leads to another site: Salesmotion's BANT sentence links Scratchpad's comparison of BANT and MEDDIC, and that page names no amount. Supered cites Gartner only for the size of the deciding group. Laxis, Supered and Superwork call their lines a rule of thumb. All fifteen publishers sell to sales teams: software, contact data, a CRM, consulting, coaching or training.

02

From BANT to the full framework

Below their line, nine of the fifteen name BANT. Salesmotion, DealRadar, Superwork and Prospeo's MEDDICC page set the two ends side by side. One to three people deciding within weeks go with BANT. Five or more stakeholders over months, often with procurement on the way, go with MEDDIC or a longer variant.

GitLab's public handbook publishes amounts of its own. It requires the MEDDPPICC section of a Command Plan only for opportunities at $100K+ in ARR for Enterprise and $50K+ for Mid-Market. A Command Plan is the plan a GitLab account executive writes for an opportunity. The handbook calls these thresholds "minimum global standards" and says teams can and should extend the plan to lower deal thresholds where appropriate. So the rule sets when the written record becomes mandatory in GitLab's own segments. It leaves open how far down the framework is worth using.

03

Complexity, and how the deal is won

In episode 105 of The SaaSiest Podcast, from October 2023, the host asked me whether it matters if what you sell is high ticket or low ticket. I answered with complexity: "MEDDIC is greatly tied with the complexity of a deal." I added that the complexity needs to be fairly big, and that I specifically think it is suitable for outbound sales. On my page Opportunity qualification with MEDDICC I describe the work as qualifying complex sales opportunities by reverse engineering the customer's buying decision.

I called heavily inbound driven sales a bit more difficult. Inbound has a speed to it, of getting there first, and you are already far down the decision tree from the customer's perspective. Qualifying too hard might hinder you there.

The company that trains the framework under the name MEDDICC starts from complexity as well. On a page meddicc.com published in November 2024, it says to use MEDDPICC "relative to the complexity of your deal". The page is read here in the Internet Archive's copy, because its address now leads elsewhere. In a fast-moving deal, it adds, trying too hard to engage the economic buyer could slow you down.

Outside worked examples, fifteen of the same 64 pages say how the framework suits inbound, outbound, product-led or self-serve selling, and they split. Four treat inbound and outbound alike: Highspot, ConnectLoop, Stackmatix and SalesHive. Five give inbound leads a lighter or quicker check: The Harris Consulting Group, Salesforce, MEDDIC Academy on its checklist and its definition page, and ConnectLoop as well.

Two tie MEDDIC to outbound selling, Salesgear and Kolfil. Five call it too much for product-led or self-serve selling: Salesgear on that page and on a second one, Saber, Superwork and Prospeo's MEDDICC page. DealDoc's stage scorecard lets the decision process and the paper process stay red after discovery, unless it is a fast-moving inbound deal.

On product-led growth I said I had not formed a clear opinion. My thought was that a product-led company still has touch points with the customer. Once a sale reaches the complexity of solution selling, something like MEDDIC becomes the qualification behind it.

Monterro's Nordic B2B Software Benchmark Report 2026 is built on answers from founders and executives of over 230 Nordic B2B software companies. On the report's page about the 236 respondents of its software survey, 51 percent give enterprise sales as their primary go-to-market model and 17 percent inside sales. Of the same 236, 16 percent name marketing, 9 percent partners and 7 percent the product. So 23 percent of the 236, a little under one in four, have marketing or the product as their primary model.

04

The figures that travel with it

Three figures come with the framework on the same 64 pages. Five of the 64 say that 73 percent of SaaS companies selling above 100,000 dollars a year use some version of it, and Proponent calls that an estimate.

Ten of the 64 tell of PTC, the company where MEDDIC was made, growing from about 300 million to 1 billion dollars or more in revenue. Five of the ten put that in four years, while Salesmotion's guide to MEDDIC gives it as a story. Three of the 64 say that teams that adopt it fully see 18 percent higher win rates and 24 percent larger deals.

On 20 October 2026 every link beside the three figures was followed. They end at pages that do not carry them, at a page that repeats one without a source, at a post that no longer opens or at a page behind a form. So they cannot be traced to where they come from.

Two accounts that can be read tell PTC's growth differently. In its factual background, the court opinion of April 2026 gives PTC's revenues as rising from 1 million dollars in 1989 to 1.1 billion in 1998. On meddicc.com, the account of who created MEDDIC says PTC took its sales organisation from zero to 1 billion dollars in ten years.

The same opinion was given on 21 April 2026 in case 24-1836 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It held that "MEDDPICC is a generic term for business education services and content". It also held that the plaintiff is entitled to an order cancelling a registered trademark for the term. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, and meddicc.com, the site of one of the parties, hosts the opinion.

05

Where to start

The place to start is the company's own recent deals. Count how many people on the customer's side had to agree, and how many months passed from the first meeting to the signature. Note whether procurement, security or legal review came before it, and who else was in the running, including the customer staying as it was. Note too whether the deal was won outbound or came in inbound.

Where most deals close in weeks with one to three people deciding, the four pages that set out both ends point to BANT. Where five or more stakeholders take months, they point to MEDDIC or a longer variant. The company that trains it as MEDDICC and my own answer start from how complex the deal is. Inbound leads won on speed are where I said qualifying too hard might hinder you.

How to bring the framework into a team once it fits is the last part of MEDDICC is a way to reverse engineer the customer's buying decision.