How CFOs and CTOs buy B2B software in 2025
A data-first look at how CFOs and CTOs buy in 2025. Where they look, how they judge ROI and risk, and what they choose to buy.
Want articles like this straight to your inbox?
Subscribe here
Subscribe here
This is the post body content.
Behind every major B2B software purchase stands two critical signatures: the financial leader who controls the budget and the technology leader who sets and enforces standards.
A perfectly tailored pitch means nothing without both approvals. The CFO scrutinizes ROI while the CTO evaluates integration. One focuses on financial risk, the other on technical debt. Miss either perspective, and your deal won't happen.
We used Wynter to survey 200 B2B SaaS leaders - 100 CFOs and VPs of Finance, and 100 CTOs, CIOs, and VPs of Technology at companies with $50M+ revenue. We uncovered how they evaluate vendors, where they look for information, and what ultimately makes them say "yes."
These insights reveal precisely what both audiences care about, what raises red flags, and how to earn approval from both sides of the decision table.
While marketing often treats "the buying committee" as a single entity, financial and technology leaders have different triggers for involvement, distinct research methods, and separate criteria for success. Understanding their requirements is the difference between deals that stall and deals that close.
Only 16% lead end-to-end vendor selection. The rest appear exactly when (and only when) they need to.
Their involvement varies based on company size, purchase amount, and potential risk:
Final approval (30%): These financial leaders position themselves as ultimate gatekeepers, reviewing what their teams bring them and making the final call.
Consult approach (20%): They serve as trusted advisors, offering strategic guidance while teams drive the research.
End-to-end oversight (16%): Most common in smaller companies (201-500 employees), these leaders stay hands-on from day one to signature.
Negotiations-based (12%): They swoop in specifically for deal-making when pricing or contract terms need work.
Every tech investment begins with a pain point. Tech leaders start by defining problems with precision before entering vendor research:
Their research approaches break down into four distinct styles:
Delegators (25%): Trust specialized teams to conduct research, stepping in for final validation.
Hybrid approach (22%): Conduct initial research before delegating to teams.
Solo researchers (13%): Manage the entire research process personally.
50/50 split (12%): Share responsibility with teams, focusing on different aspects.
While involvement styles vary, one factor consistently determines financial leaders' attention level: the price tag.
Once you cross their financial threshold, they're asking:
Here's what most vendors miss: financial and technology leaders rarely coordinate their evaluation processes. Tech leaders are testing your product while CFOs are questioning your financials. One focuses on "Can it work?" while the other asks "Should we pay for it?"
Our advice: You need to satisfy both audiences simultaneously, even though they're evaluating you through completely different lenses at different times. By recognizing this dual-track reality and designing your sales process to address both perspectives proactively, you'll avoid having to scramble to satisfy each stakeholder as they appear.
Your action plan: Map out when each leader type typically engages based on deal size and company profile. Create stage-appropriate materials that speak to their specific concerns. Most importantly, help them help each other. Give tech leaders the financial ammunition they need to satisfy CFO concerns, and provide financial leaders with enough technical clarity to trust the CTO's recommendation.
The death of traditional marketing? Not quite. But the way B2B leaders discover software has fundamentally shifted from vendor-controlled channels to peer-driven networks.
While financial leaders start with trusted peers, technology leaders begin with Google. This split reveals why many marketing strategies fail. They assume a single discovery path when buyers actually take two completely different journeys to find you.
Financial leaders follow what we call the "three-stage screening process":
Stage 1: Dark social (72%) The majority turn to peers before any formal research begins.
Stage 2: Google (64%) They use search to compile lists and validate recommendations.
Stage 3: Review sites (30%) Gartner and similar platforms serve as verification layers.
Tech leaders take a more hands-on approach to discovery:
Google leads (73%) Nearly three-quarters begin with direct searches.
Peer validation (53%) Over half consult their networks, but often after initial research.
Industry insights (23%) Almost one in four check analyst reports.
Both audiences are adopting AI tools, though at different rates:
The most striking finding? Financial leaders discover vendors through relationships while tech leaders discover through research. This creates a fundamental challenge: optimizing for one audience may make you invisible to the other.
Consider this scenario: A CFO hears about you from a peer at a conference. Meanwhile, their CTO is Googling solutions and building a completely different shortlist. If you're not present in both discovery channels, you've already lost half the battle.
The winners are vendors who own this dual-channel reality. They'll build strong peer advocacy programs to capture financial leaders while maintaining great SEO, adapting for AEO, and producing helpful content to catch technology leaders. Most importantly, they'll recognize that being discovered is no longer about choosing the right channel, it's about being present across all the channels your buyers actually use.
Your action plan: Audit your current discovery strategy. Are you equally visible to both peer networks and search engines? If not, you're leaving deals on the table.
Making the shortlist isn't necessarily about being the best solution available. It's about being the most trusted solution at the exact moment your buyers are looking.
Our data reveals a harsh truth: by the time vendors know they're being evaluated, the shortlist is often already set. Financial leaders verify what their teams recommend. Technology leaders narrow down from 5-7 options to 2-3 finalists. Both approach this phase with serious skepticism and a rigorous criteria.
56% of financial leaders take a "trust but verify" approach to vendor research:
22% adjust involvement based on purchase type:
Decision-making processes vary significantly by organization scale:
Enterprise (10,000+ employees)
Mid-sized (500-5000 employees)
Smaller companies (201-500 employees)
Financial and technology leaders often build different shortlists for the same purchase. The CFO's list comes from trusted peer recommendations. The CTO's list emerges from technical research and hands-on testing. When these lists don't overlap, buying comittee dynamics can derail or delay purchases.
Your competitive advantage: Instead of hoping stakeholders will advocate for you across departments, proactively bridge the gap. Create materials that help tech leaders speak the CFO's language and give financial leaders enough technical confidence to support the CTO's choice.
Remember: The goal is to be the only vendor that appears on everyone's list.
The reality is, you’re not steering the buyer’s journey anymore. By the time your sales team hears from them, many have already made up their minds.
In our research, 84% of tech leaders review vendors before any sales call. And 78% of finance leaders verify their teams’ picks on their own. That means your solution is judged from multiple angles, often at the same time and when you’re not in the room.
Total cost of ownership (66%) They look beyond year one to 3-5 year commitments.
"I analyze the annualized cost (depreciation of implementation + recurring subscription + indirect costs) in comparison to savings expected to be realized." - Brenda, CFO, 201-500 Employees, Financial Services
Custom frameworks (56%) Over half create their own evaluation models, as 58% don't trust vendor ROI calculations.
Reference checks (36%) They verify case studies and speak with current customers.
Website clarity (100%) Every tech leader visits vendor websites, expecting immediate answers.
Interactive demos (83%) They need hands-on experience before sales conversations.
Peer reviews (70%) They deep-dive on review sites for unfiltered truth.
The takeaway from our research: your website does most of the selling for tech leaders. They'll be testing your product, checking your security docs, and comparing you to competitors all before reaching out. Financial leaders are building their own ROI models, calling your customers, and verifying every claim you make.
This invisible evaluation phase determines whether you'll get a chance to demo. By the time you're invited to present, buyers have already decided if you're a contender or just checking a box.
In short, your self-service evaluation experience must be as good as your best sales demo. Every touchpoint should anticipate and answer the questions both audiences are asking. Most vendors still optimize for the sales call that may never come, while winners optimize for the evaluation that's already happening.
Our advice: Audit your digital presence through both lenses. Can a CFO find ROI data without a demo request? Can a CTO test core functionality without talking to sales? If not, you’re losing deals at the starting line.
Every vendor claims superior ROI and seamless integration. So why do some win while others lose? The answer lies in understanding the hidden hierarchy of decision criteria.
When deciding whether to approve, financial leaders prioritize these factors:
Tech leaders focus on different aspects:
Here's where deals get complicated: the CFO's top priority (cost) often conflicts with the CTO's top priority (problem-solving capability). The best technical solution might not offer the best ROI. The most cost-effective option might create integration nightmares.
This tension explains why so many deals stall in the final stages. Without alignment, nobody wins.
Your action plan: Stop selling to job titles and start solving for criteria conflicts. Build business cases that explicitly address both value systems. Better yet, help your champions do it for you by providing materials that translate technical value into financial terms and financial benefits into technical advantages.
The main goal here is about helping both leaders justify the decision to each other. Here's exactly what they told us they need:
Detailed cost & ROI analysis
Feature comparisons
Risk assessment
Clear differentiation
Hands-on validation
Peer validation
The future of B2B sales is already happening right now, it's just unevenly distributed. While vendors invest in traditional sales motions, buyers are quietly revolutionizing how they want to purchase.
Our data reveals a striking contradiction: 57% of tech leaders prefer traditional sales demos, yet 83% want to self-serve before any sales conversation. This is a fundamental shift in how B2B buyers want to engage with vendors. They want both self-service and human expertise, just at different moments in their journey.
57% of tech leaders prefer traditional sales demos, with 86% currently purchasing this way. Yet 83% also want self-service exploration before any sales conversation.
Financial leaders view demos differently, as opportunities to verify claims and assess vendor credibility rather than explore functionality.
The most successful vendors in 2025 won't force buyers to choose between self-service and sales support. They'll offer both, designed for where buyers are in their journey and what they're trying to achieve.
Tech leaders want to explore independently first, testing integrations and validating functionality without sales pressure. But when it's time to navigate organizational dynamics or negotiate terms, they value expert guidance. Financial leaders want to verify ROI claims independently but appreciate strategic discussions about long-term value and risk mitigation.
This hybrid model requires rethinking traditional sales stages. Instead of controlling information flow to force sales conversations, companies doing this best provide full transparency while positioning their sales teams as advisors for complex decisions. They recognize that buyers will self-educate regardless.
Our advice: Map out which parts of your sales process truly require human interaction and which create unnecessary friction. Enable technical self-service while positioning sales conversations around strategic value, risk mitigation, and organizational change management. The goal is to use your sales team where they add genuine value rather than serve as information gatekeepers.
Success in B2B sales once meant mastering a single playbook. In 2025, it requires conducting two different plays at once.
The vendors who thrive will be those who stop trying to force-fit one approach for all stakeholders and instead build dual excellence.
Both audiences share common requirements:
The biggest revelation from our research is that your role isn't just to satisfy both audiences separately but to help them build consensus together.
This requires a fundamental shift in sales strategy. Instead of sequential selling (convince the CTO, then the CFO), enablement needs to be simultaneous. Companies need to provide materials that help technical leaders make financial arguments and financial leaders understand technical value. They recognize that internal champions need ammunition for conversations that happen without vendor presence.
The path forward isn't about choosing which audience to prioritize, it's about recognizing you need both signatures to win.
Here's our advice on how to get CFO and CTO buy-in in 2025:
Meet them where they are with transparency, genuine value, and respect for their needs. Skip the hype, deliver the substance, and recognize that your best advocates are your current customers telling their peers you're worth the investment.
.jpg)
.png)
