How do you calculate the actual payback period on a dedicated lead-routing system when MQL volume stays flat?

Question

Pulse RevOps · The Machine · Accepted Answer

## Brief Payback hinges on SQL conversion lift, not volume. Route-to-fit matters more than route-speed. ## Detail A dedicated lead-routing system (Pavilion, Bridge Group benchmarks) doesn't add MQLs—it converts existing ones faster. The payback math: - **Baseline MQL→SQL rate**: 25–35% (B2B SaaS median) - **Post-routing lift**: +5–8 percentage points (Bridge Group 2024 study) - **Cost**: $15K–$40K/year for vendor + ops time - **Payback threshold**: **3–5 deals saved per month at your ACV** If your ACV is $50K and cost of entry is $25K, you need two deals converted in year one that wouldn't have been otherwise. That's ~0.66 deals/month. Most teams hit 3–4 in month two. The trap: measuring MQL→SQL rate in isolation. Route-to-fit is about **reducing churn in the handoff**, not manufacturing SQL from thin air. ### Payback Equation | Metric | Low ACV ($10K) | Mid ACV ($50K) | High ACV ($200K) | |--------|---|---|---| | **Deals to payback in Y1** | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.125 | | **Monthly run-rate needed** | 0.21 | 0.04 | 0.01 | | **% of current SQL** | 8–12% | 2–4% | 0.3–0.6% | ```mermaid graph LR A["1000 MQLs/month"] --> B{"Route to fit
vs random"} B -->|With routing| C["280 SQLs
+28% hygiene"] B -->|Without routing| D["240 SQLs
baseline"] C --> E["40 SQL gain
× $50K ACV"] E --> F["$2M pipe lift
vs $25K cost"] D --> G["No gain"] F --> H{"Payback
month 2"} ``` TAGS: lead-routing,MQL-to-SQL,payback-period,pipeline-quality,Bridge-Group,Pavilion

Metric	Low ACV ($10K)	Mid ACV ($50K)	High ACV ($200K)
Deals to payback in Y1	2.5	0.5	0.125
Monthly run-rate needed	0.21	0.04	0.01
% of current SQL	8–12%	2–4%	0.3–0.6%

How do you calculate the actual payback period on a dedicated lead-routing system when MQL volume stays flat?

Brief

Detail

Payback Equation

What does the score mean?