Frameworks
MEDDPICC, Challenger, SPIN, BANT — what ships in the box and which to start from.
Frameworks ship as featured templates you can use as-is or adapt. Starting from one is almost always better than starting from a blank rubric.
What ships
| Framework | Scores a rep on | Best for |
|---|---|---|
| MEDDPICC | Metrics, economic buyer, decision criteria, decision process, paper process, identified pain, champion, competition | Complex B2B deals with committees and procurement |
| Challenger | Teaching the buyer something, tailoring to their role, taking control of the conversation | Markets where you're changing how the buyer thinks, not answering a spec |
| SPIN | Situation, problem, implication, need-payoff questioning | Discovery-heavy motions and cold calls |
| BANT | Budget, authority, need, timeline | Qualification, high-volume inbound, SDR work |
You'll find these in Scoring → Scorecards as featured templates, and as organization templates once adapted — a mature workspace typically has a MEDDPICC discovery scorecard, a Challenger cold-call scorecard, a SPIN cold-call scorecard and a BANT qualification scorecard side by side, because they test different calls.
Choosing one
Ask what your losses look like.
- Deals die in procurement or with an unknown economic buyer → MEDDPICC. It's the only one that scores paper process and champion strength.
- Deals die because the buyer didn't see why to change → Challenger.
- Discovery calls surface symptoms but never the cost of the problem → SPIN.
- Pipeline is full of deals that were never real → BANT, on the qualification call.
If you already run one of these internally, use that one. A scorecard that uses different words from your pipeline reviews creates two vocabularies for the same deal.
Adapting a framework
Frameworks are generic by design; your market isn't. Three adaptations that always pay:
- Rename the dimension to your language. If your team says "business case" rather than "metrics", say business case. Reps shouldn't have to translate their scorecard.
- Reweight against your loss data. Read a dozen win/loss interviews and weight the dimensions those buyers actually cited.
- Add your failure conditions. "Quoted a discount without approval". "Promised a roadmap item". "Left without a next step in the calendar".
Building your own
Nothing stops you describing a rubric from scratch in the scorecard builder — for a call type no standard framework covers, like a renewal conversation or a technical PoC review. Keep it to four to six non-overlapping dimensions and define what fails.
A caution on mixing frameworks
Don't blend two frameworks into one scorecard. A MEDDPICC-plus-Challenger hybrid produces ten dimensions that overlap, a team average nobody can act on, and a coaching conversation with no focus. Use two scorecards for two call types instead.