MEDDIC. MEDDPICC. MEDDICC. If you've spent any time in B2B sales leadership, you've seen these acronyms on slide decks, in job descriptions, and in LinkedIn posts from people who want you to know they run a rigorous process. The alphabet soup gets old fast.

Here's what actually matters: MEDDIC is a six-element deal qualification framework that's been around since the 1990s. MEDDPICC adds two elements. The core logic is identical. The debate over which one to use comes down to whether those two additions solve a real problem for your team or just add friction to your CRM fields.

We track 1,298 executive sales job postings at The CRO Report. Of those, 117 mention MEDDIC or MEDDPICC as a required or preferred qualification. That's 9% of all postings. This piece breaks down what the two extra letters mean, when they earn their place in your sales process, and what the hiring data tells us about which version companies actually care about.

Data source: Based on analysis of 1,298 executive sales postings tracked weekly by The CRO Report. Methodology mentions are extracted from job descriptions where MEDDIC, MEDDPICC, or related terms appear as required or preferred qualifications. Updated January 31, 2026.

What Each Letter Means: MEDDIC vs MEDDPICC Side by Side

Before getting into the strategic question of which to roll out, here's a clean comparison. Six of the eight elements are shared. Two are new in MEDDPICC.

Letter MEDDIC MEDDPICC Status
M Metrics Metrics Same in both
E Economic Buyer Economic Buyer Same in both
D Decision Criteria Decision Criteria Same in both
D Decision Process Decision Process Same in both
P — Paper Process New in MEDDPICC
I Identify Pain Identify Pain Same in both
C Champion Champion Same in both
C — Competition New in MEDDPICC

The shared elements are the foundation. Metrics quantify the business case. Economic Buyer identifies who can actually sign the check. Decision Criteria and Decision Process map how the organization evaluates and approves purchases. Identify Pain gets to the underlying problem driving the purchase. Champion is your internal advocate who sells when you're not in the room.

Those six elements work. They've worked since Dick Dunkel and Jack Napoli built MEDDIC at PTC in the mid-1990s. The question is whether Paper Process and Competition fill a gap or just add overhead.

When Paper Process Actually Matters

Paper Process covers everything between "yes, we want to buy this" and a signed contract. Procurement reviews, legal redlines, security questionnaires, vendor onboarding forms, budget committee approvals, signature routing. In a small deal with a single decision-maker, this takes a day. In an enterprise deal, it can take months.

The original MEDDIC framework addressed some of this under Decision Process. You'd map out the steps and stakeholders involved in getting a deal approved. But Decision Process, as most teams implement it, focuses on the evaluation and selection phase. It answers "how will they decide to pick us?" It doesn't answer "what happens after they pick us but before we have a PO?"

That gap is where deals go to die. And it's where experienced reps already spend a lot of time, whether or not the methodology tells them to.

Paper Process earns its place when:

  • Your buyer has a formal procurement department. If deals route through procurement, there's a parallel process that your champion may have limited influence over. Paper Process forces reps to map that process early, not discover it in week 11 of what was supposed to be a 12-week sales cycle.
  • Legal review is more than a signature page. If your product touches customer data, integrates with production systems, or requires custom terms, the legal cycle can be longer than the sales cycle. Reps who don't qualify this early end up with slipped deals and inaccurate forecasts.
  • Your average deal size exceeds $100K ACV. Below that threshold, procurement friction is usually low. Above it, you're almost always dealing with multiple approval layers, budget committees, and compliance checks. Paper Process becomes a real qualification gate.
  • You sell into regulated industries. Healthcare, financial services, government. These buyers have compliance requirements that add weeks or months to the close process. A rep who hasn't mapped the paper process in a regulated deal is guessing at the close date.

Paper Process is overhead when:

  • Your deal cycle is under 60 days. If deals close in a month or two, the paper process is typically lightweight. A credit card swipe, a click-through agreement, or a simple order form. Making reps document it as a separate qualification step slows them down for no reason.
  • You sell to SMBs. Small businesses don't have procurement teams. The economic buyer and the person who signs the contract are usually the same person. Paper Process as a distinct element doesn't add signal in this context.
  • Your contract is standardized. If you don't do custom terms, don't negotiate MSAs, and use a straightforward order form, the "paper" part of the process is minimal. Decision Process covers it fine.

The forecast impact: In organizations I've worked with, deals that slip from one quarter to the next are more likely to slip because of procurement and legal delays than because the buyer changed their mind. Paper Process doesn't prevent slippage. It makes slippage visible earlier, which lets you build a more honest forecast.

When Competition Actually Matters

The second C in MEDDPICC stands for Competition. This means a structured assessment of who else is in the deal, what their positioning looks like, and how you're differentiated against them.

Good reps have always done this. The question is whether formalizing it in the qualification framework makes the whole team better at it.

Competition earns its place when:

  • You're in a crowded category. If your buyer is evaluating three or more vendors in every deal, competitive intelligence becomes a qualification factor. A rep who can't articulate the competitive landscape can't position effectively. Making it explicit in the framework forces that conversation in every deal review.
  • Competitive displacement is your primary motion. If most of your deals involve ripping out an incumbent, Competition isn't just context. It's the deal itself. You need to qualify how entrenched the competitor is, what switching costs look like, and whether the champion has enough political capital to drive the change.
  • Your win rate varies significantly by competitor. If you win 70% against Vendor A and 30% against Vendor B, your team needs to qualify which competitor they're facing early and adjust strategy accordingly. A Competition field in the qualification framework makes that data trackable and actionable.

Competition adds less value when:

  • You're creating a category. If you're selling a product that doesn't have direct competitors yet, the "competition" is usually the status quo: spreadsheets, manual processes, doing nothing. That's worth discussing, but it's closer to Identify Pain than a competitive analysis.
  • Your deals are mostly inbound and single-threaded. If buyers come to you directly, already know what they want, and aren't running a formal evaluation, the competitive dynamic is different. You're not in a bake-off. The risk is losing to inaction, not to a competitor.

In practice, most companies selling deals over $50K ACV in established categories benefit from the Competition element. The formalization matters less than the habit. Making reps document competitive presence in every deal creates a data set that informs product, marketing, and sales strategy over time.

What the Job Posting Data Shows

We track methodology mentions across 1,298 executive sales postings. Here's where MEDDIC/MEDDPICC sits relative to other frameworks companies reference in job descriptions:

Methodology / Skill Mentions % of Postings
Consultative Selling 172 13.2%
MEDDIC / MEDDPICC 117 9.0%
Enterprise Sales 102 7.9%
Channel / Partner 87 6.7%
Challenger 16 1.2%
Value Selling 14 1.1%

A few things stand out from this data.

Consultative Selling leads at 172 mentions, but it's a broad term. Companies use it to describe an approach rather than a specific framework. MEDDIC/MEDDPICC at 117 mentions is the most referenced structured methodology in our dataset. Challenger, despite all the attention it got after the book came out, appears in just 16 postings. Value Selling trails at 14.

Most postings that mention MEDDIC or MEDDPICC use the terms interchangeably. You'll see "experience with MEDDIC/MEDDPICC" or "MEDDPICC (or equivalent)" in the requirements section. Companies aren't drawing a hard line between the two versions. They want to know that a candidate has worked within a structured qualification framework.

For additional context: Salesforce appears in 180 postings as a required tool, and AI/ML skills are trending at 411 mentions (31.7% of all postings). The methodology a company uses matters, but the tools and technical literacy requirements are moving faster. For more on what companies prioritize in sales leadership hiring, see our analysis of VP Sales requirements.

How Companies Frame the Requirement

The 117 postings that mention MEDDIC/MEDDPICC break down roughly into three categories:

  • Hard requirement (about 35%). "Must have experience implementing and managing to MEDDPICC." These companies have the framework embedded in their CRM, their deal reviews, and their forecast calls. They want someone who can operate within it on day one.
  • Preferred qualification (about 45%). "MEDDIC/MEDDPICC experience preferred." These companies value structured selling but will consider candidates who've used comparable frameworks like Command of the Message or Force Management.
  • General reference (about 20%). "Familiarity with enterprise sales methodologies such as MEDDPICC." This is the softest mention. The company wants to signal that they value process discipline without being prescriptive about which framework.

If you're a VP or CRO evaluating candidates, this data suggests that MEDDIC/MEDDPICC fluency is a meaningful differentiator but not yet a universal requirement. Nine percent of postings mention it. Ninety-one percent don't. The framework matters most in companies selling complex enterprise deals, which is exactly the context where MEDDPICC's additions pull their weight.

Which Should You Roll Out?

If you're the VP deciding which version to implement, here's a practical framework for the decision.

Go with MEDDIC (the original six) if:

  • Your average deal size is under $50K ACV
  • Your sales cycle is under 60 days
  • You sell primarily to SMB or mid-market buyers
  • Your team is new to structured qualification and you need adoption before complexity
  • Procurement friction is minimal in your typical deal
  • You're in a category with limited direct competition

Go with MEDDPICC (the full eight) if:

  • Your average deal size exceeds $50K ACV
  • Your sales cycle runs 90+ days
  • You sell into enterprise accounts with formal procurement
  • Your team already has some methodology discipline and can handle added complexity
  • Deals regularly slip due to procurement, legal, or security reviews
  • You compete against two or more vendors in most deals

The hybrid approach

Some organizations start with MEDDIC and add the P and C later. This works if your team is building qualification habits from scratch. Get them consistently documenting the core six elements first. Once that's routine, layer in Paper Process and Competition as your deal complexity warrants it.

The risk with starting at MEDDPICC from day one is adoption. Eight fields in the CRM for every deal is a lot for a team that's currently winging it. If reps see the framework as busy work, they'll fill in the fields with garbage and you'll have compliance without insight. Better to start with six solid elements and expand than to launch eight and get shallow coverage across all of them.

What actually matters more than the letter count

The framework only works if it's used in deal reviews, forecast calls, and pipeline discussions. A MEDDPICC field in Salesforce that nobody talks about in the weekly meeting is just administrative overhead. The methodology lives in the conversation, not the CRM. Whichever version you pick, the rollout plan matters more than whether you chose six letters or eight.

Practical reality: Most companies would be better served by getting MEDDIC adoption to 80%+ than by debating whether to add the two extra letters. Poor adoption of MEDDPICC is worse than strong adoption of MEDDIC. Pick one, enforce it in deal reviews, and track whether your forecast accuracy improves quarter over quarter. That's the metric that validates the investment.

MEDDPICC didn't fix something that was broken in MEDDIC. It formalized two things that experienced enterprise reps were already tracking informally: the procurement gauntlet and the competitive landscape. If your deals involve both of those, the additions save you from relying on tribal knowledge. If they don't, the original six cover you fine.

The job market data confirms what you'd expect. Companies care about structured qualification. They don't care much about which specific version you've used. Nine percent of postings mention the framework by name. Those that do mostly use MEDDIC and MEDDPICC interchangeably. The hiring signal is "this person runs a disciplined process," not "this person knows the difference between six letters and eight."

Pick the version that fits your deal complexity. Implement it in a way that makes your team more rigorous about qualification. That's the whole thing.