Most 2026 growth plans still read like a new-logo story. Expansion sits in a CS slide as a ~20% bonus. That folklore is outdated.
Aleph × Benchmarkit's 2026 SaaS & AI-Native Metrics file (342 B2B SaaS and AI-native companies, CY-2025 actuals) prints a different mix. On the Expansion ARR share cut (N=114), expansion is 40% of total new ARR at the median. Top quartile clears 59%. The low-growth cohort sits at 44%.
This B2Bcentr report shows which sample produced the 40% median, what the quartiles and ARR bands do, how Expansion CAC compares with New Name CAC, and how to read the mix next to NRR and win-rate data already on the shelf.
Key Takeaways
- Median Expansion ARR share is 40% of total new ARR (N=114).
- Top quartile clears 59%; 25th percentile sits at 29%.
- Low-growth cohort prints 44%. Expansion can be substitution, not just amplification.
- Expansion CAC median is $0.80 vs New Name CAC $1.63.
- Companies above $100M ARR hit a 62% median expansion mix.
Which sample produced the 40%
Primary source: Benchmarkit 2026 SaaS & AI-Native Metrics (research partnership with Aleph). Overall file: 342 B2B SaaS and AI-native software companies reporting CY-2025 actuals. The Expansion ARR to New ARR (%) cut is N=114. Expansion CAC Ratio cut is N=74. Context write-up: Aleph's 2026 SaaS benchmarks takeaways.
Definition used here: Expansion ARR as a percentage of Total New ARR (new logos plus expansion). It is not NRR. NRR measures retained and expanded dollars on the installed base. This mix metric answers a different board question: of the new ARR you booked this year, how much came from customers you already had?
| Cut | Number | Sample |
|---|---|---|
| Median Expansion ARR / Total New ARR | 40% | Aleph × Benchmarkit 2026; N=114; CY-2025 |
| Top quartile (75th) | >59% | Same cut; approaches a balanced land-and-expand model |
| 25th percentile | 29% | Same cut; heavily new-logo dependent |
| Low-growth cohort | 44% | Exec summary; expansion as substitution for new logos |
| Companies >$100M ARR | 62% median | Same Expansion ARR cut by ARR band |
| Expansion CAC (median) | $0.80 | N=74; vs New Name CAC $1.63 median |
Why ~20% folklore still shows up in board decks
Early-stage plans often treat expansion as a CS side hustle: land the logo, then hope seats grow. A ~20% expansion share feels conservative and "honest" when the land motion is young. It is also the number many operators still quote from older growth-at-all-costs playbooks.
Aleph × Benchmarkit's CY-2025 median is 40%. The bottom quartile climbed from 10% in CY-22 to 29% in CY-25. The market moved. Board folklore did not.
Here's why that matters. If your plan still allocates AE and SDR capacity as if 80% of new ARR must be net-new logos, you will overbuy pipeline coverage and underfund expansion playbooks that print cheaper dollars (Expansion CAC $0.80 vs New Name CAC $1.63 in the same report).
Quartiles, ARR bands, and GTM motion
Top-quartile performers sit above 59%. That is close to a balanced model where expansion nearly matches new logos. Teams at the 29% floor stay exposed to any new-logo pipeline slowdown.
By ARR band, companies above $100M print a 62% median expansion mix. Larger installed bases and mature CS infrastructure show up in the number. Companies under $20M still sit in the 35% to 39% range. Even early-stage files no longer look like a pure new-logo machine.
By go-to-market motion, Hybrid (PLG + sales-led) leads at a 54% median. PLG alone prints 36%. Product-led expansion theory does not automatically become Expansion ARR without a commercial overlay.
Expansion CAC versus New Name CAC
On the Expansion CAC Ratio cut (N=74), the median is $0.80 per dollar of expansion ARR. New Name CAC in the same Benchmarkit file sits at $1.63. Expanding an existing customer costs materially less per dollar of new ARR than acquiring a new logo.
Expansion CAC also improved from $1.00 in CY-24 to $0.80 in CY-25 (a 25% efficiency gain). Gains are sharpest where expansion already represents 50%+ of total new ARR. Those teams treat expansion as a revenue function with quota and pipeline, not as a renewal afterthought.
Read it next to growth, NRR, and win rate
Median YoY ARR growth in the same Aleph × Benchmarkit file is 20%, not the old 40% folklore bar. See B2Bcentr's 2026 SaaS ARR Growth Report. When growth compresses, a 40% expansion share stops being optional decoration.
NRR in related cuts sits near 102% median in Aleph's private sample (and 101% in SaaS Capital's broader file). Keep the NRR report open beside this one. High expansion mix with weak NRR usually means you are replacing churn with upsells, not compounding.
On the sales side, Ebsta × Pavilion's new-logo win rate averages 19% while expansion wins at 45%. That split is in B2Bcentr's 2026 B2B Win Rate Report. Expansion ARR share and expansion win rate are different metrics, but both say the installed base closes and expands more efficiently than cold new logos.
Unit economics still set the ceiling. Pair this mix with LTV:CAC (median 4.1x) and CAC payback (median 16 months) so expansion dollars are not used to paper over a broken land motion.
B2Bcentr's take
Who this does not work for
Brand-new products with almost no installed base cannot force a 40% expansion mix. Pre-PMF teams should still prioritize land quality. Usage-based pricing also muddies "new" versus "expansion" labels. Segment your own CRM definitions before copying the median.
This number also breaks if you redefine Expansion ARR to include every renewal uplift without a consistent new-logo denominator. Stick to Expansion ARR / Total New ARR the way Benchmarkit reports it.
What to do Monday
- Pull last four quarters of Expansion ARR / Total New ARR from the CRM or billing system.
- Put Expansion CAC next to New Name CAC on one slide.
- If mix is under 30%, audit expansion ownership, quota, and multi-product packaging before hiring another SDR pod.
- If mix is above 50% while NRR is weak, fix gross retention before celebrating "expansion-led growth."
- Align AE / AM capacity with the real mix, not a 20% folklore slide.
Next number for the same growth plan: what net retention actually prints when boards still quote 120%.
FAQ
What is a good SaaS expansion ARR share in 2026?
Aleph × Benchmarkit's 2026 file prints a 40% median Expansion ARR share of total new ARR (N=114). Top quartile clears 59%. Treat sub-30% as a new-logo dependency risk unless you are truly pre-scale.
Is 20% expansion of new ARR still a realistic planning assumption?
Treat ~20% as early-stage or outdated folklore, not as the 2025 private median. The same Benchmarkit cut shows the 25th percentile already at 29%, and the median at 40%.
How is Expansion ARR share different from NRR?
Expansion ARR share is Expansion ARR divided by Total New ARR (new logos plus expansion). NRR measures retained and expanded dollars on the existing base. You can have a high expansion mix and still print weak NRR if churn is high.
What is the median Expansion CAC in 2026?
Aleph × Benchmarkit prints a $0.80 median Expansion CAC (N=74), versus a $1.63 New Name CAC in the same report. Expanding existing customers costs less per dollar of new ARR.
Does expansion share rise with company size?
Yes in this sample. Companies above $100M ARR print a 62% median expansion mix. Companies under $20M still sit around 35% to 39%.
Should I staff more AEs if expansion is already 40% of new ARR?
Not automatically. Check New Name CAC, Expansion CAC, win rates, and NRR first. At a 40% mix, underfunding expansion owners often costs more than adding another new-logo hunter.
Where can I read the full Aleph × Benchmarkit sample?
Start with the Benchmarkit 2026 report hub and Aleph's takeaways post. Guide page: 2026 SaaS benchmarks.
Primary source: Benchmarkit 2026 SaaS & AI-Native Metrics (Aleph partnership; 342 companies; Expansion ARR cut N=114; CY-2025). Context: Aleph takeaways and Aleph guide page.