Boards still treat 40% to 50% of revenue on sales and marketing as the growth-company default. Some decks still round that into "half the P&L on growth." Aleph × Benchmarkit's 2026 file says the private median already sits well below that folklore bar.
Across 342 B2B SaaS and AI-native companies reporting CY-2025 actuals, the S&M Expenses as % of Revenue cut (N=196) prints a median of 35%. Fourth quartile sits at 47% (down from 55% in CY-24). The same cut shows the median fell from 37% in CY-24 to 35% in CY-25, the first year of decline in that series.
This B2Bcentr report shows which sample produced the 35% median, how full S&M differs from marketing-only spend, what growth cohorts and GTM motion do to the number, and why a 50% board slide still mis-sets the plan.
Key Takeaways
- Median S&M is 35% of revenue (N=196). Boards still quote ~40–50%.
- Fourth quartile fell from 55% (CY-24) to 47% (CY-25).
- YoY: 37% to 35%. First decline year in the Aleph YoY cut.
- 31–50% growth cohort prints 44% S&M; >50% growth prints 35%.
- Distinct from marketing-only: median 8% of ARR on marketing alone.
Which sample produced the 35%
Primary source: Benchmarkit 2026 SaaS & AI-Native Metrics (research partnership with Aleph). Overall file: 342 B2B SaaS and AI-native software companies, CY-2025 actuals. The S&M Expenses as % of Revenue cut is N=196. Context write-up: Aleph's 2026 SaaS benchmarks takeaways. Guide page: Aleph 2026 SaaS benchmarks.
Definition used here: Sales and Marketing expenses as a percentage of revenue (fully loaded S&M on the P&L, not a marketing-only line). At 35%, the median private company spends a little over a third of revenue on the combined growth function. That is not CAC Ratio, not Magic Number, and not the marketing-only budget.
| Cut | Number | Sample |
|---|---|---|
| Median S&M % of revenue | 35% | Aleph × Benchmarkit 2026; N=196; CY-2025 |
| CY-24 median (same trend cut) | 37% | YoY: first decline year into CY-25 |
| Fourth quartile (CY-25) | 47% | Was 55% in CY-24 |
| 31–50% growth cohort | 44% median S&M | Highest growth-band spend in the cut |
| >50% growth cohort | 35% median S&M | Matches population median; superior unit economics |
| Overall file size | 342 companies | B2B SaaS and AI-native; CY-2025 actuals |
| Marketing-only (separate post) | 8% of ARR | SaaS Capital; distinct from full S&M |
Why ~40–50% folklore still shows up in board decks
Operator folklore still treats half the P&L on growth as normal for a scaling SaaS company. Older board packs round that into a clean 40% or 50% S&M target and keep using it as a planning floor.
Benchmarkit's own key insight on this cut is direct: Sales and Marketing as a percentage of revenue at a median of 35% closely aligns to much larger public companies, and that level is already the budgeting benchmark for a majority of companies in the annual process. Total-population benchmarks still need care: sample composition is material, and S&M % correlates strongly with company size and with growth rate.
Here's why that matters. If your plan still assumes a 50% floor while the private median is 35%, you will overfund the growth line relative to peers and under-credit the efficiency the market already booked in CY-25. Read this next to B2Bcentr's marketing budget report (8% of ARR on marketing alone) so you do not confuse a marketing-only line with full S&M.
Full S&M is not marketing-only, and it is not CAC Ratio
Marketing-only answers how much of ARR sits on the marketing line. In B2Bcentr's marketing budget report, SaaS Capital's private B2B SaaS median is 8% of ARR on marketing, with selling costs on a separate line. Full S&M answers how much of revenue the combined sales and marketing function consumes. Different numerator, different planning use.
Blended CAC Ratio answers how many S&M dollars it takes to produce $1 of new ARR. In the same Aleph × Benchmarkit file, that median is $1.30 (see the CAC Ratio report). You can print a healthy 35% S&M % of revenue while still spending $1.30 of S&M per dollar of new ARR. Do not swap the two metrics in one sentence.
Magic Number and CAC payback are siblings on the efficiency side. Magic Number tracks how efficiently last period's S&M converts into this period's ARR growth (see B2Bcentr's Magic Number report). Payback tracks months of gross profit to recover acquisition spend (see the CAC payback report, 16-month median). Use S&M % of revenue for the P&L shape. Use CAC Ratio for unit cost per dollar of new ARR. Use Magic Number for growth efficiency. Use payback for cash recovery.
Growth cohorts, GTM motion, and the efficiency story
By 2025 growth rate, the 31–50% growth cohort carries the highest median S&M at 44%. That matches history: companies investing aggressively to sustain high growth print the highest S&M ratio.
The >50% growth anomaly is the tell. Companies growing above 50% invest 35% of revenue in Sales and Marketing, the same as the whole population and lower than both the 21–30% and 31–50% growth bands. Benchmarkit notes that companies with superior unit economics are often best positioned to grow faster without burning the same capital as slower growers.
By go-to-market motion, integrating Product-Led Growth does not automatically lower total S&M. As PLG companies move into enterprise segments and add products, they invest in more Sales and Account Management, which raises total S&M expenses even while Growth Marketing keeps running acquisition and expansion. Do not assume a PLG label equals a leaner S&M line.
YoY, the fourth quartile (most aggressive S&M investors) cut from 55% in CY-24 to 47% in CY-25. Benchmarkit reads that as efficiency pressure showing up even at the high end of spend, and as a signal that legacy SaaS companies are adopting more AI-native growth playbooks.
Read it next to Rule of 40, ARR growth, and Magic Number
Median Rule of 40 is 25%, not the investor 40% folklore bar (Rule of 40 report). A large part of the CY-25 Rule of 40 jump came from cutting investment lines, including S&M and R&D, not only from stronger durability. Aleph's takeaways are blunt on that point: efficiency improved because companies reduced S&M and R&D investments, while median growth fell and GRR weakened.
Median YoY ARR growth is 20%, not the old 40% folklore bar (ARR growth report). A 35% S&M line at 20% growth is a different operating reality than a 50% S&M line at 40% growth. Pair the spend % with the growth bar before you celebrate "efficiency."
The median company freed roughly 2% of revenue from S&M in a single year (37% to 35%), plus larger cuts from R&D and G&A, while losing growth points. That is a one-time efficiency dividend if you bank it. It is a reinvestment budget if you put it into durable GTM and product advantage.
B2Bcentr's take
Who this does not work for
Pre-PMF teams with almost no revenue base cannot manage to a 35% S&M % the same way a scaled ARR book can. Early teams should still prioritize land quality and pipeline coverage, then graduate to S&M % of revenue once the P&L is meaningful.
This number also breaks if you redefine S&M to exclude paid media, SDR cost, or fully loaded sales compensation, or if you paste a marketing-only 8% into a full S&M slide. Stick to Sales and Marketing expenses as % of revenue the way Benchmarkit reports it. Match growth cohort and GTM motion before you copy a peer median.
What to do Monday
- Pull trailing-year S&M Expenses as % of revenue and split marketing vs sales lines separately.
- Put 35% median and 47% fourth quartile on one board slide next to marketing-only 8% of ARR.
- Split S&M % by growth cohort and GTM motion. Do not manage a 31–50% growth book to a >50% cohort's 35%.
- If S&M sits above 47%, audit new-logo mix, ACV, and PLG+enterprise stack before hiring another SDR pod.
- Re-check Blended CAC Ratio ($1.30), Magic Number, Rule of 40 (25%), and 20% ARR growth on the same pack.
Next number for the same efficiency pack: how many S&M dollars it takes to produce $1 of new ARR when boards still quote $1.00.
FAQ
What is a good SaaS S&M spend as a percent of revenue in 2026?
Aleph × Benchmarkit's 2026 file prints a 35% median S&M Expenses as % of Revenue (N=196). Fourth quartile sits at 47%. Treat ~40–50% as folklore or an aggressive growth-band plan, not as the 2025 private median.
Is 50% of revenue on S&M still a realistic planning assumption?
Treat 50% as folklore or a stretch for a high-growth cohort, not as the 2025 private median. The same cut shows the median at 35% and fourth quartile at 47% (down from 55% in CY-24).
How is full S&M different from marketing budget as a percent of revenue?
Full S&M is sales plus marketing on the P&L as a percent of revenue (35% median here). Marketing-only is a separate line; SaaS Capital's private B2B SaaS median is 8% of ARR on marketing. Do not paste one number into the other slide.
How does S&M % of revenue relate to Blended CAC Ratio?
S&M % of revenue is the P&L shape. Blended CAC Ratio is S&M dollars per $1 of new ARR. In the same Aleph file, Blended CAC Ratio median is $1.30 while S&M % of revenue median is 35%. You need both.
Does growth rate change S&M spend as a percent of revenue?
Yes in this sample. The 31–50% growth cohort prints a 44% median S&M. Companies growing above 50% print 35%, matching the population median, often because superior unit economics fund growth without the same burn.
Did S&M spend fall year over year?
Yes in this cut. Median S&M fell from 37% in CY-24 to 35% in CY-25, the first decline year in the series. Fourth quartile fell from 55% to 47%.
Should PLG companies expect a lower S&M percentage?
Not automatically. Benchmarkit notes that as PLG companies move into enterprise and add products, Sales and Account Management investment often raises total S&M even while Growth Marketing keeps running acquisition.
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; S&M Expenses as % of Revenue cut N=196; CY-2025). Context: Aleph takeaways and Aleph guide page.