Software buyers move faster than software sellers Clio

B2B software buyers appreciate how AI allows them to make purchasing decisions faster while avoiding salespeople. However, they hate the fact that, afterwards, they are still stuck in a slower, sales-driven path.

According to G2’s “2026 Buyer Behavior Report,” more than 80% of buyers used AI-powered chatbots to provide software recommendations in the past two years, and nearly half said AI had the greatest influence during selection and evaluation. This influence is important: 80% of AI users purchased from the initial list in at least three of their last five purchases, compared to 65% of those who did not use AI to provide recommendations.

Unfortunately, everything gets bogged down once the decision is made. According to Cleverbridge’s “The Cost of Selling Software,” nearly three-quarters of buyers say software purchases are significantly delayed or abandoned due to internal approvals or back-and-forth with vendors. Waiting for a price or quote creates delays for 36%, while 30% cite back and forth on terms.

The main causes of delay in dealing with suppliers are waiting for a quote (36%) or price, and going back and forth with sales after deadlines (30%). It’s no surprise then that 84% prefer a self-service digital journey.

And while 96% of merchants agree that routine transactions are moving to self-service, only 17% have one in place, according to Cleverbridge.

Artificial intelligence is moving the bottleneck

AI can produce a list of potential suppliers in seconds. Figuring out which one deserves the money takes a lot longer.

According to G2, 40% of buyers say evaluation is now the longest part of the software purchasing journey, up from 36% a year earlier. Research follows with 36%, followed by the final decision with 22%. Once a vendor is selected, the biggest delays are security review at 39 percent, budget approval at 32 percent, and implementation planning at 25 percent.

Finance also enters the process earlier. Its participation in software purchasing committees increased from 31% to 46% in one year, and 49% of buyers said their CFO had canceled a software purchase that the purchasing team had already approved. Three-quarters of buyers now expect a positive ROI within six months of signing a contract.

This puts more pressure on vendors to make pricing, security, implementation, ROI and other information available to buyers as they evaluate products. G2 has found that companies are already moving pricing logic, ROI calculators, case studies, benefits and experimentation earlier in the process.

But providing shoppers with more information doesn’t necessarily give them a faster way to complete their purchase.

Buyers are ready to do more on their own

According to Cleverbridge, only 45% of buyers complete a routine software purchase within three business days. A quarter wait a week or more.

These delays are particularly surprising compared to what buyers say they are willing to do. 93% would use self-service digital checkout for routine software purchases if they had the option and were allowed by company policy.

And “routine” doesn’t necessarily mean inexpensive.

More than half of shoppers would feel comfortable completing a routine purchase worth $25,000 or more via self-service. 17% would make $100,000 or more.

Availability extends throughout the customer lifecycle. Two-thirds would use self-service for renewals and plan upgrades or changes, while 54% would use it for expansions. Even when it comes to purchasing new software, 44% would purchase independently.

Human involvement is becoming increasingly specialized

Cleverbridge research suggests that buyers only want sellers if and when they ask for it.

More than half want human support to be available for large, multi-year contracts, security or compliance reviews, procurement exceptions or special terms, and complex configurations. Nearly half want it for personalized pricing and discounts.

Therefore, buyers find sales useful when negotiating an unusual contract, addressing a security issue, or designing a complex implementation. However, they want to handle things like processing another seat, a standard renewal, or a routine upgrade themselves.

This can also save sellers money. According to Cleverbridge, more than half say they spend at least $1,000 to process a typical routine transaction internally, while more than a third take six hours or more. Quotes, approvals, invoicing, payments, support and coordination consume resources even when the transaction involves little negotiation or customization.

Buying friction becomes a marketing problem

Who is responsible if a buyer abandons a purchase because the seller takes too long to get their money? Marketing has done its job because the buyer is convinced. The sales department, if involved, has done its job because the buyer wants to sign.

Ultimately, it’s not the fault of either group. However, marketers need to understand transaction infrastructure and what it means for the customer experience. The question becomes where buyers encounter friction after demand generation has done its job, and whether the company’s buying process matches the way customers increasingly want to shop.

Companies that only solve the discovery problem can simply get buyers to the next bottleneck faster.