VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 5 CENTS
Tuesday, December 23, 2025
Salesforce, Inc.
CRM · New York Stock Exchange
Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.
Request update
Spot something outdated? Send a quick note and source so we can refresh this profile.
Overview
Salesforce is a global CRM applications leader with the majority of revenue from subscription-based cloud software. Its core moat in CRM apps is driven by workflow/data lock-in and suite bundling across multiple front-office clouds, reinforced by an AppExchange marketplace and a large partner/developer community. Integration and analytics extend the platform but compete in more crowded categories, while professional services is a small attach business with relatively weak defensibility.
Primary segment
CRM Applications Suite (Sales, Service, Platform, Marketing & Commerce)
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
20.7% (reported)
HHI: —
Coverage
3 segments · 8 tags
Updated 2025-12-22
Segments
CRM Applications Suite (Sales, Service, Platform, Marketing & Commerce)
CRM applications (sales, customer service, marketing, digital commerce) delivered as SaaS
Revenue
78.9%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
moderate
Share
20.7% (reported)
Peers
Integration & Analytics (MuleSoft, Tableau, related subscriptions)
Integration platform (iPaaS/API management) and analytics/BI software
Revenue
15.2%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Professional Services & Other
CRM implementation, advisory, and training services
Revenue
5.8%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
CRM Applications Suite (Sales, Service, Platform, Marketing & Commerce)
CRM applications (sales, customer service, marketing, digital commerce) delivered as SaaS
Revenue share derived from FY2025 10-K disaggregation: Sales + Service + Platform and Other + Marketing and Commerce as a share of total FY2025 revenues.
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Salesforce positions itself as a system-of-record for customer interactions by connecting customer data across systems and embedding automation/AI into front-office workflows.
Erosion risks
- Improved data portability and API-first architectures reduce switching friction
- AI-native CRM entrants change buyer expectations and lower migration costs
- Competitor suites (e.g., Microsoft) consolidate front-office spend
Leading indicators
- Renewal rate/churn (if disclosed) and CRPO/RPO growth
- Attach rate of multiple clouds per customer
- Adoption/usage of Agentforce, Data Cloud, and automation features
Counterarguments
- CRM data can be replicated into customer data platforms/data lakes, enabling parallel-run migrations
- Enterprises often operate multi-vendor front-office stacks, reducing lock-in
Suite Bundling
Demand
Suite Bundling
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence
Salesforce explicitly emphasizes cross-selling/upselling multiple service offerings as a one-stop-shop strategy for front-office needs.
Erosion risks
- Unbundling toward best-of-breed point solutions
- Budget pressure increases seat rationalization and cloud consolidation
- Competitors bundle CRM with broader suites (e.g., productivity + ERP)
Leading indicators
- Average number of clouds/modules per customer
- Net new bookings mix: new logos vs expansions
- Discounting levels and contract duration trends
Counterarguments
- Large enterprises may standardize by function and still mix vendors
- Suite breadth can increase complexity and time-to-value, pushing some buyers to simpler tools
Ecosystem Complements
Network
Ecosystem Complements
Strength: 4/5 · Durability: durable · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
AppExchange marketplace plus a large developer/admin community and SI/ISV partners extend Salesforce and reduce adoption friction (complements and implementation capacity).
Erosion risks
- Partners multi-home and shift attention to other ecosystems
- Platform governance/pricing changes reduce partner ROI
- Third-party app security incidents reduce trust
Leading indicators
- AppExchange install/usage growth and partner participation
- SI implementation capacity and partner-sourced pipeline
- Trailhead/community engagement (if disclosed)
Counterarguments
- Partners can build comparable solutions on competing platforms
- Ecosystem value may be less defensible if customers minimize third-party add-ons
Long Term Contracts
Demand
Long Term Contracts
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence
Subscription contracts are generally noncancellable during the term and often billed in advance, supporting revenue visibility and lowering short-term churn.
Erosion risks
- Renewal renegotiations can compress pricing and scope
- Shift toward shorter terms or usage-based pricing in some products
- Macro downturn increases downsizing at renewal
Leading indicators
- Remaining performance obligations (RPO) and CRPO trend
- Renewal rates and net revenue retention
- Average contract term and renewal discounting
Counterarguments
- At renewal, customers can still switch; contract structure is not permanent lock-in
- High discounting or concessions can weaken the benefit of contract stickiness
Integration & Analytics (MuleSoft, Tableau, related subscriptions)
Integration platform (iPaaS/API management) and analytics/BI software
Revenue share derived from FY2025 10-K disaggregation: Integration and Analytics as a share of total FY2025 revenues.
Interoperability Hub
Network
Interoperability Hub
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Positioned as connective tissue across systems and partners; integration and data connectivity become embedded in business processes.
Erosion risks
- Cloud hyperscalers and platform vendors replicate integration/analytics features
- Open-source and API standardization reduce differentiation
- Consolidation toward data platforms (warehouse/lakehouse) weakens standalone BI tools
Leading indicators
- Attach rate of integration/analytics products to core CRM deals
- Competitive win/loss vs Microsoft and hyperscalers
- Consumption/usage metrics for integration runtimes and analytics (if disclosed)
Counterarguments
- iPaaS and BI categories have many credible alternatives; differentiation can be narrow
- Buyers may standardize on hyperscaler-native integration/analytics stacks
Data Workflow Lockin
Demand
Data Workflow Lockin
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Once integration flows, connectors, and analytics dashboards are built and governed, switching can require significant rework, retesting, and retraining.
Erosion risks
- Data layer abstraction reduces dependence on any single analytics vendor
- Composable architectures reduce workflow coupling to one platform
Leading indicators
- Renewal/expansion of integration and analytics SKUs
- Migration away from Tableau or MuleSoft in competitive accounts (signals in disclosures/earnings commentary)
Counterarguments
- BI tooling can be swapped if the semantic layer and data platform are externalized
- Integration can be rewritten using cloud-native services or open-source frameworks
Ecosystem Complements
Network
Ecosystem Complements
Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Partner-built applications and consulting ecosystem can accelerate integration deployments and extend connectors/integrations.
Erosion risks
- Connector commoditization and multi-cloud standardization
- Partner incentives shift toward other ecosystems
Leading indicators
- Growth of integration/analytics-related AppExchange solutions
- Partner-sourced deployments and SI utilization for MuleSoft/Tableau projects
Counterarguments
- Ecosystem value is shared with partners and can be replicated on other platforms
- Many integration projects are SI-led and platform choice may be secondary
Professional Services & Other
CRM implementation, advisory, and training services
Revenue share derived from FY2025 10-K disaggregation: Professional services and other as a share of total FY2025 revenues.
Training Org Change Costs
Demand
Training Org Change Costs
Strength: 2/5 · Durability: fragile · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence
Implementation and training work embeds Salesforce-specific knowledge and change management; switching providers mid-project can be disruptive but is generally feasible.
Erosion risks
- Global SIs and boutiques substitute for Salesforce's own services
- Customers build in-house admin/dev teams and reduce services spend
Leading indicators
- Professional services revenue trend vs subscription growth
- Partner mix shift (more SI-led implementations)
Counterarguments
- Professional services is labor-intensive and highly substitutable
- Customers can change service providers between phases or at renewal cycles
Evidence
"a single source of truth that connects customer data across systems, applications and devices..."
Company describes cross-system data unification supporting embedded workflows and higher switching costs.
"driving multiple service offering adoption... a one-stop-shop for their front-office business technology needs."
Direct statement of bundling/cross-sell strategy across clouds.
"an enterprise application marketplace... tens of millions of Trailblazers... thousands of partner applications."
Describes a large community and partner-built applications that expand platform utility.
"applications can be marketed and sold on the AppExchange... [and] we rely on our consulting partners..."
AppExchange plus consulting partners (SIs) reinforce ecosystem complements.
"Substantially all subscription service arrangements are noncancellable..."
Noncancellable arrangements support contractual stickiness within the contract term.
Showing 5 of 12 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Improved data portability and API-first architectures reduce switching friction
- AI-native CRM entrants change buyer expectations and lower migration costs
- Competitor suites (e.g., Microsoft) consolidate front-office spend
- Unbundling toward best-of-breed point solutions
- Budget pressure increases seat rationalization and cloud consolidation
- Competitors bundle CRM with broader suites (e.g., productivity + ERP)
Leading indicators
- Renewal rate/churn (if disclosed) and CRPO/RPO growth
- Attach rate of multiple clouds per customer
- Adoption/usage of Agentforce, Data Cloud, and automation features
- Customer expansion vs contraction in large enterprise accounts
- Average number of clouds/modules per customer
- Net new bookings mix: new logos vs expansions
Curation & Accuracy
This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).
Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.