The same benefit meets different tests around the buying table. Security assessments, the work of switching, and verified performance each shape the recommendation.
SEPTEMBER 2026 / 388 RESPONDENTS / THREE SEPARATE SAMPLES
Repeating the same benefit to everyone in the buying conversation leaves some of the hardest questions unanswered. Security leaders place more weight on security assessments, IT leaders show the sharpest drop in specialist preference when price or rollout time increases, and technical evaluators respond most strongly to verified performance. Gather’s research with 388 US respondents shows where those priorities overlap and where the supporting case needs to change. The comparisons describe separate samples, with industry differences that help explain why a role label alone is an incomplete guide to the buyer.
45% / 30% / 30%select a security or compliance assessment as influential evidence Security leaders / IT leaders / Technical evaluators ·
−16.1 / −25.6 / −8.2 ppchange in specialist preference when rollout time doublesSecurity leaders / IT leaders / Technical evaluators
+7.3 / +4.3 / +13.6 ppchange in specialist preference with verified benefitSecurity leaders / IT leaders / Technical evaluators
01
Shared work, different emphasis
Reliability leads all three outcome lists.
Asked which outcomes matter most over the next year, 41% of security leaders and 48% of technical evaluators put reliability in their top three, with IT leaders between them. Security and compliance fit also features prominently in every group’s recalled decision criteria, suggesting more overlap in the operating agenda than narrow role descriptions would imply.
The common agenda starts with reliability
Which three outcomes matter most to your success over the next 12 months? Rank your top 3.
Improving reliability
Security leaders
41%
IT leaders
45%
Technical evaluators
48%
Supporting revenue or business growth
Security leaders
37%
IT leaders
42%
Technical evaluators
39%
Improving employee or customer experience
Security leaders
35%
IT leaders
40%
Technical evaluators
38%
Delivering work faster
Security leaders
32%
IT leaders
34%
Technical evaluators
33%
Reducing total cost
Security leaders
32%
IT leaders
28%
Technical evaluators
36%
Meeting compliance obligations
Security leaders
39%
IT leaders
27%
Technical evaluators
27%
Reducing technical debt
Security leaders
25%
IT leaders
29%
Technical evaluators
30%
Building team capability
Security leaders
29%
IT leaders
27%
Technical evaluators
25%
Reducing material risk
Security leaders
29%
IT leaders
26%
Technical evaluators
22%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Security fit matters beyond the security role
Which three criteria most influenced that decision? Rank them in order.
Security and compliance fit
Security leaders
47%
IT leaders
42%
Technical evaluators
44%
Total cost, including implementation
Security leaders
42%
IT leaders
39%
Technical evaluators
40%
Integration with our current environment
Security leaders
41%
IT leaders
42%
Technical evaluators
35%
Proven effectiveness
Security leaders
32%
IT leaders
44%
Technical evaluators
36%
Reliability and support
Security leaders
33%
IT leaders
39%
Technical evaluators
40%
Vendor stability and reputation
Security leaders
27%
IT leaders
25%
Technical evaluators
27%
Ease of use and team adoption
Security leaders
30%
IT leaders
21%
Technical evaluators
26%
Flexibility and avoiding lock-in
Security leaders
22%
IT leaders
27%
Technical evaluators
25%
Time to value
Security leaders
27%
IT leaders
21%
Technical evaluators
27%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
02
The evidence and the message
Security assessments separate the audiences more clearly than trials do.
An assessment of security or compliance is selected as influential evidence by 45% of security leaders, compared with 30% in each of the other audiences. Trials receive similar shares across the personas, while the messaging question introduces another difference, with predictability leading among security leaders and IT leaders, and lower ongoing cost leading among technical evaluators.
Different roles give different weight to the proof
Which two types of evidence carried the most weight in that decision? Rank your top 2.
A security or compliance assessment
Security leaders
45%
IT leaders
30%
Technical evaluators
30%
Results from a trial in our environment
Security leaders
32%
IT leaders
32%
Technical evaluators
35%
An existing relationship or track record
Security leaders
35%
IT leaders
26%
Technical evaluators
25%
Technical documentation or a demo
Security leaders
23%
IT leaders
26%
Technical evaluators
30%
A quantified business case
Security leaders
18%
IT leaders
32%
Technical evaluators
25%
An independent technical evaluation
Security leaders
19%
IT leaders
26%
Technical evaluators
21%
An analyst recommendation
Security leaders
15%
IT leaders
16%
Technical evaluators
20%
A relevant peer reference
Security leaders
13%
IT leaders
13%
Technical evaluators
14%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
The leading message changes with the audience
Which of these messages would most likely earn a closer look from you for a tool in the category you described?
Make important work more predictable and reduce the risk of failure.
Security leaders
39%
IT leaders
42%
Technical evaluators
29%
Help your team deliver the same quality of work with less manual effort.
Security leaders
35%
IT leaders
29%
Technical evaluators
32%
Reduce ongoing costs without sacrificing service quality.
Security leaders
25%
IT leaders
28%
Technical evaluators
37%
None of these
Security leaders
1%
IT leaders
0%
Technical evaluators
1%
Not sure
Security leaders
0%
IT leaders
1%
Technical evaluators
0%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
“Recently, I changed my mind about a technology vendor after testing showed their solution wasn’t as reliable or responsive as expected.”Head or Director of Information Security · Technology
“When an artificial intelligence company claims an agentic AI can handle super complex tasks when it’s just not even close to being that capable.”Staff, principal, or senior engineer · Manufacturing or logistics
03
The recommendation under pressure
IT leaders show the largest price and implementation declines; technical evaluators show the largest lift from proof.
The fictional exercise begins with the strongest specialist preference among IT leaders, at 56%, compared with 40% among technical evaluators. That separation narrows substantially when the specialist’s price rises or implementation takes longer, whereas independent verification improves its position in every group; each variant returns to the original offer before changing one condition.
What changes the recommendation
Share recommending the new specialist under each fictional condition
Security leaders
IT leaders
Technical evaluators
Original offer: equal cost and six-week rollout; specialist claims 20% less manual effort versus 10%. Both options meet requirements, fit the existing stack, and can be funded. Variants independently raise its price by 20%, verify its benefit, or double rollout time. Each resets to the original offer; lines connect the comparisons, not a timeline.
The movement behind the net change
Respondents switching toward or away from the specialist, compared with their original choice
← Moved away from specialistMoved toward specialist →
Security leaders · Higher price
24.2%
12.9%
-11.3net points
Security leaders · Verified benefit
9.7%
16.9%
+7.3net points
Security leaders · Longer rollout
26.6%
10.5%
-16.1net points
IT leaders · Higher price
29.9%
6.0%
-23.9net points
IT leaders · Verified benefit
14.5%
18.8%
+4.3net points
IT leaders · Longer rollout
34.2%
8.5%
-25.6net points
Technical evaluators · Higher price
17.7%
9.5%
-8.2net points
Technical evaluators · Verified benefit
7.5%
21.1%
+13.6net points
Technical evaluators · Longer rollout
23.1%
15.0%
-8.2net points
Percent of all respondents within each persona. Each half of the plot spans 0–50%. Net movement is calculated from unrounded shares.
04
Adoption and authorization
Routine AI use is common across all three groups.
Between 78% and 85% of respondents use AI day to day for some tasks or in most workflows, with technical evaluators at the lower end and IT leaders at the higher end. Most also expect budget growth, but neither answer establishes what a respondent would authorize an automated system to do, so the task-specific questions examine the permissions available under current controls.
AI adoption is widespread, with some variation in depth
Where is your team today with using AI tools in its own work?
Using them day to day for some tasks
Security leaders
42%
IT leaders
42%
Technical evaluators
44%
Built into most of our workflows
Security leaders
42%
IT leaders
43%
Technical evaluators
33%
Piloting them as a team
Security leaders
10%
IT leaders
12%
Technical evaluators
14%
Individuals are experimenting on their own
Security leaders
3%
IT leaders
3%
Technical evaluators
8%
Not using them
Security leaders
3%
IT leaders
1%
Technical evaluators
1%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Most respondents expect budget growth
Compared with the past 12 months, how do you expect the budget relevant to your work to change over the next 12 months?
Increase by 1% to 10%
Security leaders
48%
IT leaders
44%
Technical evaluators
48%
Increase by more than 10%
Security leaders
30%
IT leaders
37%
Technical evaluators
32%
Stay about the same
Security leaders
14%
IT leaders
15%
Technical evaluators
12%
Decrease by 1% to 10%
Security leaders
7%
IT leaders
3%
Technical evaluators
5%
Decrease by more than 10%
Security leaders
1%
IT leaders
0%
Technical evaluators
2%
I don't have a dedicated budget
Security leaders
0%
IT leaders
2%
Technical evaluators
0%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Security: permission changes with the action
For each of these tasks, what's the highest level of automation you'd authorize today under your organization's current controls?
Triage a security alert
8%7%33%41%11%
Change a security control
10%14%46%22%8%
Revoke production access
8%15%39%26%12%
No automationSandbox or pilot onlyProduction, with human approval before each actionProduction, within approved limits and exception reviewNot my decision or not sure
Each task totals 100% after rounding. “Approved limits” still includes exception review; it does not mean unrestricted autonomy.
IT: permission changes with the action
For each of these tasks, what's the highest level of automation you'd authorize today under your organization's current controls?
Optimize resource allocation
3%6%31%46%14%
Change a production configuration
5%9%39%38%9%
Retire a business application
8%9%41%32%10%
No automationSandbox or pilot onlyProduction, with human approval before each actionProduction, within approved limits and exception reviewNot my decision or not sure
Each task totals 100% after rounding. “Approved limits” still includes exception review; it does not mean unrestricted autonomy.
Technical: permission changes with the action
For each of these tasks, what's the highest level of automation you'd authorize today under your organization's current controls?
Generate a code change
5%8%38%38%11%
Merge a change into the main codebase
5%14%42%29%10%
Deploy a change to production
6%11%40%30%13%
No automationSandbox or pilot onlyProduction, with human approval before each actionProduction, within approved limits and exception reviewNot my decision or not sure
Each task totals 100% after rounding. “Approved limits” still includes exception review; it does not mean unrestricted autonomy.
05
Read the differences in context
Technology represents 44% to 65% of the persona samples.
The composition of the samples matters when interpreting the apparent persona differences, because technology accounts for 65% of security leaders and 44% of IT leaders, with technical evaluators between them. Looking within that industry changes part of the scenario comparison: security leaders record a larger rollout decline than IT leaders, reversing the aggregate ordering. Technical evaluators retain the largest verification lift within technology, while security leaders have a slightly larger lift across the remaining industries combined.
The samples have different industry mixes
Which industry best describes your organization?
Technology
Security leaders
65%
IT leaders
44%
Technical evaluators
54%
Manufacturing or logistics
Security leaders
16%
IT leaders
7%
Technical evaluators
20%
Retail or CPG
Security leaders
7%
IT leaders
22%
Technical evaluators
9%
Healthcare or life sciences
Security leaders
7%
IT leaders
13%
Technical evaluators
10%
Financial services
Security leaders
4%
IT leaders
15%
Technical evaluators
7%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Specialist preference within industry group
Segment / persona
Original
Verified benefit
Longer rollout
Technology · Security
53%
58%
28%
Technology · IT
51%
59%
29%
Technology · Technical
39%
55%
30%
Other industries combined · Security
33%
44%
33%
Other industries combined · IT
61%
62%
32%
Other industries combined · Technical
42%
52%
34%
Within-cell percentages. Technology bases: Security leaders 81, IT leaders 51, Technical evaluators 80. Other-industry bases: 43, 66, 67. Other industries are grouped only for this sensitivity view. Scenario conditions are described in the recommendation section.
06
The wider decision
New purchases are only one part of the buying landscape.
Commercial purchases and supplier expansions or renewals account for roughly half or more of the recalled outcomes in each group. The rest include internal builds, open source, and continued evaluation or use of the current approach, broadening the alternatives against which a proposal may need to justify the work of adoption.
Security: how the recent decision ended
What did your organization ultimately do?
Expanded or renewed an existing supplier31%
Bought a new commercial solution28%
Continued a pilot or evaluation13%
Adopted or expanded open source11%
Stayed with the current approach without a new commitment11%
Built it internally6%
Share of respondents · totals rounded to 100%
IT: how the recent decision ended
What did your organization ultimately do?
Bought a new commercial solution32%
Expanded or renewed an existing supplier21%
Adopted or expanded open source17%
Continued a pilot or evaluation11%
Stayed with the current approach without a new commitment9%
Built it internally9%
Stopped or deferred the initiative1%
Share of respondents · totals rounded to 100%
Technical: how the recent decision ended
What did your organization ultimately do?
Bought a new commercial solution26%
Expanded or renewed an existing supplier24%
Adopted or expanded open source14%
Built it internally12%
Stayed with the current approach without a new commitment12%
Continued a pilot or evaluation8%
Stopped or deferred the initiative4%
Share of respondents · totals rounded to 100%
Shared approval is common across all three personas
Counting yourself, how many people had to sign off before that decision was final?
2 or 3
Security leaders
48%
IT leaders
50%
Technical evaluators
49%
Just me
Security leaders
26%
IT leaders
23%
Technical evaluators
19%
4 to 6
Security leaders
22%
IT leaders
22%
Technical evaluators
24%
7 or more
Security leaders
4%
IT leaders
5%
Technical evaluators
8%
Not sure
Security leaders
1%
IT leaders
0%
Technical evaluators
0%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Most recalled decisions took three months or less
From the first serious look to a final decision, roughly how long did that decision take?
1 to 3 months
Security leaders
43%
IT leaders
50%
Technical evaluators
42%
Less than a month
Security leaders
34%
IT leaders
22%
Technical evaluators
29%
4 to 6 months
Security leaders
18%
IT leaders
23%
Technical evaluators
20%
7 to 12 months
Security leaders
3%
IT leaders
4%
Technical evaluators
7%
More than 12 months
Security leaders
2%
IT leaders
1%
Technical evaluators
2%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Multiple sign-offs are common across the samples, ranging from 73% of security leaders to 81% of technical evaluators. Although these people are not matched members of the same buying committees, the shared pattern suggests that evidence prepared for one role will often need to be understood by someone else involved in approval.
A majority in every group also report reaching the recalled decision within three months, across a mix of technology categories and outcomes. That cannot establish a universal sales-cycle target, but it gives suppliers a reason to prepare material that can be circulated and examined while a decision is actively being considered.
07
How the story reaches the buyer
Analysts are widely used. The evidence still has to do its own work.
Industry analysts are widely used across the three groups, with shares ranging from 64% to 71%, while vendor content also reaches a substantial share of each sample. These findings describe routes into evaluation; the earlier evidence comparison helps distinguish those routes from the material respondents found influential in a particular decision.
Sources consulted during technology evaluation
When you're evaluating a new technology, which of these sources do you actually rely on?
Industry analysts
Security leaders
64%
IT leaders
71%
Technical evaluators
65%
Vendor websites, demos, or content
Security leaders
68%
IT leaders
56%
Technical evaluators
49%
Colleagues on other internal teams
Security leaders
51%
IT leaders
43%
Technical evaluators
51%
AI assistants or chat tools
Security leaders
59%
IT leaders
45%
Technical evaluators
37%
Review sites
Security leaders
43%
IT leaders
52%
Technical evaluators
39%
Peers at other organizations
Security leaders
48%
IT leaders
38%
Technical evaluators
43%
Conferences or events
Security leaders
38%
IT leaders
42%
Technical evaluators
41%
Online communities or forums
Security leaders
38%
IT leaders
30%
Technical evaluators
33%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Most describe themselves as early adopters
When a new kind of tool starts showing up in your field, when does your team usually adopt it?
We're usually among the first to try it
Security leaders
63%
IT leaders
57%
Technical evaluators
55%
After a few peers have proven it out
Security leaders
33%
IT leaders
32%
Technical evaluators
33%
Once it's become standard practice
Security leaders
3%
IT leaders
9%
Technical evaluators
10%
Only when we're required to or have no other choice
Security leaders
1%
IT leaders
2%
Technical evaluators
1%
Percent within each persona; independently rounded. Ranked items show share selected, not rank-one share.
Security leaders are the most likely to describe their teams as early adopters, at 63%, compared with 55% among technical evaluators, with IT leaders between them. Read alongside the approval and scenario findings, that openness suggests room to introduce new options while still doing the work needed to establish their fit and implementation requirements.
The practical task is to connect the initial promise to evidence that can survive review by several people with different responsibilities. A buyer who arrives through an analyst, vendor content, or an internal colleague should be able to follow the same claim into a relevant test and then into an account of what implementation would require.
Know what changes your buyer’s mind.
Build your next decision around the people who shape your market. Start with a conversation about what you need to understand.
Unweighted results from 388 respondents across three separate samples. Two incomplete records were excluded. Percentages are rounded; multi-select totals may exceed 100%. The samples are technology-heavy and descriptive of these participants.
