The RevOps Tech Stack in 2025: What to Keep, Cut, and Consolidate

The average enterprise RevOps team manages between 12 and 18 tools. Most of them overlap. Many of them do not talk to each other. Almost none of them are being used consistently by reps.

And yet the stack grows. Each year brings a new signal category, a new AI enrichment vendor, a new intent data provider with slightly different coverage. Each purchase was justified at the time. The problem is that the stack was never designed as a whole — it was assembled problem by problem, vendor by vendor, and the integrations between layers are now a web of fragile Zapier workflows and quarterly CSV exports.

This is the state of most RevOps tech stacks heading into 2025. The question is not whether to rationalize it. The question is how — and what the right end state looks like.

This article gives you a framework for the audit, a category-by-category breakdown of what is worth keeping, and a clear-eyed view of where consolidation is possible without sacrificing capability.

Why the RevOps Stack Got So Bloated

The bloat was not irrational. It was the predictable result of how the SaaS market evolved.

Between 2015 and 2022, the GTM software market exploded into subcategories. Each problem got its own dedicated tool:

• Contact data? ZoomInfo or Clearbit

• Intent data? Bombora or G2

• Enrichment automation? Clay

• Deduplication? Lean Data or RingLead

• Conversation intelligence? Gong or Chorus

• Revenue forecasting? Clari or Aviso

• Sales engagement? Outreach or Salesloft

• Pipeline analytics? Salesforce native, then a BI tool on top

Each of these tools sold into a real pain point. And each of them was purchased by a different buyer, at a different moment, often without a full picture of what was already in the stack. The VP of Sales bought Gong. The marketing team bought Bombora. The SDR leader bought Clay. RevOps inherited all of it.

The result is a stack where five tools are all touching the same contact record — each with slightly different data, none of them authoritative, and no single layer that ties them together.

In 2025, the CFO is asking harder questions. The CRO is asking why enrichment spend is not showing up in pipeline numbers. And the RevOps team is spending more time maintaining integrations than improving the actual GTM motion.

The window for rationalization is open. The question is where to cut and where to double down.

The Five Core Categories of the 2025 RevOps Stack

Before running an audit, it helps to have a clean mental model of what the stack is supposed to contain. Not what you currently have — what the categories are, what each one is responsible for, and how they should relate to each other.

Category 1: CRM — The System of Record

Salesforce or HubSpot. This is non-negotiable. Every other tool in the stack should be evaluated by how well it feeds accurate data into the CRM and how well it reads from it.

The CRM is where territory logic lives, where opportunity records are created, where forecast rolls up, and where rep activity is logged. It is the foundation.

The most common failure mode: the CRM is treated as a destination for manual data entry rather than a continuously updated, enriched system of record. When that happens, the CRM degrades over time and every tool that reads from it is working against stale data.

Category 2: Sales Engagement Platform — Sequences and Call Management

Outreach, Salesloft, or Apollo for sequences. Gong or Chorus for call recording and intelligence.

These tools should receive data — from the CRM, from the enrichment layer — and use it to personalize and time outreach. They should not be generating data. When your sequencing tool is also your enrichment source and your contact database, you have a fragmentation problem.

The failure mode: reps enroll contacts in sequences manually, from lists that are not connected to scoring logic, using messaging that is not informed by recent account activity. The tool exists but the intelligence layer is absent.

Category 3: Data and Enrichment Layer — The Most Bloated Category

This is where most RevOps stacks are carrying 4 to 6 overlapping subscriptions:

• A ZoomInfo or Apollo subscription for contact data

• A Clearbit or Lusha subscription for real-time website enrichment

• A Clay workspace for custom enrichment workflows

• A Bombora or G2 intent subscription for buying signals

• A LinkedIn Sales Navigator subscription for prospecting

• Sometimes a dedicated phone data provider like Nooks or Kixie

Each of these has partial coverage. The team bought multiple because no single provider covered everything. But the result is redundant spend, inconsistent data across providers, and no unified view of what is actually true about a given account or contact.

This is the category where consolidation has the highest ROI.

Category 4: Analytics and Attribution — Where You Measure

Clari or Aviso for revenue forecasting. Gong for deal analytics. Salesforce native reports and dashboards. A BI tool like Looker or Tableau for GTM reporting.

These tools are only as good as the data flowing into them. If the CRM is messy — stale contacts, inconsistent fields, unlogged activity — then the forecast is unreliable and the attribution is fictional.

The failure mode is spending money on sophisticated analytics tooling while the underlying data quality makes it impossible to trust the output. Fixing the analytics layer starts with fixing the data layer.

Category 5: Activation and Orchestration — The Missing Layer in Most Stacks

This is the category that most RevOps stacks do not have at all — or have cobbled together with Zapier.

Activation is the layer that takes enriched, scored data and automatically pushes it into the right tools to drive rep behavior. When a lead crosses a score threshold, something should happen automatically. When a champion changes jobs, a rep should know within the hour. When an account shows buying intent, the territory owner should be alerted and the account should be prioritized.

Without a dedicated activation layer, all the enrichment and scoring work is producing insights that live in dashboards and spreadsheets. Reps are not acting on them because reps do not live in dashboards and spreadsheets — they live in Salesforce, in their sequencing tool, and in Slack.

This missing layer is the single biggest source of ROI leakage in the modern RevOps stack.

The Consolidation Opportunity Is Biggest in the Data Layer

If you are managing four or more data subscriptions, you are almost certainly paying for significant overlap.

ZoomInfo and Apollo have roughly 70% coverage overlap on US business contacts. If you have both, you are paying twice for most of the data. Clearbit's firmographic data overlaps with ZoomInfo's company records. Bombora's intent signals overlap with G2's buyer intent data in most B2B SaaS categories.

The reason teams end up with this configuration is historical: each tool had better coverage in a specific area when it was purchased. ZoomInfo for phone numbers. Clearbit for website enrichment. Clay for custom logic. None of them was the complete answer, so the team kept adding.

The modern alternative is waterfall enrichment — a model where a single platform queries multiple underlying providers in sequence, uses the best available data from each, deduplicates the results, and writes a single authoritative record. Instead of paying for four separate subscriptions and manually reconciling the outputs, the platform handles provider selection automatically.

This is not just a cost story. It is a data quality story. When multiple providers are writing to the same Salesforce fields independently, you get overwrites, conflicts, and inconsistency. When a single layer manages all providers and enforces a unified data model, the CRM stays clean.

The platforms that do this well replace 4 to 6 data subscriptions with a single contract — and produce better data quality because the provider routing is optimized for your specific use case.

The 4-Question Stack Audit Framework

Before deciding what to cut, run each tool in your current stack through these four questions. The answers will tell you which tools are earning their place and which are justified primarily by inertia.

Q1: Does this tool push data into our CRM, or do we have to manually export and import?

Any tool that requires a manual export process to get data into Salesforce is costing you more than its license fee. It requires FTE time, introduces latency, and creates data quality risk every time the import runs. Tools that write to Salesforce automatically — via a native connector, not via Zapier — are operating in a different tier.

If the vendor's answer to this question involves a third-party integration like Hightouch or Census that you have to configure and maintain yourself, the integration is your burden, not theirs.

Q2: How many FTE hours per month does maintaining this tool require?

This is the hidden cost that almost never appears in a renewal conversation. Count the hours: analyst time running enrichment jobs, RevOps engineer time maintaining integrations, time spent on data quality issues caused by the tool, time spent troubleshooting broken workflows, time spent in quarterly reviews trying to explain why the tool is in the stack.

A $30,000 per year tool that requires 10 hours of RevOps engineer time per month is actually costing you $60,000+ per year when you account for fully loaded labor costs. The ROI calculation changes significantly.

Q3: What is the annual cost, and can you prove measurable impact on pipeline?

Not "this tool enriches records" or "this tool provides intent signals." Measurable impact on pipeline. Accounts that showed intent in this tool converted at X% higher rate. Contacts enriched via this tool were reachable at X% higher rate. Sequences run against this tool's data booked X% more meetings.

If the tool cannot be connected to a pipeline metric with evidence, it is a faith-based investment. That is a dangerous position when the CFO is asking for a stack rationalization.

Q4: If we removed this tool tomorrow, what breaks?

This question surfaces two things: true dependency and fear-based retention.

True dependency means a workflow that actively drives revenue relies on this tool in a way that cannot be quickly replaced. Fear-based retention means no one wants to be the person who removed the tool and then got blamed when something went wrong — even if the tool is not actually driving anything measurable.

A lot of tools survive renewals on fear-based retention. The 4-question audit forces an honest answer about which category each tool falls into.

What to Keep

The non-negotiables in the 2025 RevOps stack are fewer than most teams expect.

The CRM. Salesforce or HubSpot. Everything else is in service of keeping this clean and actionable. Do not replace it; invest in making it the authoritative, continuously updated system of record it is supposed to be.

One sales engagement platform. Outreach or Salesloft if you are at enterprise scale with a mature SDR/AE motion. Consolidate — do not run both in parallel for different teams. The data fragmentation that comes from split sequencing tools is not worth the team preference accommodation.

One conversation intelligence platform. Gong is the category leader. If you have it and reps are using it, keep it. The call data and deal intelligence are genuinely useful downstream. If you have Chorus or an alternative and it is similarly embedded, keep that. Do not run two.

A unified data and enrichment layer. Not four subscriptions — one platform that handles waterfall enrichment across providers, maintains a clean data model, and writes back to your CRM automatically. This is the category you are likely over-spending in and under-getting from.

One analytics platform. Clari for forecast if you are at scale. Salesforce-native reports if you are not ready for that investment. Pick one and make it the authoritative source of forecast and pipeline truth. BI tooling on top only if there is a specific reporting need that cannot be met natively.

What to Cut

The tools that are most commonly over-retained despite low or negative ROI:

Redundant contact databases. If you have both ZoomInfo and Apollo and Clearbit, you have at minimum two subscriptions too many. A waterfall enrichment platform that routes across providers replaces all three with better coverage and less complexity. Pick the platform, not the databases.

Point-solution enrichment tools that only run on import. Any enrichment tool that only fires when you manually upload a list is not continuously updating your CRM. It is a one-time data cleaning tool. If your stack has three of these, they are collectively producing data that is stale 90% of the time.

Intent data platforms that alert but do not act. Bombora, G2, and similar platforms fire signals. Most of the time, those signals go into a weekly digest, a Slack channel that reps do not read, or a Salesforce dashboard that gets checked quarterly. If the intent signal is not triggering an automated workflow — a sequence enrollment, a rep alert with context, an account re-prioritization — the signal is noise. Either build the activation layer for it or cut the subscription.

Standalone deduplication tools. If you are paying for RingLead or a similar point solution to manage Salesforce deduplication, that function should be absorbed by your data platform. Dedup logic that lives at the enrichment layer, before data enters the CRM, is more reliable and less expensive than cleanup tooling applied after the fact.

Unused analytics layers. BI tools that were purchased for GTM reporting and are used by two analysts twice a quarter are not earning their keep. Salesforce-native reporting, properly set up, covers the majority of RevOps analytics needs for most teams.

What to Consolidate Into One Platform

The category where consolidation produces the most dramatic simplification — and the most meaningful ROI improvement — is the data and activation layer.

The tools in this layer that most teams are running separately:

• A primary contact database (ZoomInfo or Apollo)

• A secondary contact database for coverage gaps (Clearbit, Lusha)

• A waterfall enrichment workflow tool (Clay)

• An intent data subscription (Bombora or G2)

• A job change tracking tool (sometimes built inside Clay, sometimes a separate tool)

• A deduplication tool

• A reverse ETL or CRM sync tool (Hightouch, Census, or a custom integration)

• Some combination of Zapier workflows connecting all of the above

Seven tools. Multiple contracts. A web of integrations. And a RevOps engineer who spends 30% of their time maintaining the plumbing instead of improving the GTM motion.

A unified Revenue Data Platform replaces all seven with a single contract, a single data model (a Revenue Ontology built around your specific business), and native reverse ETL that pushes enriched, scored data directly into Salesforce, Outreach, and Slack automatically.

The consolidation is not just about cost — it is about data quality and speed. When seven tools are each writing to Salesforce independently, you get field conflicts, overwrites, and data integrity problems that require ongoing cleanup. When one platform owns the data model and writes to Salesforce through a single, controlled layer, the CRM stays clean.

A Worked Example: Before and After

Consider a 300-person B2B SaaS company. The company sells to mid-market and enterprise accounts. They have a 12-person GTM team: 4 AEs, 4 SDRs, 2 Customer Success managers, and a 2-person RevOps function.

Current stack (14 tools, $380,000/year):

RevOps pain points:

• Two RevOps engineers spending ~40% of combined time on integration maintenance

• Three different tools writing to the same Salesforce contact fields with no conflict resolution

• Intent signals from Bombora going into a Slack channel that reps check once a week

• Clay enrichment data being manually exported and imported into Salesforce monthly

• Clari forecasting off clean data because CRM quality has degraded

Consolidated stack (7 tools, $245,000/year — saving $135,000 annually):

What changed:

• Lantern's waterfall enrichment pulls from 100+ providers, replacing ZoomInfo, Apollo, and Clearbit with better combined coverage and a single authoritative data model

• Intent signals now feed directly into Lantern's scoring model, which writes updated account scores to Salesforce automatically and triggers Outreach sequence enrollment when a threshold is crossed — Bombora alerts replaced by automated action

• Clay enrichment workflows replaced by Lantern agents that run continuously, not on manual trigger

• Lean Data deduplication replaced by dedup logic native to Lantern's Revenue Ontology

• Hightouch and Zapier replaced by Lantern's native reverse ETL — data writes to Salesforce through a single controlled layer

• RevOps engineers reclaim 40% of time previously spent on integration maintenance

The $135,000 in direct savings funds additional AE capacity. The 40% RevOps time recapture funds work that actually improves the GTM motion. The data quality improvement makes Clari's forecast materially more reliable.

This is a realistic consolidation outcome for a company at this stage. The exact numbers vary, but the pattern holds: the data and activation layer is where the most tools overlap and where a unified platform produces the clearest ROI.

How to Build the Internal Business Case for Consolidation

A stack rationalization of this scale requires CFO and CRO alignment. Here is a five-step framework for building the internal case.

Step 1: Calculate Current Spend

Pull every active contract in the RevOps and sales tech stack. Include annual fees, per-seat costs, and any usage-based overages. Map each tool to its category. This number is almost always higher than anyone on the leadership team expects — the distributed purchasing history of most stacks means no one has seen the full number before.

Step 2: Calculate the Hidden FTE Cost

For each tool, estimate the monthly RevOps and analyst hours required to maintain it — running enrichment jobs, managing integrations, resolving data conflicts, answering rep questions, troubleshooting broken workflows. Multiply by your fully loaded RevOps labor cost. Add this to the license cost.

At most companies, the FTE cost of maintaining the data and enrichment layer equals or exceeds the license cost of the tools. This is the number that changes CFO conversations.

Step 3: Calculate the Data Quality Gap Cost

This is harder to quantify but often the most compelling argument. Estimate the following:

• What percentage of your CRM contacts are unreachable (invalid email or phone)?

• What percentage of your Salesforce account records have stale firmographic data (wrong company size, industry, or segment)?

• How many sequences are running against contacts who have changed jobs in the last 90 days?

• How many intent signals fired last quarter that were not actioned within 48 hours?

Convert these to pipeline impact estimates. If 20% of your sequence outreach is hitting unreachable contacts, that is a 20% productivity tax on your SDR team. If intent signals are sitting unactioned for a week, you are missing the highest-value buying windows in your pipeline.

Step 4: Propose the Consolidated Alternative

Present the consolidated stack alongside the current stack. Show the direct cost reduction. Show the FTE time recapture. Show the data quality improvements that are expected (reduced field conflicts, continuous CRM updates, automated activation workflows).

Include a time-to-value estimate. The objection you will hear is implementation risk — "this will take 6 months and break everything we have." The honest answer for a well-architected consolidation is that the highest-risk integrations (the Zapier workflows, the manual import processes) are replaced first, because they are already the most fragile parts of the current stack.

Step 5: Measure 90-Day Impact

Agree in advance on the metrics that will define success for the first 90 days. These should be specific and measurable:

• CRM field accuracy rate (% of accounts with complete, current firmographic data)

• Sequence connect rate (% of outreach that reaches a valid contact)

• Intent signal time-to-action (hours from signal to rep outreach)

• RevOps FTE hours recaptured from integration maintenance

Do not promise pipeline impact in 90 days — it is too early. Promise data quality and operational metrics that are preconditions for pipeline impact. Then demonstrate those metrics at the 90-day mark before the conversation about renewal and expansion.

The 2025 RevOps Stack Is a Data Quality and Activation Problem

The tools exist. Most RevOps teams are not missing a capability that requires a new purchase. They are missing the infrastructure to make their existing investments work together — to take the data that is being enriched and get it into the hands of reps, in the tools reps use, at the moment it is actionable.

The stack rationalization conversation is not primarily about cost reduction. It is about making the GTM motion work — about closing the loop between data and action, about keeping the CRM clean enough that forecasting is reliable, about getting intent signals to reps in time to matter.

The teams that are winning in 2025 are not running larger stacks. They are running cleaner ones — with a unified data layer that continuously updates the CRM, an activation layer that translates signals into rep actions automatically, and the time and attention of their RevOps team focused on improving the GTM motion instead of maintaining the plumbing.

Talk to a Lantern engineer about your stack — bring your current tool list and we'll tell you exactly what can be consolidated. withlantern.com