BANT vs MEDDIC vs CHAMP: Which B2B Qualification Framework Actually Works in 2025?

Your SDR just spent 45 minutes on a discovery call.

At the end:

"This sounds great! Let me discuss with my team and get back to you."
Never responds to follow-ups

What went wrong?

The lead wasn't qualified. They had:

❌ No budget allocated
❌ No authority to make decisions
❌ No compelling reason to change now
❌ No timeline for implementation

You wasted 45 minutes + 3 follow-up attempts on a lead that will never close.

This happens because most SDRs don't qualify properly.

They ask surface-level questions:

"Are you interested?" (Yes = proceed)
"What's your budget?" (Too direct, they lie)
"When are you looking to start?" (They say "soon" meaning "never")

At SalesUp, we've tested all major qualification frameworks across 5,000+ B2B leads. Here's what actually works.

The 3 Major Qualification Frameworks

BANT (Budget, Authority, Need, Timeline)

Created by: IBM in the 1960s

The questions:

Budget: Do they have money allocated?
Authority: Can they make the decision?
Need: Do they have a problem we solve?
Timeline: When will they decide?

When to use:

Transactional sales (₹50k-5L ACV)
Short sales cycles (30-60 days)
Single decision-maker
Clear ROI calculation

Pros:

✅ Simple (easy to train SDRs)
✅ Fast (10-minute qualification)
✅ Works for volume sales

Cons:

❌ Too rigid (eliminates viable prospects)
❌ Focuses on budget first (prospects lie)
❌ Doesn't uncover pain deeply
❌ Outdated for complex B2B sales

Conversion rate (our data): 18% of BANT-qualified leads close

MEDDIC (Metrics, Economic Buyer, Decision Criteria, Decision Process, Identify Pain, Champion)

Created by: PTC in the 1990s

The questions:

Metrics: What measurable impact will this have?
Economic Buyer: Who controls the budget?
Decision Criteria: How will they evaluate solutions?
Decision Process: What's their buying process?
Identify Pain: What specific problem are they solving?
Champion: Who internally will advocate for us?

When to use:

Enterprise sales (₹20L+ ACV)
Long sales cycles (90-180 days)
Multiple stakeholders
Complex products

Pros:

✅ Thorough (uncovers all blockers)
✅ Process-oriented (maps buying journey)
✅ Identifies champions (critical for enterprise)

Cons:

❌ Time-intensive (30-45 minute qualification)
❌ Overwhelming for SMB sales
❌ Requires sophisticated reps

Conversion rate (our data): 32% of MEDDIC-qualified leads close

CHAMP (Challenges, Authority, Money, Prioritization)

Created by: InsightSquared in 2010s

The questions:

Challenges: What problems do they face? (Start here, not budget)
Authority: Who makes decisions?
Money: Do they have budget?
Prioritization: Is this a top priority?

When to use:

Modern B2B SaaS (₹2-20L ACV)
Problem-first selling
Consultative approach
Mid-market focus

Pros:

✅ Challenger mindset (uncover pain first)
✅ Flexible (adapts to situation)
✅ Modern (buyer-centric)

Cons:

❌ Less structured (inconsistent execution)
❌ Requires skilled reps
❌ Can miss key qualifiers if not careful

Conversion rate (our data): 28% of CHAMP-qualified leads close

Head-to-Head Comparison

Criteria	BANT	MEDDIC	CHAMP
Best For	SMB, transactional	Enterprise, complex	Mid-market SaaS
ACV Range	₹50k-5L	₹20L+	₹2-20L
Sales Cycle	30-60 days	90-180 days	60-90 days
Qualification Time	10 mins	30-45 mins	15-20 mins
SDR Skill Required	Low	High	Medium
Conversion Rate	18%	32%	28%
False Positives	High (30%)	Low (10%)	Medium (18%)

The Hybrid Framework (What Actually Works)

Reality: No single framework fits all situations.

We developed a hybrid approach that adapts based on:

Deal size
Sales cycle length
Buyer complexity
Rep experience

For SMB/Transactional (Use BANT-Lite)

Qualifying questions (5 minutes):

Challenge (Start here):

"What prompted you to look for a solution right now?"
(Uncover the pain before asking about budget)

Need:

"How are you handling [problem] today?"
"What happens if you don't solve this?"

Budget:

"What's your typical budget range for tools like this?"
(Not "Do you have budget?" - too binary)

Authority:

"Who else will be involved in this decision?"
(If they say "just me" for ₹5L purchase = red flag)

Timeline:

"When are you hoping to have this implemented?"
"What's driving that timeline?"

Disqualify if:

No clear pain (just browsing)
Budget <50% of your pricing
No timeline ("sometime next year")
Wrong decision-maker (can't access budget owner)

For Mid-Market (Use CHAMP+)

Qualifying questions (15 minutes):

Challenges (Deep dive):

"Walk me through your current process for [X]"
"Where does it break down?"
"What's the impact on your team/revenue?"
"Why haven't you solved this before?"

Authority:

"Who's responsible for [challenge area]?"
"When you buy tools like this, who's involved?"
"Who has final say?"
"Have you bought similar software before? How did that process work?"

Money:

"What's your expected ROI timeframe?"
"If we could [achieve outcome], what's that worth to you?"
"Have you allocated budget for this, or is it a new request?"

Prioritization:

"On a scale of 1-10, how urgent is solving this?"
"What else is competing for budget/attention?"
"If you could only solve one problem this quarter, would this be it?"

Disqualify if:

Urgency <7/10 (not a priority)
Can't quantify impact (no clear ROI)
Multiple competing priorities (will delay)

For Enterprise (Use MEDDIC+)

Qualifying questions (30+ minutes, often multiple calls):

Identify Pain (Quantify deeply):

"What's this problem costing you today?"
"How many people/teams are affected?"
"What have you tried before? Why didn't it work?"
"If we could reduce [problem] by 50%, what would that be worth?"

Champion (Critical for enterprise):

"Who internally would benefit most from solving this?"
"Is there someone on your team who's passionate about fixing this?"
"Would they be willing to share their perspective with us?"

Metrics:

"What metrics will you use to measure success?"
"What does success look like in 6 months?"
"How will you justify this investment internally?"

Economic Buyer:

"Who ultimately approves budgets of this size?"
"When do budget decisions typically get made?"
"Is budget already allocated or do we need to compete for it?"

Decision Criteria:

"What criteria will you use to evaluate solutions?"
"Are there must-haves vs nice-to-haves?"
"Who defines these criteria?"

Decision Process:

"Walk me through your typical buying process"
"Who needs to sign off at each stage?"
"How long does legal/procurement review take?"
"Any past projects that got stuck? Why?"

Disqualify if:

No champion identified
Economic buyer inaccessible
Decision criteria unclear/unrealistic
Timeline >12 months

The Questions That Actually Work

Instead of: "What's your budget?"

❌ Bad: "Do you have budget for this?"

They'll say "yes" to stay in the conversation

✅ Good: "How do you typically budget for new tools? Is this something you've planned for this year, or would it be a new request?"

Opens conversation about budget process
Reveals if budget is allocated or needs approval

✅ Better: "If we can show [specific outcome], what would that be worth to you annually?"

Gets them to calculate value (budget becomes secondary)

Instead of: "When do you want to start?"

❌ Bad: "When are you looking to implement?"

Generic answer: "Q2" or "Soon" (meaningless)

✅ Good: "What's driving the timeline? Why now vs next quarter?"

Uncovers urgency (or lack thereof)

✅ Better: "What happens if you don't have this in place by [their timeline]?"

Tests if timeline is real or aspirational

Instead of: "Are you the decision-maker?"

❌ Bad: "Can you make this decision?"

No one says "no" (kills credibility)

✅ Good: "Who else typically gets involved when you're evaluating tools like this?"

Uncovers buying committee without challenging them

✅ Better: "Walk me through the last time you bought software. Who was involved and what was the process?"

Gets real answer based on past behavior

Instead of: "What's your problem?"

❌ Bad: "What challenges are you facing?"

Too vague, they give generic answers

✅ Good: "Walk me through your current process for [X]. Where does it break down?"

Forces specific examples

✅ Better: "If you could snap your fingers and fix one thing about [process], what would it be?"

Gets to core pain point

Qualification Scoring System

Score leads 0-100 based on qualification depth:

Criteria	Points	Green (Go)	Yellow (Maybe)	Red (No-Go)
Pain Severity	25	Critical (10/10)	Moderate (6-9/10)	Minor (<6/10)
Budget Alignment	20	Allocated budget	Can access budget	No budget
Authority	20	Decision-maker	Influencer + access to DM	No access to DM
Timeline	15	<30 days	30-90 days	>90 days
Champion	10	Internal advocate	Neutral	No champion
Competition	10	No incumbent	Evaluating options	Happy with current

Score ranges:

80-100: High-priority (book demo immediately)
60-79: Medium-priority (nurture, schedule demo)
40-59: Low-priority (long-term nurture)
<40: Disqualify (politely exit)

Common Qualification Mistakes

Mistake 1: Qualifying Too Early

What happens: Ask budget on first call Result: Prospect feels interrogated, gives fake answers

Fix: Build rapport first, qualify second

Mistake 2: Taking "Yes" at Face Value

What happens: "Do you have budget?" → "Yes" → (Doesn't actually have budget) Result: Wasted time on dead-end lead

Fix: Ask follow-up questions to verify

Mistake 3: Not Disqualifying Fast Enough

What happens: Keep nurturing low-score leads for months Result: Pipeline bloat, wasted energy

Fix: Disqualify ruthlessly, focus on high-score leads

Mistake 4: Using Same Framework for All Deals

What happens: Use MEDDIC for ₹2L SMB deal (overkill) Result: Prospect overwhelmed, you lose deal

Fix: Match framework to deal complexity

Case Study: Improved Qualification, Increased Conversion 2.5X

Company: B2B SaaS, ₹8L ACV, 60-day sales cycle

Before (Weak qualification):

Used basic BANT
Reps asked surface questions
200 "qualified" leads/quarter
12% conversion (24 deals)

After (Hybrid qualification):

Adopted CHAMP+ for their ICP
Deep pain discovery
Strict scoring (only 60+ score advances)
120 "qualified" leads/quarter (40% reduction)
30% conversion (36 deals)

Results:

50% more deals from 40% fewer leads
2.5X conversion improvement
Reps focused on real opportunities
Shorter sales cycles (45 days vs 60)

Key insight: Quality > quantity in qualification

What SalesUp Does

We train our SDRs on hybrid qualification frameworks matched to each client's sales motion.

Our qualification SOP:

Identify client's ICP and deal complexity
Choose framework (BANT-Lite, CHAMP+, or MEDDIC+)
Train SDRs on questioning techniques
Score every lead (0-100)
Only pass 60+ score leads to clients

Result:

70-80% of leads we pass actually close
vs 15-25% industry average

Book a demo to see our qualification framework in action.

Stop wasting time on unqualified leads. Qualify ruthlessly. Close more deals.