Hero Finding
Buyers claim indifference to how a vendor sources its data, yet 82% assign real value to data generated inside a captive clinical network.
Asked directly, 42% of the 76 buyers said sourcing architecture does not matter at all against data quality and fit, and only 25% said it matters a great deal. The same buyers then rated the output rather than the architecture, and the indifference dissolved: 82% assigned real value to captive clinical-network data, 33% called it a meaningful differentiator outright, and 66% rated network-linked patient-reported data as very or extremely valuable, the strongest demand signal in the study.
Sourcing-architecture attitudes vs. output valuation · % of N=76 senior oncology RWE buyers
Key Findings
What the research established for the entry decision.
Five signals defined the market's durability, the function-level buying structure, and the white space an entrant could claim.
The external spend pool is growing, and insourcing is widespread but shallow.
70% of buyers grew external RWE spend over the past three years and only 3% cut it. Insourcing, the standing threat to any data vendor's revenue, runs broad: 86% of organizations are building some in-house capability. It also runs shallow: among those doing so, only 11% expect it to meaningfully reduce external spend, and 60% expect either no effect or merely slower growth. The external profit pool the client was sizing is real and durable.
Buying criteria diverge by function, with gaps of up to 53 points on a single factor.
Blended, buyers weigh data completeness and quality first (61%) and cost second (53%). The blend conceals the structure that matters for entry: biomarker and genomics depth is a top-five factor for 64% of R&D buyers against 11% of HEOR and market access buyers, and the R&D figure tested significantly above medical affairs as well. Cost peaks at 79% among HEOR and market access buyers, breadth of patient-journey coverage leads for commercial buyers at 65%, and speed matters most to medical affairs at 50%. A single go-to-market motion would satisfy none of these four buyers fully.
Sourcing indifference concentrates in field-facing functions; the functions that defend evidence externally price it.
The 42% who dismiss sourcing architecture are not evenly spread. 56% of medical affairs and 59% of commercial buyers say it does not matter at all, both statistically significant against HEOR and market access, where 42% say it matters a great deal and R&D sits at 32%. The indifference also stops at the output: 82% of the full base assigned real value to data generated inside a large captive clinical network, and 33% called it a meaningful differentiator outright.
The data types buyers want most sit outside incumbent vendors' reach.
Buyers rated four data types that sit in the pharmaceutical services value chain rather than in any incumbent vendor's assets, and every one cleared 76% at moderately valuable or better. Network-linked patient-reported data led at 66% very or extremely valuable, ahead of prior-authorization and benefits-verification activity (50%), patient-support hub services data (50%), and dispensing and distribution data (47%). Demand for exactly the assets the client's operations generate already exists and is unserved.
The incumbents' hold is priced: 62% would seriously consider switching at a price increase of 20% or less.
The switching-threshold exercise turned vendor loyalty from an anecdote into a priced quantity. 62% of buyers would seriously consider switching away from their primary vendor at a price increase of 20% or less, and only 7% said no price increase alone would move them. Incumbent share in this market is contestable on price-value terms, without waiting for a loyalty collapse.
Stated indifference to sourcing architecture dissolves when buyers rate the output.
Going in, the question at the center of the investment thesis was whether buyers reward a vendor that owns the clinical source of its data. Asked directly, they do not: 42% said sourcing architecture does not matter at all and only 25% said it matters a great deal, a read that on its own would have undercut the entry case. The same buyers then rated the output instead of the architecture, and the picture inverted: 82% assigned real value to data generated inside a large captive clinical network, and 33% called it a meaningful differentiator outright. The indifference also has a shape. It concentrates in the field-facing functions (56% of medical affairs, 59% of commercial), while 42% of HEOR and market access buyers price owned provenance directly. That turns the owned-data advantage into a segment-targeting decision rather than a blanket positioning claim.
And I think at the end of the day, when I'm sitting in front of a payer or a regulator, I need to be able to trace my evidence back to a reliable singular source of truth.
Commercial Strategy Director · Large Pharma
Study Design
N=76senior RWE buyers
Four functions under quota
AI-moderated interviews, roughly 25 minutes
Quant + qual in one instrument
A 214-node instrument interleaved structured measures (scales, rankings, constant-sum budget allocation, provider matrices, switching-threshold pricing) with adaptive open-ends that auto-looped on each respondent's own top-ranked answers. Ten hard termination gates ran across a 16-item screener, seven paired-answer consistency flags ran post-fielding, and 20+ derived skip variables kept senior respondents only on questions they were qualified to answer. Every finding was significance-tested across six segment lenses: function, primary vendor, company size, oncology spend intensity, decision role, and buying approach. Fielded across a 16-day window, 22 June to 8 July. Findings shipped as an interactive executive-readout dashboard with segment cross-tabs and complete transcripts.
Sample by segment
Mix
What the guide covered
- External RWE spend trajectory and insourcing plans over a five-year horizon
- Vendor-selection factors, ranked, with auto-looped probes on each buyer's top factor
- Data-sourcing architecture: whether vendor ownership of the clinical source matters
- Value of captive clinical-network data vs. aggregated multi-source data
- Demand for four value-chain data types: patient-reported, prior authorization and benefits verification, hub services, dispensing and distribution
- Switching thresholds: the price increase that would move buyers off their primary vendor
- Provider usage and cross-shopping across a 15-provider ecosystem
Who qualified
- Director level and above with RWE decision or budget authority (96% of the final base)
- Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with $1B+ annual revenue, or a $1B+ peak-sales oncology launch expected within two years
- Three or more years of RWE buying responsibility
- At least 50% US-focused and at least 30% oncology-focused external RWE spend
Crosstab · Sourcing Attitudes by Function
Whether vendor ownership of the data source matters, by buying function.
Share of each function saying a vendor's ownership of the clinical system generating its data matters a great deal versus not at all. Field-facing functions dismiss sourcing architecture; the functions that defend evidence externally price it. Highlighted row = the function that values owned sourcing most.
| Matters a great deal | Does not matter at all | |
|---|---|---|
| HEOR & Market Access | 42% | 26% |
| R&D | 32% | 32% |
| Commercial | 12% | 59% |
| Medical Affairs | 11% | 56% |
N=76 · function bases 17 to 22 · Medical affairs and commercial indifference significant vs HEOR & market access · 42% overall dismiss sourcing architecture · 25% price it · 82% assign real value to captive-network output
Value of four value-chain data types, rated by 76 buyers.
Data types generated in the pharmaceutical services value chain rather than in any incumbent RWE vendor's assets. Every type cleared 76% at moderately valuable or better, and network-linked patient-reported data leads the category. This is the study's direct evidence on the entrant's right to win.
| Very or extremely valuable | At least moderately valuable | |
|---|---|---|
| Network-linked patient-reported data | 66% | 89% |
| Prior-authorization and benefits-verification activity | 50% | 82% |
| Patient-support hub services data | 50% | 80% |
| Dispensing and distribution data | 47% | 76% |
Voice of the Buyer
What senior RWE buyers actually said.
Verbatim excerpts from the AI-moderated interviews, selected to span the four buying functions and company-size bands.
“With a captive clinical network, we get the data much easier, which is also an easy way for patients' complete treatment journey from first line to the later lines. Without losing the follow-up, which is frequently lost when the data is aggregated from fragmented independent practices.”
“This is really an undisputed source for the patient journey from diagnosis to treatment to outcomes. So this is of extreme importance in health care, especially in a world of precision medicine and rare diseases.”
“So if they wanna increase the price, I I think very likely you know, we can find some other alternative with better offer. So yeah, it's a buyer market now.”
“So I don't think we are gonna generate our own RWE internally, obviously, but the analytics capabilities and mining of the data we're trying to bring it in house so we don't need to rely on vendors to do the analysis.”
“Can't think of any tangible reasons for switching except for increased pricing and or, the major shakeup within this organization.”
Implications · what the evidence supports
Four readings from the research.
What the evidence established for the build, buy or partner decision.
The external profit pool is real and durable against insourcing.
70% of buyers grew external RWE spend over the past three years and only 3% cut it. 86% of buyer organizations are building some in-house capability, yet only 11% of those expect it to meaningfully reduce external spend, and 60% expect either no effect or merely slower growth. The pool an entrant would be sizing keeps growing through the insourcing wave.
Entry sequencing is a function-level decision rather than a single positioning choice.
The blended factor ranking (data completeness and quality 61%, cost 53%) conceals function gaps of up to 53 points. Biomarker and genomics depth leads for R&D at 64%, cost peaks in HEOR and market access at 79%, patient-journey breadth leads commercial at 65%, and speed leads medical affairs at 50%. A single go-to-market motion would satisfy none of the four buyers fully; the capability an entrant leads with changes by the function it calls on.
The right to win rests on differentiated supply rather than price alone.
All four value-chain data types cleared 76% at moderately valuable or better, led by network-linked patient-reported data at 66% very or extremely valuable, and these assets sit in the pharmaceutical services value chain rather than in any incumbent vendor's holdings. Demand for exactly these assets already exists and is unserved. The differentiation claim lands hardest with the buyers who price owned provenance: HEOR, market access, and R&D.
Incumbent share is contestable on price-value terms.
62% of buyers would seriously consider switching away from their primary vendor at a price increase of 20% or less, and only 7% said no price increase alone would move them. The economics of displacement run through the price-value comparison, without waiting for a loyalty collapse.
Signals the data flagged
- 70% of buyers grew external RWE spend over the past three years; 3% cut it
- All four value-chain data types cleared 76% at moderately valuable or better
- 66% top-two-box demand for network-linked patient-reported data, unserved by incumbents
- 62% of buyers open to a switch at a price increase of 20% or less
Risks the data surfaced
| Field-facing functions dismiss sourcing architecture (56% medical affairs, 59% commercial) | Med |
| Single-wave read: buyer-reported spend bands without vendor-side revenue triangulation | Med |
| Stated switching willingness running ahead of realized vendor moves | Med |
| Insourcing ambitions deepening beyond the 11% who expect meaningful reduction | Low |