Convert SaaS operating research into one customer-development experiment.
SaaStr Annual supports software-business learning and commercial relationships. Separate founder, investor, customer and service-provider conversations so relevance and a useful next step can be evaluated independently.
Aim to produce: An enterprise onboarding and ownership experiment. The comparison below helps you decide what to investigate, which evidence to request and when to advance an option.
Explore the ecosystem, with context.
These figures describe Lensmor research coverage for the matched event record. They are not organizer registrations or an official attendance total.
Research coverage does not certify registration or future attendance.
Industry mix
50-record visible previewLargest stored industry groups within this research scope.
Counts cover 50 visible records, not all 68 event records. The preview is not a representative survey.
Companies to start with
Illustrative recordsSalesforce
Software DevelopmentUnited StatesRemote
Human Resources ServicesUnited StatesDeluxe
Credit IntermediationUnited StatesSelected across different returned industries; not a ranking, an official roster or proof of attendance.
Use resources from the correct edition.
Keep the year and location attached to programme, exhibitor and learning materials. An organizer homepage may now describe another edition; a company research record does not establish participation, access or meeting availability.
Official edition resourcesCheck the edition and location in the organizer’s programme before selecting a session or relying on access.
Official planning resources
Source links retain their original CMS provenance. Confirm the edition, participation, access and specific resource before relying on a listing.
Four ways to test the fit
Lensmor’s suggested research framework for enterprise applications. These are evaluation lenses, not an organizer’s session list or confirmed exhibitor capabilities.
Workflow ownership
Map the person, approval and handoff behind the task before comparing application features.
Evidence to requestA process walkthrough using your exception cases and user roles.
Leave withA workflow map with an accountable owner.
System integration
Identify the system of record, synchronization direction and recovery path for failed updates.
Evidence to requestAn integration diagram, supported interfaces and a replay example.
Leave withAn interface register with failure handling.
Permissions and controls
Test what each role can view, change, export and approve. Include a leaver scenario.
Evidence to requestRole-specific demonstrations and an audit-log sample.
Leave withAn access matrix linked to business responsibilities.
Implementation economics
Separate subscription scope, migration, partner services and ongoing administration.
Evidence to requestA scoped implementation plan with dependencies and recurring charges.
Leave withA comparable total-cost and ownership sheet.
Work through a concrete decision.
Illustrative exercise: A software team is comparing enterprise onboarding approaches. This is a preparation framework, not a report of an actual purchase, experiment or meeting.
Define the hard constraint
A clear segment, implementation burden and observable customer outcome.
Ask for the deciding evidence
A customer journey and a bounded activation trial.
Make the next step explicit
An enterprise onboarding and ownership experiment.
Leave with a comparison you can act on.
Keep the requirement, source material, evaluation and follow-up in one file. The worksheet below starts with this edition’s brief and leaves unverified findings blank.
- 01
Write the boundary
Write your actual operating or research context. Separate a requirement that would exclude an option from a preference you could trade off.
- 02
Build a capability shortlist
Start with edition-labelled organizer resources and the scoped company records above. Identify a specific capability and the organization responsible for it.
- 03
Resolve one evidence gap
For the claim that would change your decision, save the original source, its edition, method or configuration, and the condition you still need to verify.
- 04
Assign the follow-through
Agree on a specific document, demonstration, reading task or trial. Save the responsible person and the review point so that the next discussion resolves an open question.
A comparison you can use after SaaStr Annual 2026
Keep one row per organization and specific capability or piece of research. Reuse the same decision criteria when you compare alternatives.
Pass the boundary test
Condition to resolveWrite the context, required capability and the condition that would rule an option out.
Decision ruleKeep an unresolved hard constraint out of the qualified shortlist. Record what evidence could change that decision.
Separate claim from evidence
Material to recordSave the original URL, edition, author or organization, and the method or configuration behind the statement.
Decision ruleLabel each statement as source material, a demonstrated result or your own validated observation. Save its context and limitations.
Check the next handoff
Output to agreeName the document, trial, reading task or specialist discussion that will resolve the next open question.
Decision ruleAssign a person and a specific next artifact. An interesting conversation becomes actionable when that handoff is clear.
SaaStr Annual 2026 research worksheet
A CSV prefilled with this research brief and the four comparison lanes. Organization, evidence, fit and follow-up fields are blank for your own research. No signup required.
Two follow-ups with a clear request
Replace the bracketed details and remove anything that does not match your context.
Request a comparable demonstration
We are comparing options in the context of SaaStr Annual 2026. Our requirement is [specific use case], with this constraint: A clear segment, implementation burden and observable customer outcome. Could you share [the relevant specification or evidence] and show [one representative task] using our stated conditions?
Ask for a scoped next step
Our intended output is: An enterprise onboarding and ownership experiment. Before arranging a broad meeting, could you confirm [capability, implementation boundary and responsible role], list [the relevant exclusions or dependencies], and suggest [a bounded trial or comparable proposal]?
Access information for the archive.
This edition has ended. Historical badge details do not establish availability or pricing for a future edition.
Open edition resourcesFrequently asked questions
When and where did this edition take place?
San Mateo: May 12–14, 2026 at San Mateo County Event Center.
What should I ask before comparing organizations?
A customer journey and a bounded activation trial. Keep the method, configuration and context attached to the answer.
What should I leave with after researching SaaStr Annual 2026?
An enterprise onboarding and ownership experiment. Record unresolved constraints separately from demonstrated capabilities.
Are the Lensmor figures official attendance counts?
These figures describe Lensmor research coverage for the matched event record. They are not organizer registrations or an official attendance total. Research profiles do not certify a person’s registration, attendance or meeting availability.
Check the details behind your research.
- Lensmor event researchCompany and profile research; individual metrics retain their own source dates above.Source read Oct 16, 2026
- Organizer edition informationEdition-specific organizer material.Source read Oct 17, 2026
Independent Lensmor guide. Editorial advice is separate from organizer facts. Source dates describe saved reads, not a whole-page verification today.
