Home / Tools / GTM X-Ray

GTM X-Ray

Free diagnostic tool

Find out what's actually holding back your pipeline, conversion, or forecast, and what to fix first. Takes under 10 minutes.

Under 10 minutes
Maturity read across 7 GTM areas
Constraints, sequence, and next moves
Full report on screen, immediately

Context Step 1 of 9

First, a bit about the company

A few quick selections. They shape how we read your answers.

Business model Revenue stage Primary GTM motion GTM team size Biggest current GTM concern Next 6-month GTM bet Where deals most often stall Your role Company name

GTM X-Ray is built for B2B software.

The questions and scoring assume a B2B SaaS or AI software business. If that's not you but the problem sounds familiar, skip the assessment. A conversation will get you further.

Book a conversation

Market focus

How clearly the team knows where it wins and who it should pursue.

Which best describes your current ICP?

We sell to whoever shows interest. We have a broad target market, but limited evidence of where we win. We have a defined ICP based on early wins and founder judgment. We have a documented ICP with segment-level win/loss evidence. Where we win shapes who we target, what we say, what we build, and who we hire.

How well do you know which segments create the best revenue?

We do not inspect segment quality. We have opinions, but little consistent evidence. We can name stronger segments, but the data is patchy. We review conversion, deal quality, and retention by segment. Segment data decides where we spend GTM and product effort. Honestly, I can't see this clearly enough to say.

How strong is your customer proof, including the case studies, numbers, and references you can actually use in deals?

Proof is anecdotal or hard to find. We have some proof, but it is not tied to specific buyer problems. We can point to wins, but packaging varies by person. Proof is documented by segment, persona, and business outcome. Proof shows up everywhere: messaging, sales plays, onboarding, and expansion.

Positioning and narrative

How consistently the market problem, value, and proof show up in the GTM motion.

How consistently can the team explain the business problem you solve?

It varies heavily by person. The founder can explain it, but the team struggles. The core message exists, but proof and persona tailoring are inconsistent. Most customer-facing people use a consistent narrative with relevant proof. Every customer-facing person tells the same story, and buyers repeat it back to us.

How clear is your differentiation in live sales conversations?

We mostly describe features or category language. Differentiation depends on who is in the room. We have clear claims, but limited proof or buyer-specific framing. The team can tie differentiation to buyer pain, risk, and outcomes. Differentiation is sharp enough to reframe how buyers see the problem.

How well do your sales materials support the actual buying conversation?

Materials are scattered, outdated, or mostly founder-made. Useful assets exist, but reps adapt them heavily. Core assets are available, but usage and quality are uneven. Assets support key conversations with proof, objections, and next steps. Materials act like field enablement and improve as the motion changes.

Pipeline and demand

How reliably the company creates and qualifies the right opportunities.

Which best describes pipeline creation?

Mostly opportunistic, referral-led, or relationship-led. Activity exists, but quality and conversion are inconsistent. One or two sources work, but repeatability is limited. We know which sources create qualified pipeline and why. We manage a multi-source system with conversion, cost, and quality data.

How well do you separate good-fit pipeline from noisy interest?

We treat most interest as worth pursuing. Qualification happens, but criteria change by person. We have criteria, but they are not consistently enforced. Qualification is tied to ICP, buyer problem, timing, and commercial fit. Qualification improves continuously using win/loss and conversion evidence. Honestly, I can't see this clearly enough to say.

How clearly can you see pipeline quality by source or segment?

We cannot see this reliably. We can inspect it manually, but not confidently. Basic source reporting exists, but definitions are inconsistent. We review source and segment quality in regular GTM decisions. Pipeline investment changes based on quality, speed, and conversion evidence. Honestly, I can't see this clearly enough to say.

Sales process and conversion

How repeatable the sales process is beyond founder judgment and individual heroics.

How well-defined is your sales process?

Every deal is handled differently. Stages exist informally, but definitions are loose. Stages are documented, but usage varies by person. Stages have clear exit criteria and are inspected in deal reviews. The process is embedded in CRM, coaching, enablement, and forecasting.

How well can the team inspect whether a deal is real?

We rely on rep optimism or founder intuition. Managers ask good questions, but the standard varies. We use a qualification method, but evidence quality is inconsistent. Deal reviews check what the buyer has actually said and done: risk, next steps, and commitment on both sides. Deal inspection is consistent enough to improve coaching, forecast, and strategy. Honestly, I can't see this clearly enough to say.

How repeatable is the sales motion beyond the founder or top performers?

It is mostly dependent on one or two people. Some people can repeat it, but the method is not clear. The core motion is documented, but adoption is uneven. Most sellers can follow the motion with coaching and useful assets. The motion improves through examples, review, enablement, and data.

Operating rhythm

How well pipeline, forecast, and GTM decisions are inspected and acted on.

How does your team review GTM performance?

Mostly ad hoc when something feels wrong. Regular meetings happen, but they focus on updates rather than decisions. We review pipeline, forecast, and activity, but root-cause work is inconsistent. A clear cadence turns data into decisions, coaching, and follow-up actions. The cadence creates a feedback loop across strategy, pipeline, conversion, and team capability.

How reliable is your forecast call?

Forecasting is mostly guesswork or founder judgment. Forecast calls happen, but confidence is low. We have a process, but CRM truth and deal evidence are inconsistent. Forecast discussions use clear definitions, deal evidence, and risk inspection. Forecasting improves decisions on resourcing, pipeline, coaching, and strategy.

When a problem surfaces in a GTM review, what usually happens next?

Problems are discussed, then often disappear. Some actions are captured, but ownership is inconsistent. Actions are tracked, but the work is not always tied to root causes. Owners, decisions, and follow-up are clear enough to change behaviour. Problems raised in reviews reliably get fixed and stay fixed.

Enablement and team readiness

How effectively knowledge, coaching, and role expectations help the team perform.

How does new GTM knowledge get transferred to the team?

Mostly through shadowing, Slack, or live repetition. The founder or senior people explain things as needed. Some playbooks or onboarding assets exist, but adoption is inconsistent. Core plays, messaging, process, and examples are documented and coached. Capability is measured, coached, certified, and updated as the motion changes.

How consistently do managers coach the sales motion?

Coaching is ad hoc or mainly deal rescue. Managers coach, but the standard varies by person. There is a coaching rhythm, but it is not tightly tied to evidence. Managers use calls, deals, and pipeline evidence to coach specific behaviours. Coaching creates visible improvements in ramp, conversion, and forecast quality.

How clear are GTM role expectations?

People work out expectations as they go. Responsibilities are broadly understood, but handoffs are fuzzy. Roles are documented, but expectations change by situation. Roles, handoffs, and standards are clear enough to manage weekly work. Role design evolves with the GTM motion and improves team capacity.

RevOps, data and AI

Whether the team trusts its data, and whether tools and AI actually reduce work.

How much do you trust your GTM data?

We do not trust it. Some data exists, but we often need manual checking. Basic reporting is usable, but definitions and hygiene are inconsistent. Key lifecycle, conversion, and forecast data is trusted for weekly decisions. Data is clean enough that we automate on top of it without babysitting the output.

How well do GTM tools support the way the team actually works?

Tools create friction or duplicate work. Useful tools exist, but workflows are fragmented. Core workflows are supported, but adoption and data quality are uneven. Tools reinforce the sales process, handoffs, reporting, and coaching cadence. Tooling actively reduces admin and creates better GTM decisions.

How does the team actually use AI day to day?

Little or no meaningful use. People experiment individually, but it is not part of the workflow. Some useful use cases exist, but quality, governance, or adoption is patchy. AI supports defined workflows with clear data, review, and ownership. AI is part of how the team works, and we can point to the time or conversion it's bought us.

Your report is ready

Here is a preview of your report. Add your details for immediate access to the full result.

Overall maturity band Reading your answers...

Primary constraint Reading your answers...

Open the full report

Please enter your name and work email. Your report will open immediately.

Name Work email Send a PDF copy to this email. I'm okay with ReadyGTM emailing me about this report and occasional related GTM resources. I can unsubscribe anytime.

GTM X-Ray report

Your report

Book a diagnostic review

Overall maturity band Reading...

Primary constraint Reading...

Confidence Reading...

How to read this

Your maturity across 7 areas

Reactive Results depend on individual effort and judgment; the team is still finding out what reliably works. Emerging Parts of the motion work, but they depend on the founder or a few strong people to show up in the deal. Managed The motion is defined and visible enough to manage, but adoption and follow-through are still uneven. Repeatable The team runs the motion consistently without needing the founder or best reps in every deal or review. Optimising The motion improves through data, coaching, and feedback loops; recurring issues become system changes, not repeat conversations.

What's holding you back

What's working

What to fix first

What we'd check in a diagnostic review

This report tells you where to look. A diagnostic review checks it against your CRM, your calls, and how the team actually works, then turns it into a plan.

Book a diagnostic review