Win/Loss Reporting
Ask why you lost a deal and you get a picklist field, filled in by a rep on the last day of the quarter. One word, from a list somebody wrote two years ago. Opine writes the report instead, minutes after the deal closes, from the calls, the evaluation record, and the buyer's own words.
trusted by the world's
highest performing revenue teams
From one closed deal to the whole quarter
The report that appeared on Northwind Systems four minutes after it closed. Then the same question, asked of all 48.
From one closed deal to the whole quarter
The report that appeared on Northwind Systems four minutes after it closed. Then the same question, asked of all 48.
- 1
Nobody has to write it
It is on the deal a few minutes after it closes. Deals that closed before you had Opine can be generated after the fact, a cohort at a time.
- 2
A rating with the evidence under it
Every driver cites the record it came from. Pricing rates strong here. The security review does not, and no picklist had a slot for that.
- 3
The buyer's words, not yours
Quotes carry the speaker and the call. The committee map names who decided this deal, including the function that never joined a meeting.
- 4
Then ask it of the whole quarter
One run reads every report and writes the executive version: themes, cross-tabs, storylines, and the plays that won. It is deep research, so it arrives finished rather than instantly.
A word is not a reason.
A picklist gets filled in by someone in a hurry, from a list somebody wrote two years ago, on the day the deal died. It gets you a word. It won't tell you the technical evaluation was won in July, that the security review then ran 31 days with no owner on the buyer's side, or that the function which decided the deal was never in a single meeting. Opine keeps one record per opportunity, and the calls, threads, evaluation plan, and CRM history all land on it. The report is written from that record, and every claim in it cites the moment it came from.
The same deal, off the record
- Technical evaluation won in JulyPOV · 9 of 10 criteria met
- Security review ran 31 daysTimeline · Aug 2 to Sep 2
- InfoSec never joined a meetingCommittee map · 0 of 26 calls
- Pricing rated the strongest driverRedlines closed · no discount
Win/loss stops being a subjective project nobody has time for
The report everyone wants is the one that never gets written, because writing it is a week of somebody's life. Opine writes one for every deal that closes, and one for every quarter.
Every closed deal gets one
14 sections, a few minutes after close. Run it retroactively on history, or backfill a whole cohort at once.
Evidence, not recollection
Drivers, quotes, stakeholders, and evaluation outcomes, each one citing the call, thread, or field it came from.
The quarter, not just the deal
Themed drivers, competitor cross-tabs, segment breakdowns, deal storylines, and a playbook of the plays that won.
The rates you answer for
Tech-win rate and tech-win-to-close-won, beside deal amounts, sales cycle, and pilot length. Filter it, then export it.
What changes once the report already exists
Nobody argues about whether win/loss is worth doing. They argue about who has a week to do it. When it is already written, the argument changes.
A post-mortem that isn't a memory test
The review opens on a document everyone has already read, built from what was actually said on the calls. Nobody is asked to recall a meeting from March, and nobody is defending a reason code they picked in a hurry on the last day of the quarter.
A theme with the deals still attached
A cross-deal report names the driver, counts the deals behind it, and keeps the storylines and the customer quotes underneath. When somebody asks which deals, the answer is in the same document rather than in a follow-up.
A QBR answer that's already written
Why the win rate moved, where deals stall, and which plays closed them. It comes from the deals themselves, so when somebody pushes on a number, it opens into the evidence behind it instead of into your memory.
Asked in real demos
What comes up once a team stops taking closed-lost reasons at face value.
Have one we didn’t cover? Bring it to the demo →
ScopeIs this always deal-specific, or does it summarize across deals?
Both, and they're different artifacts. Every closed deal gets its own 14-section report automatically. The cross-deal analysis then rolls a quarter or a segment into portfolio themes: win-rate trends, competitor cross-tabs, deal storylines, and a playbook. The per-deal reports are what the cross-deal one reads.
Data qualityOur closed-lost reasons in the CRM are junk. Can we trust any of this?
That's the case for it, not the objection to it. Reports are grounded in the deal's actual conversations, evaluation record, and timeline, not the one picklist field a rep filled at close. The drivers, the quotes, and the stakeholder map each cite the record they came from. To be precise about what isn't there: a closed-reason breakdown inside the metrics views isn't a shipped widget today, so that particular slicing runs through Opine SQL.
TimingHow long does this actually take to run?
Minutes for a deal. Real time for a quarter. The per-deal report generates a few minutes after the deal closes. The cross-deal executive report is a deep-research run that profiles the cohort, reads every individual report, and can come back 30 to 50 pages long, so it takes real time and lands as a finished document rather than a live answer.
DefinitionsWhat counts as a technical win? Is that configurable?
It follows your sales process. Tech-win rate and tech-win-to-close-won rate are computed from your sales-process stage configuration, so you define what reaching a technical win means. A fully custom definition beyond stages, like recording a technical win on a deal lost for budget, isn't supported today, though it's a common request.
HistoryCan we run this on deals that closed before we had Opine?
Yes, retroactively. Any historical deal can have its report generated after the fact, and whole cohorts can be backfilled in bulk as an operator-run job. The report is only as good as the record behind it, so a deal whose calls and threads predate your integrations will be thinner than one Opine watched close.
CoachingCan leaders use this for coaching, not just post-mortems?
That's what the cross-deal report is built for. Themes are cross-tabbed by persona and stage, the storylines show where deals stalled, and the playbook names the plays that won. That's the raw material for deciding where to coach, rather than a verdict on a quarter that's already over.
AccessWho gets to see these? Some of it is blunt.
Per-user CRM visibility carries through. Reports and dashboards respect what each viewer is allowed to see in your CRM, so a report on a deal someone can't see isn't one they can open. The reports are blunt on purpose, and they're blunt about the deal rather than about a person.
MetricsWhat's on the dashboard, as opposed to in the reports?
The rates, filterable and exportable. The Win-Loss page under Trends tracks tech-win rate and tech-win-to-close-won rate alongside deal amounts, sales cycle, pilot length, and evaluation counts, filterable by pipeline, deal type, and time range, with CSV export. Last quarter, that's a 68% tech-win rate across 48 closed deals; the reports are where the why lives.
What teams actually do with it
Three moments where the report already existing is the difference between a decision and a debate.
The quarter closed eight deals short, and every explanation in the room was somebody's anecdote about one of them.
Security review entered after technical win in 8 of 8. Median 29 days in review, no named InfoSec owner on the buying side.
One theme, not eight anecdotes. InfoSec now gets invited at technical win instead of after it.
Win rate climbed nine points in two quarters and nobody could say what had changed, which made it impossible to repeat on purpose.
Executive sponsor on a call before stage 3, and a written success-criteria sign-off at POV kickoff.
The two plays behind the wins became required stages in the sales process.
A new VP inherited a team, a number, and eighteen months of closed deals whose reason codes said almost nothing.
Incumbent tooling: met 41, won 18. Build in-house: met 33, won 9. The positioning argument had been running a year.
The first QBR ran on reports rather than on recollection.
Proven in the field
Technical sales teams run their pipeline on Opine. The results are public.
“I’ve used countless presales tools over the years, and I can confirm that not a single one comes close to what Opine is doing. Because of their platform, win rates are up, SEs are more efficient, and leadership has access to never-before-seen pipeline intelligence. It’s amazing.”
Shaun Dolan
Director of Solutions Engineering at Orca Security
