B2B Buying 2026: How Buyers Vet Vendors
TrustRadius 2026 study (1,862 buyers): 94% double-check AI research, analyst reports nearly dead. What it means for B2B content and sales.
The number that sums up the 2026 buyer journey
63 percent of B2B buyers use AI tools in 2026 to research software vendors. Of that group, 94 percent double-check the AI’s answer anyway — they click through to a second, independent source before trusting it. That’s the central number from the TrustRadius 2026 B2B Buying Disconnect Report (HG Insights, a survey of 1,862 buyers and 444 vendors conducted in January 2026, published July 15, 2026).
For DACH decision-makers planning content and sales budgets, that carries an uncomfortable but clear implication: AI has made research faster, not more credulous. Rajat Bhatnagar, SVP of Growth at HG Insights, puts it directly in the report: “Buyers are using AI to move faster, not to think less.”
What the study actually shows
Three findings from the report matter for your own strategy — each with its own scope, not as a blanket statement about “all buyers”:
AI doesn’t replace research, it shifts it. 63 percent of surveyed buyers use AI tools somewhere in their purchase process. Of that group, 94 percent verify the AI’s output against another source at least occasionally. AI provides the first orientation and speeds up shortlisting — it doesn’t replace confirmation from an independent, verifiable source.
Analyst reports have effectively fallen out of the buying decision. Usage has dropped 63 percent since 2022 and now sits at just 13 percent. A format that used to be required reading before any major software decision simply doesn’t factor into most buyers’ process anymore.
Peer reviews are on top, vendor content is at the bottom. 74 percent of buyers use reviews from other users to inform their decision. Product demos, free trials, and prior experience round out the top sources. Vendor-authored content — the vendor’s own website, the vendor’s own whitepaper — lands dead last among the sources buyers actually consult, per the study. 83 percent of buyers shortlist three or fewer vendors before the detailed evaluation even begins.
The report sums up the pattern this way: buyers want the speed of AI synthesis, but the confidence of verified sources. Both at once — not one instead of the other.
Why this isn’t a niche finding for software buyers only
If you’re thinking this only applies to classic SaaS purchasing decisions, you’re missing the underlying mechanism. The sequence — AI-assisted shortlisting, then verification via an independent source — is exactly the sequence AI search engines like ChatGPT or Perplexity follow when answering a recommendation query: they synthesize an answer and preferentially cite sources considered independent and verifiable. We described how this shift from classic ranking to AI citation is actually measured in GEO ≠ SEO: Why Google Rankings Are Becoming a Vanity Metric.
The TrustRadius study is therefore not an isolated marketing statistic — it’s external confirmation of a pattern that also shows up in our own AI-visibility data: domains that rely exclusively on owned content, without presence on review platforms, third-party comparison pages, or in case studies, are absent exactly where verification happens. That matches the observation from B2B GEO: Getting Found by Buyers in AI Search — visibility alone doesn’t help if it lands at the wrong point in the buying journey.
What this means in practice — four levers
The takeaway isn’t to produce less content. It’s to place it at the right point in the buyer journey.
1. Third-party presence becomes mandatory, not optional. If peer reviews are the strongest source at 74 percent, every B2B sales organization needs an active strategy for review platforms (G2, Capterra, OMR Reviews in the DACH region) — earning real customer reviews, not buying them. A vendor with no visible, current reviews is effectively invisible to a buyer who’s actively cross-checking.
2. The free trial beats the gated whitepaper. Demos and free trials rank at the top per the study; vendor whitepapers rank at the bottom. If your content strategy still treats an email-gated PDF as the main conversion event, you’re optimizing for a format buyers barely consult anymore according to this data. A low-friction, free, no-credit-card trial is the more direct route to the verification buyers are already seeking.
3. Comparable, verifiable numbers beat claims. If a buyer is going to double-check the AI’s answer anyway, the vendor whose numbers hold up wins — real case-study metrics with context (industry, timeframe, starting point), not blanket success claims. A comparison built on concrete, sourced criteria, like the AI SDR Tools Comparison for DACH, is exactly the format both buyers and AI engines treat as verifiable.
4. Content capacity shifts from the owned domain to third-party channels. This doesn’t mean abandoning your own knowledge base — GEO visibility still depends heavily on well-structured owned content. It means deliberately shifting some capacity toward channels a buyer actually consults during verification: maintaining review platforms, securing presence on third-party comparison pages, and building case studies anchored in customer references rather than only vendor claims.
Conclusion
The 2026 study disproves the comfortable assumption that AI makes buyers more credulous or vendor content irrelevant. It shows the opposite: AI speeds up initial orientation while simultaneously raising the bar for verifiability — and that’s exactly where pure vendor content loses weight against peer reviews, demos, and free trials. Anyone still treating their own website as the primary persuasion tool in 2026 is, per this study, investing in the least-weighted source in the buying process.
At CegTec, we draw the same conclusion we describe here: the primary next step for an interested visitor isn’t a gated PDF — it’s a directly usable, free trial of our own GTM system.
Start your free trial · 4 weeks free, no credit card required. Prefer to see it first? Book a demo.
Common questions
Do most B2B buyers really use AI in their purchasing process in 2026?
Yes, but with a caveat. According to the TrustRadius 2026 B2B Buying Disconnect Report (a survey of 1,862 buyers and 444 vendors, conducted January 2026, published July 15, 2026), 63 percent of buyers use AI tools during their purchase journey. Of those AI users, 94 percent double-check the AI's answer against a second source at least sometimes — that figure applies to the AI-using segment, not to all surveyed buyers.
Why are analyst reports losing so much weight as a purchasing-decision source?
The report puts the decline at 63 percent since 2022, with current usage bottoming out at just 13 percent. The most plausible explanation: analyst reports are expensive, rarely current, and often vendor-funded. Sources that can be checked in minutes rather than weeks are taking their place — product demos, free trials, and peer reviews.
Where does the vendor's own website or whitepaper rank in the buying decision?
The study puts vendor collateral 'dead last' — at the bottom of the sources buyers actually use, well behind peer reviews (74 percent usage), product demos, free trials, and prior experience. That doesn't mean owned content is worthless, but it rarely tips the final decision anymore — its job shifts toward discoverability and early orientation, not final persuasion.
What's the practical takeaway for content and sales strategy?
Anyone publishing only on their own domain is investing in the source that carries the least weight in the buying decision. The work shifts toward third-party presence (review platforms, comparison pages, case studies with verifiable numbers), a low-friction free trial instead of a gated whitepaper, and content that AI systems recognize as a citable source — not just more text on the owned domain.