Veles

Name: Veles
Brand: Veles
Rating: 5 (11 reviews)

AI Native

The Launchpad for Sales-Led Growth

Est 2023|Valuation $7.1M|Raised $2.6M|2 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 2K|Web traffic 6K|FTEs 7|HQ Santa Barbara, California, US

MarketsDeal Desk / Deal Room Software CPQ Software (Configure, Price, Quote)

Published Oct 15, 2026

01Common complaints

- If an organization requires a vendor with a long operational track record and extensive third-party validation - The vendor is an early-stage company (founded 2023; YC Winter 2024). Organizations that prioritize long operating history, deep analyst coverage, and broad ecosystem support may prefer incumbent vendors. - If the primary requirement is billing and revenue recognition rather than quoting - The product is positioned between CRM and billing/ERP systems and integrates with Stripe, but it is not presented as a full revenue-recognition or billing suite comparable to some quote-to-cash vendors. - If the organization manages extremely high volumes of low-value contracts - A per-active-contract pricing model can become costly depending on volume; cost modeling and negotiation are recommended. - If procurement requires publicly available compliance artifacts without an NDA - The vendor lists SOC 2 Type 2 on the pricing page, but publicly accessible auditor letters or scope details were not located in the captured pages; procurement may need to request documentation directly. - If peer review and community validation are primary procurement criteria - Public community discussions and broad peer-review listings for this vendor were limited in the captured sources; organizations that rely heavily on extensive third-party reviews may face additional diligence work. - Limited independent review depth accessible - Although some review platform listings are present, detailed review text and a broad set of negative reviews were not captured in the available sources, which limits the ability to fully characterize real-world drawbacks. - Compliance evidence gaps in public materials - SOC 2 Type 2 is claimed on the pricing page, but public evidence sufficient for independent validation (for example an auditor letter or scope) was not found in the fetched sources. - Vendor maturity and roadmap risk - As an early-stage vendor, buyers should anticipate a developing feature set and should validate roadmap alignment and support commitments during procurement. - Roadmap and dated commitments - No explicit product roadmap with dated commitments was found in the captured documentation.

Deal disqualifiers

Organizations that require publicly verifiable compliance artifacts, detailed pen-test disclosures, and mature governance artifacts for procurement without an NDA.
Companies that require extensive out-of-the-box ERP or revenue-recognition functionality.

02Why they buy

- Contract-based pricing (versus seat-based) - The vendor publishes a pricing model based on active contracts rather than per-seat licenses. This model allows multiple internal stakeholders (for example finance, legal, and approvers) to be included without per-seat license costs. - AI-agent integration via an MCP server - Documentation describes an integration surface for AI agents and language models to interact with CPQ objects (quotes, line items, pricing rules) to automate or assist in quote drafting and routing. (docs.getveles.com) - Presentation-layer / incremental adoption capability - The vendor positions the product as a front-end that can overlay an existing CPQ (for example Salesforce CPQ) to enable incremental adoption without a full rip-and-replace migration, according to the Procore case material. (getveles.com) - Where competitors may have advantages - Established CPQ vendors may offer more extensive enterprise compliance programs, larger admin and consultant ecosystems, and more third-party validation in analyst reports and public review volumes.

03Field reports

**Important name collision note:** Online review sites include other unrelated products named “Veles” (for example other unrelated products with the same name). This report focuses exclusively on the CPQ vendor as described on the vendor's website. - Review platforms (G2) - G2 lists Veles, Inc with an average rating reported at the time of capture. Full review text access to provide representative positive and negative quotes was not available in the fetched sources. - The product review page could not be reliably fetched for detailed review text in this research capture. - Vendor-published testimonials (case study summaries) - Vendor-hosted case study material from a customer (Procore) was captured. The vendor-hosted material includes customer statements presented as endorsements; these are vendor-selected and should be treated as promotional material rather than a representative sample of the entire customer base. - Example paraphrases of vendor-presented customer statements: - A Procore representative noted that prior processes relied on spreadsheets and internal tools rather than the vendor product. - A Procore representative stated that the vendor simplified certain aspects of their pricing workflow. - A Procore representative indicated that customers reported improved clarity in proposals. - These paraphrases are intended to present the content of the vendor-hosted testimonials without promotional language. - Community / social (public community platforms) - No high-signal community threads specifically about the vendor's product were found in the searches performed. Broader CPQ discussions exist and provide market context but are not direct product reviews for Veles. - Gartner Peer Insights / TrustRadius - No accessible Veles product pages were located on Gartner Peer Insights or TrustRadius in the captured searches. This may indicate limited presence on those platforms or difficulty locating the listing via automated search. - Why customers chose the product (inferred from available sources) - Based on vendor materials and the Procore case study, reasons cited include: - Need for collaborative, multi-scenario pricing that is difficult to manage in legacy CPQ workflows. - Reduce reliance on spreadsheets and manual copy/paste steps. - Reduce the time that sales representatives spend on quoting and improve proposal turnaround. - These reasons are inferred from vendor materials and should be validated with independent customer references. - Why some customers might leave for competitors (inferred) - No direct customer churn stories for the vendor were found in the accessible sources. - Likely churn drivers (to be validated with references): - Enterprises requiring a long operational track record, extensive ecosystem support, or specific compliance artifacts. - Organizations standardized on Salesforce- or Zuora-native quoting flows that prefer to avoid an additional platform layer.

Procore case study (vendor-hosted)

- Summary - Challenge: The vendor-hosted case study states Salesforce CPQ could not support certain collaborative, flexible pricing conversations, and that teams relied on spreadsheets and internal tools to manage pricing scenarios. - Solution: The customer used the vendor's interface as a collaborative pricing layer integrated with Salesforce CPQ; use cases included multi-scenario comparisons, real-time collaboration, and pushing quotes into CPQ. - Results: The case study presents qualitative outcomes such as shorter sales cycles, improved collaboration, and improved quote accuracy and efficiency as reported by the customer. - Quantification gaps - The case study relies on qualitative descriptions (for example, references to time savings and reduced clicks) but does not provide underlying methodology, baseline measurements, or independently verified metrics. - It does not disclose timeline, number of reps involved, adoption curve, or specific KPI deltas (for example, reduction in cycle time or change in win rate). - Validation steps for buyers - Request customer references focused on edge cases: complex amendments, ramp deals, multi-year co-terming, approval auditability, and integration behaviors. - Confirm whether the Salesforce CPQ implementation was simplified or whether downstream CPQ remained required for final contract issuance and billing.

04Best fit

Company sizes

- Best-fit hypothesis (based on vendor positioning): - Small-to-midsize organizations with a growing sales organization transitioning from founder-led or ad-hoc sales processes to more repeatable enterprise motions. - Particularly applicable where deal volume is moderate but deal complexity is high (for example ramped pricing, usage-based billing, bundles, or multi-approver flows). - Caution - Large volumes of low-value contracts may make contract-based pricing less attractive unless enterprise-tier discounts are negotiated.

Industries/verticals

Primary orientation appears to be B2B SaaS based on vendor documentation and company profile. (Vendor documentation and product overview)
The vendor-hosted Procore example indicates applicability in construction-technology verticals for certain customers. (Vendor-hosted example/case study)

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Head of RevOps, Sales Ops leader, Deal Desk manager, CFO or finance operations leaders focused on pricing governance.
End users: Account Executives, Sales Engineers, Sales Managers, and Deal Desk approvers.

Pain points addressed

Reduces reliance on spreadsheet-based pricing processes.
Addresses slow approval cycles and quote turnaround time.
Targets avoidance behaviors where sales representatives avoid legacy CPQ tools due to interface complexity and workflow friction.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Veles is a CPQ (Configure, Price, Quote) and deal execution platform intended to manage end-to-end commercial workflows: product catalog, pricing logic, quoting, approvals, document generation, contract management, and renewals. (Product documentation) - A distinguishing element of the product is the use of AI-driven agents (via an MCP server integration surface) to draft quotes, route approvals, and generate documents with the goal of reducing manual work traditionally performed by sales operations or deal desk teams. (Product documentation) - Veles can function as a replacement CPQ or as a presentation layer that integrates with existing CPQ stacks (for example, Salesforce CPQ, Zuora CPQ) to change the sales representative interface and speed certain tasks. (Vendor website)

Target market and market positioning

- Primary target: B2B SaaS revenue teams (AEs, RevOps, deal desk) that have outgrown spreadsheet-based and ad-hoc quoting processes but that consider large legacy CPQ programs costly or lengthy to implement. (Product documentation) - Market posture: The vendor presents the product as an option for earlier-stage teams seeking faster time-to-value while offering features typically associated with enterprise deployments (SSO, SOC 2 Type 2, SCIM on Enterprise plan, single-tenant hosting on Enterprise plan). (Vendor website)

Get a comprehensive analysis of Veles including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →