Executive Summary

The breakup of the longtime partnership between Veeva Systems and Salesforce – announced in 2022 and formally effective September 2025 – represents a watershed moment for life sciences companies that have built their commercial operations on Veeva’s Salesforce-based CRM (^[1]) (^[2]). Veeva, long the dominant CRM player in pharma (reportedly serving 47 of the top 50 pharmaceutical companies and holding around 80% market share (^[3]) (^[4])), has decided to move its CRM off the Salesforce platform and onto its own Veeva Vault ecosystem. In practical terms, this means that existing customers using Veeva CRM (on Salesforce) have a multi-year transition window until 2030 to migrate to a new CRM solution – either Veeva’s new Vault CRM, Salesforce’s emerging Life Sciences Cloud, or another platform.

This strategic split affects every facet of CRM technology in life sciences: integrations, data architecture, and customizations must all be rethought. Archived integrations built on Salesforce (e.g. Apex callouts, workflow outbound messages, AppExchange apps) will need redesigning against new APIs or middleware; data models and records (Accounts, Contacts, Medical Data, etc.) must be migrated and reconciled between platforms; and highly-customized Salesforce/Veeva workflows, pages, and triggers must be ported or rebuilt entirely. Companies must carefully plan data migration (ensuring 21 CFR Part 11 compliance, integrity of audit trails, and validation of multi-year historical data) and re-implement all integration endpoints on the new platform. For example, integration links to Salesforce Marketing Cloud, Service Cloud, or third-party marketing automation that were direct before will have to be re-engineered on Vault CRM (and vice versa) because underlying data models and integration frameworks differ markedly (^[5]) (^[6]).

These technical changes carry strategic significance. Industry analysts emphasize that treating the breakup as a mere technology upgrade misses the full implications. Rather, pharma firms must “think through the choices, the timing and the approach” as this decision will reshape customer engagement and data strategy for years (^[7]) (^[2]). Indeed, prominent consultants advise beginning integration and data audits immediately and building a robust migration roadmap with ample buffer for testing and compliance, rather than delaying until deadlines loom (^[8]) (^[9]).

In practice, life sciences companies are already diverging in response. Some global pharma firms (e.g. Takeda, Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi) have signed on as early adopters of Salesforce’s new Life Sciences Cloud (often in partnership with IQVIA) (^[10]) (^[11]), attracted by its cutting-edge AI analytics and unified Salesforce ecosystem. Others – including GSK, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim and BioNTech – have committed to Veeva’s Vault CRM, drawn by the promise of a single integrated Veeva platform linking CRM with clinical and regulatory data (^[12]) (^[13]). Each path involves tradeoffs: those staying with Salesforce benefit from a vast AppExchange ecosystem and advanced AI tooling (Agentforce, Einstein for Life Sciences), while those moving to Vault CRM gain tighter integration with Veeva’s content, clinical data, and life sciences-specific workflows (^[14]) (^[15]).

Key findings of this report include:

• Integration Impact: Nearly all existing integrations (marketing automation, samples data, medical inquiry systems, data warehouses, etc.) that connect to Veeva CRM on Salesforce must be rebuilt or significantly modified. The Salesforce-native integration patterns (Apex callouts, outbound workflows, MuleSoft connectors, etc.) will no longer apply. Companies may need to adopt new middleware (MuleSoft, Boomi, custom ETL) and re-architect integration flows around Vault APIs or Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud APIs (^[16]) (^[9]). The complexity and downtime risk are nontrivial during this transition, especially for global enterprises with thousands of users. Mitigation strategies include parallel system runs, phased rollouts, and advanced change management.

• Data Considerations: Data migration is a monumental task. All master data (e.g. HCP/HCO records), transactional history (detailed call reports, sample distribution records, digital content usage, etc.), and regulatory data (audit logs, e-signatures) must be moved to the new platform with fidelity. Differences in data schemas and field metadata will require extensive mapping and transformation. Robust ETL and data validation procedures are essential to preserve data integrity and compliance. For example, Veeva documentation notes that custom settings in Salesforce become actual objects in Vault CRM that must each be instantiated, and special field naming conventions will change (e.g. Salesforce “__c” or Veeva’s “__vod” fields become “__v” fields in Vault) (^[17]) (^[6]). Furthermore, analytics and reporting assets (dashboards, custom reports, Einstein models, etc.) must be reconstructed on the target platform (Salesforce Data Cloud vs. Veeva Nitro or other warehouses). Maintaining regulatory compliance (FDA 21 CFR Part 11, GDPR, Health Privacy) throughout the migration is paramount (^[18]) (^[19]).

• Customization Overhaul: The user interface and configuration frameworks in Veeva Vault CRM differ from Salesforce. No custom Apex or Visualforce can be directly ported. Instead, all business logic must be redone using Vault’s Admin UI, JSON configuration, Veeva’s view templates, and “workflow rules” on the Vault platform. Some legacy Veeva CRM capabilities (e.g. certain calendar integrations, developer-heavy features) are deprecated in Vault, requiring functional replacements. Admin teams must learn Vault’s terminology (e.g. “Actions” instead of Buttons, “Veeva Messages” replacing Visualforce pop-ups) and rebuild processes accordingly (^[17]) (^[6]). This retraining and redevelopment is resource-intensive but also offers a chance to rationalize and standardize custom code after years of organic growth.

• Strategic Outlook: Analysts view the split as opening a competitive era. Salesforce’s life sciences offering (powered by its AI and partnerships with IQVIA) and Veeva’s specialized Vault ecosystem will both evolve rapidly, benefiting end-users. In the midterm, companies must evaluate not just which platform has the features they need, but also how it fits their long-term vision for omnichannel HCP engagement, AI-driven insights, and integration with R&D/Regulatory systems. This decision points beyond 2030: executives recognize it will shape their CRM strategy into 2040 and beyond (^[20]) (^[7]). The silver lining is that more competition drives innovation – customers may ultimately gain more powerful tools (e.g. Salesforce Agentforce AI or Veeva CRM Bots) than they had a decade ago (^[21]) (^[22]).

This report delves deeply into each of these topics. We provide background on the Veeva–Salesforce relationship, a detailed timeline of the split, and an analysis of the technical and business implications for integrations, data, and customizations. We include case examples of different strategies (stay with Salesforce vs. move to Vault CRM vs. hybrid) and cite expert insights and data wherever available. The goal is to equip life sciences IT leaders, architects, and business stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of what the breakup means for their systems, and how to navigate the twists and turns ahead.

Introduction and Background

Veeva Systems was founded in 2007 to deliver a specialized CRM for the pharmaceutical industry. Its innovator strategy was to build on Salesforce’s cloud platform, leveraging Salesforce’s trustworthiness and scale while tailoring the user experience to the unique workflows of pharma sales and marketing (^[23]) (^[24]). This symbiotic partnership was cemented early on: Veeva quickly became the de facto standard for pharmaceutical CRM, driven by the combination of Salesforce’s infrastructure and Veeva’s industry expertise. By some accounts, “Veeva could rapidly deliver a pharma-tailored CRM without managing its own infrastructure,” and Salesforce in turn gained a strong footprint in life sciences via Veeva’s successes (^[23]) (^[24]). A 2014 contract extension made Salesforce the exclusive platform for Veeva’s CRM until 2025 (^[25]). Over time, Veeva’s life sciences suite expanded to include Vault – a comprehensive content and data platform for R&D, clinical, regulatory, and quality – but its commercial CRM remained on Salesforce.

For years, this dual-arrangement worked well. Veeva gained credibility by serving the lion’s share of large pharma: by 2019, roughly 47 of the top 50 global pharma firms were Veeva CRM customers, giving Veeva on Salesforce an ~80% share of the life sciences CRM market (^[3]). Salesforce benefited by reaching large life sciences accounts that might otherwise have gone to competing CRM vendors. In fact, as part of their agreement, Salesforce refrained from competing directly in regulated pharma CRM – for example, not selling Health Cloud competitors into that segment – so long as Veeva remained on their platform (^[26]). The two firms embraced a deep alliance: Salesforce named Veeva its preferred pharma partner, and Veeva frequently emphasized that Salesforce’s cloud was an “ideal cloud infrastructure” for building their specialized CRM (^[27]).

Emerging Tensions. By the late 2010s, however, Veeva’s roadmap and Salesforce’s ambitions began to diverge. Veeva had proven it could architect complex cloud systems (with its Vault platform) and had grown beyond its startup phase. Meanwhile, Salesforce was rapidly expanding into industries with new products (Industry Clouds, GenAI initiatives) and had its own life sciences initiatives. The classic concern surfaced: Veeva’s business risk of relying on a third-party platform that was also courting its customers and defined many architectural constraints. For instance, Veeva had to pay guaranteed minimums to Salesforce, and abide by their release schedules and licensing model (^[27]). Additionally, Salesforce eventually began tooling up for life sciences again – in 2016 it introduced Sales Cloud and Health Cloud features aimed at healthcare, and by 2023 it openly announced a dedicated Life Sciences Cloud (^[28]) (^[29]). Rumors even swirled that Salesforce had explored buying Veeva in prior years – testament to how essential Veeva’s success was to its plan (^[30]).

In pharma, the digital environment also evolved: data volumes exploded (HCP data, real-world evidence, social media, digital channels), regulatory expectations grew (e.g. stricter 21 CFR Part 11 enforcement, global privacy laws), and COVID-driven remote engagement accelerated new digital workflows. Veeva’s co-founder Peter Gassner and others recognized that clinging to an outside platform could be a liability in the long term. The industry around them was innovating: big CRM players (Salesforce, Oracle, Microsoft, SAP) and life sciences tech firms (IQVIA, Veeva, Medidata) were all eyeing the lucrative pharma CRM market with new, AI-driven solutions. Veeva’s own Vault platform was mature, suggesting they had the technology bases to rebuild CRM on their own terms.

Thus, in December 2022 Veeva announced it would not renew the Salesforce partnership when it expired in 2025 (^[31]) (^[32]). The announcement set a clear timeline: Veeva CRM on Salesforce would be phased out, and Veeva would migrate its CRM to the Vault platform (under the new “Vault CRM” brand) (^[33]) (^[32]). Under the existing contract, Veeva had to allow customers to keep using Veeva CRM on Salesforce through the end of the agreement, leading to a mandatory transition period through 2030. Salesforce’s non-compete clause would also lift after September 2025, allowing Salesforce (or other vendors) to market life sciences CRM to these accounts (^[34]) (^[35]). In short, the stage is set: a formal “divorce” happens in fall 2025, followed by up to five years for companies to execute a migration plan (^[1]) (^[32]).

Scope of Impact. This split affects virtually every life science company that uses Veeva CRM (which is the overwhelming majority of large pharmas and biotechs). CIOs and business leaders thus face crucial decisions: Should they transition fully to Veeva’s Vault CRM, leveraging the unified Veeva ecosystem? Or should they re-platform onto Salesforce’s new Life Sciences Cloud, betting on AI and broader connectivity? Or could they maintain a hybrid: e.g. keep Salesforce for commercial CRM and use Vault for regulatory/clinical needs (or vice versa)? Each path has deep implications for integrations, data, and custom code. Almost all industry observers emphasize a common theme: don’t procrastinate. As one expert warned, viewing this as “just an IT migration” is a mistake; companies need to begin auditing their systems and planning now (^[7]) (^[8]).

Report Outline. The rest of this report examines these issues in depth. We begin by elucidating the detailed timeline and contractual framework of the breakup. We then explore Integration Implications – describing how typical lifecycle of Salesforce-Veeva integrations (data flows, middleware) will be disrupted. Next, Data Implications discusses migration of records, compliance, and analytics. The section on Customization Implications compares the customization models of Salesforce-based Veeva CRM versus Veeva Vault/LSC and highlights redevelopment tasks. We intersperse real-world examples and perspectives, from major pharma migration plans to expert analyst commentaries. Finally, we discuss the strategic implications and future directions, emphasizing regulatory and AI trends, and conclude with recommendations. Throughout, we cite data and authoritative commentary to support our analysis (via industry press, analyst reports, and vendor documentation).

The Veeva–Salesforce Split: Timeline and Contractual Framework

Understanding the timeline of the breakup and transition is vital for any planning. A series of milestones set the path:

• 2014 – Veeva and Salesforce sign a long-term extension through 2025, making Salesforce the foundational platform for Veeva CRM for at least a decade (^[25]). This “long-term pact” effectively fixes the renewal decision point at 2025.
• Late 2022 – Veeva publicly announces the end of the partnership. On December 1, 2022, Veeva’s quarterly earnings call and press releases disclose that Veeva will not renew the Salesforce-based CRM contract (which expires Sept 2025) and will instead migrate to Veeva’s own Vault platform (^[33]) (^[32]). Veeva calls the move “moving away from Salesforce” and preparing a new homegrown CRM architecture. The announcement notes a five-year wind-down: customers may keep using Veeva CRM on Salesforce until 2030, but must plan to switch afterwards (^[33]) (^[32]). Salesforce’s prior non-compete in pharma CRM will also end in Sept 2025, although Salesforce cannot actively sell a new solution to these clients until then (^[34]).
• 2023–2024 – Transition Planning. Throughout 2023 and 2024, Veeva and Salesforce hold to their existing contract terms. Veeva ramps up development of Vault CRM, hiring engineers, upgrading the Vault platform capabilities, and conducting early pilot migrations. Salesforce readies its Life Sciences Cloud offering, including AI-driven features (Agentforce), and expands its partner ecosystem. In industry events and publications, both companies reassure customers: Salesforce will continue to support Veeva CRM on Salesforce until contract end, while Veeva will provide migration tools and services. Analysts note that in this phase companies should assess their current CRM landscape and integration footprints (^[36]) (^[37]). Specialized consultancies advise performing IT audits, carving out migration teams, and monitoring vendor roadmaps during this lull.
• September 2025 – Contract Expiration / Split. This is the official separation point. Veeva’s contract with Salesforce expires (^[1]) (^[32]). At this moment, Salesforce’s restriction lifts and the partnership formally ends. Veeva begins phasing out sales of the Salesforce-based CRM. Events include:
• Sunset of Sales: Veeva can no longer sell new Veeva CRM licenses on Salesforce. New Veeva CRM users (if any) must go on Vault CRM, except in specific regions where the transition is extended (e.g. Asia/Latin America may continue on old Veeva CRM until end-2025 (^[38])).
• Salesforce Non-Compete Ends: Salesforce can now market its Life Sciences Cloud and related solutions to life sciences accounts (no longer barred by contract).
• Start of Migration Phase: Companies must start seriously executing migration plans, though they may still operate on Veeva CRM (on Salesforce) for up to five more years.
• 2025–2030 – Five-Year Migration Window. Life sciences firms are expected to use this period to wind down their usage of Veeva CRM on Salesforce and migrate to their chosen target CRM. Most analysts advise phasing the migration (by geography or business unit) to minimize disruption (^[39]) (^[37]). Major efforts include data cleansing/mapping, reconfiguring integrations, and end-user training. Veeva and Salesforce both commit support for legacy systems during this interval, but strategic focus shifts to new platforms. By 2030, all transitions must be complete; after that, using the Salesforce-based Veeva CRM should cease (^[1]) (^[32]). Post-2030, companies will fully optimize their new CRM environments.

These milestones are not merely dates on a calendar; they impose concrete technical deadlines. For instance, any integration to Salesforce data (e.g. Salesforce APIs, Force.com logic) must be re-tooled before 2030. However, prudent firms will allocate large portions of 2023–2025 to planning and prototyping. Many vendors emphasize that early action is essential. As a Target Everest analysis points out, “waiting until 2029 to evaluate options would put enormous pressure on budgets, teams, and compliance timelines” (^[8]). Companies that start in 2023–2024 can pilot a Vault CRM instance or Salesforce trial, test data migrations, and smooth out custom logic. The trough of 2025–2030 should not be used as a calm period – rather, it’s the active migration phase.

The high-level timeline can be summarized thus:

Integration Implications

The split fundamentally changes the integration landscape for life sciences companies. Almost all existing integration points that hinged on a Salesforce foundation must be re-examined. In practical terms, this means:

• API Endpoints Change – Any system integration that calls into Salesforce objects (e.g. Veeva CRM’s Account, Contact, Activity__c, or one of Veeva’s custom sObjects on Salesforce) will now point to a different backend. If the firm transitions to Veeva Vault CRM, integrations must use Veeva’s Vault API (which is REST-based and quite different from Salesforce’s REST/SOAP APIs). If they choose Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud, they may continue using Salesforce APIs but possibly with a different data model (Salesforce may introduce new object names, fields, or data clouds like Data Cloud). For example, consider a marketing automation system (like Marketo or Eloqua) that subscribes to Veeva CRM’s Call_Reports__c for trigger campaigns. In thinking ahead, that connector is broken once Veeva CRM is decoupled from Salesforce. It would need to be repointed either to Vault CRM’s new Call_Report__v API endpoints or to analogous objects in Life Sciences Cloud. Enterprise middleware (e.g. MuleSoft, Informatica, Boomi) that relied on Salesforce-connected apps must be reconfigured or redeployed.

• Integration Custom Code and Logic – In Veeva CRM (Salesforce-based), companies often built triggers, Apex callouts, or workflow rules to synchronize with other IT systems: for example, sending updates to an ERP or BI system when a medical inquiry changes status. All such custom code should be audited. With Vault CRM, there is no Apex, so any trigger logic must be re-implemented using Vault’s equivalent features (such as business rules, workflow tasks, scheduler jobs, or Veeva’s Vault Events Language). If staying on Salesforce LS Cloud, some custom Apex can persist but may require adaptations for new object APIs or cloud features. For instance, if a company had a Salesforce outbound message configured on vpimcall__c (Call Report) to push data to an external system, they will need a Vault-based alternative (possibly a cron + REST push inside Vault). All Salesforce-specific integration patterns (flows, triggers, outbound messages) have to be identified and redesigned on the target platform.

• Breakdown of AppExchange Ecosystem – Many companies rely on third-party AppExchange apps integrated into Salesforce. Examples include solutions for e-signature, sample management, expense reporting, and consent capture that integrate with the CRM. Once Veeva CRM is removed from Salesforce, these apps either lose their connection or must be replaced. Some AppExchange apps might offer Vault-compatible versions, but others may not. For example, if a sales ops team used a Salesforce AppExchange CPQ or territory management tool tightly integrated with Veeva CRM, they now must find the Vault CRM equivalents or custom-build features. Fishing out specifics: if a budgeting app was calling Salesforce’s REST API or using outbound messages, those integrations will break.

• Data Cloud vs. Nitro Data Warehouse – On the data side, the underlying systems for large-scale analytics differ. Salesforce promotes its Data Cloud (based on Snowflake) for unifying data from multiple sources, whereas Veeva has Nitro as its large-scale data warehouse (Veeva’s own Snowflake-based commercial data cloud). If a company had pipelines feeding data into Salesforce via Customer 360 or Data Cloud, those pipelines may need redirection. Conversely, any integration that wrote to Veeva Nitro (e.g. commercial data ingestion) might now point to different sinks. Ensuring continuity of ETL into whichever data lake will be used post-migration is critical.

• Single Sign-On and Auth – SSO setups might need updates. If users move from a Salesforce login to a Vault CRM login, identity providers (Okta, ADFS, etc.) have to be reconfigured. Single sign-on to all CRM-related systems (Medical, FDA portals, etc.) should be re-tested in the new architecture.

• Examples of Integration Rework: Industry sources emphasize path-breaking changes. For instance, consulting analyses note: “Any integrations with other systems (like marketing automation, data warehouses, ERP, medical information systems) have to be rebuilt or adjusted for the new platform.” Companies will likely form dedicated “integration rewrite” teams and use middleware to minimize downtime (^[40]) (^[9]). Many life sciences organizations use batch ETL or streaming updates; migrating off Salesforce means switching those pipelines to Vault CRM APIs or alternative services.

• Hybrid Integration Complexity: Some companies may adopt a hybrid approach – for example staying on Salesforce for certain commercial functions but using Vault CRM for regulatory or content management. This means they will have both Salesforce and Vault CRM running simultaneously. Integrations become more complex: the same HCP record might exist in two systems, requiring synchronization or a master data plan. For instance, an omnichannel engagement tool might need to pull data from both the Salesforce side (sales call data) and the Vault side (medical content access logs) to present a unified view. This hybrid use case demands careful governance: one must prevent data collisions, manage dual writes, and possibly implement synchronization middleware to keep the two CRM systems in sync for shared entities (accounts, territories, etc.).

The net effect is that integration work could become a major project on the critical path. One industry advisor bluntly calls it “a major IT project that can take many months” for a global pharmaceutical firm (^[16]). Given this, best practices include:

• Perform an Integration Audit: Catalog all existing integrations and dependencies. Identify which third-party systems connect to the CRM and how (API, middleware, files, webhooks).
• Plan Parallel Runs: Where feasible, run the new system in parallel with the old CRM to validate integrations. Implement ‘shadow’ data flows for critical interfaces during testing.
• Use Middleware/iPaaS: Because rewriting all code endpoints can be laborious, companies often standardize on an integration platform. For example, MuleSoft (now a Salesforce company) or similar tools can abstract away some endpoint differences and centralize mappings between systems.
• Leverage Vendor Tools (if any): Both Salesforce and Veeva may offer migration or integration accelerators. For instance, Veeva’s Partner ecosystem includes certified data migration specialists. These services might automate some common integration tasks. Companies should evaluate using those where possible.

Summary: The Veeva-Salesforce split means “integrations must be rebuilt or re-architected” – a phrase repeated in analyst reports (^[16]). Every upstream or downstream connection to the CRM is impacted. While this is an immense effort, it also offers a chance to modernize integration architecture (e.g. move from legacy point-to-point connections to event-driven or API-led designs) and rationalize data flows. We discuss further below how this ties into the overall data strategy.

Data Implications

Migrating CRM platforms is, at its core, a massive data challenge. Organizations must extract, transform, validate, and load (ETL) years of customer data from one system into another, ensuring nothing is lost or corrupted. For life sciences CRM, the sensitivity of data (HCP interactions, patient-related data, compliance logs) makes this particularly critical. Key points include:

• Data Model Differences: Veeva CRM on Salesforce and Veeva Vault CRM use different schemas. While many core concepts overlap (Accounts/HCPs, Calls/Activities, Sample management, etc.), the actual object and field names can differ. For example, Veeva CRM on Salesforce might use objects like Account, Contact, and Veeva-specific objects like vpimcall__c (Call Report). In Vault CRM, these may be account__v, contact__v, call_report__v or similar (suffix changes from __c/__vod to __v). Custom fields in Salesforce (which end in __c) will have new field names in Vault (often with __v). Even record IDs obviously change. Thus, every field and object mapping must be documented. Differences in field types also exist: Vault CRM supports most common field types, but certain Salesforce types (e.g. hierarchical or encrypted fields, certain lookup types) are not carried over (^[41]) (^[42]). This means some data transformation or loss may occur (e.g. encrypted fields need a plan for storage or recreation). Companies should compile a master data mapping sheet, covering all required entities and attributes present in the legacy CRM, and plan migrations accordingly.

• Volume and Historical Depth: Many companies have vast historical datasets – call reports, samples (inventory and distribution), customer survey responses, etc., building up over decades. Moving this to a new platform requires careful cutover planning. In regulated pharma, audit history (like who approved each content piece, regulatory submissions data) may need to be preserved in the new system to comply with validation requirements. As one analyst notes, customer records, history, and multiyear data must be “transferred and validated” during the migration (^[16]). This is not a trivial “download CSV and upload.” It likely involves custom ETL scripts or data migration tools that read from Salesforce APIs (sometimes with multiple granular calls due to limits) and write into Vault CRM’s APIs or Salesforce LS Cloud’s APIs. Data integrity checks (counts, hash comparisons) should be in place. Validation typically involves sampling records and verifying that values, relationships, and audit fields (created date, modified date, owner) match or have acceptable equivalents in the new system.

• Regulatory Data Compliance: Life sciences companies must maintain compliance through any technology shift. Data migration plans must account for 21 CFR Part 11 (electronic records/audit trails) and Good Clinical/Manufacturing Practices (GxP). This often means formal protocols for data migration, with documented validation and quality checks. All historical audit trails in Veeva CRM (e.g. field history tracking, system logs) may need archiving. If integrating with a validated Vault environment, one strategy is to run the migration under QA procedures: e.g. a test Vault CRM instance is validated, and then run migration scripts in that environment to prove out the conversion before moving to production. The system must ensure that patient privacy (HIPAA, GDPR) is preserved and that any data transfers (particularly across clouds or countries) comply with security policies. In sum, data teams must work closely with QA/validation teams to ensure the data migration work qualifies as a validated process.

• Custom Setting and Metadata: In Salesforce-based Veeva, a variety of custom settings (sometimes called “Veeva Settings” or global settings records) are used to configure system behavior. Vault CRM handles these differently: many settings become actual objects for which a record must be created (^[6]). For example, Approved Email settings, Concur (expense) settings, territory settings, sample state settings – each is now a Vault object (e.g. approved_email_settings__v) that must be populated (^[6]). Failing to set up these will result in missing functionality. Migration teams must identify which custom settings were in use and script or manually create corresponding records in Vault CRM. Fortunately, the Vault migration guide lists all such settings for reference (^[6]).

• Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence: Post-migration, how companies aggregate and analyze data will change. Many Veeva clients use Veeva Nitro as the data warehouse for commercial analytics; others use third-party BI tools (e.g. Tableau visible via Salesforce or separate). If an organization moves to Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud, they might lean on Salesforce Data Cloud (Snowflake) and Tableau/Einstein GA via the Salesforce platform. Conversely, moving to Vault CRM might involve continuing Nitro or shifting to new data marts for CRM analytics. All reporting pipelines must be re-pointed. For example, any automated data sync from Veeva CRM to a data lake (for headquarter analytics) needs to target the new source. Migrating historical data might also involve retrospective loading into the data warehouse.

• Example – Data Migration Implementation: Consulting firms have already begun advising clients with a clear sequence for data migration. A typical checklist item in Veeva migration guides is: “export Veeva CRM data to CSV, transform to Vault data formats, and import into Vault CRM via APIs” (^[17]) (^[6]). Companies like QPharma and others outline 50+ tasks ranging from preparing data templates to final reconciliation. The consensus is that data migration is the riskiest technical task. One pharmaceutical company’s analysis warned that if a firm is in the middle of a major launch during the switch (and experiences CRM downtime or data latency), it could materially affect operations (^[39]). Therefore, many life science companies plan the final data cutover during lower-volume periods or in stages (perhaps country by country or business unit by business unit).

• Case Study – GSK (from Veeva blog): GSK’s lead on medical technology reported on stage that by transferring early to Vault CRM, they planned to migrate ~15,000 users across 50+ countries by late 2025 (^[13]). GSK’s motivation was to focus on “digital data and AI transformation” rather than dance between vendors. This implies GSK is already deep into data migrations for a huge global user base. Similarly, Boehringer’s head of customer experience noted that moving to Vault CRM would “require minimal retraining” because the user experience stays consistent (^[12]) – however this only holds if the data remains consistent (they must map landmarks like territories, preferences, etc., into the new system).

• Long-Term Data Strategy: Looking ahead, companies must decide where their “source of truth” will reside. Will HCP master data live in Salesforce, Veeva, or be managed separately in an MDM? The split presents an opportunity to re-examine data governance. For example, one could decide to make Veeva Vault the canonical CRM for everything, and use Data Cloud only for advanced analytics, rather than having two disconnected HCP lists. Alternatively, a hybrid approach might federate certain strengths (e.g. use Salesforce Data Cloud for omnichannel campaign management, but use Vault’s Nitro for linking marketing data to regulatory content). These architecture choices affect integration too (see prior section).

• Data Quality and Clean-up: Data migration often surfaces legacy data quality issues. Contact merges, duplicates, outdated records, and incomplete fields (common in any long-lived system) will become visible requirements. Many organizations buffer the migration with a data cleansing initiative: ensure that the principal dataset is in stellar shape before import. Given that the move is spread over years, incremental updates and syncs may be needed – meaning data hygiene is a continuous process, not a one-time cleanse.

• Regulatory Reporting and Historical Data Access: Finally, life sciences firms have obligations to provide historical data for regulatory and business continuity purposes. It’s prudent to archive the old Salesforce org (or export it) such that an audit on, say, a 2028 marketing claim can still find the original 2024 records. Some companies may choose to keep read-only backups of the Salesforce org (using data archive tools), whereas others may plan to migrate all records into Vault CRM for unified access. The chosen approach impacts how legacy data is retrieved if needed post-migration.

In summary, data migration in this split is not a background task but a central project. It requires meticulous planning, significant technical effort, and thorough validation. Done well, it can also break down previously siloed data by unifying content and CRM records in one platform (if staying with Veeva Vault) or by leveraging new AI-powered analytics (if moving to Salesforce). Industry experts advise that this transition is “an opportunity to modernize and optimize,” not just a lift-and-shift (^[43]), but only if companies invest properly in data strategy and compliance checks now.

Customization Implications

Life sciences CRM implementations are rarely out-of-the-box. Organizations typically build numerous customizations on top of Veeva CRM (Salesforce) – custom objects, fields, workflows, validation rules, Visualforce pages or Lightning components, Apex triggers, and more. The Veeva-Salesforce split means that these custom layers largely cannot be transplanted unchanged. Instead, they must be refactored to fit the chosen target platform. Key customization considerations include:

• Platform Shift: Apex/Visualforce vs. Veeva Vault Configuration. In the Salesforce-based Veeva, companies could (and often did) write custom Apex code and Visualforce or Lightning components to tailor behavior. Under Vault CRM (Veeva’s platform), no user-supplied Apex is allowed; all logic must be defined via the Vault security model, business rules, and Veeva’s proprietary UI framework. For instance, many firms built custom call reporting enhancements in Apex (complex scheduling logic, dynamic picklists, etc.). On Vault, similar functionality must be achieved with Section Attributes, Actions, and other Vault configuration features (^[17]). There may be a learning curve: one must become familiar with concepts like Vault “Actions” (the equivalent of Salesforce buttons), Section Signals (changed UI sections), and the new Vault UI layout paradigm. Entire Apex classes and triggers will have to be replaced by either Vault Workflows (which can automate updates on record save under certain conditions) or by pre-building logic into UI actions.

• Terminology and Data Model Changes: The naming conventions change with Vault CRM (^[17]). Custom objects that were named x__c or x__vod will be x__v in Vault (with some older fields carrying zv prefixes). Field-specific differences also occur: for example, Salesforce formula fields may need equivalent calculated fields in Vault, if supported. Some Veeva CRM features (like certain enabled “zvod_” fields used in mobile layouts) become Vault Section Attributes or Controls (^[17]) (^[6]). Administrators must carefully translate each custom object and field into Vault CRM’s data dictionary, mindful of new naming and structural rules. For example, Vault CRM is case-sensitive in object names, whereas Salesforce often was not; Vault field names cannot include spaces or certain special characters.

• Custom Settings to Custom Records: As noted in the data section, many “custom settings” used in Veeva CRM are converted into records of specific objects in Vault CRM (^[6]). This has a nuanced implication for customization: any Apex or logic that read from a Custom Setting __setting__c must instead query the corresponding __v object. For instance, if a workflow rule in Salesforce checked Global_Account_Search_Settings__c.“Filter_Type” = ‘starts_with’, the Vault equivalent would need to fetch the global_account_search_settings__v record and read its fields. Developers will need to modify any custom code or report filters accordingly. Additionally, the Very existence of these setting objects in Vault allows setting inheritance by records, which is a shift from Salesforce’s static settings.

• Workflow and Approval Processes: Complex workflow rules and approval processes constructed in Salesforce will need equivalents. Vault CRM has its own workflow engine (which operates on record events) and approval processes (for changes to key fields). Companies must rebuild any multi-step approvals (e.g., changes to territory assignments or product master data) in Vault. Some advanced Salesforce features have no direct Vault analog (for example, Salesforce Lightning flows may need to be recoded as multiple Controller Actions and events in Vault). Every custom workflow condition or field validation rule should be re-implemented in the Vault Workflow tab or through field-level properties. Since Vault Workflows can execute before or after save but do not support extremely complex branching logic out-of-the-box, some processes might have to be simplified or broken into multiple workflows.

• User Interface (UI) Customizations: Any custom UI elements (whether Visualforce pages embedded in Veeva, custom Lightning components, or Salesforce1 mobile layouts) must be rethought for Vault CRM. Vault offers page layouts, app sections, and the “zv_” fields for dynamic content. For example, if a company had a Visualforce page to display custom sample management data on the Veeva call report, on Vault CRM one would have to recreate that as a vault app section or possibly a completely new object control. This is a significant effort: user workflows must be mapped to Vault’s UI capabilities. Cloud pages and mobile layouts should be redesigned and user-tested. While Veeva has tried to make Toolbar and Navigator elements similar, differences exist (some features like offline mobile are handled differently). If a company migrates to Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud instead, many UI customizations might remain, since the Salesforce platform remains, but names of fields or objects (and thus UI elements) may change, so there will still be rework.

• Deprecated Features/Custom Solutions: Veeva itself has documented certain features of Veeva CRM that are deprecated in Vault CRM (^[44]). This includes specialized components like their older WeChat integration, co-browsing, high-performance call report, etc. Customers using those features (or their custom solutions) will have to drop or replace them. For example, if a firm used Veeva’s “Outline Panel” for territory performance, Vault CRM uses a different reporting interface. The absence of certain legacy features must be evaluated and replacement solutions (possibly AppExchange or custom) identified.

• Migration of Automation Scripts (Agents): If any clients used Salesforce Einstein or RPA solutions tied to Veeva CRM (e.g. auto-notifying reps via Salesforce’s Einstein or using scripts to sync with Apptus CPQ), these will need alternatives. Vault doesn’t have an equivalent Einstein engine, but it has Introduced a CRM Bot for outreach. Migration planning must catch any custom agents or AI models and decide whether to rebuild them in the new environment.

• Security and Permissions: Profiles and permission sets in Salesforce will not carry over. Vault CRM has a different security model (Security Groups, Object Type permissions, Field permissions). Custom roles or profiles must be recreated as Vault Security Profiles. For instance, a “National Sales Manager” profile with specific object permissions in Salesforce must be mapped to an equivalent Vault profile. Field-level security (FLS) works differently; every field moved to Vault may have to have its access reconfigured. While tedious, this is an opportunity – companies can rationalize overly permissive settings from the old system and apply stricter least-privilege models on the new platform.

• Case Sample – Territory and Contract Logic: Many companies build complex territory assignment logic and contract eligibility rules in Veeva CRM through Formula Fields and Apex. In Vault CRM, these must be recoded. Vault provides the concept of “Territory Hierarchies” as part of its business admin tools, but contract assignment based on territory may require new Vault Configuration or manual schemes. This is an illustration of re-architecting a common customization use-case.

• Training and Sustainment: An often overlooked aspect of customization migration is training. Administrators and developers who have long worked in Salesforce/Veeva must learn Vault’s tools. For example, Vault uses JSON for certain config (zcl bios?), and its UI for building layouts is different. Veeva plans to provide documentation and training (as evidenced by their extensive Vault CRM admin help portal (^[45])). Companies should invest in training early – assigning some Salesforce admins to Vault training courses even before migration projects begin.

In summary, the customization impact is heavy: nearly all Salesforce-specific custom development will be thrown out or retooled. What remains constant is business logic (e.g. “we track physician Medicare license numbers the same,”) but the method of implementation changes. Many analysts emphasize that the migration is better viewed as a new implementation project rather than a software upgrade (^[16]). The end result could be advantageous: companies get a fresh, possibly cleaner architecture without legacy technical debt. Indeed, one Veeva executive noted that moving to Vault CRM would give users “the most advanced industry-specific CRM ever” while preserving a familiar interface (^[46]). However, during the transition, expect a period of intense redevelopment. It’s crucial to inventory all custom components in the current system, classify them (must-have, nice-to-have, obsoletion candidate), and plan how each will appear in the new environment.

Strategic Options and Approaches

While the technology change is the core of this split, companies face strategic choices in how they will configure their CRM future. As the Target Everest analysis explains, there is no single “right” path – instead, organizations will typically fall into one of three categories (^[47]) (^[48]):

1. Stay with Salesforce (Life Sciences Cloud). In this scenario, a company decides not to adopt Veeva’s Vault CRM and instead migrates its users directly to Salesforce’s new Life Sciences Cloud and related industry products. This is effectively choosing to keep Salesforce as the CRM platform, leveraging Salesforce’s advanced analytics and AI. The advantage is continuity: existing Salesforce integrations, user skills (for Apex or clicks), and ecosystem apps can continue, avoiding a completely new platform. For companies already deeply invested in the Salesforce ecosystem (Marketing Cloud, Service Cloud, Slack, etc.), this can minimize disruption. Salesforce has been aggressively enhancing Life Sciences Cloud (as of late 2025 it had announced >70 customers including Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fresenius Kabi, and Takeda (^[11])). Takeda’s recent move to Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud (with embedded AI agents from Agentforce and Data Cloud) exemplifies this path (^[10]). The challenge is that these customers will be disentangling from Veeva’s data integrations; e.g. ties to Veeva network content like Medical HCP forms (which are now on Vault) will be broken. However, if a firm’s top priority is sophisticated analytics (Einstein, Data Cloud) and a broad app ecosystem, this route makes sense.

2. Fully Transition to Veeva Vault CRM. Many life sciences organizations, especially those with heavy investment in other Veeva products (Vault R&D, PromoMats, Veeva Network), may opt to stay with Veeva’s solution family. In this case, they complete the migration from Salesforce to Veeva’s own Vault CRM. Veeva’s sales pitch is that this unifies all enterprise data on one platform. Integration is arguably simpler vertically: content, regulations, and CRM all live under Veeva’s architecture, avoiding cross-vendor API mismatches. The move to Vault CRM also frees the company from any concerns about Salesforce’s non-life-science roadmap. For example, Boehringer Ingelheim and GSK have publicly endorsed this strategy – GSK’s head of digital commented that no “second ready-to-go life sciences CRM” existed, giving them confidence to invest deeply in Vault (^[13]). Vault CRM boasts open-source AWS tech and modern APIs designed for pharma workflows (per analyst reports (^[49]) (^[50])). The cons include rebuilding Salesforce-specific automation in Vault (as noted), and giving up the broader ecosystem and perhaps some global scale. Another risk: as the vendor noted, “with Salesforce out of the picture, Veeva has never faced a rival of [Salesforce’s] caliber before” (^[51]), meaning Veeva must deliver to retain customers.

3. Hybrid Approach. In some cases, companies may decide to split functions between platforms. For instance, an organization might keep Salesforce Health/Life Sciences Cloud for customer engagement and AI-driven campaigns, while using Vault CRM for regulated content, scientific data, or compliance-sensitive workflows. Alternatively, different regions or divisions might choose different systems (e.g. one country stays on Salesforce while another moves to Veeva). The hybrid model aims to leverage the strengths of both, but it significantly complicates integration. It often requires implementing bi-directional synchronization between the CRM systems for core data (so-called "interoperability architecture"). A Trihybrid approach might involve Salesforce orchestrating omnichannel engagement and Veeva handling content authoring and clinical data. The documentation cautions that this brings “additional integration and governance considerations” (^[52]). Practically, the lines of authority (which system houses the HCP master record, which one matches key accounts) must be drawn carefully. Often, hybrid models are interim steps during a phased migration, but some firms may maintain them longer.

The table below summarizes these three approaches, focusing on integration, data and customization implications:

(Table: Comparison of CRM strategy options (^[48]) (^[52]). Each organization must assess which mix of integration continuity, data unification, and customization reuse best fits its needs.)

Beyond the technical trade-offs, broader strategic factors influence the decision: cost (licensing differences between Salesforce and Veeva), vendor relationships, user familiarity, and anticipated innovation. Industry analysts like Everest Group emphasize that this moment is less about “which vendor is better today” and more about aligning the platform with the company’s long-term goals (^[53]) (^[7]). For instance, if an organization believes that generative AI and cross-industry data mashup (Salesforce’s strengths) are imperative, it may lean to Salesforce. If it instead prioritizes niche pharma workflows and content compliance, Vault CRM might win out.

Industry and Analyst Perspectives

Multiple industry voices offer perspective on the split. Trinity Life Sciences (a major life sciences IT consultancy) warned companies that viewing the event as “just an IT migration” erases its strategic significance (^[7]). They emphasize rethinking CRM as customers have changed: today’s specialized patient care models, digital channels, and data-driven marketing make the stakes higher than ever. Similarly, Everest Group (a leading analyst firm) reports that “heightened competition and innovation” will follow the breakup, urging clients to re-evaluate their CRM selection proactively (^[53]).

One caveat Analysts note is vendor track record: Salesforce has unparalleled scale and resources (they spin up AI innovations rapidly), whereas Veeva brings deep industry specialization. As reported on PharmaVoice, Veeva promised that its Vault CRM interface would remain familiar (“not much will change with that interface”), easing user adoption (^[54]), while Salesforce argues that their Life Sciences Cloud will provide a unified platform of marketing, sales, and data science. Early industry signals bore this out: by late 2025, Salesforce announced over 70 life sciences customers on its Life Sciences Cloud (^[11]), including a mix of pharmaceutical, biotech and CRO organizations (e.g. Pfizer, Fresenius, Takeda). Meanwhile, Veeva reported more than 30 live Vault CRM customers by early 2025, with major commitments from Novo Nordisk, Roche, GSK, and others (^[55]). The market thus appears split: some global firms (Takeda, Pfizer) are citing advanced analytics as their reason to pivot to Salesforce, while many large biopharma continue to bet on Veeva’s vault-centric approach (^[13]) (^[10]).

Advisors advise caution: maintain regulatory focus and plan for phased rollout. For example, EPAM notes that migration is “resource-intensive and lengthy” (^[9]), and that cross-functional change management will be critical to ensure adoption. Change management – training thousands of reps on a new UI – is a major project itself. In practice, many companies (per IntuitionLabs summaries) are forming dedicated migration centers of excellence and engaging external specialists to de-risk the process (^[56]).

Beyond vendor CRM, some analysts point out that other IT shifts are accelerated by the split. For example, FDA and compliance systems, sample-management databases, and even commercial analytics platforms may be re-integrated. The rise of AI agents and patient-centered data (as found in the Salesforce announcement on AI-driven patient engagement (^[29])) suggests that data integration between commercial CRM and clinical systems will intensify. Both Salesforce and Veeva themselves are quickly expanding their product suites (e.g. Salesforce with Agentforce and Health Cloud enhancements, Veeva with CRM Bot and extended Vault Suite), which could further change integration requirements in coming years.

Case Studies and Real-World Examples

While companies are at different stages of this journey, a few patterns emerge from public and industry sources:

• Big Pharma Early Movers: Several top-20 pharmaceutical companies have publicly committed to the Vault CRM path. For example, Novo Nordisk announced intent in 2023, GSK followed with a migration projected by late 2025 (15,000 users over 50 countries) (^[13]), and Boehringer Ingelheim later committed at the 2024 Veeva Summit. These firms typically emphasize continuity: e.g. Boehringer’s Uday Bose called the decision a “seismic” one made to avoid disruption and keep the rep user experience consistent (^[12]). Their focus is leveraging Veeva’s deep domain expertise (as an executive quipped, “Veeva’s knowledge of our customers… is unique” (^[12])) and binding commercial data with regulatory/clinical data in one place.

• Salesforce-Oriented Biotechs: On the other hand, companies like Takeda and Fresenius Kabi have publicly announced choosing Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud (^[10]) (^[11]). Takeda specifically highlighted the platform’s AI agents (Agentforce) and unified data cloud as driving factors (^[10]). These announcements also mention tighter integration with Salesforce’s ecosystem (e.g. Takeda will use Salesforce’s Data Cloud and Agentforce across medical and commercial functions (^[10])).

• Hybrid Scenarios: Some case evidence suggests hybrid use: for instance, Boehringer Ingelheim appears in Salesforce press material as a Life Sciences Cloud customer (^[11]) even though it also committed to Vault CRM. This may indicate that BI is using Salesforce for certain enterprise functions (perhaps R&D or patient services) while using Vault CRM for sales. While details are sparse, it underscores that Life Sciences companies may operate multiple Salesforce-Veeva environments concurrently during transition.

• System Integrator Reports: SI firms (e.g. Accenture, Deloitte) have announced programs to manage transitions. For example, Accenture’s life sciences group has published resources on cloud migration strategies, citing this split as a use case. They suggest employing APIs and data standards to smooth interoperability. Also, some smaller biotech firms (seeing the split as a chance to modernize) have already begun evaluating alternatives like Microsoft’s emerging Biopharma accelerator or SAP's patient cloud solutions, demonstrating that new entrants to the CRM mix might arise.

• Quantitative Signals: From financial filings and announcements, one can glean adoption momentum. Salesforce’s press release on Life Sciences Cloud (Sept 2025) declared “70+ industry leaders” adopting the platform, including Pfizer, Boehringer, Fresenius, Takeda (^[11]). Veeva’s own 2024 statement said “multiple early adopters … live on Vault CRM” with formal new sales starting April 2024 (^[57]). Together, these suggest dozens of large life sciences firms have chosen one side or the other, though many portraits remain undisclosed.

Overall, real-world examples demonstrate that the split has turned into a pharma CRM marketplace shake-up. It’s impacting contracts and alliances: e.g., Veeva’s 2024 financials ($2.75B revenue, +16%) and guidance (projected $3.16B in FY2026 (^[58])) still show growth, but they note that Salesforce’s encroachment is biting into new deals. (Salesforce) Bloomberg reported Salesforce had “poached” several of Veeva’s customers by end-2025 (^[4]). This competitive dynamic pressures both vendors to service their existing client base well during migration, as customers dash to lock in deals and influence roadmaps.

Future Implications

Looking ahead beyond the immediate migration, the Veeva–Salesforce split is expected to drive significant industry trends:

• Accelerated Innovation: Competition will spur rapid product enhancements. Salesforce is pouring R&D into Life Sciences Cloud – embedding generative AI for scheduling, content recommendations, and a medical CRM bot (Agentforce) to streamline engagement. Veeva likewise is integrating AI into Vault CRM (e.g. Veeva’s announced CRM Bot). As both platforms evolve, customers stand to benefit from cutting-edge features. The creative destruction noted by industry commentators suggests that drug companies may see more innovative CRM capabilities in 2030 than they had in 2020 (^[21]). For example, Salesforce’s partnership with IQVIA (announced in 2024) aims to bring IQVIA’s vast real-world data and analytics into Salesforce’s AI CRM (^[59]), creating unprecedented insight for reps. Veeva is unlikely to stand still; one expert predicted a “cycle of leapfrogging” where if Salesforce launches a new AI feature, Veeva will counter with its own. (^[21]).

• Shift to Data-Driven Engagement: Both platforms promise more personalization and data automation. In the context of regulations like the Sunshine Act and patient data sensibilities, using AI to tailor interactions while remaining compliant will be a focus. Salesforce’s narrative already emphasizes using AI to improve patient outcomes and HCP support (^[60]) (^[10]). Veeva, on the other hand, could highlight its unified Vault platform as allowing one view of the HCP (combining clinical trial roles, prescribing data, marketing response). This implies future integration of non-CRM data (like EHR or genomics) into commercial systems – a trend accelerated by new CRM capabilities.

• Emergence of Middleware and Standards: With multiple platforms in play, the industry may see standardization efforts. For example, SIs and vendors might push for common schema (say, CDISC-like or JSON-based standards) so that moving data between Salesforce and Veeva is easier. Middleware products (like MuleSoft’s new Life Sciences connectors) will proliferate. Organizations might invest in data hubs that sit in front of both CRM systems, to manage the one-to-many integration challenge.

• Vendor Ecosystem Changes: Independent CRM providers (Oracle Health, SAP Health, Microsoft Biopharma) are watching keenly. Should enough customers migrate off Veeva CRM on Salesforce, Salesforce and Veeva may become strong in-place leaders, but some firms might still consider “third rails” if they want to avoid both. For instance, a biotech might adopt Dynamics 365 with a healthcare add-on, or adopt a specialized pharma CRM from a niche vendor that satisfies unique needs (e.g. pricing/rebates, patient support). The fragmentation in the life sciences CRM market is likely to increase compared to the pre-2023 era when Veeva dominated. (^[61]).

• Technology Convergence: Another implication is technical: over time, the disconnect between CRM and other core systems may lessen. The split has forced companies to rebuild integrations; in doing so, some may redesign around industry best practices like microservices, event-driven messaging, and APIs-first architectures. Others will capitalize on the merger of CRM with AI: for instance, if Transformer-based models can suggest next actions within the CRM for a rep, then integration between CRM data and enterprise search/AI models will become standard. We may see a rise of “agentic” enterprise AI where CRM, ERP, and data lakes all interoperate seamlessly under new protocols, partly driven by this CRM realignment.

• Workforce Skills Evolution: On the operations side, IT teams will develop vault-specific or Salesforce-specific specializations. We may see new roles like “Veeva Vault Administrator” in pharma companies, akin to Salesforce admins. The corporate R&D investment in talent (training existing staff on new platform APIs, hiring expertise at SI partners) suggests a broader upskilling trend. Over several years, companies might have parallel teams for Vault and Salesforce, and a mix of contractors that know both.

• Long-Term Data Strategy: In the end, companies will consolidate their CRM data wherever the hub is. By 2030, one can imagine a published case study of a big pharma that chose, say, Vault CRM as the central go-forward system, now running integrated sales/marketing channels, clinical trial leads, and regulatory liaison all from Vault. Alternatively, another firm might boast that it stitched together Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud with Veeva Vault via robust APIs, achieving “best of both worlds”. The splitting of these formerly unified systems may ultimately yield a more modular and flexible enterprise stack – but only if the transition is executed thoughtfully.

As one expert concluded, Veeva’s break from Salesforce highlights a broader enterprise theme: balancing vendor partnership with control. Veeva decided its specialized market required it to “control its own destiny.” Now each life sciences company must decide how to “control theirs.” The decisions made during this 2025–2030 window will echo into the 2040s, affecting not just CRM functionality but the very nature of how pharma engages HCPs and patients (^[62]) (^[20]). The immediate pain of migration is being reframed as an opportunity to modernize and differentiate organizations’ CRM architectures.

Conclusion

The Veeva–Salesforce split is more than just a software shelf-shuffle; it is a strategic inflection in pharma technology. Built on 15+ years of shared success, Veeva’s decision to deploy an independent CRM resets the landscape. The consequences for integrations, data, and customizations are profound: nearly every link in the current system must be rethought. Integrations with marketing, compliance, and analytics platforms must be rebuilt around new APIs or connectors; data assets must be migrated and validated under strict regulatory oversight; and the heavily-customized logic and interfaces of decades of CRM evolution must be reimplemented on a new platform. All of this occurs under hardened time pressures and regulatory scrutiny.

However, if planned well, this transition can yield substantial benefits. CRM architectures will emerge more aligned with companies’ unique needs – whether that is deep life sciences functionality on Vault or cutting-edge AI on Salesforce. Notably, Veeva’s move promises a unified Veeva ecosystem (integrating CRM data with Veeva’s clinical/compliance data, thus potentially offering a seamless end-to-end platform) (^[49]). Salesforce’s push signals even more AI and analytics in healthcare engagements (^[29]) (^[10]). Thus, life sciences companies should not simply pick one or the other and wait; they should proactively strategize, leveraging this split to modernize processes. As multiple analysts stress, treating this as merely an IT data migration would be a mistake (^[7]); it is a pivotal chance to improve customer engagement, break down silos, and adopt next-generation capabilities.

In tightly regulated, high-stakes pharma and biotech industries, avoiding disruption is critical. Companies are advised to start early, form cross-functional teams, and engage with specialist partners who understand the nuances of both platforms (^[63]). Table reviews and risk assessments (e.g., on data privacy or clinical trial data continuity) should guide the migration approach. Key performance indicators for this project should not just be “tables reconciled” or “features re-implemented,” but also business metrics like sales rep productivity, compliance audit success, and time-to-market for campaigns. According to one pharma CTO, firms that chart this carefully will be “best positioned to thrive in the new CRM landscape” as we approach 2030 (^[64]).

All stakeholders – from CEOs to salesforce managers – must recognize this challenge as multi-year and multi-dimensional. Yet, optimism is warranted. The intense competition between the two leading CRM providers (each now free to innovate for life sciences) is likely to yield richer, smarter CRM tools. In the words of industry voices: this split may induce a wave of “innovation tailored to the sector,” eventually giving customers “more choices and more advanced capabilities in their CRM tools than ever before” (^[21]). For organizations that start planning today – auditing their integrations, cleansing data, and rethinking custom processes – the Veeva–Salesforce split can become a springboard for next-generation customer engagement excellence in an evolving healthcare market.

References

1. Baird Research. “Salesforce or Veeva: How drugmakers can navigate the upcoming CRM split”. PharmaVoice, Feb. 13, 2025. (Key quotes and analysis by Michael Gibney, Senior Editor) (^[7]) (^[4]).
2. Customertimes White Paper. “Veeva–Salesforce Split: An Overview for Life Sciences Organizations” (Synopsis). （2024）.
3. Everest Group. “CRM Divorce in Pharma: Veeva vs. Salesforce”. Everest analysis report (2023).
4. Veeva Systems, “Veeva Vault CRM Now Available for All New Customers”, Press Release, Apr. 1, 2024. (Veeva PR describes early Vault CRM adopters and migration timeline) (^[57]).
5. Salesforce.com. “Takeda Selects Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud for Customer Engagement”, Press Release, May 19, 2025 (^[10]).
6. Salesforce.com. “Life Sciences Cloud Now Selected by 70+ Industry Leaders”, Press Release, Aug. 26, 2025 (^[11]).
7. Salesforce Ben (S. Semjonova). “Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud Is Coming: What Does This Mean for Veeva?”, Apr. 17, 2024 (^[29]) (^[59]).
8. Newpage Solutions. “Salesforce–Veeva Split: What It Means for Life Sciences—and How to Stay Ahead”, LinkedIn Article, Apr. 25, 2025 (key milestones and strategy steps) (^[65]).
9. Target Everest Blog. “Life Sciences at Crossroads: Navigating the Veeva–Salesforce Split”, Oct. 6, 2025 (^[48]) (^[66]).
10. Veeva Vault CRM Documentation. “Transitioning to Vault CRM for Veeva CRM Users” (help article) (^[17]) (^[6]) (^[44]).
11. EPAM Life Sciences Blog (S. Padhy, M. Hinderberger). “Accelerating Innovation in Life Sciences CRM”, Sept. 22, 2025 (^[9]) (^[2]).