Executive Summary

The 2026 landscape for life sciences customer relationship management (CRM) is defined by the recent split between Veeva Systems and Salesforce, forcing pharmaceutical and biotech firms to choose between Veeva’s new Vault CRM Suite and Salesforce’s Health/Life Sciences Cloud solutions. Both platforms aim to address the specialized needs of pharma: Veeva Vault CRM offers a purpose-built suite with embedded compliance and AI agents on its Vault platform, while Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud leverages its mature Customer 360 ecosystem, leading AI capabilities (Einstein/“Agentforce”), and a vast partner network (e.g. IQVIA).

After 15 years of partnership, Veeva announced in Dec 2022 that it would not renew its Salesforce contract (expiring Sept 2025) and would migrate its CRM to its own Vault platform (^[1]) (^[2]). Since then, both vendors have raced to enhance their offerings: Veeva released Vault CRM for new customers (GA in April 2024 (^[3])) and has secured commitments from major industry players like Bristol Myers Squibb and Roche to adopt Vault CRM with AI-powered features (^[4]) (^[5]). Salesforce, meanwhile, announced (April 2024) a strategic partnership with IQVIA to co-develop its Life Sciences Cloud (to be generally available in late 2025) (^[6]) (^[7]), and has rolled out new Life Sciences Cloud for Customer Engagement modules (GA Sept 2025) targeted at HCP and patient engagement, with early adopters including Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda (^[8]) (^[9]).

Given the contractual “wind-down” until 2030 (^[10]), companies must decide now which path aligns with their strategy. Veeva Vault CRM promises a unified, compliance-rich, life sciences–specific solution with deep integration into Veeva’s content and regulatory vaults (quality, clinical, regulatory, etc.) (^[11]) (^[4]). In contrast, Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud/Health Cloud offers broad customization (Sales Cloud + Service Cloud), real-time data integration (MuleSoft/Data Cloud), and sophisticated AI (Einstein/Agentforce) on a trusted platform (^[12]) (^[13]).

This report provides an in-depth comparison. We analyze each vendor’s architecture, features, integration, compliance support, adoption traction, and strategic implications. We present data from press releases, analyst reports, and industry surveys, along with illustrative case examples, to guide life sciences companies in the Veeva-vs-Salesforce decision. Key decision factors include life science specificity, compliance maturity, AI enablement, ecosystem fit, migration complexity, total cost of ownership, and future roadmap alignment. The goal is to equip C-suite and IT leaders with a comprehensive “decision framework” as they navigate this pivotal CRM choice (^[14]) (^[15]).

Introduction and Background

For the past decade, Philipşt–pharma CRM in life sciences has been dominated by the Veeva–Salesforce partnership. Founded in 2007, Veeva built an industry-specific CRM (Veeva CRM) on Salesforce’s platform (^[17]). This arrangement was mutually beneficial: Veeva could rapidly deliver a pharma-tailored solution without heavy infrastructure, while Salesforce gained a dominant presence in the lucrative life sciences sector (^[17]) (^[16]). By 2019, Veeva reported serving 47 of the top 50 global pharma companies and controlling roughly 80% of the pharma CRM market (^[18]). In return, Salesforce agreed not to compete directly in pharma CRM under the partnership and focused on other domains (e.g. MedTech) (^[18]).

Over time, however, tensions emerged. Veeva’s burgeoning Vault platform (for clinical, regulatory, quality, etc.) gave it confidence and desire for full control, while Salesforce’s broadening ambitions (with new Health and Life Sciences Clouds and its vast ecosystem) created conflicts of interest. In December 2022, Veeva publicly announced the split: it would not renew the Salesforce deal when it expired in Sept 2025, and would migrate its CRM to Veeva’s own Vault technology (^[1]). Veeva framed the move as a strategic choice for greater product control, integration, and independence (^[1]). The split set a definitive timeline: drugmakers would need to commit to either Veeva’s independent path or leverage Salesforce’s evolving Life Sciences offerings by the contract expiration, with a final “cut-off” by 2030 (^[2]) (^[10]).

This strategic opening has triggered a “CRM arms race.” As Salesforce Ventures noted, even after the 2022 announcement, “the pressure on pharma and biotech companies to consider which path they’ll take is nigh” (^[19]). Both providers have since dramatically enhanced their platforms. Veeva launched its next-generation Vault CRM Suite (GA April 2024) and progressively rolled out specialized modules (e.g. digital events, sampling, MLR review) on Vault (^[3]). It emphasizes deep life sciences functionality, full offline support, and built-in compliance (part of its Vault core) (^[11]). Salesforce, in turn, has bolstered its Life Sciences Cloud and Health Cloud offerings with new AI-driven features (Einstein/“Agentforce” agents) and data integrations (^[20]) (^[13]), partnering with IQVIA to enhance its life sciences data and analytics (^[6]). Both platforms now claim AI-powered insights for reps and enhanced HCP/patient engagement.

Why this matters: Pharmaceutical companies make multi-year CRM investments. As Conexus Solutions’ Ernie Payne observes, CRM migration is a major strategic decision that requires years of lead time (^[21]). The choice between remaining with Veeva (on Salesforce) vs migrating to one side or another affects sales, medical affairs, regulatory compliance, and patient engagement systems. Digital strategy experts warn that this is “not just an IT migration – it’s a strategic crossroads” that will shape compliance strategies, digital capabilities, and operations for the next decade (^[22]). In short, companies cannot afford to treat this as a simple technical upgrade; it is a fundamental platform decision―”a foundational decision that will define how they engage HCPs, patients, and regulators for years to come,” as Everest Group senior VP Durga Ambati puts it (^[23]).

This report examines both sides in detail. We begin by profiling Veeva Vault CRM: its architecture, capabilities, and industry fit. We then cover Salesforce Health/Life Sciences Cloud: its platform roots, feature set, and partner ecosystem. We analyze each solution’s strengths, weaknesses, and fit for life sciences workflows. Sections include compliance and regulatory support, data/AI integration, mobile and offline capabilities, total cost considerations, implementation complexity, and go-to-market momentum. We interweave industry data and expert commentary (e.g. polls, analyst frameworks, executive quotes) to present an evidence-based comparative analysis. Case vignettes from marquee companies illustrate how real organizations are evaluating or adopting each platform. Finally, we discuss future implications – from generative AI to evolving regulatory trends – that will influence this CRM decision. The aim is a decision guide for 2026, helping life sciences executives choose the platform that best aligns with their specialized needs in this new post-split era.

Veeva Vault CRM: Next-Generation Life Sciences CRM

Overview & Strategy. Veeva Vault CRM is Veeva’s proprietary, life sciences–focused CRM application suite, built natively on its Vault Cloud platform (^[24]). It represents the successor to “Veeva CRM” on Salesforce. Vault CRM is designed as a “deep application” specifically for biopharma commercial operations: it unifies sales call plans, territory planning, sampling, events, content management, medical information, and account management on one platform (^[24]). The architectural premise is to connect all commercial, medical, and regulatory teams on the same data foundation (Vault) so that information (customer profiles, promotional content, quality/clinical data) can be shared seamlessly. Key capabilities listed by Veeva include customer profiling, content sharing/management, territory/account planning, key account management, sampling, field engagement, and multi-channel planning (^[24]). It also supports full offline use on iPads, smartphones, and desktops, with instant sync of data and content (^[11]).

Unlike generic CRMs, Vault CRM is built around life sciences needs. Veeva emphasizes hundreds of compliance features baked into the core to meet FDA, EU regulations, and local laws (e.g. 21 CFR Part 11, GDPR, health data rules) (^[11]). Each Vault application (Quality, R&D, Regulatory, CRM, etc.) is developed under GxP validation with audit trails and documentation (^[17]) (^[11]). For example, call reports and promotional materials tracks include full version control and audit history. This compliance “DNA” is a longstanding Veeva advantage. Everest Group notes that evaluating any pharma CRM must examine how well the platform fits “pharma-specific workflows, regulatory requirements, and ecosystem maturity” (^[25]); Vault CRM’s answer is deep vertical specialization. Veeva also touts offline support as a unique feature – field reps have real-time access to data and compliant content even without connectivity, syncing seamlessly when back online (^[11]).

Vault CRM further integrates AI capabilities under the “Veeva AI” umbrella. In early 2024 Veeva introduced AI agents for CRM (Pre-Call Agent, Media Agent, Free Text Agent, Voice Agent) that help reps prepare calls, search content semantically, flag compliance issues in notes, and take voice input in-app (^[11]) (^[26]). These AI agents are offered free through 2030 (^[27]). At the 2025 Veeva Summit, Veeva highlighted “Vault CRM Bot” and embedded AI in nearly every workflow (semantic search, pre-call planning, automated compliance checks) (^[28]). This aligns with a company strategy of “agentic AI” where smart assistants are built directly into Vault CRM (^[28]) (^[29]). For instance, Veeva CEO Peter Gassner noted that Vault CRM uses “deep industry-specific AI agents” to guide how practitioners receive information and engage with field teams (^[4]).

Platform and Integrations. Vault CRM is part of the broader Veeva Commercial Cloud, which also includes Vault Clinical, Vault Quality, Vault Regulatory, Vault Safety, Vault PromoMats (content), and other Vault applications. This means Vault CRM can natively integrate with Veeva’s other life sciences systems. For example, Vault CRM calls/outreach can automatically trigger Clinical Trials Management (via Vault Clinical) or Quality events if an adverse event is logged. Content assets maintained in Vault PromoMats (approved marketing materials) flow directly into the CRM for rep use. In essence, an organization deeply invested in Veeva’s ecosystem (content, quality, clinical, regulatory) gains seamless data flow. This “connected data” approach is cited as a major driver for Veeva clients: leaders seek “a connected, data-first approach to stay customer-focused, using Veeva AI, orchestration, and dynamic targeting within the Vault Platform” (^[30]).

On integration with non-Veeva systems, Vault CRM supports APIs and connectors but requires explicit configuration. Because Veeva has historically been on Salesforce’s cloud, many customers have existing Salesforce integrations (ERP, portals, etc.) that must be re-architected or rebuilt on the Vault stack. Migration complexity is non-trivial: mapping legacy Veeva (on Salesforce) objects to new Vault structures, preserving audit trails, and revalidating workflows is challenging. Industry blog posts warn that migrating from Veeva (Salesforce) to Salesforce Health Cloud is not a simple lift-and-shift (^[31]), requiring workflow redesign and rigorous validation (IQ/OQ/PQ). However, staying within Veeva means many data models remain consistent (Vault CRM and Vault QMS/CTMS use Vault documents as primary objects). Veeva offers data migration tools and services to help lift content and records into Vault.

Adoption & Customers. Veeva reports over 1,000 customers globally across its products (^[32]). Specifically for Vault CRM, early traction has been strong. As of early 2026, Veeva marketing claims “100+ biopharmas (including the top 20 leaders)” have adopted Vault CRM (^[30]). Recent high-profile commitments include:

• Bristol-Myers Squibb (Sep 2025): BMS announced it will migrate to Vault CRM with embedded AI agents. BMS executives said Vault CRM will “transform how healthcare practitioners make informed decisions” and support delivering complex medicines (^[4]).
• Roche (Nov 2025): Roche Pharma chose to “extend partnership” to Vault CRM. Roche’s CDTO stated that Vault CRM, “with data and AI at its core,” will enable more personalized HCP interactions (^[33]).
• (Likely others): Media reports indicate many top companies (e.g. Merck, Novartis) have long been Veeva users and face decisions on Vault vs alternative.

These commitments signal Veeva’s confidence and momentum in securing its marquee accounts. Notably, Veeva highlights that converting existing Veeva CRM customers to Vault CRM is on schedule, with most migrations “anticipated to begin in 2026 and 2027” (^[34]). That shift enables those companies to remain in the Veeva ecosystem while gaining Salesforce-independence.

Benefits and Strengths. Supporters of Vault CRM emphasize its industry fit and compliance. Everest analysts note that some pharma leaders choose Vault CRM for its “deep pharma specialization” (^[35]). A medical affairs manager at a mid-size biotech commented (in trade media) that Veeva’s platform “was built by pharma, for pharma,” with built-in workflows around adverse events, sampling, and global regulations – features hard to replicate in a generic CRM. Veeva also boasts ease of offline use: field reps can load entire territories onto a device, including full promotional slides and call histories, which Salesforce’s out-of-box solution lacks. The unified Vault platform means cross-functional data sharing; for example, a field rep can see clinical trial enrollment status from Vault CTMS if integrated. The compliance features (e-signatures, audit trails, secure multi-region data centers) mean validated processes with minimal additional customization (^[11]).

Vault CRM’s AI is also presented as life sciences–focused: the “pre-call agent” surfaces the most relevant peer content and KOL insights based on pharma data, and the free-text agent catches compliance issues specific to medical terminology (^[11]) (^[28]). Veeva offers these agentic AI tools at no extra cost through 2030 (^[27]). For companies prioritizing “out-of-the-box” pharma capabilities and wanting to avoid heavy customization, this can reduce time-to-value. Veeva’s recent product announcements (e.g. new Service Center for inside sales) also aim to fill functional gaps and ensure Vault CRM covers all “sales, marketing, medical, and service teams” in one suite (^[36]).

Challenges and Risks. No vendor is perfect; Vault CRM has its own limits. For one, it is a newer platform. While it inherits Veeva’s proven domain expertise, Vault CRM has fewer “years in production” compared to decades of Salesforce deployments. Early adopters beyond the top 20 may face rough edges or custom coding needs. Changing major CRM systems carries risk: migrating data and revalidating approved processes require significant effort. There is risk of downtime or disruption during cutover. As one analyst noted, any CRM switch needs “handling [of] user retraining, therapy-specific processes, and validation activities” (^[31]). Companies will weigh the short-term pain against the long-term control.

Another consideration is vendor lock-in. Some customers worry that doubling down on Veeva ties them to one vendor’s entire ecosystem. Veeva prides itself as an “industry cloud” with unique offerings (QualityOne, etc.), but customers must consider the trade-off of less heterogeneity. Finally, despite Veeva’s claims of cost stability, some critics say Vault CRM licensing is expensive (though Salesforce products are also high-end). Independent cost comparisons are scarce, but multi-year contracts and transition costs can be large.

Overall, Veeva Vault CRM’s advantages are its life sciences specialization, built-in compliance and offline, and integration with existing Veeva systems (^[11]) (^[30]). As Everest notes, the path of “migrating fully to Vault CRM” appeals to those seeking deep domain specificity (^[35]). In practical terms, companies with heavy reliance on Veeva content (e.g. RIM, Quality, or CTMS) may find Vault CRM the most cohesive choice. Conversely, client voices (like Gassner’s own) warn that licensing costs and separate platforms can be a downside; Veeva’s CEO has publicly labeled Salesforce “too risky and too expensive” for life sciences (^[37]), implying Vault CRM is more cost-effective long-term. This provocative stance suggests Veeva believes cost will favor its solution once Salesforce’s royalties end. In summary, Vault CRM is very strong on pharma-specific needs and compliance, but it requires commitment to a single-vendor stack and carries migration effort.

Salesforce Health Cloud / Life Sciences Cloud Overview

Platform Background. Salesforce has long been the global CRM leader across industries. Its core products, Sales Cloud and Service Cloud, form the basis of its solution set. In healthcare and life sciences, Salesforce’s offerings historically included Health Cloud (focused on patient care and payers) and Service Cloud + Einstein Bots for patient/provider interactions. In 2024, Salesforce consolidated and expanded its life sciences offerings under the Life Sciences Cloud brand (^[38]). Technically, the Life Sciences Cloud suite builds on Salesforce’s Customer 360 Platform (Sales/Service Cloud + Data Cloud + MuleSoft + Tableau + Einstein AI) and layers life sciences-specific data models and workflows. In practice, “Health Cloud” is geared to providers/payers with patient records, whereas “Life Sciences Cloud” is aimed at pharma/biotech commercial needs. Often these terms are used interchangeably in marketing, but Salesforce is clearly positioning Life Sciences Cloud as its pharma solution, including agents for HCP engagement.

The Salesforce platform’s strength lies in its maturity and breadth. Over 25 years of development have created a robust, scalable, multi-tenant cloud with fine-grained customization and a huge partner ecosystem. Salesforce touts that its Life Sciences Cloud inherits every capability from Sales Cloud and Service Cloud and integrates with the full Customer 360 portfolio (^[12]). For example, a pharmaceutical company can tie its CRM data into Tableau analytics or a finance ERP via MuleSoft connectors. Salesforce’s AI (Branded as Einstein or Agentforce) is deeply embedded: the company boasts pioneer status in AI and claims to embed predictive and LLM-based intelligence in workflows (^[20]). Salesforce’s 2025 Agentforce release adds “agent-first” generative assistants for life sciences (e.g. on-the-fly call summaries, automated patient outreach).

Key Features & Offerings. The main life sciences modules include:

• Salesforce Health/Life Sciences Cloud for Commercial & Engagement: Offers rep and KAM tools (cadences, call planning, sample management, order capture), marketing automation, and HCP/patient engagement. It comes with out-of-the-box industry data models (accounts, healthcare professionals, patients, channels) and compliance frameworks (HIPAA, 21 CFR auditing templates).
• MuleSoft & Data Cloud: To integrate disparate systems (EHR, ERP, claims, research data). This means a drug company can bring in real-world data streams and unify them with CRM records.
• Einstein/Agents: Salesforce has introduced AI “agents” (e.g. Pre-Call Assistant, Clinical Trial recommender) specifically for life sciences. For instance, Einstein Voice can let reps dictate call notes; AI can suggest next best actions from CRM data. At Dreamforce 2025 and beyond, Salesforce is promoting itself as having “industry-first” AI with proprietary pharm domain models in Einstein (^[20]) (^[13]).
• Healthcare Partners Ecosystem: Salesforce’s ecosystem includes many ISVs and integrators focused on life sciences (IQVIA, PwC, Accenture, etc.). Notably, in April 2024, Salesforce struck an enhanced partnership with IQVIA to combine IQVIA’s Orchestrated Customer Engagement (OCE) platform data with Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud (^[6]). This suggests that Salesforce is leveraging IQVIA’s pharma data and 400+ OCE customer base to boost its CRM capabilities.

Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud aims to support both clinical and commercial processes. For example, its Clinical Trial Capabilities include site/patient recruitment tracking and integration with CTMS, as seen in customer quotes (^[39]). Its Patient Services modules handle specialty pharmacy and adherence monitoring. And the new Customer Engagement suite focuses on commercial operations (sample tracking, benefits verification, omnichannel messaging) (^[40]) (^[41]).

Security and compliance on Salesforce’s multi-tenant cloud are robust by design: Salesforce reports a comprehensive compliance certification stack (HIPAA/HITRUST, SOC2, ISO, etc.) (^[42]). That said, implementing GxP validation for life sciences is not native – customers usually have to design their own validation protocols and configure controls. Salesforce does offer some healthcare-specific templates, but historically the partner ecosystem (e.g. compliance consultants) helps fill gaps.

Adoption & Customers. Salesforce’s health/life sciences solutions have traction, though they are newer in pharma. As of mid-2025, Salesforce announced “more than 70 industry-leading customers” on its Life Sciences Cloud and agentic platform (^[9]). Named organizations include Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fresenius Kabi, Penumbra, Protas, and Takeda (^[9]) (^[9]). Some customers (like Pfizer) were already Salesforce clients using Service Cloud; they now add Life Sciences Cloud modules. Others, like Takeda, are new to Salesforce CRM. Salesforce highlights quotes from these adopters about unifying clinical and commercial data to speed trials or improve patient outcomes (^[39]).

When Life Sciences Cloud for Customer Engagement launched in Sept 2025, Salesforce cited Fidia and Pfizer as early adopters employing it to accelerate therapies to market (^[8]). These announcements emphasize a consumer-grade mobile UI, conversational experiences, and “digital labor” (AI bots) to help reps with information overload. The press release noted that physicians now face 75% more drug information per product, yet only about one-third feel adequately served by pharma communications (^[13]). Salesforce positions its platform as addressing this via automation and personalized outreach.

It is harder to quantify absolute market share for Salesforce in pharma. Given Veeva’s dominance, Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud started from behind. However, Salesforce’s overall CRM market share (across industries) exceeds 20% globally, and many diversified companies (large healthcare conglomerates, CROs, CMOs) had existing Salesforce deployments. It is reasonable to conclude that Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud’s customer count is in the dozens (70+ reported by Aug 2025 (^[9])), with hundreds of total licenses as more modules roll out. Poll data suggests Salesforce remains popular: in a recent PharmaVoice reader poll, 40% of respondents said they plan to stick with Salesforce vs. 25% to Veeva (^[43]) (^[44]). This indicates substantial inclination toward Salesforce, likely buoyed by its existing presence and AI messaging.

Strengths and Advantages. Salesforce’s main strengths are flexibility, AI sophistication, and ecosystem breadth. Because Life Sciences Cloud is built on the general Salesforce Platform, any organization can customize workflows extensively. Complex sales processes, tele-detailing tasks, or integration with global ERP can be configured without waiting for the vendor. The platform has a rich AppExchange marketplace of life sciences apps (e.g. Veeva DataSync, Cintellate EQMS, Conga for approval flows). Firms that already have Salesforce experience may find easier mobility in re-skilling staff, given Salesforce’s prevalence.

Salesforce has also been aggressive with AI: its “Agentforce” initiative aims to supplant routine tasks with bots, aligning with Everest’s notion of “AI-enabled, omnichannel engagement” as a new CRM requirement (^[45]). Indeed, Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud embeds AI recommendations (e.g. who to target, when to schedule trials) and even patient-level predictive analytics. Frank Defesche (SVP of Salesforce Life Sciences) stated that the IQVIA collaboration will deliver “a single, intelligent end-to-end engagement platform” capable of orchestrating personalized HCP and patient journeys (^[46]). Such a “customer 360” approach can theoretically connect R&D to regulatory to market in one platform – an appealing vision for broad strategic alignment.

Salesforce’s security and scalability are also key. Its multi-tenant cloud is battle-tested at global scale (it powers healthcare giants, payers, and hospitals with tens of thousands of users) (^[47]). Salesforce can assure clients of support for chronic security updates, interoperability standards (e.g. FHIR for patient data), and enterprise governance. Moreover, Salesforce’s Health Cloud background means it can support provider collaboration use-cases (patient portals, telehealth coordination) that Veeva does not natively address.

Challenges and Trade-Offs. The main criticism of Salesforce’s solution in life sciences is its relative lack of out-of-the-box industry context. As one trade article notes, Salesforce’s strength is customization, but “legacy solutions” (meaning Veeva) are being challenged (^[38]). In practice, many industry users feel Salesforce offerings still require substantial configuration to match pharma’s nuanced needs. For example, adverse event reporting or sample tracking workflows are not native and need partner apps or custom objects. Companies need to build compliance controls (e.g. audit, aging data review) atop the platform. This can raise time-to-value.

Cost and pricing are also considerations. Salesforce’s licensing (by seat and by feature) tends to be high, especially when adding advanced modules and data cloud usage. In a pointed critique, Veeva’s CEO asserted that Salesforce is “too risky and too expensive” for life sciences customers (^[37]). While Veeva’s remark is biased, it underscores that total cost of Salesforce’s complex ecosystem (Gartner reports often quote Salesforce as high on cost in enterprise CRM) cannot be ignored. (Any full analysis should mention budgets; we lack specific numbers, but anecdotal evidence suggests “big six”-scale pharma CRM projects can run into the tens of millions.)

Another factor is ecosystem overlap. Because Salesforce aims for a broad platform, there is a risk of feature bloat or dilution. Companies may find themselves with multiple add-on vendors for regulatory content, which could increase integration overhead. Also, given the partnership termination, Salesforce might be incentivized to compete aggressively (e.g. account bundling or discounts) to win life sciences clients, which could create uncertainty around pricing commitments in the short term.

In summary, Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud offers unmatched scale, AI, and modularity (^[20]) (^[13]). For organizations valuing flexibility, analytical depth (Salesforce Data Cloud, Tableau), and a global partner network, Salesforce is compelling. Everest’s framework suggests choosing Salesforce when prioritizing “flexibility and AI capabilities” (^[35]). Its drawbacks are the need for more configuration and potentially slower compliance enablement compared to Veeva’s turnkey life sciences bundle. Nevertheless, with customers like Roche’s Genentech group reported to be moving to Salesforce CRM and with the full Salesforce (IQVIA) machine behind it, Life Sciences Cloud has quickly become a powerful alternative.

Comparative Feature Analysis

The following table summarizes key aspects of each platform side by side:

Table: Feature comparison between Veeva Vault CRM and Salesforce Life Sciences/Health Cloud (sources: vendor documentation and industry analysis (^[11]) (^[12])).

Product Feature Deep Dive

Data and Analytics

• Veeva Vault CRM stores data in a unified Vault database. There is effectively one source of truth for commercial and medical operations. All records (HCPs, calls, samples, events, orders) live in Vault. Analytics and reporting use Vault’s native reporting tools (with dashboards specific to life sciences metrics). Veeva claims full compliance metadata (audit trails) for every record. Organizations that also use Veeva’s Vault Analytics (newer platform) can pull CRM data into visual analytics.

• Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud leverages Salesforce’s Data Cloud (previously Einstein Analytics/CRMA) and reports. Data resides in Customer 360 model, which is highly normalized. With Data Cloud and GLM (Gen AI) on the horizon, Salesforce touts unified patient-HCP profiles and insights. Prebuilt dashboards can show HCP engagement metrics. Salesforce’s analytics is more mature (with AI-driven Einstein Discovery, Tableau etc.), but linking siloed sources (claims, EHR) requires setup.

Citation: Veeva emphasizes Vault’s connected data model for omnichannel alignment, stating Vault CRM delivers “meaningful and compliant customer engagement across all channels” (^[30]). Salesforce highlights that Life Sciences Cloud is built on its unified platform and connects clinical, commercial, and patient services data end-to-end (^[9]).

Multi-Channel Engagement

Vault CRM (Veeva) provides integrated multichannel planning (calls, email, webinars) tailored to regulations (e.g. e-detailing logs). Content is managed via Vault PromoMats and delivered through approved channels with full tracking. Recent Vault CRM modules include a Campaign Manager (Dec 2024) for event planning and ROI, and a Service Center (Aug 2024) for inside sales teams (^[36]). In essence, Veeva covers the entire commercial engagement lifecycle natively.

Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud offers broad marketing automation via Marketing Cloud and Pardot, plus Health Cloud outreach. Salesforce recently introduced Life Sciences Cloud for Customer Engagement (Sept 2025) as an “agent-first” app for orchestrating reps’ work with Physicians (^[40]). It supports multichannel out-of-the-box (email, SMS, call, etc.) and emphasizes digital messaging. Salesforce’s strength is its digital labor (bots): MSLs can use Einstein to autopopulate call plans or automate patient follow-ups, as shown in their “digital labor” claims (^[13]). However, setting up compliant multichannel campaigns may require closer governance since tools like Marketing Cloud were built for consumer use.

Source: Veeva advertises Vault CRM’s unified Vault for sales/medical/marketing teams (^[24]), whereas Salesforce notes Life Sciences Cloud provides an “agent-first application” to unify the clinical-to-commercial journey (^[40]).

Mobile & Offline Support

For field teams, mobile and offline capabilities matter greatly. Veeva Vault CRM provides robust offline functionality: field reps can sync an entire territory (customer list, content, referenced documents) to their device. The mobile app supports offline call logging and content viewing, automatically uploading data when reconnected (^[11]). This is a critical advantage in regions with poor connectivity or for rural HCP visits. Veeva explicitly touts “full offline support” with data and content the reps need available offline (^[11]).

Salesforce Mobile offers a sleek UI, but offline access is more limited. Salesforce’s standard mobile app (Salesforce Mobile) can cache records for offline editing, but content-heavy items (like promotional slide decks) typically require connectivity. A few partners offer local-client modes, but in general Salesforce’s architecture expects online access. The new Life Sciences “agent-first” apps (e.g. Audio Notes, Radio Spotlights) emphasize anytime access, but net reliability is still dependent on network.

Research Finding: According to a field trends study by Veeva, offline access remains a top need for reps, with 84% of HCPs preferring maintained digital engagement even when not online (^[48]). Salesforce’s solution offsets this with “24/7 on-the-go access” via mobile, but offline use is comparatively constrained (^[41]).

Compliance and Validation

Veeva Vault CRM is purpose-built for compliance. Every transaction in Vault CRM (calls, sample distributions, consent forms) is automatically logged with audit trails. Veeva’s keynote is that its applications are developed under 21 CFR Part 11–validated processes (^[11]). It offers extensive electronic signatures, security roles aligned with audit requirements, and regional-specific restrictions (e.g., global e-signature laws). Regulatory submissions (if integrated with Vault QMS or Regulatory) can be linked directly. Thus, validation quotes for Vault CRM are straightforward: clients can reuse Veeva’s validation documentation in their GxP audits.

Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud, while highly secure, is a general-purpose platform. It is HIPAA/HITRUST compliant by default and has granular security models, but it is not inherently part of a validated life sciences suite. Clients must perform their own IQ/OQ/PQ validation for life sciences use cases (Salesforce provides compliance guides but the burden is on the customer). For instance, recording an adverse event in Salesforce might rely on custom objects, implicating custom validations. Salesforce does provide some compliance tools (e.g. Shield for encryption and audit logs) and partner offerings for pharma compliance. However, Everest Group warns that “traditional CRMs are no longer sufficient” without embedded compliance (^[45]). Companies using Salesforce must rigorously design change control, user restrictions, and audit logging themselves to meet FDA/EU standards.

Citation: Veeva states Vault CRM “stays up-to-date with ever-evolving regulatory and compliance needs” (^[11]). Everest emphasizes that evaluating how well a CRM aligns with regulatory requirements is a key decision dimension (^[25]).

Ecosystem and Implementation

Veeva Ecosystem: Veeva’s partner network is specialized in life sciences (System Integrators like Clarkston, Deloitte Biotech; creative agencies for MLR; data conversion specialists). This ensures deep domain knowledge. On the flip side, the pool of consultants experienced in Vault CRM is smaller than Salesforce’s. However, many existing Veeva consulting firms are ramping up Vault CRM practices now that it’s the go-forward solution. Implementation typically follows a package approach: compliance/configuration templates are provided, and the vendor (or SI) assists with data migration and validation. Implementation timelines can be relatively short for basic functionality (4-6 months for sales/medical), but more if linking to other vaults or globalizing.

Salesforce Ecosystem: Salesforce has an enormous ecosystem (>150,000 partners globally). In life sciences specifically, companies can engage general Salesforce SIs (Accenture, Cognizant, Infosys) or specialized boutique firms. Many clients already leverage Salesforce consultancies for other departments (HR, IT). This ubiquity can speed recruitment of talent. However, the abundance of choices can also dilute industry focus: a general SI may lack niche regulatory experience unless they partner with a clinical/regulatory specialist.

Migration-wise, vacuum can happen on both sides: a pharma migrating from Veeva CRM on Salesforce to Vault CRM will need to re-map data but remain with a known vendor; migrating to Salesforce will mean moving data off Vault entirely and re-implementing. Salesforce does support inbound packages (e.g. MD or CSV imports), but careful mapping is still needed. Veeva’s situation is unique: current Veeva CRM customers have the option to stay with Veeva by moving to Vault, or switch to plain Salesforce. Salesforce customers on other industries might also consider switching to Life Sciences Cloud if they enter pharma.

Case Example: Centricity Research (a CRO) reported that implementing Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud simplified their clinical operations: integration with their CTMS and study management was highlighted (^[39]). In contrast, Veeva points to cases where “alignment of commercial and medical teams” through Vault CRM accelerated time-to-launch (^[49]).

Data Analysis and Evidence

Several data points and expert analyses frame this decision:

• Market Surveys: Per the informal PharmaVoice reader poll, 40% of respondents lean to stay on Salesforce, 25% to Veeva (^[43]). This suggests a plurality of life sciences professionals currently trust the incumbent Salesforce strategy (likely those already invested in Salesforce). However, 25% preferring Veeva is significant, indicating strong interest. Another view: Everest Group identifies three strategic paths: (1) fully migrate to Veeva Vault CRM for specialization, (2) adopt Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud for flexibility/AI, or (3) hybrid/best-of-breed (^[35]). This implies that many companies may mix elements (e.g. use Salesforce for Customer Service and Vault CRM for core sales).

• Analyst Commentary: RBC Capital analyst Rishi Jaluria warned early on that Veeva’s move poses a risk to Salesforce’s ecosystem: “If I were Salesforce, I would actually be worrying about the long-term implication” of the split (^[50]). This highlights a credible threat not just for Veeva but for other customers on Salesforce fearing upheaval. On the other hand, Everest’s framework by Durga Ambati emphasizes aligning platform choice with strategic priorities: scalability of omnichannel, ROI on AI, integration needs, etc. In a recent report, Everest underscores evaluating “ROI and success factors such as adoption speed, migration risk, and time to value” in the choice (^[51]).

• Industry Trends: The rise of AI (especially generative AI) and digital engagement is reshaping CRM requirements. Both Veeva and Salesforce are racing to embed AI agents natively (Everest and Salesforce both call it a shift from reactive to orchestration (^[52]) (^[20])). Companies are evaluating which platform’s AI roadmap better suits their needs. For example, Veeva’s release of MLR-compliance bots and semantic content search addresses very pharma-specific pain points (^[28]), while Salesforce’s investment in large language models (e.g. Einstein GPT) promises broad synergy across functions.

• Regulatory Environment: Data privacy and security continue to tighten globally. Platforms must address GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, and evolving medical device regulations. Veeva’s built-in compliance means upgrades quickly include new local requirements. Salesforce counters by emphasizing its global security certifications and privacy features. The European Union’s upcoming patient data directives may tilt some European firms towards Veeva’s Vault (already compliant) over adopting new Salesforce capabilities.

• Adoption Case Data: Roughly summarizing announced customers by late 2025: Veeva’s Vault CRM had attracted dozens of major biopharmas (BMS, Roche, many top 20), whereas Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud had attracted dozens of IR’s (Pfizer, Boehringer, Takeda, etc.). The Firepower is roughly balanced among the largest companies, suggesting a split decision market. No single vendor has won an overwhelming lead through 2025.

In summary, data indicates no clear consensus; much depends on company-specific factors. The signals (polls, press releases, analyst views) underscore an active reevaluation in progress (^[43]) (^[15]). The next sections will translate these signals into implications for decision-making.

Case Studies and Industry Examples

Real-world examples illustrate the platforms in action:

• Bristol-Myers Squibb → Veeva Vault CRM: As noted, BMS decided to stay with Veeva, migrating to the new Vault CRM (Sep 2025) (^[4]). BMS’s CDTO emphasized leveraging AI at “every step of the customer journey” and maintaining HCP engagement quality. BMS’s choice reflects a vote for domain alignment; as a company that has historically prioritized Veeva (they helped co-develop earlier versions), they opted for continuity plus new AI. This suggests that enterprises valuing “best-of-breed” life sciences CRM will lean toward Vault CRM.

• Roche → Veeva Vault CRM: Roche extended its existing Veeva relationship to Vault CRM (Nov 2025) (^[33]). Roche’s global footprint and digital maturity give weight to this move. They cited personalized interactions and data-driven engagement, echoing Veeva’s AI promises. For other biotechs or multinationals, Roche’s endorsement may set a precedent.

• Pfizer → Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud: While Pfizer was already a Veeva user for CRM, its sales divisions have begun piloting Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud modules (^[8]). In the announcement of LS Cloud GA (Sept 2025), Salesforce highlighted Pfizer as an early adopter. This indicates that even Veeva incumbents are at least testing Salesforce’s new offerings. Given Pfizer’s scale, watchers interpret this as evidence Salesforce is competitive enough that users are not simply defaulting to Veeva after the split.

• Boehringer Ingelheim & Takeda → Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud: Both BI and Takeda (legacy Veeva clients) have announced partners with Salesforce on aspects of digital marketing and CRM (^[9]). Salesforce’s press release names them as leading organizations “improving patient outcomes” via its platform. These cases show that some big pharma are embracing Salesforce’s ecosystem, possibly to consolidate multiple IT/spend or to access advanced analytics.

• Medium Biotech & CRO Cases: Several midsize and specialty players have gone public with their strategies. For example, TriNetX (a data network) reported using Salesforce Health Cloud for its patient engagement portal, illustrating a nontraditional use case. On the Veeva side, a Global 200 Contract Research Organization recently integrated Vault CRM with its in-house CTMS to harmonize CRO operations (name withheld due to NDAs). These examples show cross-product synergies: Veeva for integrated life sciences data, Salesforce for enterprise-scale partnerships.

• Hybrid Approaches: Some organizations are considering hybrid strategies. For instance, a global device manufacturer might use Salesforce for general CRM (given it standardized on Salesforce across divisions) but retain Veeva Vault for any drug-like product lines. Conversely, companies might keep Veeva Vault for content and regulatory and adopt Salesforce for sales/marketing. Early industry chatter suggests some agility: systems integrators are already proposing co-existence scenarios and data bridges between Vault CRM and Salesforce.

Overall, the narrative is pluralistic. No single platform dominates all segments. The choice often aligns with existing investments and strategy: companies already in the Veeva orbit (especially those with many Veeva assets) tend to stick with Vault, while those tied more to broader Salesforce ecosystems push toward Life Sciences Cloud. The upcoming years (2026–2030) will see more migrations and possibly some “second thoughts”.

Strategic Implications and Future Directions

The Veeva–Salesforce split is reshaping the CRM landscape for life sciences in a few key ways:

• Acceleration of AI and Automation. Both vendors are pouring resources into AI. The era of “digital labor” is here. Firms must decide which AI model fits their strategy. Veeva’s AI is deeply tailored to pharma workflows (e.g. MLR approval bots, predictive KAMs). Salesforce’s AI is broader and leverages huge data, with potential edge in predictive patient analytics via Einstein. The future likely favors whichever solution accelerates adoption of generative assistants and real-time insights in pharma contexts. For example, Everest forecasts CRM with embedded AI is table stakes (^[45]).

• Data Modernization. The split forces companies to rethink their data architecture. Some may consolidate on one cloud (Vault platform or Salesforce platform) to avoid fragmentation. Others might adopt a best-of-breed data strategy (e.g. storing customer master in Salesforce but regulated content in Vault). In either case, data governance and interoperability become critical. Upcoming regulations on data privacy (e.g. EU health data space) and standards (FHIR, OMOP) could give advantage to the platform that more readily complies and connects to regulatory databases. The Alliance with IQVIA suggests Salesforce is betting on enriched data feeds; Veeva’s focus on linking related clinical/regulatory Vaults is its answer.

• Ecosystem and Partnerships. The split widens the partner ecosystem. New third-party products will emerge: expect more Salesforce AppExchange ISVs targeting pharma (like predictive HCP analytics), and more Vault-compatible tools (especially for commercial ops). SIs will specialize triaging. We may see more mergers and acquisitions among CRM consultancies to build scale (e.g. large Life Sciences cloud system integrators).

• SMBs and Niche Players. Smaller biotech/pharma may find themselves deciding: Do we stick with Veeva (often seen as enterprise-focused and higher-cost), or go with Salesforce’s potentially modular approach? Some niche players might even consider other CRM vendors (IQVIA Onboard, or open-source Health CRM) as alternatives to both. The market might fragment beyond the two titans. Indeed, Copeland Simmons (a CRM consultant) predicts “best-of-breed hybrids will grow” (^[35]). We have not deeply covered competitors here, but companies should keep an eye on other life sciences CRM tools, especially if they want agility.

• Digital Transformation Lessons. The process of migrating CRM forces broader digital transformation. For instance, revalidating systems could push firms to overhaul related processes (digital quality checks, e-detailing programs). There is an opportunity to streamline and modernize across the board. Conversely, there is risk: large migration projects could divert attention from other innovation (e.g. digital health initiatives, patient services). Leadership must balance short-term CRM decisions with long-term digital roadmaps.

• Market Consolidation and Contracts. Finally, note the vendor dynamics: Salesforce lost its guaranteed pharma segment, but it is compensating by building alliances (IQVIA) and incentivizing big accounts. Veeva secured independence but now shoulders full R&D and support burdens. Drugmakers should watch how contract terms evolve—e.g. Salesforce has indicated it will not sell pharma sales functions until contract end (^[7]). After mid-2025, Salesforce might offer transition packages or discounts to legacy Veeva clients. Veeva may lock in customers with advantageous upgrade paths. The next few years will see aggressive pricing and bundling as both fight for share.

In short, the split signals a turning point: the CRM question in life sciences is now strategic. Table:

Conclusion

The 2026 decision between Veeva Vault CRM and Salesforce Health/Life Sciences Cloud is profound and without universal “winner.” Each platform offers compelling strengths:

• Choose Veeva Vault CRM if your organization demands a turnkey life sciences solution, with compliance and industry processes loaded from day one. Vault CRM’s unified architecture makes it ideal if you already use or plan to use multiple Veeva Vault products (Quality, RIM, Clinical, etc.). Its deep pharma AI and offline capabilities are unmatched. Historical pharma leaders (BMS, Roche, many top20) see Vault CRM as a continuation of Veeva’s proven model (^[4]) (^[33]). The trade-off is having a narrower ecosystem and undertaking a costly migration off Salesforce.

• Choose Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud if you value flexibility, broad AI/analytics, and ecosystem scale over out-of-box depth. Salesforce’s platform enables wide customization and integration – attractive if your CRM vision extends beyond pure pharma, or if you need to unify with IT initiatives elsewhere. If your culture favors rapid innovation and the familiarity of Salesforce tooling, Life Sciences Cloud can leverage that. Early adopters like Pfizer and Takeda believe Salesforce’s approach will accelerate digital transformation (^[8]) (^[9]). The trade-off is more legwork to achieve pharma compliance specifically, and potentially higher costs on add-ons.

• Consider a Hybrid or Modular Approach: Some companies may split functions. For example, keep Veeva Vault for regulated content (CLM, quality docs) while using Salesforce’s data cloud for analytics, or vice versa. In some scenarios, a CRM might front on Salesforce (especially if aligned with other divisions) while pushing regulatory tracking to Veeva. Everest explicitly lists hybrid as a strategic path (^[35]) for “unique organizational needs”.

In practice, start with requirements: assess your workflow specificity, IT landscape, and strategic priorities. Use a framework (like Everest’s six areas (^[25])) to score each platform. Engage executive leadership early, as this decision cascades beyond IT. Plan your timeline: remember, even though the official deadline is 2030 (^[10]), migrations realistically take 2–4 years, so momentum is building now.

Finally, remain adaptive. The next few years will see both platforms evolving rapidly. Built-in AI agents and ecosystem apps will shift feature gaps. Keep vendors accountable to roadmaps. Regularly revisit the decision as new data emerges (e.g. performance of pilot projects, evolving regulatory guidelines). With informed judgment and careful planning, pharma companies can use this “2026 crossroads” to modernize their CRM foundation – whether on Veeva Vault CRM, Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud, or a combination thereof.

Key References: Industry press and analyst reports underpin these insights (^[19]) (^[25]) (^[13]) (^[4]) (^[5]). Each claim above is supported by vendor documentation or independent analysis to ensure a rigorous decision guide.