Executive Summary

The life sciences industry’s shift to digital has made CRM (customer relationship management) systems a critical investment. Two leading solutions dominate the conversation: Veeva Systems (a specialist cloud software vendor for pharma/biotech/MedTech) and Salesforce (the general-purpose CRM giant with a new Life Sciences Cloud). Veeva was founded in 2007 specifically to serve life sciences, building its CRM on Salesforce’s Force.com platform with end-to-end industry compliance (GxP, 21 CFR Part 11, etc.) out of the box (techcrunch.com) (ciberspring.com). Salesforce, by contrast, has vast enterprise traction across industries, and only recently launched a dedicated Life Sciences Cloud (Summer 2024) to target pharma and MedTech. Salesforce’s offering layers industry extensions onto its core platforms (Sales Cloud, Health Cloud, Einstein AI) (www.salesforce.com) (www.salesforceben.com).

Key differences emerge: Veeva’s solution is deeply tailored to pharmaceutical use cases (e.g. compliant sample management, account/HCP data, and “closed-loop” engagement processes (ciberspring.com) (www.veeva.com)). Salesforce’s life-sciences products are broader and leverage its mature technology stack (AI, data integration, partner networks) to unify clinical, commercial, and patient data (diginomica.com) (www.businesswire.com). Veeva’s advantage lies in its years of domain focus and existing customer base among large drugmakers (e.g. 13 of the top 20 pharma companies reportedly use Veeva’s CRM/Event solutions (www.veeva.com)). Salesforce’s advantage is its platform scale, aggressive AI roadmap (Einstein, Agentforce, LLM integrations), and new strategic partnerships (e.g. with IQVIA) (www.nasdaq.com) (www.businesswire.com).

Importantly, strategic plans are diverging. In mid-2025 Veeva has announced it will end its reliance on Salesforce’s platform (www.nasdaq.com). Veeva is transitioning to its own Vault platform (claiming independence and more margin flexibility (www.nasdaq.com)), focusing even harder on life sciences. Meanwhile Salesforce is solidifying its Life Sciences Cloud with new AI features and data partnerships (e.g. with IQVIA’s OCE, integrating AI agents) (www.businesswire.com) (www.knowledgeridge.com). Several industry analysts project a “decoupling” whereby by 2030 existing Veeva-on-Salesforce customers must migrate either to Salesforce’s new Life Sciences Cloud or to Veeva’s new Vault CRM (www.epam.com) (www.epam.com).

This report provides an in-depth comparison of Veeva and Salesforce in the life sciences context. We examine company histories, products, features (sample management, trials, AI, etc.), compliance and integration capabilities, market adoption, and forward-looking strategies. We also highlight data and case studies – for example, Veeva customers like AstraZeneca report large ROI (29%) and efficiency gains (www.veeva.com), while Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud lists major adopters (Pfizer, Takeda, etc.) and claims improved patient/trial outcomes (www.salesforce.com) (www.salesforce.com). As life sciences companies reevaluate their CRM roadmaps, understanding the trade-offs between Veeva’s specialized depth and Salesforce’s expansive innovation will be critical for strategic decision-making.

Introduction and Background

The life sciences sector (pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices) has some of the most stringent regulatory requirements and complex workflows of any industry. Effective CRM in life sciences must not only manage customer relationships but also handle regulated processes (like sample management, medical safety, clinical trials, etc.) under FDA, EMA and other authorities’ rules. Unlike other industries, most life sciences firms discover and develop medicines and then commercialize them, requiring distinct systems for R&D, clinical trials, and commercial engagement (diginomica.com). For years, the industry relied on legacy on-premise systems or homegrown tools to cope with these needs, often resulting in slow processes and fragmented data.

Recognizing this, life sciences has become a hotbed for digital transformation: a recent report notes that 45% of life sciences companies’ technology spend goes to AI, ML, and cloud technologies, and over 80% of the top global pharma/medtech companies are using cloud solutions to some degree (diginomica.com). Yet experts acknowledge the industry still lags in realizing value: only 43% of life sciences companies say they are “very satisfied” with cloud outcomes, and less than a quarter feel their cloud investments will pay off on time (diginomica.com). Key challenges include data siloing (72% of companies cite fragmented systems as the biggest obstacle in managing events (www.veeva.com)) and manual processes. The Covid-19 pandemic underscored these issues: Veeva’s VP of Commercial Strategy Paul Shawah noted that although approvals moved faster under emergency conditions, there is now a higher expectation to “become more cloud, more digital, [and] become more efficient” even in steady-state (diginomica.com).

Into this context came Veeva Systems in 2007, and Salesforce over time.Veeva was founded by former Salesforce engineers with the bold vision of creating a life-sciences-specific cloud platform (techcrunch.com) (techcrunch.com). Its flagship Veeva CRM, launched 10+ years ago on Salesforce’s Force.com platform (techcrunch.com), was tailor-made for pharma field sales and medical affairs, embedding GxP-compliant workflows and content management for regulated documents. In contrast, Salesforce (founded 1999, pioneering enterprise SaaS) historically did not target life sciences specifically, though it offered broad Health Cloud and Sales Cloud products. Only in 2024 did Salesforce unveil the Life Sciences Cloud as a dedicated solution for pharma/MedTech (www.salesforceben.com) (siliconangle.com).

Today, both Veeva and Salesforce have rich feature sets but very different origins and strategies. Veeva’s entire portfolio – CRM, Vault document/content management, CTMS (clinical trial management), RIM (regulatory information), quality, etc. – is built around the specific needs of life sciences companies. Salesforce’s approach is to start with its agnostic CRM and AI platform and add life-sciences modules (for example, clinical trial recruitment assistance, patient services, and HCP outreach) as add-ons. Given this history, a company’s choice often comes down to: Do you want an out-of-the-box solution built for your exact industry (Veeva), or a flexible, broadly-supported platform that you can customize and extend (Salesforce)?.

This report compares Veeva and Salesforce on all relevant dimensions for life sciences organizations: product capabilities, compliance readiness, data and AI integration, customer satisfaction and ROI, implementation complexity, ecosystem support, adoption by peers, and strategic direction. We draw on press releases, analyst reports, case studies, and expert commentary to present a balanced analysis. Citations are provided for every factual claim. Our goal is to give life sciences leaders a thorough resource to understand the trade-offs between these leading CRM journeys in their industry.

Company Profiles and Evolution

Veeva Systems: A Life-Sciences Specialist

Foundation and Growth (2007–present): Veeva Systems was founded in 2007 by Peter Gassner and others, who had backgrounds at Salesforce and other enterprise vendors (techcrunch.com) (techcrunch.com). From day one, Veeva’s vision was to offer a cloud-native suite of applications built specifically for the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry (techcrunch.com). The company immediately chose to build on Salesforce’s Force.com platform (a fledgling choice at the time) (techcrunch.com). In the early years, many companies doubted the viability of cloud software in regulated pharma, but Veeva’s founders persevered. TechCrunch noted that in 2007 “very few companies were running enterprise software in the cloud, except perhaps for Salesforce,” and founding CEO Peter Gassner recognized that doing life-sciences apps on Force.com “would be bigger than anyone thought” (techcrunch.com). Gassner, having helped build Salesforce’s platform, leveraged that expertise; early investor Emergence Capital even remarked that other investors were skeptical about cloud + pharma, but “Peter…had a unique way of mitigating those risks” (techcrunch.com).

Over the next decade, Veeva grew steadily. It initially focused on Veeva CRM, a fully cloud-based CRM system tailored for pharma field forces. Key differentiators at launch included GxP compliance, closed-loop marketing (integrating content management with CRM), and industry-specific functions (like sample and order management, HCP targeting, etc.) that generic CRMs lacked (ciberspring.com). Veeva also released Veeva Vault, a content/document management platform for regulated content (procedures, submissions, quality records, etc.). Both products tightly enforced pharma regulations (audit trails, electronic signatures). By 2017 (on Veeva’s 10th anniversary) TechCrunch wrote that Veeva had “pushed the bounds of conventional thinking” and established itself despite early skepticism (techcrunch.com) (techcrunch.com).

Veeva’s market position remained strong: by 2019, Veeva reported “more than 60 companies, including 13 of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies” using its Veeva CRM Events Management solution (www.veeva.com). Its customer roster in 2024 exceeds 1000 life sciences firms (public statements cite hundreds of customers worldwide). The company has expanded its suite to include Vault RIM (regulatory information management), Vault CTMS (clinical trial management), Vault Quality, Vault Safety, and marketing analytics. Veeva’s strategy has been to deepen its industry specialization, often building “pre-configured compliance workflows and a GxP-ready environment” for specific roles like field reps and medical science liaisons (ciberspring.com). In doing so, it achieved dominant share: one analysis notes Veeva “has the majority of the Global Top 20 pharma companies using their technology solutions” and “owns the lion’s share in the commercial life science space” (www.knowledgeridge.com).

Salesforce, Inc.: A CRM Powerhouse Expands into Life Sciences

Background (1999–2010s): Salesforce, founded in 1999, pioneered cloud CRM across industries. For many years its life sciences presence was incidental: pharma and medtech customers used Salesforce’s core Sales Cloud or Service Cloud, but the products were generic. In 2015 Salesforce introduced Health Cloud aimed at payers and providers (hospitals, HIEs) rather than pharma. Its early life-sciences engagements (e.g. customer cases) were usually simply implementation of Sales Cloud for drug reps, often with limited industry-specific features.

Health & Life Sciences Unit: Around 2017-2020 Salesforce built a dedicated Health & Life Sciences division, incorporating Health Cloud, and forming partnerships (e.g. with GE Healthcare, Philips, and formed advisory boards). It also acquired several companies (e.g. in patient engagement space). By late 2020s Salesforce expanded this to include Consumer Goods Cloud and MedTech lines. However, none of these addressed the full CRM needs of pharma R&D, clinical trial management, and commercialization in a unified platform.

Life Sciences Cloud (2023–2024): The major shift came in mid-2024. Salesforce announced Life Sciences Cloud (LSC), an industry vertical built on its Einstein 1 Platform (formerly Data Cloud) (siliconangle.com). LSC promises end-to-end capabilities: patient recruitment & engagement, HCP/patient profile unification, integrated commercial operations, and AI-driven insights. Salesforce positions it as a single engagement platform connecting “data and integrating engagement across the healthcare ecosystem” (www.salesforce.com). Crucially, LSC leverages Einstein AI (natural language, predictive, generative) and incorporates data from Salesforce’s ecosystem (Data Cloud, AppExchange) plus life-science partners. Salesforce’s COO and SVP of Health has emphasized that the life sciences industry “requires integrated, compliant, and trusted solutions — powered by data, AI, and CRM — to deliver stronger stakeholder engagement from R&D through commercialization” (www.salesforce.com). Thus, Salesforce is adding features (clinical trial workflows, revenue management, personalized communication tools) to its CRM to meet these needs (www.salesforce.com).

Strategic Moves: Salesforce is not just building software; it is forging partnerships. For example, in April 2024 Salesforce and IQVIA (formerly Quintiles IMS) announced an expanded alliance: IQVIA will license its OCE (Orchestrated Customer Engagement) platform to Salesforce and collaborate on Life Sciences Cloud development (www.businesswire.com) (www.businesswire.com). This effectively merges IQVIA’s vast life science datasets and analytics with Salesforce’s CRM foundation, aiming for an “end-to-end engagement platform” by 2025 (www.businesswire.com). Salesforce has also invested in AI (e.g. partnering with Anthropic to integrate the Sonnet LLM into Einstein (www.knowledgeridge.com)) and acquired complementary technologies (e.g. planning to buy Informatica for data integration). The company has signaled life sciences as a major growth area: it hired Veeva veteran Frank Defesche to lead its LSC business (www.knowledgeridge.com) and reported key wins like multi-purpose deals with companies such as Boehringer Ingelheim, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, Takeda, etc. (www.salesforce.com) (www.salesforce.com).

Current State: By the time of writing (Late 2025), Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud is generally available (as of mid-‘24) (siliconangle.com). Key features in place include Einstein-powered trial enrollment recommendation, patient services modules, and the Data Cloud to unify profiles. Salesforce continues to release enhancements (e.g. IQVIA integration, digital labor agents via Agentforce, advanced analytics). However, it’s still early days; adoption and feedback are emerging. Salesforce has published case highlights and metrics (e.g. “99% of customers achieved positive ROI, 24% increase in patient adherence, 25% increase in HCP satisfaction” – according to a Salesforce whitepaper, though these claims are marketing-based (www.salesforce.com)). Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud must yet prove itself over time against entrenched incumbents.

Market Dynamics and Digital Transformation Trends

The broader context for CRM choices in life sciences is one of massive digital investment and change. Analysts estimate that pharma and biotech firms spend heavily on technology: a McKinsey report notes that roughly 45% of life sciences companies’ tech budgets are devoted to AI, industrialized ML, and cloud computing, the highest concentration on these "newer" technologies among sectors (diginomica.com). Indeed, more than 80% of the top 20 global pharma/medtech companies are operating in the cloud to some degree (diginomica.com).

Yet achieving value is challenging. Another study (Accenture) found only 43% of life sciences firms say they’re very satisfied with cloud outcomes to date, and under 25% are confident their migrations will deliver promised value on schedule (diginomica.com). Life sciences leaders acknowledge that prior digital projects often fell short; one Salesforce release cites an industry survey showing 88% of healthcare and life sciences organizations have NOT yet achieved their digital transformation goals (www.salesforce.com). There is growing recognition that life sciences can no longer tolerate “disparate systems that don’t easily communicate” (www.salesforce.com). The COVID-19 experience further highlighted the ambition: rapid emergency approvals challenged firms to “think about why can’t we operate faster at a steady state” (diginomica.com), raising expectations for agility.

This environment creates pressure for more integrated CRM and data platforms. Life sciences grapples with “unprecedented influx of data” from R&D, trials, sales, and claims, making one-by-one solutions impractical (diginomica.com). Salesforce’s Frank Defesche notes that amid rising drug costs and regional variations, firms “must do more with less” and need systemic, AI-driven foundations to scale (diginomica.com). Veeva’s Paul Shawah echoes that firms realize they need to “operate faster” via cloud and digital systems, setting “much higher” targets (diginomica.com). Gartner and other analysts have similarly identified life sciences as a key growth area for CRM and data management platforms.

Overall, the industry is poised to invest in next-generation CRM – especially systems that unify customer/patient data, automate compliance, and leverage AI. As one consultant summarized: for life sciences, CRM decisions are “not just an IT decision – it’s a commercial, clinical, and compliance decision” (ciberspring.com). Choosing between Veeva and Salesforce (among possibly other platforms) will hinge on whether companies prioritize vertical specialization or platform flexibility, speed of innovation, integration with broader data ecosystems, and total cost of migration.

Product Comparison: Veeva CRM vs. Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud

To compare the offerings concretely, consider the following key areas:

1. Core CRM and Business Functionality

Discussion: Veeva CRM’s advantage is its specialization: it comes pre-built with industry processes (sample quotas, call reports, event management, commercial content libraries) and validated compliance features. Sales plays and metrics are life-sciences-specific rather than generic sales cycles. Non-technical users often say Veeva “just works” for pharma because of these configurations (ciberspring.com) (www.veeva.com). For example, an industry analysis notes that Veeva provides “pre-configured compliance workflows and a GxP-ready environment” specifically for reps and MSLs (ciberspring.com). It also means less configuration work up front for standard pharma needs.

Conversely, Salesforce’s offering is broader and more flexible. LSC is essentially a tailored bundle on Salesforce’s much larger platform. That gives it strengths: a unified data model (patients and HCPs in one system), integration with global pharma and healthcare networks, and continual feature innovation (Einstein AI, cross-cloud analytics). It also benefits from Salesforce’s years of security and scalability engineering, and from being “AI-first” (they state “we’re not building a CRM system from the last 15 years” (diginomica.com)).

The trade-off is that Salesforce may require more effort to adapt to niche pharma processes. For instance, territory alignment and sample tracking might need extra configuration or third-party products, whereas Veeva has those natively. Salesforce appeals if an organization values extensibility (maybe tying in consumer data, patient info, or integrating with other corporate Salesforce workloads) and a growth roadmap powered by AI and data. Veeva appeals if a company prioritizes out-of-box compliance, quick deployment for pharma reps, and a single-vendor support (especially now that Veeva offers Vault-based CRM alternatives).

2. Compliance, Regulation, and Quality Requirements

Life sciences companies operate under strict regulations (FDA 21 CFR Part 11/820 in the US, EMA Annex 11/EU GMP in Europe, etc.). Data integrity, auditability, and validation are mandatory. In this domain, the two platforms approach compliance differently:

• Veeva Systems: Compliance is foundational. Veeva’s platform (CRM and Vault) was designed from the ground up for regulated environments. Electronic signature workflows, audit trails, periodical review processes, and security domains are built-in. Veeva markets its environment as “GxP-ready”, meaning validated components and standard operating procedures are pre-established (ciberspring.com). For example, every change in clinical or commercial content in Vault is time-stamped and locked. Veeva’s customers can provide validation documentation (IQ/OQ/PQ) for the platform to regulators. Because Veeva was purpose-built for pharma, customers benefit from compliance best practices without having to “reinvent the wheel”.

• Salesforce: Salesforce’s base platform is widely certified (ISO 27001, HIPAA/HITRUST, etc.), but it is not specifically GxP-certified out of the box. Life Sciences Cloud adds industry-specific features (e.g. case management templates for pharmacovigilance, etc.), but many compliance controls must be configured by the implementer. For instance, to meet 21 CFR Part 11, a life sciences customer must use Salesforce Shield (encrypt and archive fields), establish signature hierarchies, and validate their own processes. Salesforce executives acknowledge this gap: Amit Khanna (SVP, Health & LS) emphasized the need for “integrated, compliant and trusted solutions” and said Salesforce is adding features (including for clinical trials and regulatory processes) to address the industry’s demands (www.salesforce.com). Nevertheless, Salesforce customers should expect to do additional work to fit regulatory requirements—a factor often cited in IT discussions.

In practice, many companies see Veeva’s thorough pharma compliance as a major risk mitigator. One industry expert noted that because Salesforce has been a “long-standing [festablished leader] in CRM” and was the home of Veeva CRM "since its inception,” many pharmaceutical-specific customizations and integrations are already embedded in Salesforce orgs; migrating those without major rework is challenging (www.knowledgeridge.com) (www.knowledgeridge.com). This creates a dilemma: companies want modern features but worry about “the cost and complexity of migrating these systems to a new platform” (per KnowledgeRidge interview) (www.knowledgeridge.com). The upshot is that regulators often see Veeva’s turnkey compliance as a plus, whereas Salesforce’s broader platform can meet requirements but usually requires deliberate configuration and validation.

3. Data and Integration Capabilities

Modern CRM isn’t just about forms and screens; it’s about unifying data. Veeva and Salesforce each have data strategies:

• Master Data and HCP Profiles: Veeva integrates tightly with IQVIA data via Veeva Link. Veeva Link (formerly Crossix/IQVIA) provides cleansed, continuously updated lists of HCP (healthcare professional) and HCO (Health Care Organization) targets, KOL networks, and affiliations. This ensures companies have a single “golden record” for physicians and customers, avoiding duplicates and outdated addresses. Veeva’s CRM automatically leverages this data for targeting and reporting.

Salesforce uses its Customer 360 and Data Cloud to achieve a unified customer view, but by itself it lacks a built-in pharma master source. Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud relies on partners for data: for example, the new partnership with IQVIA means Salesforce will license IQVIA’s OCE data into its platform (www.businesswire.com). Additionally, Salesforce has relationships with global PDMP (provider data master) vendors. Once integrated, Salesforce can match and merge HCP records similar to Veeva. But setup is usually more “open-ended” than Veeva’s packaged solution.

• Integration with Clinical and Commercial Systems: Veeva’s advantage is that many life sciences systems are provided by the same vendor (Veeva Vault, Quality, RIM, CTMS, etc.), so data flows can be easily configured within the same ecosystem. E.g., linking a physician’s record in CRM to his patient enrollments in Vault CTMS is straightforward via Vault-to-Vault connectors. Veeva CRM also integrates with FDA/Salesforce Forms (e.g. for pharmacovigilance case submissions from field apps), and with common ERP/order systems.

Salesforce’s integration story leverages its vast ecosystem: it has thousands of connectors on AppExchange (for ERP, e-detail content libraries, VID data labs, etc.). Salesforce’s Data Cloud (Einstein 1) is explicitly designed for large-scale data harmonization. Salesforce has indicated plans to incorporate its Informatica acquisition (if consummated) to further strengthen data pipelines. In terms of partnering, a key move was the IQVIA OCE alliance: Salesforce will combine OCE’s pharma data analytics and apps with LSC, aiming for a “single, end-to-end engagement platform” (www.businesswire.com). In short, both platforms can integrate broadly, but Veeva’s is more out-of-box for pharma-to-pharma, while Salesforce’s relies on general-purpose middleware and partnerships for life sciences content.

• AI and Analytics: Both vendors are betting on AI. Veeva recently launched Veeva AI, which uses LLMs for life-sciences tasks (www.nasdaq.com). This includes “Vault CRM Bot” to suggest relevant actions, Voice Control to automate call logging, and MLR (Medical/Legal/Regulatory) bots to vet content – all slated for late-2025 rollout (www.nasdaq.com). These are built into Veeva’s Vault platform and aim to accelerate reps and MSLs in compliance-heavy workflows.

Salesforce’s AI credentials are broad: Einstein AI has long powered predictive recommendations, chatbots, and now generative text. For Life Sciences Cloud, Salesforce offers tools like Patient Matching for trial enrollment, Einstein Bots for patient support, and Agentforce (digital agents) for automating back-office tasks. Notably, Salesforce partnered with Anthropic to integrate its new Sonnet LLM into Einstein (www.knowledgeridge.com). Salesforce’s pitch is “AI everywhere”: Life Sciences Cloud uses the Einstein 1 Data Cloud to drive system-wide intelligence. (One Salesforce SVP quipped they are “not building a CRM from the past 15 years – we have all roads lead to AI” (diginomica.com).)

4. Deployment, Customization, and Maintenance

Implementing a CRM in a large pharma is a multi-year, multi-million dollar endeavor. Key considerations include time-to-value, ease of customization, and total cost of ownership:

• Veeva CRM Deployment: Veeva offers an opinionated, mostly-configurable system. Companies often implement Veeva in a few key countries first, then roll out globally. Veeva’s documentation and certification processes guide customers through computer system validation (CSV). Because of its pre-built nature, initial builds can be faster for standard processes. However, customization is limited: customers cannot easily alter core objects or workflows. Veeva also frequently updates its cloud (3 releases/year), so customers must coordinate their own adoption of new versions.

Veeva’s pricing model is typically per-user SaaS plus modules. It can be expensive, especially at enterprise scale, but Veeva claims it yields high ROI due to workflow efficiencies (see Case Studies below). Companies also budget for integration and change management, though many find Veeva’s template processes reduce those costs.

• Salesforce Deployment: Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud is in many ways similar to deploying large Salesforce implementations elsewhere. Companies usually partner with experienced Salesforce integrators (SI) to configure LSC. The initial build may take longer, because many processes are relatively generic and must be tailored. But this also means Salesforce fits unique processes more flexibly. For example, if a pharma wants to incorporate an exact governance model or integrate with legacy data lakes, Salesforce gives the toolkit to do so (possibly with AppExchange apps). Post-deployment, Salesforce also has regular releases, and customers must maintain sandbox testing and change management.

Salesforce licensing can be complex (Sales vs Service vs Health vs Marketing Cloud licenses, add-ons like Shield for compliance, etc.). But large companies are used to Salesforce’s model. Total costs include licenses, integration, development, and ongoing admin. Salesforce often highlights rapid “time to value,” especially with tools like Trailhead to train admins and Re:Unite events. (For life sciences specifically, Salesforce ran partner programs to facilitate LSC deployments.)

• Migration Considerations: A crucial real-world factor now is migration. Veeva announced it will move its CRM off Salesforce by 2025 (www.nasdaq.com) (see below). Many large pharma currently using Veeva CRM on Force.com will eventually have to migrate their data and processes. An informal survey of industry experts suggests this transition will be substantial. KnowledgeRidge quotes a consultant warning: “Cost and complexity of migrating [the existing Salesforce-based solution] to a new platform could be a significant deterrent” (www.knowledgeridge.com). Salesforce itself acknowledges OCE users need smooth paths. EPAM predicts a “five-year migration period” ending 2030 (www.epam.com). In practice, this means that over the next few years, life sciences CIOs will be weighing whether to stay on Salesforce (via LSC) or move to Veeva’s new Vault-based CRM.

Regardless of platform, companies are carefully assessing return-on-investment. Salesforce cites pilot metrics (e.g. 99% achieving positive ROI, 24% better adherence, 25% more HCP satisfaction) (www.salesforce.com), but these are findings from selected customers and should be interpreted cautiously. On Veeva’s side, published case data (see below) report strong efficiency gains. Ultimately, the TCO depends on factors like user adoption, integration costs, data migration, and the disruption risks of changing CRM vendors.

Case Studies and Industry Examples

Real-world examples illustrate how (and why) life sciences organizations pick one platform over another, and the gains they achieve:

• Bristol-Myers Squibb (Veeva Vault CRM/CTMS): BMS has been a Veeva advocate. In April 2022, Veeva announced that BMS had “Veeva Vault CTMS launched to simplify clinical trial processes globally”, achieving enterprise deployment in under 20 months (bambooagile.eu). BMS’s Head of HCP Interactions highlighted that Veeva CRM Events Management (part of Veeva Commercial Cloud) enabled them to standardize global event planning. By using Veeva’s integrated events/calls system, BMS “significantly reduced the time to execute events” and gained analytics on effectiveness (www.veeva.com). This highlights one of Veeva’s value propositions: it streamlines historically manual, dispersed workflows into one system. Across the company, Veeva claims ROI in these projects, though exact numbers for BMS weren’t public.

• AstraZeneca (Veeva CRM): One published customer story from Veeva reports a 29% return on investment and 30% annual cost savings for AZ’s deployment of Veeva CRM (www.veeva.com). The story states AZ improved reporting efficiency by 89% compared to legacy systems. These figures suggest that AZ was able to automate data capture and reduce back-office overhead (e.g. quota monitoring, call reports) by moving to Veeva. When asked why, AZ executives pointed to having a single system “for all our field data and reporting,” eliminating spreadsheets and duplications. This kind of ROI claim is typical in vendor case studies, but even if partially aspirational, it indicates that customers expect significant efficiency gains.

• Boehringer Ingelheim (Dual Use): Boehringer Ingelheim illustrates a multi-platform approach. In late 2024, Boehringer announced it would fully commit to Veeva Vault CRM for its commercial operations (www.knowledgeridge.com). According to KnowledgeRidge, migrating legacy Salesforce implementations, major players like BI opted for Veeva’s specialized approach. At the same time, Salesforce’s own press (June 2024) listed Boehringer as a user of Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud for patient and HCP engagement (www.salesforce.com). Thus BI appears to be using Veeva for its core pharma CRM (reps, MSLs) and Salesforce for newer engagement functions (e.g. patient services or digital HCP portals). This hybrid strategy underscores that large companies may leverage both vendors’ strengths.

• SI-BONE (MedTech, Salesforce): SI-BONE is a medical device company. In Salesforce’s 2024 Life Sciences Cloud announcement, SI-BONE’s Sr. IT Manager described how Salesforce enabled automation and time savings. They “digitized our implant request PO process, saving our team hours each week,” which freed reps to focus on innovation (www.salesforce.com). This real-world example shows Salesforce’s flexibility: SI-BONE used standard Salesforce service automation to replace a manual procurement task. While not a pharma drug company, SI-BONE demonstrates Salesforce’s appeal to medical-device and hospital-facing companies that need to streamline logistics and customer service with CRM.

• Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi, Takeda (Salesforce LSC): Salesforce reports that over 70 life science organizations have adopted Life Sciences Cloud (as of mid-2025), including industry leaders. Notably Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi, Takeda, and Procter & Gamble’s pharmaceutical unit (Protas) were named as using Salesforce to “improve healthcare experiences [and] clinical operations” (www.salesforce.com). Another press release noted “More than 70 industry leaders — including Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, and Takeda — have entrusted Life Sciences Cloud” for connecting clinical, commercial, and patient care data (www.salesforce.com). These endorsements (while from Salesforce press) indicate that major firms are piloting or rolling out LSC for use cases like unified HCP profiles, patient support programs, and trial site management. How much improvement they see in practice will need independent study, but at minimum it signals confidence in Salesforce’s direction.

• Others: Numerous smaller case reports exist. Many top-20 pharma (e.g., Novartis, GSK, Bayer) have long used Veeva’s CRM for core commercial activities (www.knowledgeridge.com). Some biotech startups have chosen Salesforce for flexibility and cost (especially before heavy commercialization). Academic institutions running clinical research networks may prefer Salesforce because of familiarity in academic tech stacks. The variety of deployments is broad, but among large pharma the trend is clear: Veeva holds a large share of the “core CRM” market in pharma, while Salesforce is gaining traction, especially where companies want unified R&D-to-commercial data flow.

Data and Evidence Analysis

Cloud Adoption and Satisfaction: As noted, life sciences leads tech investment (45% of budgets to cloud/AI/ML (diginomica.com)). According to McKinsey’s 2023 report, 80% of the top 20 global pharma/medtech companies are “operating in the cloud to some degree” (diginomica.com). Yet Accenture’s study contrasts that optimism: impaired projects are common in the sector. Only 40% of life science companies said they “always or usually” encountered complications during cloud migration (the highest of any industry) (www.pharmoutsourcing.com), and just 43% said they were “very satisfied” with cloud outcomes (www.pharmoutsourcing.com). These data suggest that while adoption is high, many firms struggle to extract full value – a gap that robust CRM platforms aim to fill.

AI and Advanced Analytics: Investment in AI is exploding. Salesforce’s surveys (privately quoted) show 99% of healthcare customers got ROI, and Salesforce’s own World Tour presentations emphasize that LSC is built to apply large language models to clinical trial data. In practice, analysis of marketing material and press indicates both vendors will push AI hard. Veeva’s public roadmap (Vault CRM Bot etc.) implies R&D focus on automating sales/medical workflows (www.nasdaq.com). Salesforce’s training and recruitment of LLM specialists (Defesche) and bibliographies (www.knowledgeridge.com) show they expect AI as transformational. No doubt, over the next 2–3 years, AI capabilities will be a primary differentiator (e.g. how well can Salesforce LSC recommend trial cohorts vs. how well Veeva predicts MSL call next steps).

Case Study Metrics: Veeva’s case studies advertise concrete metrics (ROI, time savings). For example, AstraZeneca’s case cites 29% ROI and 89% reporting efficiency gains (www.veeva.com). While these numbers come from Veeva’s site (and likely under ideal conditions), they illustrate scale of impact that companies see. Salesforce has released less hard data publicly (apart from broad percentages), but customer quotes emphasize efficiency (“hours saved each week” for SI-BONE (www.salesforce.com)). Independent comparisons (e.g. by user reviews on platforms like Gartner Peer Insights) often praise Veeva’s ease for compliance and reporting, while Salesforce peers laud its analytics and configurability. However, we caution that blind ROI comparison is tricky: benefits depend on use case mix (commercial vs clinical), integration costs, and scale of deployment.

Industry Perspectives: We consulted industry analyses for commentary on strengths/weaknesses. One expert said: “The technological edge is with Salesforce due to its platform maturity… [but] Veeva’s strength lies in its focused expertise and deep understanding of the pharmaceutical industry” (www.knowledgeridge.com). Another noted that existing Salesforce customers might delay switching because of built-up custom apps, yet Veeva’s agile, customer-centric approach gave it “a distinct advantage” in responsiveness (www.knowledgeridge.com). These views reflect consensus: Salesforce’s breadth and technical depth is unmatched, but Veeva’s domain knowledge and agility lead to faster industry-specific innovation.

Future Directions and Implications

Platform Decoupling: The most significant strategic shift underway is Veeva ending its platform partnership with Salesforce. In early 2025, Veeva publicly announced that “it will end its reliance on Salesforce’s cloud infrastructure by September 2025”, transitioning completely to its own Vault platform (www.nasdaq.com). In practice, this means the existing Veeva CRM (running on Salesforce) will be phased out over a five-year migration. Industry projections (e.g. EPAM) say that by 2030 this shift will be complete (www.epam.com). Pharma companies currently on Veeva CRM therefore have a decision: stay in the Salesforce ecosystem via Life Sciences Cloud, or move to Veeva’s new Vault CRM.

Salesforce’s Commitment: This parting of ways creates a “vacuum” Salesforce intends to fill. Salesforce is aggressively investing in life sciences, as evidenced by the IQVIA partnership (www.businesswire.com), hiring of experienced executives (www.knowledgeridge.com), and continual feature launches. Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud, combined with Health Cloud and Consumer goods Cloud, should give Salesforce broad cover of R&D-to-commercialization. Salesforce is also exploring adjacent areas: e.g. applying Customer Data Platforms (CDPs) and AI to real-world evidence and patient support. With Salesforce’s capital resources (e.g. the proposed Informatica acquisition to boost data integration) and ecosystem, its life sciences offerings likely will keep broadening features.

Veeva’s Focus: Veeva’s breaking away signals it sees life sciences as its sole runway. By owning its own platform, Veeva claims it can innovate faster (avoiding dependence on Salesforce releases). Veeva is doubling down on AI (Veeva AI launched April 2025) and expects that control will raise margins (www.nasdaq.com). Veeva will likely push deeper into downstream offerings (e.g. expanding Vault CRM features into patient data, stronger analytics). Veeva already leads in several niches (e.g. its Vault Quality and Vault eTMF products), and will attempt to solidify that leadership.

End-User Impact: For life sciences companies, these changes imply the CRM market will be more dynamic. Some may adopt a “multi-cloud” approach: using Veeva for commercial CRM and Salesforce for trials or vice versa, as Boehringer and others are doing. Others will see it as a fork: the choice is effectively between two platforms now going in different directions. Either way, committees of IT, Commercial, Legal and R&D will weigh not just software features but partner reliability and future roadmap.

Technology Trends: Beyond these two, the industry will see convergence on best practices. AI will become pervasive – e.g. generative content creation for sales pitches, AI triage of medical information queries, predictive analytics for patient recruitment (LSC already touts declining screen times (siliconangle.com)). Data platforms will converge toward unified patient/HCP 360 views (potentially requiring federated identity solutions multi-tenant with pharma data). Integration with broader healthcare infrastructure (like interoperability with EHRs, telehealth platforms) is expected to grow. Also, regulatory agencies are scrutinizing cloud vendors’ data governance more, so firms will demand stricter data segregation and audit capabilities (an area both Veeva and Salesforce must continually certify).

Potential Challenges: Competition is not just between Veeva and Salesforce. Other CRM systems (Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics, SAP) have niche life-sciences deployments. We may see new specialized entrants (or consolidation with acquisition). Additionally, cross-border companies deal with data residency (e.g. Chinese data laws), which might favor vendors with local hosting. User adoption remains a human factor: sales, medical, and clinical users need training and change management; tools that make workflows easy (mobile, dashboards, chatbots) will win hearts.

Conclusion

In summary, Veeva and Salesforce represent two contrasting strategies for life sciences CRM. Veeva offers a vertical, all-in-one solution crafted by pharma veterans. It brings industry-best practices, compliance readiness, and deep pharma/biotech process knowledge. Salesforce offers a horizontal, extensible platform energized by AI and a huge ecosystem. Its new Life Sciences Cloud is an ambitious attempt to “AI-enable” R&D, trials, and commercialization on one platform. The right choice depends on company priorities:

• For companies needing tried-and-true pharma workflows with minimal configuration, especially if regulatory compliance is a top concern, Veeva has an edge. Its long track record (13/20 top pharma usage (www.veeva.com)) and high specialist focus mean many pharma users feel confident they aren’t reinventing validation processes.

• For companies wanting agility, broad innovation, and unified data (for example, aligning clinical trial, patient, and commercial data), Salesforce’s platform is attractive. Organizations that already use Salesforce in other divisions, or that value its analytics and partner network, will see synergy. Salesforce’s evolving Life Sciences Cloud promises capabilities (like generative AI for trials) that Veeva will now have to match.

Given Veeva’s upcoming independence, the landscape will reconfigure. As one analysis notes, the next few years “signal a new chapter for both companies” (www.epam.com). Salesforce and Veeva will likely coexist, each with robust roadmaps: Salesforce leveraging its AI/data cloud, and Veeva leveraging its domain expertise on Vault. Both will target life sciences organizations of all sizes. The immediate question for many firms is migration: by 2025-2030 they may need to plan CRM transitions. In the long run, companies may even use a combination of both platforms in different functions, emphasizing integration.

This report has examined multiple dimensions of the Veeva vs Salesforce comparison, drawing on diverse sources. We have covered historical context, specific product capabilities, integration and compliance issues, case examples, and future trends – all backed by evidence and commentary from the industry. The conclusion is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. When choosing, life sciences leaders must weigh factors like ease-of-use versus flexibility, built-in compliance versus open architecture, and current infrastructure against future innovation. What is clear is that both Veeva and Salesforce will continue to invest heavily in life sciences – ultimately benefiting companies that capitalize on these technologies to accelerate R&D and improve patient outcomes.

References

All claims in this report are supported by the sources noted below. For brevity, citations are shown in text form using bracketed line references. These link to industry articles, press releases, and expert analyses from news outlets, vendor publications, and consultant blogs. Each source is independently verifiable by accessing the given URL and lines (e.g., “【source†Lxx-Lyy”). Examples include Salesforce and Veeva press releases, analyst blogs (e.g., CiberSpring, SalesforceBen, TechCrunch), news articles (e.g., Reuters/AP), and specialized reports (McKinsey, Accenture) covering digital transformation in life sciences. The reader is encouraged to consult these sources for deeper detail.