Executive Summary

The life sciences industry relies heavily on customer relationship management (CRM) and engagement platforms to manage complex, highly regulated interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients, and other stakeholders. Two dominant solutions in this space are Veeva Vault CRM (formerly Veeva CRM, part of Veeva Systems’ commercial suite) and Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud (LSC) (an extension of Salesforce’s Health Cloud and Einstein AI capabilities tailored for pharma/MedTech). Each offers distinct advantages and trade-offs. Veeva Vault CRM is a mature, life-sciences-specific CRM: it was built on a compliance-first model (21 CFR Part 11, GxP) from the ground up, and serves as the core CRM for hundreds of pharma/biotech firms (^[1]) (^[2]). In contrast, Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud leverages Salesforce’s broad platform strengths (Sales Cloud, Health Cloud, Data Cloud, and new “ agentic” AI like Agentforce) to offer an integrated, patient-to-commercial data model (^[3]) (^[4]).

Key Differences (Table below) include focus and depth versus breadth of offering. Veeva’s Vault CRM (built on AWS) offers deep pharma-tailored features – for example, integrated sample management, multichannel detailing (Closed-Loop Marketing), and embedded workflows for Raisers, Medical Liaisons, and other specialized roles (^[5]) (^[1]). It enforces regulatory compliance out-of-the-box and is used by ~100 life sciences customers (roughly all top-20 pharma companies) (^[1]), with documented results (AstraZeneca reported a 29% ROI and 30% annual cost savings using Veeva (^[2])). Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud, by contrast, is newer (launched in 2023–2024) and is built on a broad platform: it emphasizes AI-driven, integrated capabilities (Agentforce AI agents, Einstein-powered email and analytics, and a unified Data Cloud connecting clinical, commercial, and patient data) (^[6]) (^[7]). Clients like Takeda and Boehringer Ingelheim are early adopters: Takeda is using LSC for customer engagement (protoyping AI agents and unified data access) (^[8]), while BI has adopted Veeva Vault for core rep/medical operations and Salesforce LSC for patient/HCP engagement (^[9]).

As of 2025, the strategic landscape is shifting. Veeva announced it will migrate Vault CRM off Salesforce’s platform onto its own Vault platform (by contract end Sept 2025) (^[10]) (^[11]), freeing Salesforce to compete directly in Life Sciences (in fact, Salesforce hired a former Veeva exec to lead Life Sciences efforts (^[12])). Industry analysts note this “CRM split” will force life sciences firms to choose between Veeva’s specialized route or Salesforce’s broad, AI-driven path (^[13]) (^[14]). For example, a recent trade whitepaper summarizes: “Veeva Vault CRM” is “built for pharma…strong regulatory alignment” (requiring migration effort), while “Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud” is “AI-enhanced…strong IQVIA partnership” (but “less domain-specific” and costlier) (^[15]).

This report provides an exhaustive comparison. We cover historical emergence and evolution of each platform, key product capabilities (multichannel engagement, analytics, compliance, AI), integration/ecosystem, market adoption, cost/ROI considerations, case studies, and the future outlook (AI trends, regulatory shifts, market consolidation). Data from vendor announcements, customer testimonials, analyst reports, and market research are used to provide evidence-based insights. Tables illustrate feature comparisons and AI capabilities. We conclude with strategic implications: when one might favor Veeva vs Salesforce, and how the competitive dynamics may evolve through 2030.

Introduction and Background

The global pharmaceutical and life sciences sector has unique CRM requirements. Unlike consumer industries, these firms must track detailed HCP engagement (including prescriptions, samples, paid speaker programs, etc.), ensure every interaction satisfies strict regulations (FDA, EMA, HIPAA, GDPR), and support long product development cycles (^[16]) (^[17]). From the first calls on physicians in the 1970s to modern multichannel e-detailing, CRM has evolved dramatically. Historically, life sciences companies relied on on-premise systems or homegrown tools for these needs, resulting in fragmented data and low agility. The rise of cloud computing and mobile technologies (accelerated by, e.g., the COVID-19 era) transformed this model.

Veeva Systems was founded in 2007 to capitalize on cloud technology for life sciences. Its founders (several former Salesforce veterans) built Veeva Vault CRM on top of Salesforce’s Force.com platform (^[18]) (^[3]) with out-of-the-box 21 CFR Part 11 compliance. Veeva bet that specialized, verticalized cloud software could “be bigger than anyone would have thought” in pharma (^[19]). By 2013 it had IPO’d, and by the early 2020s had become the standard CRM for large biopharma, with an “industry cloud for life sciences” suite (Vault, CRM, R&D apps, MDM, etc.). Veeva’s deep focus meant that from day one the product embedded regulatory workflows (e.g. electronic approvals and audit logs) so that drugmaker compliance teams didn’t have to retrofit an insurance platform (^[2]) (^[17]).

Salesforce, by contrast, pioneered general-purpose CRM (with Sales/Service/Marketing Clouds) since 1999. Its Health Cloud (2016) and other industry clouds brought healthcare features (like patient profiles, care plans) to providers and payers.Only more recently did Salesforce re-enter the pharma space with a dedicated Life Sciences Cloud (announced Dreamforce 2023, GA 2024 (^[20]) (^[21])). This product packages Salesforce’s strengths (platform scalability, Einstein AI, Einstein GPT and Agentforce agents, Data Cloud, MuleSoft) into workflows for clinical trials, patient engagement, and HCP operations (^[22]) (^[4]). Whereas Salesforce has billions in revenues across industries, its pharma offering was initially lighter on domain features. However, with the end of its partnership with Veeva (contractually by 2025 (^[11])), Salesforce is aggressively expanding Life Sciences Cloud (now also called “Customer Engagement” and “Agentforce 1 Editions”) with AI-driven automation and deep partnerships (e.g. with IQVIA) (^[21]) (^[6]).

In sum, the technical backgrounds diverge: Veeva Vault CRM’s codebase evolved from the early cloud-days with built-in compliance and field workflows, whereas Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud leverages a modern data platform (Hyperforce, Data Cloud) and new embedded AI (Einstein GPT, agentic AI) on top of a broad product family (^[3]) (^[22]). This report examines how these paths affect customers: in capabilities, costs/benefits, and strategic fit.

Company Profiles and Evolution

Veeva Systems, Inc.

Founded 2007, Veeva Systems set out to deliver a “life sciences CRM” with compliance baked in (^[23]). It built on the nascent Force.com platform (co-founder Peter Gassner was an ex-Salesforce engineer) (^[18]). Early skeptics thought cloud was too risky for regulated pharma (^[19]), but Veeva proved otherwise by vertical integration: its founders recognized that life sciences needed specialty software, not generic CRM. By 2013 Veeva went public (raising $217M, $2.4B market cap) and 2023 revenues hit ~$2.37B (^[24]), solidifying it as a leading cloud vendor for drugmakers.

Veeva’s product portfolio has expanded beyond CRM to the broader “industry cloud.” Key parts include:

• Vault Platform – A configurable cloud platform for regulated data and processes. Vault is available in modules (Quality, PromoMats, RIM, MedTech, etc.) for handling content and processes under strict audit/regulatory requirements. Vault QS (Quality & Safety) is widely used for pharmacovigilance and quality systems.

• Vault CRM (Commercial Cloud) – The flagship CRM for commercial teams (sales, marketing, medical affairs). Key features include offline-capable mobile apps, sample/inventory management, advanced CLM (closed-loop marketing; interactive reps<>HCP presentations), Approved Email, and account/HCP master data (via Veeva Network).

• Veeva OpenData and Network – A managed data service (OpenData) with profiles of HCPs/HCOs, kept updated, plus Veeva Network (MDM) to clean and manage customer records across applications.

• Veeva AI (new) – Starting late 2024, Veeva announced AI features in Vault (CRM Bot, Voice Control) (^[25]), and in Oct 2025 “Veeva AI Agents” spanning CRM, PromoMats, etc. (^[26]). These aim to bring generative AI into workflows (e.g. field-rep assistance via chat or voice).

• Partner Ecosystem – Veeva has approved partners (IQVIA data integration, Mulesoft connector (^[27]), etc.) but primarily operates in a curated ecosystem; much integration is handled via Vault’s APIs and dedicated partners.

Veeva has become the industry’s “trusted partner” (^[1]). It touts dozens of large pharma customers – e.g. AstraZeneca (who reported 29% ROI with Vault CRM (^[2])), Novo Nordisk, Novartis, J&J, Roche, etc. – and claims over 100 life science companies on Vault CRM, including all top-20 (^[1]). Its revenues (~$2.3B in FY2023 (^[24])) and market cap (~$60B by 2025) reflect this dominance in pharma commercial software. In the early 2020s, Veeva extended beyond Salesforce’s platform – its 2014 partnership was extended to 2025 (^[28]), and now Veeva is building Vault CRM on its own cloud (post-2025) (^[10]) (^[11]).

Salesforce, Inc.

Founded 1999, Salesforce is the leading global CRM company (>$40B revenue/year by 2023). It offers Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, Marketing Cloud, Commerce Cloud, plus industry clouds (Finance, Communications, etc.). In healthcare, Salesforce launched Health Cloud (2016) to manage patient/provider data (HIPAA-ready) and MuleSoft/Einstein acquisitions to integrate data and AI. (^[29]) (^[30]). Its strength lies in platform flexibility (custom objects, AppExchange ecosystem) and rapid innovation (Tableau BI, Slack, Einstein AI).

Salesforce’s specific push into life sciences began in earnest circa 2017 with a strategic alliance (e.g. integrating Veeva CRM on Force.com) (^[28]). In 2023, Salesforce unveiled a dedicated Life Sciences Cloud (also branded “for customer engagement”) to target pharma/MedTech. This offering builds on multiple components:

• Data Cloud for Health – Securely ingests and unifies disparate clinical, EHR, and patient-generated data into real-time records. Launched GA in late 2023, it enables segment creation for trial recruitment and analytics (^[31]).

• Clinical Operations Apps – Features for decentralized trials: participant management, chain-of-custody for cell/gene therapy products, integration with CTMS. For instance, Salesforce rolled out Chain of Custody (GA Feb 2024) for tracking precision medicine shipments with e-signatures (^[32]), and Participant Management (GA June 2024) for randomizing trial recruitment.

• Pharma CRM / Commercial Operations – Modules for commercial life sciences (HCP engagement, medical communications, sample/inventory management). Salesforce announced a “Pharma CRM” stack including Einstein for Life Sciences (AI email outreach, case deflection, etc.) and an HCP engagement product (AI-driven insights and closed-loop marketing) (^[22]). HCP Engagement was slated for GA Oct 2025 (^[33]). Current features include targeted Medical Sales Emails and Einstein AI suggestions.

• Partnerships – Notably, Salesforce forged partnerships with IQVIA to integrate patient and HCP data. Its press releases list Pfizer, Takeda, BI, Fresenius Kabi, P&G’s Protas, etc., as “signing up” for LSC to unify clinical/patient engagements (^[34]) (^[21]).

In early 2025, Salesforce’s Life Sciences revenue is dwarfed by its overall business, but it claims 70+ life science organizations have adopted LSC (^[34]). Salesforce benchmarks (marketing slides) boast strong ROI metrics (e.g. 99% of LS customers report positive ROI (^[35])), though these are vendor claims. Salesforce’s financials focus on the whole company (not broken out by industry), but it has accelerated its Health & Life Sciences line under executives like Bret Taylor (former Zoom) and Frank Defesche (ex-Veeva) to capture more of the pharma tech spend. Recent Q1 2025 earnings were buoyant, partly due to cost-cutting (shutting acquisition team) and organizational changes (Agentforce, etc.) (^[36]) (^[37]), giving Salesforce firepower to invest in Life Sciences.

Market Dynamics and Trends

Pharma and biotech are among the top spenders on technology globally. Industry surveys indicate life sciences companies allocate an unusually high fraction of budgets to cloud, AI and data initiatives (an estimated ~45% of tech budgets for AI/ML/cloud (^[38]), and >80% of top 20 pharma firms have moved at least partially to cloud computing (^[39])). The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing hybrid work models accelerated digital initiatives (e.g. virtual detailers, remote patient monitoring). According to McKinsey and others, though, many initiatives struggle: one report found only ~40% of pharma companies achieve expected outcomes from cloud projects (^[40]). Salesforce itself cites an industry survey that 88% of healthcare and life sciences organizations have not yet achieved their digital transformation goals (^[40]). This under-performance underscores the stakes: life sciences CRM must connect siloed R&D, clinical and commercial data to unlock true value (^[41]).

Concurrent trends are shaping the CRM landscape:

• AI and Automation: Generative AI (LLMs, automation) is hot. Life science firms are investing heavily (expectations of high GenAI budgets by 2025 (^[42])). Both competitors are leaning in. Salesforce introduced Agentforce (an “autonomous agent” framework) in Oct 2024 (^[43]) and integrated Einstein GPT across its clouds. Veeva, likewise, is embedding AI: in late 2024 it unveiled Vault CRM Bot (LLM-based assistant) and Voice Control (Apple Intelligence voice UI), with rollout of AI agents across Vault planned through 2026 (^[25]) (^[44]). These capabilities aim to boost field rep productivity and content creation.

• Regulatory and Data Challenges: New regulations (GDPR, evolving drug promotion rules, health data protection) put pressure on CRM compliance features. Veeva’s out-of-the-box compliance is a differentiator; Salesforce relies on Shield, encryption, and user-led validation (^[17]). Meanwhile, the global push for data localization and privacy means relying on another vendor’s infrastructure (i.e. Salesforce vs Veeva/AWS) is questioned. Veeva executives cite data sovereignty and uptime concerns as reasons to move off Salesforce (^[45]).

• Omnichannel Engagement: HCP engagement is increasingly multichannel: digital detailing, email (approved), webinars, field calls, etc. Payers and HCOs also demand integrated support. Veeva pioneered “closed-loop marketing” (CLM) combining rep interactions and digital campaigns. Salesforce is building comparable tools (HCP AI assistants, email/content automation). True omnichannel orchestration remains hard, especially across platforms.

• Patient-Centric Focus: Pharma is under pressure to consider patients and provider-patient interactions. Salesforce’s Health Cloud heritage and partnerships (e.g. with CE broker IQVIA) allow linking patient support programs and real-world patient data into CRM. Veeva has responded partly by acquiring (2018) a patient engagement platform (StreaMD, rebranded as Veeva Patient Cloud) and adding patient service modules, but Veeva’s core still centers on B2B HCP interactions.

• Ecosystem/Rivals: Besides Veeva and Salesforce, other players exist (IQVIA’s OCE platform, Microsoft Dynamics Health, Cloudbyz, EXEEVO, etc.), especially among smaller biotechs and regional markets. However, the high-regulation nature of pharma keeps scale limited: large firms prefer proven vendors. M&A among vendors (e.g. Veeva-OCE codevelopments, Salesforce’s partnerships) will influence product roadmaps.

In summary, the life sciences CRM market in 2025 is characterized by intense digital investment (competitive pressures and tech hype) and a transitional moment (the decoupling of Veeva-Salesforce and the emergence of new AI-driven platforms) 続. As companies reevaluate their CRM strategies, understanding each platform’s depth versus breadth, and its future trajectory, is essential.

Product Comparison: Veeva Vault CRM vs Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud

To compare Veeva Vault CRM and Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud (LSC) for pharma, we examine core functions, compliance, data/integration, customization, user experience, and advanced capabilities (AI, analytics, etc.). We structure comparisons in narrative and tables below.

1. Core Commercial CRM Functionality

Veeva Vault CRM (Commercial Cloud): Veeva Vault CRM is a purpose-built CRM for the pharmaceutical life sciences industry. It provides customer master data (via Vault Network), account/territory management, lead generation tracking, call planning, and activity capture. Crucially, it includes tools specific to pharma sales & marketing:

• Multichannel Engagement: Veeva supports field reps through multiple channels – face-to-face visits (with mobile apps), approved email, and interactive CLM presentations (^[46]). The CLM module (“Closed-Loop Marketing”) allows reps to deliver interactive slide decks, capture feedback, and trigger follow-up campaigns. Veeva claims “orchestrated multichannel engagement” via features like Approved Email and Veeva Engage (live webcasting) (^[46]).
• Sample/Inventory/Contract Management: Veeva includes pharma-specific objects for managing drug samples and physician grant programs in compliance with regulations. For example, sample requests, consents, and inventory levels are tracked to maintain 21 CFR and anti-kickback compliance.
• Insights and Analytics: Vault CRM has embedded analytics at point of use – e.g. MyInsights dashboards in the interface (^[46]). It can provide call guidance or performance KPIs tied to CRM actions.
• Promotional Content Management: Veeva’s Vault PromoMats integration ensures promotional materials (approved by MLR) are available within CRM workflows, automatically. Field reps can only send content that is MLR-approved; Veeva’s platform tightly couples CRM and promotional authoring.
• Regulatory Compliance: Every user action in Veeva CRM (calls, sample logs, etc.) is timestamped and auditable per FDA’s Part 11. Veeva certifies the Vault platform is 21 CFR Part 11–compliant interally, reducing customer validation effort. Companies report that switching to Vault CRM improved data integrity: AZ noted an 89% improvement in reporting efficiency (time saved) after adopting Veeva (^[47]).
• Recognition: Veeva bills Vault CRM as “the most advanced and only proven life sciences CRM” (^[48]). Its strength lies in these domain-specific workflows, which are mature from years of iterations with pharma customers (^[1]) (^[5]).

Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud (Commercial Operations + Pharma CRM): Salesforce’s LSC is built on its Sales Cloud and Health Cloud core, with life-science extensions. Key aspects:

• Unified Platform: All patient and HCP data (from marketing, sales, trials, patient services) is on one data model (Customer 360). This can give broader insight if an HCP interacts with multiple products or trials. Out-of-the-box, however, Sales Cloud deals (opportunities), leads, contacts, and accounts work as usual. Salesforce Health Cloud primarily focuses on patient profiles/Care Plans, but its models can be extended for HCP profiles as well.
• Channel Tools: Salesforce provides traditional Sales Cloud features (task scheduling, call logging, forecasting, pipeline management) plus some life-science add-ons. LSC adds modules: e.g., Medical Sales Email (genAI-crafted emails to providers) (^[49]), Chain of Custody for gene therapy products (^[32]), and eventually HCP Engagement AI agents (GA Oct 2025) that tailor next-best interactions (^[22]). While Salesforce supports email and field visits, it has no built-in CLM equivalent (though MSL might attach Approved Docs or use third-party integration).
• Omnichannel Marketing: Salesforce Marketing Cloud (part of the stack) can run cross-channel campaigns (email, SMS, social). For life sciences, LSC integrates Marketing Cloud with MLR processes but is generally less pre-packaged than Veeva’s CLM.
• Data and Analytics: Salesforce excels in analytics via Tableau/Einstein. LSC includes the Data Cloud for Health (unifies real-time patient/HCP data) and Tableau Health Intelligence (predictive analytics on inventory, forecasting) (^[49]). For example, it can alert reps to stockouts or suggest rebates.
• MLR and Content: Salesforce-designated “Pharma CRM” supports MLR by allowing only approved content usage (as noted in their pub (^[22])), but users must configure this. Salesforce’s Service Center (new) can centralize medical/scientific communications. Unlike Veeva’s integrated Vault, achieving 21 CFR compliance for these functions relies on the customer using Salesforce Shield and processes to reproduce audit trails (^[30]) (^[17]).
• Patients and Trials: A major advantage for LSC is built-in patient and trial features. Clinical data can feed into engagement – e.g., segmenting patients for outreach. Veeva’s commercial CRM has traditionally not handled patients, whereas Salesforce’s life sciences platform explicitly includes patient support and trial management tools (Recruitment Manager, Participant Management) (^[50]).

Summary Comparison: Veeva Vault CRM has deeper out-of-the-box HCP commercial functions (especially multichannel detailing and compliance) and a tuned UI (“Sunrise”) for reps (^[46]). Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud offers broader connectivity and innovation (AI agents, unified platform, patient integration) but initially lacked some pharma-specific tools. A table of high-level contrasts is below.

Table 1: High-level comparison of Veeva Vault CRM vs Salesforce Life Sciences (Pharma) Cloud. Stats and quotes from industry sources provide illustration (see references).

2. Compliance, Regulation, and Security

Life sciences CRM must meet stringent requirements. Veeva’s advantage has long been its built-in compliance framework: Vault applications (including CRM, Quality, RIM) are developed and delivered under GxP validation processes (^[17]). Every transaction (e.g. call reports, sample logs) is recorded with audit trail, and electronic signatures (for approvals) comply with regulations (FDA 21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11, etc.). As one case notes, AstraZeneca’s ROI included a large efficiency jump (+89% reporting efficiency) partly because Veeva replaced a homegrown system that lacked scalable audit/data capture (^[47]). The Vault platform’s cloud infrastructure (hosted on AWS) is certified for HIPAA, FedRAMP, ISO, and GDPR, giving pharma compliance teams assurances. Veeva also emphasizes validation support: it offers test cases and documentation to help customers with their own validation processes (e.g., SK Life Science accelerated its validation with Veeva Vault Validation Manager (^[56])).

Salesforce’s approach is different. Salesforce is a double-key system: the company provides the platform (with features like Shield Platform Encryption, compliance certifications, and monthly security patches), but each life sciences customer must validate their own implementation. Salesforce states it aligns with Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP 5) by fitting into a customer’s Quality Management System (^[17]). It holds HPC/HIPAA certifications and was a founding member of the EU cloud GDPR code of conduct (^[30]). Salesforce will not outright say “we are 21 CFR Part 11 compliant” – instead, customers must configure things like Field Audit Trails, encryption, and e-signature processes themselves. The new Life Sciences Cloud team is educating customers on how to use features like Shield Audit Trail and how to structure QMS to cover Salesforce records. Salesforce also provides a Trust & Compliance Documentation portal where customers can get Certificate of Compliance, data processing addenda, etc (^[17]).

In short, Veeva Vault CRM offers compliance turnkey for regulated processes, whereas Salesforce offers compliance-capable infrastructure. For example, Veeva’s CRM inherently includes 21 CFR electronic signature support; Salesforce Health Cloud can store PHI and is GDPR/HIPAA-ready, but pharma customers will still need to run validation (e.g. via an internal quality process) to use it in a regulated manner. The late-2025 Veeva blog explicitly claims “Vault CRM versus Salesforce CRM” questions are about risk – “Salesforce is too risky and too expensive” because of lack of built-in compliance (^[53]). While bias is expected (Veeva CEO Gassner wrote that), it underscores that Salesforce users need to be more diligent in governance (and face higher customization costs for compliance) (^[53]).

Another compliance aspect is data residency and sovereignty. Veeva’s move off Salesforce was partly to reduce outage risk and centralize data on AWS (^[11]) (^[45]). The Motley Fool noted Veeva had “experienced significant outages” on Salesforce and aims to consolidate on AWS for better reliability (^[45]). For multinational pharma, the ability to choose data regions or meet GDPR right-to-be-forgotten might be easier on their own Veeva-controlled cloud than on Salesforce’s Hyperforce (which spans AWS/Google MS Azure globally). In contrast, Salesforce’s broad presence (with data centers worldwide) is a plus for geo-compliance, but data control ultimately rests with customers via platform tools.

3. Data Integration and Ecosystem

Modern CRM is only as good as the data it contains and can share. Both Veeva Vault CRM and Salesforce LSC support large-scale integration, but via different models.

Veeva Integration: Veeva’s Vault is the core of its integration strategy. It provides robust REST APIs and webhooks for Vault CRM and other Vault apps, facilitating real-time data flows. For example, field force data captured in CRM can automatically update commercial analytics, MDM, or reporting systems. Veeva also built MuleSoft Anypoint Connectors specifically for Vault applications (^[27]), recognizing that life sciences customers commonly use multiple enterprise systems. The MuleSoft connector “simplifies integration” by handling API calls to Vault, which otherwise would require custom coding (^[27]). Veeva’s MDM (Vault Network) serves as a central HCP/HCO registry, enabling clean, unified customer data across regions and products; this feeds into CRM and ensures all teams work off the same account records. Veeva also partners with EI (IQVIA, Elsevier, etc.) for reference data (addresses, specialty codes). When migrating CRM data out of Salesforce (post-2025), Veeva provides tools (ETL, mapping) to help customers port historical call logs and HCP data into the new Vault CRM.

Salesforce Integration: Salesforce provides Data Cloud (formerly Customer Data Platform) to unify data, and MuleSoft Anypoint to connect anything. Salesforce has prebuilt connectors for many data sources – including, tellingly, a beta Veeva Vault connector to ingest Vault data into Data Cloud (^[52]). This indicates Salesforce’s strategy: even as Veeva decouples, Salesforce will still allow drugs companies to bring their Vault data into Salesforce for unified analysis. Salesforce’s AppExchange marketplace offers thousands of apps: e.g. EHR connectors (Cerner/EPIC), BI tools (Tableau), eSignature (DocuSign), and industry-specific tools (Greenphire for trials, etc.). The advantage is breadth: if a pharma requires integration with a novel system (IoT medical device, ERP like SAP, etc.), chances are there’s an AppExchange or CDC solution.

For analytics, Veeva offers its own Veeva Vault Reports & Dashboards for CRM data (on the Salesforce platform, pre-2025) and Vault Analytics offerings via partnerships (e.g. with Tableau). Salesforce natively offers powerful analytics (Einstein, Tableau) that can pipe through Data Cloud to deliver predictive AI insights. For example, Salesforce health-intelligence can forecast inventory needs across geographies (^[49]).

Table 2: AI and Automation Capabilities

Table 2: AI and automation features in Veeva Vault CRM vs Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud. Both platforms are aggressively integrating generative AI – Veeva through Vault-specific agents and voice, Salesforce through its broader Agentforce and Einstein GPT. (Sources: Veeva press releases (^[25]) (^[44]); Salesforce press (^[43]) (^[51])).

4. Deployment, Customization, and Maintenance

Implementing a CRM in life sciences is non-trivial.

Veeva Vault CRM Deployment: Historically, Vault CRM was deployed as a SaaS solution (on Salesforce platform). With the 2025 split, new customers will deploy on Veeva’s proprietary Vault cloud (AWS). Either way, Veeva’s model emphasizes standard configuration over heavy customization. Common customizations include setting up geo-specific territory definitions, custom fields for local regulations, and MLR approval processes – but these are typically templated in Veeva’s apps. Because Veeva’s CRM is so “deep” in industry logic, many companies report faster go-live cycles compared to building on generic CRM (^[53]). However, transitioning off Salesforce means existing customers must treat Vault CRM migration as a re-platform rather than day-1 cutover. Veeva provides migration tools (“metadata API,” scripts) to move data and configurations. The worst-case “rip-and-replace” cost is high: industry sources estimate $4–$15 million for a global pharma to move CRM to Vault (depending on footprint) (^[55]). Ongoing maintenance is handled by Veeva: 12- to 18-month release cycles, with mandatory up-certification for customers. Veeva is a PBC (public-benefit corporation) and claims to prioritize “customer success,” but heavy uptime and support processes are oriented to enterprise SLAs.

Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud Deployment: Salesforce offers more modularity: a company can deploy Sales Cloud/Health Cloud and incrementally add Life Sciences features. Deployment often involves enabling Health and Life Sciences Clouds, Data Cloud setup, and then customizing or coding needed clinical modules. Because LSC is effectively a collection of features on existing platform, deployment is flexible but might require stitching together multiple clouds (Sales, Service, Marketing, Data, Health). Implementation partners (Accenture, Deloitte, iTech, etc.) have developed accelerators for LSC (for example, a “Foundations Kit” for pharma) but each customer’s org tends to be heavily customized. For instance, building Einstein GPT-based assistants or specialized Med Info Case flows requires some developer work. Salesforce promotes “declarative” low-code tools (Flow, Data Cloud recipes) to reduce dev work. Upgrades are frequent (3x/year releases), but since everything runs on a unified platform, upgrades are typically seamless to end users (though LSC’s newest features will follow Salesforce’s release train). Companies also reuse existing Salesforce investments (e.g. SAML logins, Outlook/email sync, etc.), which can reduce marginal cost.

Customization and Ecosystem: Veeva customers often comment that customizing Salesforce for pharma would entail building many features that Veeva provides out-of-the-box (^[53]). Indeed, Peter Gassner claims Salesforce users must reinvent compliance and CLM if not on Vault (^[53]). Veeva’s viewpoint is that the market cannot economically sustain two full-featured pharma CRM platforms (echoing past Oracle vs Veeva comparisons (^[61])). In practice, organizations customarily handle this by dual-usage or best-of-breed: e.g., maintain Veeva for core rep tracking, but build Salesforce apps for adjacent functions (patient programs, HCP portals). On pricing, Veeva’s CRM subscription is expensive (vendor doesn’t publish list prices, but CFO Commentary suggests 12–15% of revenue is paid to Salesforce as “cost of subscriptions” for Vault CRM on Salesforce (^[62])). Salesforce LSC pricing is similarly custom-quoted per user or per solution; negotiations often reflect overall company footprint and co-development (especially since Salesforce does not want to undercut Veeva’s margins precipitously).

5. Case Studies and Evidence

Veeva ROI and Customer Outcomes: Veeva and its partners have documented ROI cases. For example, AstraZeneca’s medical affairs team moved from an on-prem .NET CRM to Vault CRM and reported a 29% return on investment along with 30% annual cost savings (^[2]). AZ also saw an 89% improvement in reporting efficiency, attributing gains to eliminating spreadsheets and duplicate data entry (^[2]). Novo Nordisk cites Veeva’s AI agents (Pre-call Agent, Voice Agent) as promising major productivity boosts (^[63]). Globally, a Veeva white paper highlights that “over 100 biopharmas – including the top 20” have adopted Vault CRM (^[1]). These customers emphasize Veeva’s industry specificity: for instance, Novo Nordisk chose Veeva to have software “that’s ahead of the curve” with life-science AI (^[63]). With such endorsement, Veeva’s strength is heavily validated in the market.

Salesforce LSC Adoption: Salesforce has fewer independently published pharma ROI studies to date, but its customer lists and press releases convey traction. In May 2025, Salesforce announced Takeda will use LSC for Customer Engagement (^[8]), highlighting personalized AI agents across medical, commercial, and patient support functions (^[8]). Takeda’s CIO is also co-authoring an industry AI whitepaper, illustrating SF’s strategy to co-innovate with users. In the 2024 Dreamforce keynote and publications, Salesforce named Boehringer Ingelheim, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, Takeda, and others among the life science leaders entrusting LSC for “connecting clinical, commercial, and patient care operations” (^[34]) (^[4]). While formal ROI metrics (e.g. % improvements) are scarce, Salesforce showcases narrative successes: e.g., Penumbra (medical device) unified its commercial ops on LSC, halving operating costs (^[64]), and Mirum’s patient services moved in-house on LSC for rare diseases (^[65]). Additionally, SI-BONE (a spine med-tech company) used Einstein bots on Service Cloud (closely related to LSC’s agent capabilities) to automate procurement requests, saving “hours each week” for reps (^[66]). These cases illustrate Salesforce’s flexibility: large pharma is piloting it for unified data flow, while device biotech is using it to streamline service.

Hybrid Deployments: Some large companies are using both. Boehringer Ingelheim is a cited example: it committed to Veeva Vault CRM for its core sales/MSL force (electing to “full commit to Veeva’s specialized approach for commercial operations” (^[9])), yet simultaneously uses Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud for patient and HCP engagement activities, as listed by Salesforce’s press (^[9]). Similarly, smaller biotechs or regional companies might run Veeva for core CRM but use Salesforce Health Cloud/LSC for patient programs or partner collaboration, reflecting their pre-existing Salesforce infrastructure. This suggests a reality: for cross-channel or patient-focused initiatives, Salesforce has momentum, whereas for rep-driven every-day CRM, Veeva remains entrenched among incumbents.

Quantitative Summary: It is difficult to find independent market share data, but a rough picture emerges: Veeva Vault CRM is used by almost all major pharma companies for field operations (e.g. Veeva itself claimed 47 of top 50 pharma in 2019 (^[67])). Salesforce LSC, only launched fully in 2024, has dozens of significant customers by mid-2025 (70+ organizations (^[34]) including industry leaders). Given top pharma are already on Veeva, Salesforce’s near-term adoption will focus on newcomers, digital initiatives (tele-sales, patient apps), or cross-division pilots. Analysts note that by 2030 every global pharma with Veeva on Salesforce will have to move to either Veeva’s independent platform or Salesforce’s new product (^[6]). The transition period is playing out now.

Data Analysis and Evidence-Based Insights

Beyond anecdotes, some data points illustrate the trade-offs:

• ROI and Efficiency: Veeva’s AstraZeneca case (^[2]) is often cited. By contrast, publicly available ROI for Salesforce in Pharma is limited. However, Salesforce claims (e.g. on its marketing site (^[35])) indicate typical metrics: “five times faster ROI with Agentforce for Health” and 99% positive ROI (2024 Salesforce HLS customers). These metrics (from Salesforce’s own surveys) should be taken cautiously, but suggest customers do see benefits in AI automation. Meanwhile, independent surveys (Gartner Peer Insights) give Veeva high satisfaction in pharma CRM reviews (often 4-5 stars), whereas Salesforce Health Cloud (general healthcare CRM) also scores well but suffers an “N/A” in life-sciences specificity. (Peer Insights shows Veeva CRM with 4.5+ stars among 200+ ratings in life sciences category; Salesforce Health Cloud has fewer pharma ratings.)

• Project Success Rates: Analysts from McKinsey and Accenture warn that life sciences IT projects often underdeliver (as noted above). The US Pharma Marketing article (^[55]) underscores this: it warns of multi-million-dollar migration costs for moving platforms, and “compliance nightmares” if migrations break audit trails. It argues the industry “cannot tolerate” siloed systems (^[68]). Thus, one risk/benefit lens is total cost of ownership – including migration effort and downtime. While precise numbers vary, Veeva migration is a one-time large cost, whereas adopting Salesforce LSC (for new functions) avoids an immediate migration but still incurs integration and training costs.

• Customer Satisfaction: Veeva frequently surveys its customers (industry conferences, benchmarking) showing high user satisfaction, especially for field CRM tasks. Salesforce’s benchmarks (via IDC research releases) show that 80%+ of Life Sciences Cloud pilot customers report improved data visibility and collaboration after rollout. (For example, Salesforce cited a case where an HCP engagement pilot at a pharma saw “7% increase in patient adherence” (^[35]).) KOL consultants also note that large legacy pharma trust Veeva for critical processes, whereas agile biotechs pick Salesforce for versatility.

• Budget Trends: Some data suggests pharma CRM spend is growing mid-single-digits annually as cloud adoption rises. Mordor Intelligence forecasts the global pharma CRM software market to grow ~10% CAGR, reaching ~$8–9 billion by 2025 (^[69]). The lion’s share of this has been Veeva’s as it was early mover; Salesforce’s share is still small but rapidly expanding. The digital budget shift (45% on new tech (^[38])) implies CRM is capturing more AI and data science dollars than a decade ago.

Case Studies and Real-World Examples

Below are exemplars illustrating how organizations leverage each platform. These cases highlight specific outcomes or strategies, providing concrete insight beyond feature lists.

• AstraZeneca (Veeva Vault CRM): AZ’s Medical Affairs moved from a custom on-prem CRM to Vault CRM (medical science liaisons, safety, regulatory use it). They reported a 29% ROI and 30% cost savings (^[2]). The key benefits cited were reduction in maintenance overhead and elimination of spreadsheets. An AZ executive said: “The ROI for Veeva CRM at AstraZeneca was 29% with cost savings of 30% annually. You can’t get much better than that.” (^[2]) AZ’s example underscores Veeva’s commercial impact. In another part of AZ, the field teams now use Veeva to integrate HCP data, call reporting, and CLM, enabling cross-team collaboration globally.

• Novo Nordisk (Veeva Vault CRM with AI): Novo Nordisk’s head of field systems, Frank Armenante, stated that with Veeva “we want to ensure… that our software is cutting edge” and was optimistic about Vault CRM’s built-in AI features (^[63]). Novo’s teams support multiple business units (diabetes, obesity, etc.) and they expertly plan to use new Veeva AI agents (Pre-call Agent, Voice Agent) to focus sales calls on high-potential customers (^[70]). They also use Veeva Service Center (a vaulted app) to unite data for omni-channel engagement (^[71]). This case highlights Veeva’s deployment of advanced tools and their promise: pre-call agent prioritizes next HS, voice agent lets reps log calls hands-free, aiming to turn data into real-time actions without leaving the CRM interface (^[70]).

• Boehringer Ingelheim (Dual Strategy): As captured in IntuitionLabs research (^[9]), BI opted for two platforms: they migrated legacy global Salesforce CRM usage into Veeva Vault CRM for Pharma (doing away with the old multi-country SF setup) (^[9]). Simultaneously, BI engaged with Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud (as noted by Salesforce press) for patient support and HCP engagement. In other words, BI’s commercial field teams now run on Veeva (reps and MSLs), whereas their patient services and some digital outreach run on Salesforce (^[9]). This hybrid approach underscores the “two-horses” strategy when both platforms have merits: BI benefits from Veeva’s mature field CRM and Salesforce’s scalable patient/trial tech. BI’s case also demonstrates Salesforce’s willingness to highlight that even long-time customers of Veeva might pick up LSC for new functions.

• Takeda (Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud – Customer Engagement): In May 2025, Salesforce announced that Takeda would implement Life Sciences Cloud (Customer Engagement edition) to enhance HCP and patient engagement (^[8]). Takeda will use Salesforce’s fully unified platform (Data Cloud + Agentforce + Einstein) to deploy AI agents across medical, commercial, and patient support functions (^[8]). While this is an early-stage partnership (with Takeda influencing future product features), it is significant: Takeda is a top-10 pharma. The official quote from Frank Defesche emphasizes “improve provider and patient engagement and scale the impact of every team member” (^[72]). This indicates Takeda’s vision of a connected, AI-driven CRM ecosystem rather than disparate systems. Salesforce will measure success in terms of user adoption and engagement metrics over time.

• SI-BONE (MedTech, Salesforce Service/LSC): A smaller (but insightful) case: SI-BONE, a medical device firm primarily dealing with hospitals, used Salesforce (Health/Service Cloud) to automate its implant ordering process. Its IT manager reported that digitizing a manual PO process “saved our team hours each week… freeing reps to focus on innovation” (^[66]). Although in pure healthcare context, this example (from Salesforce marketing) shows how Salesforce’s flexible platform (even before LSC launch) can quickly address a niche pharma/MedTech need using standard Salesforce capabilities (workflow automation, Service bots, etc.). It suggests that companies in device or specialized pharma markets, especially those already on Salesforce CRM, may find LSC a natural extension.

Each of these cases aligns with one of our broader points: Veeva CRM drives demonstrated ROI in field operations (AZ case), and Salesforce’s Life Sciences Cloud is being chosen for integrated, AI-driven engagement (Takeda, SI-BONE) or as a supplementary platform in hybrid models (Boehringer).

Implications and Future Directions

The competitive split between Veeva Vault CRM and Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud has several industry-wide implications:

• Industry Consolidation: As Veeva and Salesforce compete, other CRM vendors may struggle. Smaller platforms (EXEEVO, Cloudbyz, Indegene Amp, etc.) target niches (regional or startup biotech) but lack Veeva’s maturity. The US Pharma Marketing article speculates that multiple providers cannot thrive at scale in this vertical (^[61]). Likely, either Salesforce will rise or retreat by ~2030 while Veeva remains the incumbent. The “divorce” leaves biotech CEOs with a clear task: pick one as their CRM backbone or risk complexity (^[73]).

• Migration & Data Strategy: Companies formerly committed to Salesforce must now plan “CRM dueling” strategies. Some will migrate fully to Veeva Vault CRM (especially if primarily HCP engagement), while others on Salesforce may invest more in LSC features (or rebuild HCP CRM on the Salesforce platform). Data migration is a daunting challenge: CRM histories (call data, MLR approvals, consents) must either move into Vault or be phase-out. The USPM article warns of “data migration nightmares”: terabytes of data, audit trails, and schema mismatches (^[74]). One solution may be a hybrid rollout – keep existing Veeva CRM data active while piloting Salesforce LSC for new engagements, then moderately harmonize via APIs or EDWs.

• AI Integration: Both vendors will continue heavy investment in AI. Veeva’s timeline (agents Dec 2025, voice, etc.) suggests it will catch up to Salesforce’s Agentforce capability, but with domain context. Salesforce’s platform advantage is that they can leverage generic AI research (OpenAI/Einstein) rapidly and apply it to LSC via Data Cloud datasets. In practice, users should evaluate how accurate/regulated these tools are – pharma will demand guardrails (especially in medical communications). By 2025’s end, LSC and Veeva will likely both offer “agentic” features (automated email to doctors, auto-summarization of KOL comments, etc.), shifting the CRM role toward AI-assisted workflows. How effectively each platform embeds regulatory guardrails in these AI helpers will be critical (e.g., filtering out unapproved claims).

• Patient/Clinical Focus: Salesforce’s advantage in patient and trial engagement is unlikely to be matched by Veeva’s core products (until Veeva expands its Patient Cloud more). As treatments become more specialized (gene therapies, digital health apps), pharma may need unified CRM/patient systems. Veeva has responded by adding some patient modules, but the breadth of Salesforce’s ecosystem (including Health Cloud integration with EMRs) may lure companies aiming for a single system across commercialization and patient support. Conversely, Veeva’s synergies with its Vault R&D and clinical product (Vault CDMS, etc.) could become a differentiator for biotech that wants a single vendor for clinical and commercial data.

• Global and Niche Markets: For global pharma, the decision usually comes down to tradition and scale: large multinationals who have spent years tailoring Veeva CRM see high switching costs and may lean on Veeva’s Vault suite for consistency across markets. Smaller or purely U.S./EU biotechs might pick Salesforce for its flexibility and lower upfront cost (since they may not have line-of-business segregation or can use standard Sales Cloud features with mods). The “life sciences Cloud” term itself underscores that Salesforce is trying to create an ecosystem within its broad platform, which could eventually spill over into adjacent sectors (Animal Health CRM, Nutraceuticals, etc.).

• Economic Impact on Vendors: Veeva expects to eliminate ~12% of cost-of-revenue by moving off Salesforce (^[62]), improving margins. Salesforce, in turn, lost ~12% of Veeva’s spend (as a partner) and must find that growth with new products. Both have powerful engineering teams: Veeva will likely double-down on pharma (R&D, Medical Affairs, supply chain apps) while Salesforce races to beef up LSC and “agentic enterprises” by 2025–2030. This competition should spur more innovation (e.g. maybe MuleSoft AI for pharma, new Veeva AI healthcare modules, or even merger of partners). For example, Salesforce hiring Frank Defesche signals a long-term life sciences bet (^[12]).

• Strategic Decision-Making by Pharma: For life science CIOs and CMOs, this “fork” in the road is crucial. Strategy must consider total ecosystem: e.g. if using Salesforce for enterprise CRM or AI, maybe LSC aligns better; if a vendor’s commercial systems are Lotus of the universe (like J&J is fully on Salesforce non-pharma already), syncing them might favor LSC. Otherwise, vertical integration might favor Veeva. Analytical considerations include expected ROI (e.g. AZ’s 29% ROI vs. unknown but promised SF ROI), regulatory risk, user experience, and vendor lock-in. The USPM checklist highlights points: ensuring compliance (Part 11, HIPAA) on any new system, planning for multi-CRM scenarios, refactoring content/MLR processes, and negotiating aggressively with vendors in this window (^[75]).

In the near future (2025–2026), expect both vendors to close gaps: Veeva’s own CRM agents and fully independent Vault Cloud; Salesforce shipping LSC HCP engagement (Oct 2025), expanding Data Cloud connectivity (especially to Veeva & IQVIA), and possibly reintroducing Pharma Sales apps that Veeva once provided. By long-term (2027–2030), analysts wonder if a dual-market can coexist or if one vendor will dominate. The consensus (also voiced by Veeva’s CEO) is that one will be the clear leader in global commercial CRM by 2030 (^[61]).

Finally, beyond corporate CRM, these platforms influence healthcare outcomes indirectly. If CRM is more efficient, reps spend time on science and patient outcomes improve. For example, Salesforce touts that LSC use cases ultimately allow “providers to spend more time with patients” through AI simplification (^[76]). Veeva similarly argues its faster processes get therapies to patients faster by focusing reps on value (^[63]). The ultimate metric for pharma is patient benefit and competitive advantage; CRM is a tool toward that. The heavy investment in AI indicates that both systems will increasingly aim to not only track interactions, but actively suggest the next best actions to improve patient care (e.g. identifying underserved patients, optimizing trial enrollment, or flagging adverse events earlier).

Conclusion

In 2025, Veeva Vault CRM and Salesforce Life Sciences Cloud represent two distinct CRM paradigms for pharma. Veeva offers depth: a proven, specialized solution fine-tuned for pharma mechanics and compliance, with years of customer success (evidenced by high industry adoption and ROI claims). Salesforce offers breadth and innovation: a giant platform bringing world-class data management, AI, and an expansive partner ecosystem to life sciences. Each serves multiple stakeholders: Veeva primarily serves field sales, medical, and regulatory/compliance teams; Salesforce targets clinical operations, patient support, and cross-functional data unification in addition to traditional sales/service roles.

Going forward, life sciences organizations must weigh these trade-offs carefully. Existing Veeva users face a large migration (to either new Vault infrastructure or building out LSC-equivalent in Salesforce), whereas new or diversifying firms may lean on Salesforce’s latest tools. For some, a hybrid strategy (existing CRM tasks on one, augmented by the other) may be “hedge the bet,” but this brings complexity. The market is also waiting to see how fast and well each vendor can deliver roadmap promises – particularly in AI, integration, and regulatory support.

Ultimately, the choice will shape a company’s commercial technology landscape for years to come. A 2025 industry observer notes that this is “not just a technology breakup… [but] a forced strategic realignment” for pharma (^[77]). Whichever CRM platform a company chooses – be it Veeva Vault, Salesforce LSC, or (less likely) a third option – it must align that choice with its vision of multichannel engagement, compliance, and digital transformation. The evolution of Veeva and Salesforce through 2030 will be a defining factor in how efficiently the pharmaceutical industry can bring therapies to patients while navigating the maze of regulations and channels.

References: Authoritative sources, together with vendor releases and industry analyses, have been cited throughout (e.g. Veeva and Salesforce press releases (^[49]) (^[25]); reputable news outlets (^[11]) (^[2]) (^[8]) (^[15]); and neutral analysts (^[6]) (^[38])). These elucidate the facts and figures (e.g. adoption rates, financials, ROI) underlying the comparison. The reader is encouraged to consult the cited links for detailed verification and context.