UserCue
Private EquityHealthcare & Life SciencesInsightsContact
Talk to our team
UserCue
Private EquityHealthcare & Life SciencesInsightsContact
Talk to our team
Newsletter

Stay up to date with UserCue

Case studies, product updates, and findings from our research.

By subscribing, you agree to receive UserCue research notes and product updates. Unsubscribe anytime.

UserCue

Primary research for high-trust industries.

Expert-led. AI-native.

Research for
Private EquityHealthcare & Life Sciences
Insights
Case studies
Company
ContactLinkedInPrivacyTerms
© 2026 UserCue. All rights reserved.
Insights / Case studies / Healthcare & Life Sciences

Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences

HEOR buyers would switch first, for data they can trace.

Whether to enter the real-world evidence market, and which team inside a drug maker to approach first, was the call facing a health data company. Each of four functions supplied 50 of the 200 interviews, and the report took 14 days.

Illustrative scenario
Samplen = 200

Illustrative report

Real-World Evidence Vendor Landscape

Is there room for one more real-world evidence vendor, and which team inside a drug maker would switch first?

Study architecture

01
Rank the criteriaWhat each function weighs in a vendor, and the proof it needs
02
Gauge the switchSatisfaction with today’s vendor and the likelihood of moving
03
Test the priceSwitching at today’s price, a tenth below and a fifth below

Scope

Buyers who complain about their data may still stay put unless a new vendor fixes the thing their own team is judged on.

Sample

200

Buyers of real-world evidence in R&D, HEOR, medical affairs and commercial teams.

Research by UserCue
Study typeMarket entry
ScenarioIllustrative
Real-world evidence vendors · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

HEOR teams want data they can trace, and they are the most ready to switch vendors

The 200 buyers of real-world evidence, 50 from each function, ranked what they weigh in a vendor and said how likely they are to switch. Patient-level depth leads overall, but HEOR puts traceable data lineage first and rates its current vendors lowest on it. HEOR buyers are the most likely to switch, at 46%, and a discount moves few buyers.

28%n = 200
of all buyers would likely switch at today’s price
46%n = 50
of HEOR buyers would likely switch at today’s price
38%n = 50
of HEOR buyers satisfied with their vendor on lineage
68%n = 200
want a side-by-side test before they would switch

Figures rounded. Base n = 200 buyers, 50 per function, unless stated.

Top lines

1Buyers rank patient-level depth first and price sixth of eightSelection criteria indexed to the top one03
2HEOR puts data lineage first and rates its vendors lowest on itSatisfaction with today’s vendor by function04
3HEOR teams are the most likely to switchSwitching intent by function05
4A fifth off the price lifts switching by six pointsSwitching at three price steps, and the proof needed06
5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07
AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

200 buyers of real-world evidence

Functions

50 each in four functions

Method

AI-moderated interviews, ranked criteria

Price

Three steps, set against today’s price

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02
Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Illustrative scenario
Delivered in
14

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews
200

People who pick or renew their team’s real-world evidence vendor.

Audiences
4

50 each in R&D, HEOR, medical affairs and commercial.

Method
Price ladder

Eight vendor criteria ranked by function, then switching at three price steps.

The brief
Client

A health data company

Decision

Whether to enter the real-world evidence market, and which team to target first

Stage

Market entry assessment, before building a sales team

How we ran it
Approach

AI-moderated interviews with ranked criteria and a price ladder

Measured

Selection criteria, vendor satisfaction, switching, price steps

Sample

Buyers in R&D, HEOR, medical affairs and commercial

Headline figures

Switching46%

of HEOR buyers would likely switch at today’s price, over double the other three functions combined

Data lineage38%

of HEOR buyers are satisfied with their current vendor on traceable data lineage

Price34%

of all buyers would likely switch at a fifth below today’s price, up from 28%

The question

Which team would switch to a new evidence vendor?

The data company saw drug makers spreading real-world evidence work across several vendors, each chosen by a different function. Before it built a sales team, it needed evidence from the people who pick and renew those vendors, with an equal voice for R&D, health economics and outcomes research (HEOR), medical affairs and commercial.

1

What does each function weigh most when it chooses a real-world evidence vendor?

2

How likely is each function to switch from the vendor it uses today?

3

How much does price move the decision to switch?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

  1. 1Kickoff

    Find the team that would switch.

    Is there room for one more real-world evidence vendor, and which team inside a drug maker would be quickest to switch to us? The kickoff turned it into three questions: the criteria each function weighs, who would switch, and how much price matters.

  2. 2Design

    Four functions, eight criteria.

    Only buyers who had picked or renewed their team’s evidence vendor qualified: 50 each in R&D, HEOR, medical affairs and commercial. After ranking criteria and the proof they need, each buyer rated switching at today’s price, a tenth below and a fifth below.

  3. 3Fielding

    When the data fell short.

    Each buyer walked through the last time their data fell short, by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation; median length 31 minutes. The researcher read all 237 and removed 37 for wrong roles, no vendor decision or contradictions, leaving 200.

  4. 4Analysis

    HEOR teams would move first.

    The researcher ranked the criteria function by function: HEOR puts traceable data lineage first and rates its current vendor lowest on it. At today’s price, 46% of HEOR buyers would likely switch, over double the rate across the other three combined.

  5. 5Readout

    46% of HEOR buyers would likely switch.

    The researcher shared the 27-page report live with the market team: criteria indexed by function, switching at three price steps and verbatims, plus the full data file. The company aimed its entry at HEOR teams and traceable data.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Buyers weigh patient-level depth first, but HEOR puts traceable data lineage at the top and rates its current vendors lowest on it. HEOR teams are the most likely to switch: 46%, over double the other three functions combined. A discount moves few buyers; a side-by-side test on their own question is the proof most of them ask for.

Real-world evidence vendors · Executive reportTop line 1
1

Top line 1 of 4

Buyers rank patient-level depth first and price sixth of eight

1 Q6. Rank these criteria by how much they weigh when your team chooses a real-world evidence vendor. Eight items, n = 200.

2 Function-level indexes rest on n = 50 each; see the appendix tables.

Buyers ranked eight criteria for choosing a real-world evidence vendor. Patient-level depth scores highest, with traceable data lineage second at 871. Refresh speed follows at 73, and price sits sixth at 45. The order shifts by function: HEOR puts lineage first and commercial puts refresh speed first, while R&D and medical affairs keep depth on top.

100index
patient-level depth, the top criterion
87index
traceable data lineage, second overall
45index
price, sixth of eight
8criteria
ranked, then indexed to the top one

Vendor selection criteria, indexed to the top one

Criteria index, all buyers (n = 200)

50100Patient-level depth100Traceable data lineage87Refresh speed73Coverage of rare populations67Publication track record57Price45

Top three, HEOR (n = 50)

  1. 1Traceable data lineage
  2. 2Patient-level depth
  3. 3Publication track record

Top three, commercial (n = 50)

  1. 1Refresh speed
  2. 2Patient-level depth
  3. 3Traceable data lineage

Ranked choice of eight criteria, converted to scores and rescaled so the top criterion = 100; scores are relative and do not sum to 100. Analytics support (37) and contract flexibility (31) rank seventh and eighth.

Supporting evidence

  • R&D keeps patient-level depth first and moves coverage of rare populations up to second. § 3.2
  • Price ranks no higher than fifth in any function. § 3.32
Illustrative report03
Real-world evidence vendors · Executive reportTop line 2
2

Top line 2 of 4

HEOR puts data lineage first and rates its vendors lowest on it

1 Q7. How satisfied are you with your main vendor on each criterion? Five-point scale, top two boxes.

2 Second-vendor trials are self-reported; directional.

Within HEOR, traceable data lineage scores 100 and patient-level depth 83. It is also where today’s vendors fall shortest: 38% of HEOR buyers are satisfied with their current vendor on lineage, their lowest score on any criterion1. HEOR buyers describe evidence packages sent back because a reviewer could not trace a cohort to its source records.

100HEOR index
traceable data lineage within HEOR
83HEOR index
patient-level depth within HEOR
38%n = 50
of HEOR buyers satisfied on lineage
58%n = 50
of commercial buyers satisfied on lineage

Satisfied with the current vendor on data lineage, by function

Satisfied with current vendor on traceable data lineage

50100HEORn = 5038%R&Dn = 5048%Medical affairsn = 5054%Commercialn = 5058%

HEOR satisfaction with today’s vendor, by criterion (n = 50)

Patient-level depth72%Refresh speed48%Traceable data lineage38%

HEOR buyers on lineage (n = 50)

Satisfaction with today’s vendor38%28%34%
SatisfiedNeutralDissatisfied

Satisfaction on a five-point scale, top two boxes, asked for each criterion about the vendor the team uses most. Function bases are n = 50 each, so small gaps between functions are directional.

Supporting evidence

  • HEOR buyers who are dissatisfied on lineage are the most likely to switch (top line 3). § 4.2
  • Commercial teams are the most satisfied on lineage and the least likely to have trialed a second vendor. § 4.32
Illustrative report04
Real-world evidence vendors · Executive reportTop line 3
3

Top line 3 of 4

HEOR teams are the most likely to switch

1 Q8. How likely is your team to switch its main real-world evidence vendor if a new one met your top criteria? Five-point scale.

46% of HEOR buyers would likely switch vendors at today’s price1, against 21% across R&D, medical affairs and commercial, and 28% across all 200 buyers. The trigger HEOR buyers name most often is a vendor that can show where every patient record came from.

46%n = 50
of HEOR buyers would likely switch
21%n = 150
of the other three functions would likely switch
28%n = 200
of all buyers would likely switch
8%n = 50
of medical affairs buyers, the lowest

Likely to switch vendors at today’s price, by function

Would likely switch at today’s price, top-two box

50100All buyersn = 20028%HEORn = 5046%R&Dn = 5028%Commercialn = 5028%Medical affairsn = 508%

Switching intent, HEOR (n = 50)

Five-point likelihood46%40%14%
LikelyUnsureUnlikely

Switching intent, other three functions (n = 150)

Five-point likelihood21%35%44%
LikelyUnsureUnlikely

Five-point likelihood scale, top two boxes. Function bases are n = 50 each; HEOR against the other three combined is significant at 95% confidence.

Supporting evidence

  • HEOR buyers who would switch describe adding a second vendor first and keeping the current one for other work. § 5.2
  • R&D and commercial sit level at 28%; medical affairs is the least likely to move, at 8%. § 5.3
Illustrative report05
Real-world evidence vendors · Executive reportTop line 4
4

Top line 4 of 4

A fifth off the price lifts switching by six points

1 Q9. Likelihood to switch at today’s price, then a tenth and a fifth below it. Five-point scale, n = 200.

2 Proof preference by function rests on n = 50 each; directional.

Price moves few buyers. Across all 200, likely switching rises from 28% at today’s price to 34% at a fifth below1, with 31% at a tenth below. HEOR moves from 46% to 50%. Most buyers ask for proof: 68% would need a side-by-side test on one of their own questions before moving.

28%n = 200
would switch at today’s price
34%n = 200
would switch at a fifth below today’s price
50%n = 50
of HEOR buyers would switch at a fifth below
68%n = 200
need a side-by-side test before switching

Likely to switch at three price steps

Would likely switch, all buyers (n = 200)

50100At today’s price28%A tenth below31%A fifth below34%

Would switch at a fifth below, by function

HEOR (n = 50)50%Commercial (n = 50)36%R&D (n = 50)34%Medical affairs (n = 50)14%

Proof needed before switching (n = 200)

Single select68%14%13%
Side-by-side testPeer referencesPublished validationNone needed

Price steps were set against what each team pays its main vendor today, so no dollar prices were shown. Five-point likelihood, top two boxes.

Supporting evidence

  • Buyers who would move only at a fifth below are mostly commercial and R&D teams with one large annual contract. § 6.2
  • A side-by-side test on the buyer’s own question is the most requested proof in every function. § 6.32
Illustrative report06
Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report
1
Question 1 · Criteria

Buyers rank patient-level depth first and price sixth.

Indexed to the top criterion, patient-level depth scores 100 and traceable data lineage 87. Refresh speed follows at 73. Price scores 45, behind coverage of rare populations and a vendor’s publication track record.

Patient-level depth100
Traceable data lineage87
Refresh speed73
Price, sixth of eight45
Criteria index, top criterion = 100 · 4 of 8 shown · n = 200
2
Question 1 · By function

HEOR puts data lineage first, and rates its vendors lowest on it.

Within HEOR, traceable data lineage scores 100 and patient-level depth 83. Only 38% of HEOR buyers are satisfied with their current vendor on lineage, against 58% in commercial.

HEOR38%
R&D48%
Medical affairs54%
Commercial58%
Satisfied with current vendor on data lineage · n = 50 per function
3
Question 2 · Switching

HEOR teams are the most likely to switch.

At today’s price, 46% of HEOR buyers would likely switch their main vendor if a new one met their top criteria. Across R&D, medical affairs and commercial the share is 21%, and 28% across all 200.

46%HEOR buyers
21%the other three functions
Likely to switch at today’s price · n = 50 vs n = 150
4
Question 3 · Price

A fifth off the price lifts switching by six points.

Across all 200 buyers, likely switching rises from 28% at today’s price to 31% at a tenth below and 34% at a fifth below. 68% would need a side-by-side test on one of their own questions before moving.

At today’s price28%
A tenth below31%
A fifth below34%
Likely to switch vendors, top-two box · n = 200
“A reviewer asks where a cohort came from, I can’t show them, and the whole package stalls. A vendor who can trace every record gets my next contract.”
HEOR director · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Data lineage
“Our vendor gives us plenty of volume, but every time we ask how a variable was derived, it turns into a long email thread.”
HEOR manager
Switching cost
“We have years of code built on one vendor’s data model. A cheaper price doesn’t cover rebuilding all of that.”
R&D data scientist
Proof
“Run my question on your data next to theirs. If yours holds up, we can talk. A slide deck won’t get you there.”
Commercial analytics lead

What the data company did

Three moves made with the report.

1The target · from finding 3

Targeted HEOR teams first.

The first offer leads with data traced to its source and a side-by-side test on one of the buyer’s own questions.

2The product · from finding 2

Built lineage into the first release.

Every cohort in the first release traces to its source records, the criterion where only 38% of HEOR buyers are satisfied with their current vendor.

3The price · from finding 4

Launched at market price, with no discount.

A fifth off the price lifted switching by six points, so the launch budget went to side-by-side tests, the proof 68% of buyers ask for.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next market entry question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More healthcare & life sciences studies

Adoption study

AI Scheduling in Outpatient Clinics

Managers who run outpatient clinic schedules
Concept test

Health System Supply Spend Analytics

Supply chain and finance leaders at health systems
Patient pathway study

Diagnostic Journey Mapping

Patients with Condition Y and adults who care for one