The 2025 MDF Yield Benchmark Report

Median MDF utilisation across EMEA cybersecurity vendors sits at 54%. That means roughly half of available market development funds go unspent, or worse, get spent on activity that produces no measurable pipeline. This is not a new problem. But the gap between median performers and the top quartile has widened over the past two years, and the reasons are more operational than strategic.

This report draws on engagement data across cybersecurity vendors in EMEA, covering partner programme audits, MDF process assessments, and post-deployment outcomes. The numbers are medians, not averages, and they are drawn from real programmes, not surveys.

Where the average vendor stands

The median EMEA cybersecurity vendor with a formalised MDF programme shows the following baseline metrics:

• MDF utilisation rate: 54% of available budget spent in any given quarter
• MDF approval cycle: 38 days from submission to approved status
• Pipeline per MDF dollar spent: 1.6× across all partners
• Campaign completion rate: 61%, meaning 39% of approved campaigns do not reach execution
• Partner self-reporting rate: 44%, meaning more than half of partners do not submit proof-of-execution

These numbers are not surprising to anyone who has run a vendor MDF programme. The submission process is too slow, the templates are inadequate, the proof-of-execution requirements are unclear, and the reporting loop is broken. The result is that partners stop trying.

What the top quartile does differently

The top quartile of programmes in our data, defined as those achieving MDF utilisation above 78% and pipeline per dollar above 3×, share three operational characteristics that the median does not.

1. They have standardised, co-brandable campaign kits

Top performers provide partners with pre-built campaign assets: digital ads, email sequences, landing page templates, and social content that are co-branded and ready to run within 48 hours of MDF approval. The partner does not need to build anything. They select a campaign type, submit the MDF request, and receive a kit.

The median vendor either provides no kits at all or provides templates so basic that partners rebuild them from scratch. This creates a time-to-market problem that compounds across hundreds of partners.

2. They run a 14-day or shorter approval cycle

The single biggest cause of MDF abandonment is a slow approval cycle. When partners wait 30 or 40 days for approval, the campaign window closes, the budget holder moves to other priorities, and the MDF goes unspent. Top-quartile programmes run a 14-day maximum cycle, enforced by process, not goodwill.

The mechanics of achieving this are straightforward: a standardised submission template that eliminates ambiguity, a defined review SLA with named owners, and an automated status notification so partners are not chasing updates. None of this is complex. It requires process design, not technology investment.

3. They close the proof-of-execution loop

Top performers achieve partner self-reporting rates above 85%, compared to the median of 44%. The mechanism is a simplified proof-of-execution process, typically a three-field online form with a file upload, submitted within five days of campaign completion, rather than a complex reporting requirement that partners ignore.

This matters for two reasons. First, it ensures the vendor can accurately report MDF pipeline to finance and leadership. Second, it reduces the risk of MDF clawback, which is one of the primary reasons partners disengage from programmes entirely.

The three process changes that close the gap fastest

Based on our engagement data, the following three changes produce the most significant improvement in MDF yield within 45 days of implementation. They do not require a new PRM, a new budget, or a new team. They require process redesign and template production.

Change 1: Rebuild the submission template

The majority of slow approval cycles are caused by incomplete submissions that require back-and-forth between the vendor and partner before the request can be reviewed. A submission template that captures all required information upfront, including campaign objective, target audience, proposed assets, projected reach, and expected pipeline, eliminates this delay. Implementation time: five working days.

Change 2: Introduce campaign kits by partner tier

Build a minimum of three campaign kit variants, one per partner tier, that partners can access, co-brand, and run without vendor production support. Each kit should include at minimum two email templates, one digital ad set, one landing page template, and one social content pack. Implementation time: 15 to 20 working days. Time-to-market impact for partners: from six weeks to 48 hours.

Change 3: Replace the proof-of-execution requirement with a simplified form

Replace whatever your current proof-of-execution process looks like with a three-field form: campaign name, proof file upload, and campaign completion date. Automate the acknowledgement. Set a five-day submission window. Partners who do not submit within five days receive one automated reminder. This single change typically lifts self-reporting rates from below 50% to above 80% within one quarter.

What to do next

If your MDF utilisation sits below 70%, the most productive first step is a process audit, not a technology investment, not a partner communication campaign, and not a revised incentive structure. The utilisation problem is upstream of all of those. Fix the process first.

If your approval cycle is above 21 days, the second step is to map every handoff in the current process and assign a named owner and an SLA to each one. You will find two or three handoffs with no clear owner and no defined timeline. That is where the 38 days is hiding.

If your campaign completion rate is below 70%, the third step is to introduce campaign kits. Partners are not completing campaigns because they cannot build them fast enough, not because they do not want the MDF.