Is the MQL dead? In short, it depends who you ask.
Julia Pegis started the debate by just typing her question in the MarketingOps.com Slack community: is the MQL dead? That simple question launched a passionate debate among the Marketing Ops pros. In essence, the chat took us through a collective reckoning affecting anyone who does (or doesn’t) use the MQL lifecycle status.
Responses came in quickly. Some were ready to declare it obsolete. Others argued it still works, if used properly. And a few said it depends on how you're defining it in the first place. What started as a yes-or-no poll turned into a profound conversation about qualification, alignment, and what marketing should actually be measured on.
The Yes's
So let’s start with the “yes” camp. Bring the flowers for our poor friend, the MQL.
Akande Davis came in strong. He argued that MQLs should convert to sales qualified leads more than 80 percent of the time. If they don’t, the issue is the process itself. Marketing Ops should already be using firmographic and behavioral data to identify real intent. If a lead doesn’t turn into a sales conversation, it was never qualified in the first place.
One tally against the MQL.
Peter Nguyen agreed. He sees the MQL as an outdated concept that overcomplicates the handoff. If there’s both fit and intent, send the contact to Sales. No need to build complex prioritization systems when the pipeline isn't overflowing.
James Fletcher took the performance angle. He sees MQLs as a distraction from what actually matters, which is conversations. If Marketing wants to prove value, the measure should be appointments, not leads.
Three tallies. Ouch.
Jenn DiMaria raised a practical concern. She pointed out how easy it is to inflate MQL numbers by tweaking thresholds. That might make the campaign report look good, but it doesn’t help the pipeline. She’s seen too many end-of-quarter scrambles where MQL volume becomes the obsession, with no regard for how many of those contacts are actually sales-ready.
Then there’s Nadia Davis, who framed the problem as a pattern. In her view, marketers have been chasing plug-and-play answers for years. The MQL wasn’t the problem, but it got tossed aside once ABM gained traction. The real failure was never defining what an MQL should signal in the first place. She wants marketers to stop jumping to the next acronym and get serious about data, context, and the buyer’s journey.
The No's
So who's on the side of using MQLs? And what's their logic for keeping it?
On the pro-MQL side, some argued that it very much still has a place. Pete Furseth said it plainly: Marketing’s job is to surface people who are ready to buy. Whether you call them MQLs or not doesn’t change the function. What matters is how you identify them and what you do once they’re identified.
Then, Brandi Starr made a case for reclaiming the term. She sees MQLs as useful forecasting tools, but only when tied to pipeline data. On their own, MQL counts mean nothing. But when combined with conversion rates and targets, they help you plan. She also pushed back against calling them vanity metrics, pointing out that when done right, they track the effectiveness of demand generation work.
Tom Keefe took the operational view. He argued that if you have a demo form on your site, you’re still using MQLs. Whether or not you call them that, those leads get fast-tracked. That behavior needs a name and a process.
Ellie Cary added nuance. When leads are plentiful, MQLs help sales teams prioritize. When the pipeline is thin, reps will chase anyone showing interest, and the label gets in the way. She called the MQL a signal, not a rule, and said it depends on how the marketing-to-sales handoff is managed.
Adding to the discussion, Alexis Mohr reminded everyone of the practical need for timestamps. MQLs give structure to SLAs. Without them, it becomes harder to hold Sales accountable to response times.
Andrew Dimmick suggested refining what qualifies as an MQL instead of abandoning it. If someone is viewing the pricing page repeatedly over a short period, that’s meaningful. Someone attending five webinars might not be a buyer. His take was simple: define it based on actual buying signals.
Then, Jacqueline Freedman and Jeff Kew both called out the real issue. The label isn’t the problem. The failure is in consistency, alignment, and shared understanding between Marketing and Sales. If your MQL definition changes every quarter or only exists to make dashboards look better, that’s not a framework worth defending.
The Nuance
So where does that leave us?
Most of the strong opinions on either side of this debate end up in the same place. If your MQL definition is clear, consistent, and tied to downstream outcomes, it still works. If it’s vague, inflated, or disconnected from sales conversations, it doesn’t.
This isn’t about killing the MQL. It’s about deciding whether your version of an MQL is doing anything useful. If it isn’t, fix it or replace it with something better. But don’t replace it just to say you’ve moved on. Define the signals that matter. Align with sales. Measure what happens after the handoff. And stop chasing the next acronym without doing the hard work to make the last one meaningful.
The MQL isn’t dead. But it definitely needs a performance review.
