Gartner’s stock is down roughly 71% from its November 2024 high. Market cap fell from more than $45 billion to about $12 billion. Forrester is worse off: market cap near $105 million, down from roughly $300 million, on a full-year net loss of $119.4 million. These are the two firms B2B buyers have paid for decades to tell them which companies were about to get disrupted. Neither one saw its own name on the list.
Strategy consulting is cratering at both firms
Gartner’s consulting revenue fell 12.8% in the fourth quarter. Forrester’s strategy consulting bookings dropped more than 50% in a year, and the firm is exiting strategy consulting entirely, alongside an 8% workforce cut announced in February. CEO Gene Hall, on Gartner’s Q4 earnings call, put the cause plainly: “Executives have responded to this by slowing and deferring everything possible. This makes for a much tougher selling environment.”
While research and consulting revenue fell at both firms, Gartner’s Conferences segment grew 11% for the full year, to $645 million. Forrester’s events business, even after cutting event days, is what the firm is redesigning around rather than walking away from. The written word and the paid opinion are getting commoditized inside the very companies built to sell them. The room is not.
Buyers left before it showed up in the balance sheet
Only 13% of B2B buyers used an analyst report in their most recent purchase decision, down 63% since 2022, according to G2’s 2026 Buyer Behavior Report. Eight in ten have sourced a software recommendation directly from ChatGPT or Google’s AI Mode in the last two years. That’s not a preference shift. That’s a category in decline.
The same report found what should worry Gartner and Forrester more than either stock chart: buyers are moving from modeled ROI, a number an analyst estimates from the outside, to observed ROI, proof pulled from their own usage data. The product is starting to make its own business case. The messenger is the part getting cut.
Agentic AI does something more specific here than “get smarter at answering questions.” Gartner’s own July 2026 research puts $234 billion of enterprise software spend at risk from what it calls agentic arbitrage: agents completing a task across systems without a human ever opening the app that used to charge for access. A synthesized report is exactly the kind of task that collapses first under that pressure. It exists to turn public and licensed information into a judgment a human reads. An agent can now do that synthesis in the time it takes to ask the question, at a marginal cost close to zero.
The company that built a model to grade AI disruption never ran it on itself
Forrester spent part of 2026 building its own AI Disruption Model, a tool scoring how exposed other companies’ business models are to AI substitution based on labor intensity, data advantages, and switching costs, among other factors. As far as I can find, Forrester has never pointed that model at itself. It would be the easiest assignment on the team’s desk: one analyst, one afternoon, the same inputs it asks of everyone else.
That silence is its own data point. Gartner’s Magic Quadrant, meanwhile, has carried a credibility tax since long before agentic AI existed. Courts have ruled it isn’t technically pay to play, Gartner won a lawsuit on exactly that claim in 2014, but analyst relations practitioners will tell you privately that meaningful analyst time requires becoming a paying client, which functions the same way even when it isn’t the same thing legally. AI didn’t create that trust problem. It just removed the last reason buyers had to put up with it.
This is the same argument I made three months ago. The numbers just caught up to it
In The Vertical Intelligence Company, I wrote that the cost structure protecting large research firms like Gartner and Forrester had come down, and that agentic AI would be brutal to commodity information while amplifying the value of what it can’t replicate: domain depth, proprietary data, and trusted community. I made that case in June, expecting it to take years to prove out. Even I didn't expect it to take one fiscal quarter.
Watch what they do, not what they say
Both firms are already answering that question with budget, not press releases. Forrester’s own AI product line grew unique users 55% year over year and prompt volume 65%, funded in part by savings from exiting strategy consulting this year.
That’s not a research firm defending its old business. That’s a research firm using the disruptor’s own technology to reinvent itself, on the bet that owning the interface will be worth more than owning the content the interface pulls from.
Neither company is giving up on the room, either. Gartner is expanding it: local C-level communities, longer inquiry days, more destination events on top of a Conferences segment that already grew 11% while research fell. Watching where a company under this much pressure chooses to spend tells you more than anything on its earnings call.
Strategy consulting isn’t an isolated casualty. It’s the leading edge of a category, businesses that sell synthesized judgment as a subscription or a report, that also includes sell-side equity research, credit rating agencies, and most trade press, mine included. None of those industries have been tested at Gartner’s scale yet. All of them are running the same experiment on a slower clock.
I’m not writing this from outside the blast radius
I contribute as an analyst for Cloud Wars. I run an advisory practice that sells judgment for a fee. If the argument here is that commoditized content and standardized opinion are the exposed part of an information business, I’m exposed too, and it would be a thinner piece if I pretended otherwise.
This is exactly what I've argued since the post “Solo Scale”: agentic AI commoditizes general information, and the value shifts to operators who can package decades of earned judgment into an intelligence layer, not a content layer, delivered at software scale and margins. The parts of what I do that read as 'here's my opinion on a trend,' delivered at scale to a broad audience, get commoditized the same way Gartner's research does. The parts built on proprietary access, specific context, and judgment applied to operators actual decisions don't. Gartner's own numbers are drawing that same line around their business right now, whether the company says so or not.
Sort your own information business before the market sorts it for you
Every B2B information, research, or advisory business is really two businesses running under one name: a content layer, and an intelligence layer built on judgment, proprietary access, and work applied to buyer's actual decisions. The content layer scales cheaply, which used to be the entire advantage and is now the entire exposure. The intelligence layer doesn't scale the same way, which used to look like a limitation and now looks like the only part of the business AI can't touch.
To make that split concrete instead of directional, I built the Durability Test. It’s six questions, each scored from one to five, where five means the hardest for AI to replace:
What do you actually deliver? A report or ranking is a 1. A live working session is a 5.
Where does the underlying material come from? Public information, synthesized, is a 1. Proprietary access nobody else has is a 5.
How personalized is the output? The same for every buyer is a 1. Built around one buyer’s situation is a 5.
Why does the buyer say they’re paying you? “Tell me what’s happening” is a 1. “Be accountable in the room with me” is a 5.
Could a well-prompted AI produce 80% of it in a minute? Yes is a 1. Not without you is a 5.
Where does the buyer’s trust sit? In your brand and methodology is a 1. In one person’s track record is a 5.
Here is an Uphoff on Media framework you can download and use as a diagnostic tool in your business:
Add up your six scores and act, based on the range you land in.
22 to 30: Protect it. 22 to 30: Protect it. You're standing on the intelligence layer of your own business, where AI raises the bar instead of replacing the seat. Use agents to deliver it faster.
13 to 21: Split it. You’re running two businesses under one name. Separate the content lines from the judgment lines this quarter, and move your investment toward the intelligence layer.
6 to 12: Rebuild it. You’re the content layer of your own business, whatever your brand still says on the door. Start with your ten best accounts and ask what each would pay for that a prompt can’t provide.
Gartner and Forrester spent four decades telling other companies where they stood. Now the market is telling them. Run the Durability Test on your own business this week. Gartner and Forrester didn’t get to choose when they found out where they stand. You still do.
The views expressed in Uphoff on Media are entirely my own. They don’t represent the opinions of any company I’ve led, any board I’ve sat on, or any investor who’s had the pleasure of debating strategy with me over the years. If something I write here sounds brilliant, I’ll take full credit. If it turns out to be wrong, I was clearly misquoted by myself.
“Uphoff on Media” is published by Tony Uphoff, Founder and Managing Partner of Uphoff Advisory, a strategic advisory practice for founders, CEOs, and investors in B2B information, marketing, and technology. The businesses that drive business.
Thank you, Tony!
Brilliant.