They say
“Close already reports won deals by lead source.”
We say
If somebody set the source correctly on every lead, for the whole period. This reads the click and the won deal rather than a field somebody maintained.
For Close
Close tells you which rep closed it. Not which advert produced it.
Export won opportunities, upload the sources that produced the leads, and rank channels on closed value rather than on lead volume.
No API key Nothing to install in CloseNothing to install No card requiredNo card
CloseRev reads a Close export of won opportunities — the lead's email or phone, the value and the close date — and matches it against the marketing that produced the lead before any rep touched it. Close reports on activity and outcome exceptionally well and has no view of what happened before the lead arrived. Deals with no traceable origin are reported as Direct / Unknown rather than credited to a campaign.
Last checked against Close's own documentation on September 24, 2026.
The gap
Your dashboard shows calls made, emails sent and deals won by rep. Nothing on it says which marketing put those leads in the queue.
Close sees
What was sold, to whom, and for how much.
no shared row
Your ad account sees
The click, the keyword, the call, and what each one cost.
The file
What the export needs in it.
Three things carry the match: who, how much, and when. Anything else is optional and only changes how the report can be sliced.
- Needed
Lead email or phone
On the lead the opportunity belongs to. A phone-led team should take both — outbound dials and inbound forms capture different halves of the same person.
- Needed
Opportunity value
The won value. Where you sell annually, be consistent about whether it is first-year or total contract value across the whole file.
- Needed
Won date
When the opportunity was marked won. For anything with a ramp, that is closer to the marketing than the first invoice is.
- Optional
Rep and pipeline
Both worth including. Rep separates channel quality from execution, and pipeline separates product lines that convert at different rates.
Step by step
Getting the file out of Close.
Written for somebody with Close open in the next tab. Report names vary by edition, so each step says what to look for.
-
Export won opportunities
One row per won deal with a lead contact detail, the value and the won date. Lost opportunities are the denominator and are worth exporting too if you want conversion by source.
-
Separate inbound from outbound
A lead your team sourced cold did not come from marketing, and including it silently will make Direct / Unknown look like a failure of attribution rather than a description of your prospecting.
-
Export your lead sources
Paid search, paid social, content sign-ups, call tracking, marketplace and list vendors. Contact detail plus where the lead came from.
-
Cover the sales cycle on the deal side
Whatever your median time from lead to won is, the deal file should reach back at least twice that far.
-
Upload both
The join is the email and the phone, normalised, with weak links flagged rather than counted.
What comes back
The page Close cannot show you.
Revenue by channel, the count of sales behind each figure, and an honest bucket for the ones nobody could trace. Sample figures, from the worked example on the B2B SaaS page — not from a Close account.
Traced to a channel$2,070,00069% of $3,000,000
Sales matched51 of 75high confidence only
Average sale$40,000per paid sale
| Channel | Share | Sales | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google Ads | 18 | $720,000 | |
| LinkedIn Ads | 21 | $930,000 | |
| Email marketing | 12 | $420,000 | |
| Direct / Unknown | 24 | $930,000 |
Unmatched sales stay in Direct / Unknown. They are never spread across the paid channels to make the total look better.
The argument
What changes when the deal and the ad share a row.
Activity metrics measure the team, not the marketing
Close is built around what a rep does: dials, connects, emails, sequences, meetings. Those are the right metrics for managing a floor and they are the wrong ones for judging a channel.
A source producing engaged, well-qualified leads makes every activity metric look better without the team doing anything differently, and a source producing poor leads makes a good team look lazy.
Ranking channels on won value rather than on the activity they generated separates the two. It is the difference between knowing your reps are working and knowing your marketing is.
Speed to lead is real and it confounds the comparison
Inside sales teams live on response time, and response time is not evenly distributed across sources. Leads arriving during business hours from a form get called in minutes; leads arriving overnight or through a vendor feed sit.
So a source can look poor when what is actually poor is the routing of that source. The channel gets cut, the routing never gets examined, and the same thing happens to the next channel.
Reading won value by source alongside the rep dimension exposes it. Where one source underperforms only for the reps who work the late queue, that is an operations finding wearing a marketing costume.
Outbound leads are not marketing and should not dilute it
Many teams on Close run outbound alongside inbound. Both produce opportunities in the same pipeline and both are worked by the same people.
If the export mixes them, every marketing channel is diluted by deals marketing never touched, and the honest Direct / Unknown bucket fills up with prospecting the team did deliberately.
Where the export carries a source or a lead origin, filter or split on it before drawing conclusions. It is the most common reason these reports are read as worse than they are.
Conversion by source is more useful than volume by source
With won and lost opportunities both in the file, the report gives conversion from lead to won by source, and value per lead by source.
Those two numbers usually disagree with the volume ranking every team already has. A source producing half the leads at three times the conversion is the one to spend on, and it is invisible in any report that counts leads.
Value per lead is the one to act on, because it survives both halves of the problem at once: a source can win a high share of small deals or a low share of large ones, and only the combined figure says which is worth more to the business. Teams that switch to it usually discover their cheapest source per lead was their most expensive source per pound of revenue, which is a sentence worth reading twice before the next budget.
Fair questions
“Close already does that.” Not quite.
They say
“Our team sources most leads themselves.”
We say
Then split outbound out before reading it, or marketing will be judged against deals it never produced.
They say
“We run short cycles.”
We say
Then the file is small and the answer arrives quickly. The method does not change.
No. It reads a file you exported, so your pipeline, your sequences and your reps' inboxes stay entirely out of reach.
Won opportunities with a lead contact detail, the value and the won date — and lost ones too if you want conversion by source.
Either, consistently across the file. Mixing them favours whichever channel happens to sell longer terms.
Split them out. Including them silently dilutes every marketing channel and inflates Direct / Unknown.
Yes, and you should. Without it the report measures execution and calls it channel performance.
Yes, if lost opportunities are in the file. It usually disagrees with the lead-volume ranking.
At least twice your median lead-to-won time.
Yes, on won value rather than on the count of records they sold you.
Direct / Unknown, reported as unmatched rather than distributed across the paid channels.
No. It adds the half before the lead existed, which Close never saw.
A contact detail, a value and a date, plus a rep or pipeline if you include them. No call recordings, no email threads, no notes, no sequences. Encrypted in transit and at rest and deleted with the import.
Won value by source, conversion by source where lost deals are included, and everything unmatched kept visible.
By trade
Trades that run Close.
What the report looks like once the export is in, written for each one.
- B2B SaaSWhich channels produced closed-won, not MQLs?
- Staffing & RecruitmentWhich channels produced clients who hire?
- Commercial InsuranceWhich channels produced bound policies?
- MSPs & IT ServicesWhich channels produced signed contracts?
- Lead Generation AgenciesGet paid for leads that closed, not leads that landed
Other systems
Also worth reading.
Running more than one system, or comparing? The method is the same and the columns are not.
Either file Pipedrive Sales teams that live in the pipeline view Either file What to export Either file HubSpot Sales and marketing teams on HubSpot CRM Either file What to export Either file Keap Small businesses running automated follow-up Either file What to export
All 60 systems 
Close and the other product names and logos on this page belong to their owners and are shown to identify the software a file comes from. CloseRev is not affiliated with or endorsed by them, and connects to none of them: it reads a file you export.
Start today
Two exports, and you will know.
Nothing to install in Close, no API key, and no need to have been tracking anything until now. Last year works as well as this month.