🔗 Originally posted on LinkedIn on December 19th, 2024

The CDP market is saturated with debates over composable vs. traditional approaches. Some composable vendors claim their architecture is the only viable option, citing issues like unnecessary data duplication, high upfront costs, and inflexible schemas in traditional CDPs.

While composable CDPs have introduced valuable alternatives, framing this as a zero-sum game misses the complexity of business needs. What matters most is how any composable or traditional CDP delivers value to its customers.

Because, let’s face it, the constant comparisons in marketing narratives are becoming stale.

Recently, I’ve seen claims that implementing traditional CDPs creates “nightmares,” ironically from vendors promoting easy migration since they use the same, albeit forked, SDKs of the vendors they are shaming. I have witnessed first-hand as one of my past clients, who was using Segment, had moved to the composable solution with my original code still in place. Don’t misunderstand me; if this delivers more value to the customer, it is a win!

However, this type of messaging oversimplifies the reality. Both traditional and composable CDPs serve distinct purposes, depending on the organization. Traditional CDPs often excel at out-of-the-box capabilities like real-time orchestration and predictive analytics supporting marketing-resource heavy organizations, while composable solutions offer flexibility for organizations with strong data infrastructure for often data-engineering resource heavy organizations.

The thing about comparing yourself to others all the time is that you actually end up being totally blind to your own weaknesses.

Choosing a CDP is not about declaring one approach superior; it’s about finding the right fit for the business. A metaphor I often use is buying a car. Is an MPV better than a sedan? It depends on your needs. Car manufacturers rarely spend time disparaging their competitors; instead, they focus on their own strengths. CDP vendors could learn from this approach, showcasing unique selling points like scalability, support, or integration capabilities rather than recycling tired comparisons. Even a quick scan of G2 can deliver more than a handful of USPs for various solutions, which are user-generated no-less.

That said, the composable model is not without its challenges. Soon to be released research, unfortunately not independent but sponsored by a vendor, may highlight potential hidden costs, such as compute expenses for real-time data processing or AI-driven features. While composable CDPs often dismiss the importance of real-time capabilities to align with their narrative, the increasing demand for real-time customer experiences, driven by new expectations fueled by AI (when is the last time you waited 5-15 minutes for a response to an AI prompt) and dynamic audiences for multi-channel journey orchestration, suggests this remains a critical consideration.

Michael Katz recently introduced the concept of CDP 2.0, highlighting how the future of CDPs lies in differentiation. Vendors will need to define their niches, whether that means targeting specific industries, focusing on vertical integration, or delivering unique feature sets. The market is already commodified, as demonstrated by vendors only being able to market based on composable versus packaged arguments instead of features that benefit customers. Success will depend on demonstrating tangible value, not clinging to outdated comparisons.

By 2025, the debate over composable vs. traditional will likely fade. Instead, the focus will shift to how individual CDPs solve specific business problems. Those who fail to adapt, whether composable or traditional, risk obsolescence. Composable pioneers like Hightouch have already proven their ability to disrupt, and I applaud them for this, but if vendors remain stuck in these comparisons, they may fall behind.

My advice to CDP vendors: stop comparing, start leading!

Customers care about results, not architectures. The CDP industry would do well to stop the petty arguments and instead focus on building trust, solving real problems, and delivering measurable outcomes. It’s time to move beyond the “composable vs. traditional” debate. The future belongs to those who innovate, differentiate, and create lasting value.