What the analysts disagree about, and why it is the useful part

Business cases, investor decks and vendor pitches often open with "the CPaaS market is worth X billion dollars". Depending on which analyst firm is quoted, X can be roughly half or double another firm's figure for the same year. If you are building a budget, sizing an opportunity or judging a vendor's claims, you need to know why, and which number fits your question. This piece compares three published estimates and explains where they diverge. It builds on reading a market forecast.

Juniper Research said in April 2025 that CPaaS revenue would exceed US$34 billion in 2026, up from about US$30 billion in 2025.

Mordor Intelligence sizes the market at US$21.27 billion in 2026, reaching US$41.05 billion by 2031, a compound annual growth rate of about 14%.

Gartner forecast in 2025 that spending would grow from US$15.7 billion in 2025 to US$27.4 billion by 2029, about 14% a year. In its 2026 Magic Quadrant for CPaaS, as summarised by CX Today, Gartner put 2025 at US$14.88 billion (9.3% growth in constant currency) and forecast about US$17.03 billion for 2026.

So the 2026 figures span roughly US$17 billion to over US$34 billion: about a factor of two between the highest and the lowest.

Notice one more thing: Gartner's later figure for 2025 (US$14.88 billion) is below its own earlier forecast for 2025 (US$15.7 billion). Forecasts get revised as actual results come in. A figure quoted without its publication date may already have been superseded by the publisher itself.

Operator pass-through is probably the largest single factor. Much of the price of a business text message is a fee the platform collects and passes on to the mobile operator. Count gross and the market looks very large; count net platform revenue and it is much smaller.

Category boundaries matter next. Whether contact-centre software, email delivery, video SDKs and verification services sit inside or outside "CPaaS" changes the total materially, and there is no industry-standard answer.

Spend versus revenue are measured from opposite directions and diverge systematically.

All three firms independently describe sustained double-digit growth. That agreement, across different definitions and methods, is a stronger finding than any of the individual totals.

When independent methods disagree on size but agree on direction, the direction is the robust result.

Never quote a single figure without its scope and date. "The CPaaS market is $34 billion" is not a fact; it is a fact with its conditions removed.

Match the figure to your question. Sizing your addressable revenue as a platform? Net revenue is the relevant number. Sizing what enterprises spend on this capability? Gross spending is.

Be wary of any deck that shows only the largest number. Not because it is dishonest (the number is published and real) but because the selection tells you what the deck is for.

This pattern recurs across the field. Deliverability rates, containment rates, engagement benchmarks: wide published ranges usually indicate unstable definitions rather than genuinely variable performance.

When you meet a benchmark with a wide range, the first question is not "which end am I at?" It is "what are they counting?", and the answer is often that they are counting different things under the same name. A source that cannot tell you what had to be decided before its number existed has published a number, not a finding.

Three firms, one market, roughly a 2× spread, and no error. Read the agreement rather than the level, cite the boundary and the date alongside the number, and treat any figure whose method is not available as decoration.

• GSMA on RCS, encryption and the future of operator messaging: how to read an industry body's own figures.
• Regional messaging in the Gulf: why a global number tells you little about a specific region.