Coalition ®
The 2026 MSP Benchmark

AI is changing the
rules of detection.
Where do you rank?

Independent research with 81 technical decision-makers at MSPs on how AI-accelerated threats are reshaping the detection and response category, where the speed gap sits today, and what MSPs are projecting for growth in the year ahead.
81 MSP Decision-Makers Q2 2026 Field Window Independent Research
Executive Summary

AI is reshaping what MSPs hear from their clients. 64% say AI-driven attack speed is now a frequent topic in client conversations. 91% project investing in AI-ready detection tools to be a major or significant growth driver in the next 12 months. But the gap between detecting a threat and actually containing it is still measured in tens of minutes, and the cost of that gap is showing up in client churn: nearly half of MSPs have lost clients to a security incident their stack didn't catch fast enough.

Demand signal
64%
of MSPs say AI-driven attack speed is now a frequent topic in client conversations.
Growth opportunity
91%
expect investing in AI-ready detection tools to be a major or significant driver of growth in the next 12 months.
Client cost
48%
have lost a client to a security incident their stack didn't catch or didn't contain fast enough.
Finding 01

AI is reshaping the
MSP conversation.

The speed of AI-powered attacks has moved from a niche concern to a routine topic in client and prospect meetings. MSPs that can speak credibly to AI-accelerated threats are winning the conversation. The ones who can't are watching deals slip toward the providers who can.

Q4 · Client conversations
How often clients or prospects raise concerns about the speed of AI-powered attacks
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select
Q6 · Sales conversations
How often detection speed comes up as a prospect evaluation criterion
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select

The speed conversation has moved out of the trade press and into the boardroom. 64% of MSPs now field AI-driven attack-speed questions in most or every client conversation. 81% field them in most or every prospect sales conversation. The buyers are asking. The MSPs who can answer are positioning ahead of those who can't.

"That is like the new hot button currently up with detection. Most of our clients are very concerned about AI driven threats so it's something we talk about very consistently."

IT Director · 25–100-client MSP
Finding 02

MSPs see the
growth opportunity.

The forward-looking view from MSP leadership is remarkably consistent. AI-accelerated threats are creating demand for a new generation of detection tooling, and MSPs expect the providers who adopt that tooling to be the ones who grow.

Q5 · Forward growth projection
If you invested in detection and response tools built specifically to outrun the speed of AI-accelerated threats, how much would that contribute to your MSP's growth over the next 12 months?
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select

91% of MSPs say investing in AI-ready detection tools will be a major or significant driver of their growth in the next 12 months. Zero respondents said it wouldn't be a growth lever at all. The market is already convinced this category matters. What it's waiting for is the right tool.

"In 12 months AI solutions will have saturated the market. So it's vital to begin to get ahead of it now."

IT Director · 101–500-client MSP
Finding 03

The detection-to-containment
gap is where time is lost.

Detecting a threat is one thing. Stopping it is another. MSPs are reasonably fast at getting eyes on an alert, but the time from detection to active containment is where the clock keeps running and where the damage compounds. Three in four MSPs have missed an internal containment SLA in the past 12 months.

Q8 + Q10 · Response times
Time from a high-priority alert firing to active investigation vs. time from initial detection to active containment
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select per question

The median MSP starts investigating within 16 to 30 minutes. But for the median MSP, active containment doesn't happen until 31 to 60 minutes. The gap between those two numbers is the window the threat is widening, the client is still exposed, and the SLA is quietly slipping.

Q11 · SLA breach in last 12 months
Have you experienced an incident where time from detection to containment exceeded your internal SLAs?
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select
Q18 · Clients lost to missed incidents
In the past 24 months, how many clients have you lost specifically because of a security incident your stack didn't catch or contain fast enough?
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select

76% of MSPs missed a containment SLA at least once in the past year. 48% have lost clients to incidents their stack didn't catch fast enough. Among those, the median annual contract value of a lost client falls in the $100K to $500K range. The cost of the speed gap is no longer theoretical, and it's already showing up on the renewal report.

"A healthcare client specifically asked how we counter AI-speed ransomware and our admission of reliance on manual verification created enough hesitation that it nearly stalled the deal."

IT Director · More than 500-client MSP
Finding 04

Speed is a competitive
lever, not a premium.

Asked what sub-5-second detection with automatic containment would do for their business at current prices, MSPs project two things consistently: it reduces client churn, and it improves win-rates against competing providers. This isn't a story about upcharging existing clients, but about how MSPs win their next ones.

Q22 · Retention impact
If you could deliver sub-5-second detection with auto-containment without raising your prices, how would it affect your client retention?
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select
Q23 · Close-rate impact
In net-new sales, what would that capability do to your close rate against competing MSPs?
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Single-select

83% of MSPs project that sub-5-second detection at current pricing would meaningfully reduce client churn. 91% project at least moderate improvement in close rate against competing providers. Of those, 32% project a 25%+ close-rate lift. The market is telling Coalition exactly which conversation faster service unlocks.

"Guaranteed sub-5-second detection and auto-containment completely changes our sales narrative from a defensive pitch about 'minimizing damage' to a proactive guarantee of business continuity."

Security Operations Lead · More than 500-client MSP
Finding 05

The top barrier:
a human in the loop.

MSPs know they need to move faster. The barriers they name aren't budget or talent the way the conventional wisdom assumes. The single most-cited barrier is the MDR itself: most current providers require a human to evaluate every alert before any action happens. That's the bottleneck the speed of AI is breaking past.

Q25 · Barriers to faster detection
What's standing between you and faster detection today?
81 MSP technical decision-makers · Multi-select (totals exceed 100%)

The top specifically-named barrier is that the current MDR is human-dependent: every alert has to be evaluated by a person before action. 60% of MSPs select at least one human-in-the-loop reason as a barrier to faster response. That's the gap automated detection and containment is built to close.

"It changes the pitch from 'we respond fast' to 'we stop damage instantly.' Instead of competing on MDR alerts and response times, we positioned against competitors on real-time auto-containment versus human in the loop."

IT Director · More than 500-client MSP
What this means for your MSP

The conversation has
already started.

Your clients are asking about AI-accelerated attack speeds. Your prospects are evaluating you on detection time. The MSPs adopting automated detection and response are building a competitive advantage measured in tens of minutes and millions in retained revenue.

See How Wirespeed Compares →
Methodology

How this research was conducted.

81
Technical decision-makers at MSPs
28
Questions per interview (17 structured, 11 open-ended)
~25 min
Median interview length, AI-moderated conversational format
Q2 2026
Field window, blind independent research
0