Across 107 enterprises, AI agents are being given real access to systems and data while the controls meant to contain them lag behind. More than half have already had a confirmed agent security incident or a near-miss; only about a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most agents still share credentials; and only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents. The security stack is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents, spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, and enterprises are evenly split on whether their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers. The result is an agent security gap — autonomous agents proliferating faster than the identity, isolation, and enforcement controls needed to hold them.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how enterprises secure their AI agents: what tooling they run, how they manage agent identity and isolation, what has already gone wrong, how much they spend, and whether they believe their defenses are keeping pace with AI-enabled attackers.
The central finding is an agent security gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the controls in place to contain them. More than half of organizations (54%) have already experienced a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). The structural weakness beneath those numbers is identity: only about a third (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, while the rest report that some agents share credentials or that agents mostly run on shared API keys and human or service-account credentials. When agents share credentials, a single compromised or over-permissioned agent carries a wide blast radius — and only three in ten enterprises (30%) isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes to bound that radius.
What makes the gap notable is how comfortable enterprises are inside it. The security stack is overwhelmingly provider-native — OpenAI’s guardrails (51%), Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud controls, and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls dominate, while the dedicated agent-security specialists barely register — and satisfaction with that borrowed stack is high, averaging 4.2 out of 5. Yet spending remains a thin slice of the security budget, only a third of enterprises believe their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority plan to change tooling within the year. Enterprises are satisfied with controls they are simultaneously preparing to replace.
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent security — the tooling, identity, isolation, and enforcement controls organizations use to secure autonomous AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.
By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 45% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 30% recommenders or influencers. Managers (43%), individual contributors (24%), VPs and directors (15%), and the C-suite (11%) make up the seniority mix. By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 251–1,000 (42%) and 101–250 (25%) employees lead, with 1,001–5,000 (19%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Manufacturing (15%), Retail/E-commerce (14%), and Healthcare/Life Sciences (13%).
At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators.
Satisfaction ratings are computed on the respondents who answered each rating question; the overall satisfaction score reflects 82 of the 107 qualified respondents.
More than half have had an agent security incident or near-miss
We asked whether organizations had experienced an agent security incident — a confirmed breach, or a near-miss caught before harm. Most that run agents in production had.
This is the report’s defining number. More than half of organizations (54%) have already had an agent security event — 18% a confirmed incident and 36% a near-miss caught before it caused harm. Only 42% report nothing, and a small remainder either run no agents in production or don’t track such events. That so many report near-misses rather than only confirmed incidents is telling: enterprises are catching problems, but they are catching them close to the edge. The controls examined in the rest of this report — identity, isolation, enforcement — are what determine whether the next near-miss stays a near-miss.
Exposure scales with company size, but containment does not. The incident-or-near-miss rate rises from 49% in the mid-market (companies with 101-1,000 employees) to 63% at larger enterprises (above 1,000 employees), while sandbox isolation of high-risk agents falls from 35% to 20%, and satisfaction with security tooling drops from 4.36 to 3.97. The organizations running the most agents across the most systems carry the most incidents and the least of the one control that bounds an incident’s blast radius.
Only a third give every agent its own scoped identity
We asked how enterprises manage the identity of their AI agents — whether each agent has its own credentials, or agents share them. Full per-agent identity is the exception.
Rolled together, the overlapping answers show 69% of enterprises (74 of 107) with credential sharing somewhere in the agent fleet. Identity is the structural weakness beneath the incidents. Only about a third of enterprises (32%) give every agent its own scoped, managed identity — the precondition for least-privilege access and clean attribution. Nearly half (48%) say some agents have scoped identities but many still share credentials, and another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. (Respondents could describe more than one pattern across their agent fleet, so these overlap.)
The consequence is direct: when agents share credentials, an over-permissioned or compromised agent can act with far more reach than intended, and forensics after an incident cannot cleanly tell which agent did what. The non-human identity problem — giving every agent its own governed identity — is the single largest unfinished piece of enterprise agent security.
Moreover, a company’s agent credential posture is correlated with incidents. Organizations with credential sharing anywhere in the fleet were hit — with an incident or a near-miss in the past twelve months — at 63.5% (47 of 74). Organizations where every agent carries its own scoped identity were hit at 40.9% (9 of 22). The fully-scoped group is small, so for now the relationship is an association rather than proven causation, and the gap is concentrated in the mid-market — but within a single survey, a twenty-three point difference in incident rate suggests significance.
Only three in 10 sandbox their highest-risk agents
We asked what an organization’s agent security posture looks like in practice — whether they observe, enforce, isolate, or some combination. The control that bounds damage is the least common.
Monitoring and enforcement are reasonably common; containment is not. Roughly half of enterprises observe agent activity (47%) or enforce scoped permissions at runtime (49%), but only 30% isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes that bound the blast radius when the other controls fail. That ordering is backwards from a defense-in-depth standpoint: observation tells you what happened, enforcement tries to prevent it, but isolation is what limits the damage when prevention fails — and it is the control enterprises have adopted least. Combined with the identity gap in Finding 2, the picture is of agents that are watched and permissioned but rarely boxed in, which is precisely the configuration in which a single failure propagates.
Guardrails from OpenAI, Google and Microsoft dominate; specialists barely register
We asked which agent security tooling enterprises use, and which is their primary layer. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the dedicated security vendors.
Enterprises are securing agents with tools that came bundled with their models and clouds. OpenAI’s guardrails lead at 51%, followed by Google’s and Microsoft’s cloud-native controls and Anthropic’s managed-agent controls — and when asked to name their single primary security layer, 82% name one of these provider-native offerings. The purpose-built agent-security category — Palo Alto’s Prisma AIRS, CrowdStrike, Cisco AI Defense, Zenity, HiddenLayer, Check Point’s Lakera, Okta for AI Agents, non-human identity platforms — barely registers, each in the low single digits, and only 5% run no dedicated tooling at all. As with retrieval and evaluation elsewhere in this series, the provider bundle is winning the default: enterprises reach first for the guardrails their platform ships, and the independent security layer that would address the identity and isolation gaps has not yet been adopted at scale.
The provider-default pattern is consistent across both Q2 survey waves. In April–May (n=110), usage was led by the same names — OpenAI’s controls at 26%, Azure at 15%, AWS at 14%, Google at 12% — with every dedicated agent-security specialist at 3% or below and one in ten using no dedicated tooling at all. The common finding from the two surveys: Enterprises are defaulting to the solutions provided by the platform they’re using, and the specialist category vendors have yet to become big players here.
(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondent sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and the usage question counted every vendor or approach a respondent has in place — so the figures measure presence in the security stack rather than spending or exclusivity. Individual vendor percentages therefore carry all the usual sample caveats. The structural pattern, however, held across both Q2 waves on two differently worded questions: provider-native and hyperscaler controls lead, and dedicated agent-security specialists remain in low single digits. Read the individual shares loosely and the pattern with confidence.)
Satisfaction is high, even as incidents mount and identity lags
We asked how satisfied enterprises are with their current agent security tooling. The comfort is notably out of step with the exposure documented above.
Satisfaction with agent security tooling is high — 4.2 out of 5 overall, and 4.1 for value for money — among the most positive readings in this series. That is the striking part: enterprises are highly satisfied with a stack that is mostly borrowed provider guardrails, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss and only a third give their agents scoped identities. The comfort appears to rest on the convenience and low friction of provider-native controls rather than on demonstrated containment. It is a false comfort in the making — the same enterprises expressing satisfaction are, as Finding 8 shows, a clear majority planning to change tooling within the year, which suggests the confidence is thinner than the score implies.
Most spend under a tenth of the security budget on agents
We asked what share of the security budget enterprises allocate to securing AI agents. For a fast-emerging risk, the allocation is modest.
Spending on agent security is still a thin slice. The most common allocation is 6–10% of the security budget (46%), and a third of enterprises (34%) spend 5% or less; only a quarter (24%) devote more than a tenth. Given the incident rate in Finding 1 and the identity and isolation gaps in Findings 2 and 3, the budget looks like a lagging indicator — the risk has arrived faster than the funding to address it. The enterprises spending more than a tenth of their security budget on agents are a distinct minority, and they are likely the ones building the scoped-identity and isolation controls the rest have not.
Only a third think their AI defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers
We asked how enterprises assess the balance between their AI-enabled defenses and AI-enabled attackers. Confidence is far from settled.
Enterprises are split on whether they are winning. Only about a third (35%) believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers; the rest are less sure — 32% call it roughly even, 21% think attackers are ahead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell. Taken together, a clear majority (53%) rate the balance as even or tilted toward the attacker. That uncertainty sits uneasily beside the high satisfaction of Finding 5: enterprises are content with their tooling yet unconvinced it is winning the contest it exists to win. In a domain where the offense is also compounding with AI, an even race is not a comfortable place to be.
Nearly six in 10 plan to adopt or switch tooling within a year
We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.
The security stack is not settled. While 41% have no plans to change, a clear majority (59%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent security solution within twelve months, and 29% within the next quarter — a strong signal that, high satisfaction notwithstanding, enterprises know the current stack is provisional. Incidents are what start the buying cycle.
Among organizations that have been hit, 42.1% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next ninety days, against 14.0% of organizations with no incident — and after a confirmed incident it becomes majority behavior, at 52.6%. Getting hit also changes the threat assessment: 33.3% of hit organizations say AI-armed attackers are ahead of their defenses, against 8.0% of the unhit. Experience, in this data, is the strongest predictor of both urgency and pessimism.
The consideration set still leans provider-native (OpenAI 34%, Google 30%, Anthropic 29%, Azure 25%), but the dedicated security vendors — Cloudflare, Cisco, Palo Alto, Okta, Check Point’s Lakera — draw early interest in the mid-to-high single digits, more than their current footprint.
What the shopping does not yet include is the identity layer specifically. Twelve percent of the respondents include an agent-identity product — Okta for AI Agents, Microsoft Entra Agent ID, or a non-human identity platform — anywhere in their consideration set, and among the credential-sharing organizations that have already had an incident, identity consideration is essentially unchanged, at roughly one in ten. The control most directly implicated by the incident data is the one largely missing from the purchase plans. Whether this wave hardens the provider-native default or finally opens the door to purpose-built agent security — the identity and isolation controls the incidents call for — is the question this series will keep tracking.
Organizations with more than 100 employees are giving AI agents real reach into systems and data while securing them with controls built for something else. More than half have already had an incident or near-miss; only a third give every agent its own scoped identity, and most still share credentials; only three in ten isolate their highest-risk agents; and the stack doing this work is overwhelmingly borrowed from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than purpose-built for agents.
The uncomfortable pairing is confidence with exposure: satisfaction with the current tooling is among the highest in this series, yet spending is a thin slice of the security budget, only a third believe their defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, and a clear majority are already planning to replace what they have. At 107 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: agent adoption is running ahead of agent security, and the controls that matter most when something fails — scoped identity and isolation — are the ones enterprises have built least. The agent security gap is not a coverage problem that a provider guardrail will close on its own; it is a problem of identity, isolation, and enforcement built for autonomous software. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises close it deliberately — or whether a confirmed incident closes it for them.
Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read, not a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, so it’s best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent security rather than from the largest operators. Respondents are senior and buyer-credible (45% final decision-makers, 30% recommenders/influencers), spanning managers through the C-suite, and drawn primarily from Technology/Software, Manufacturing, Retail/E-commerce, and Healthcare/Life Sciences.
Across 107 enterprises, AI infrastructure spending is accelerating well ahead of the ability to see or steer its economics. Most organizations run their AI on a familiar base of hyperscalers and model-provider APIs, yet the next dollar is aimed at specialized compute almost none of them use today; a majority intend to switch or add providers within the year, many within a quarter. Buying decisions turn on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline token price — which is fortunate, because most enterprises cannot yet see their unit economics clearly: GPUs sit at half utilization or less, and fewer than half rigorously track what their compute actually costs. The result is a compute gap — heavy, fast-moving investment running ahead of the visibility needed to control it.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise AI infrastructure and compute: where organizations are in their deployment journey, what they run AI on today, how satisfied they are, what would make them switch, where they plan to evaluate their investments, and — most revealingly — how well they can measure and control the economics of the compute underneath it all.
The central finding is a compute gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are investing in AI infrastructure and how little of its economics they can see. Only about one in five (21%) run AI in production at scale, yet spending intentions are outrunning that maturity: the single largest planned area enterprises plan to evaluate over the next year is AI-specialized clouds (45%), a layer almost none of these enterprises use today. Meanwhile the compute already in place runs cold — 83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less — and fewer than half (44%) can rigorously track what their AI compute costs. Enterprises are buying more infrastructure faster than they can account for what they already own.
Enterprises are not settled on their infrastructure vendors, either: A clear majority (64%) plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider within twelve months, and 38% within the next quarter — unusually high churn intent for a category this foundational. When they choose, they choose on integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%), not on headline price: cost per million tokens is the deciding factor for just 8%. And the frontier constraint that will shape the next round of decisions — the shift from GPU compute to memory bandwidth as inference scales — is barely on the radar, with roughly one in five enterprises either unaware of it or yet to address it.
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey focused on enterprise AI infrastructure, compute, and inference economics. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=107; the survey’s smallest size band, 1–100 employees, is excluded), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.
By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 101–250 employees (36%) and 251–1,000 (27%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (22%), 5,001–10,000 (8%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (38%), individual contributors (28%), VPs and directors (19%), and the C-suite (13%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 45% final decision-makers and another 30% recommenders or influencers for AI solutions. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 26%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (15%), Financial Services (13%), and Retail/E-commerce (12%).
At 107 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It also skews toward the mid-market and toward earlier-stage adopters, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively building out AI infrastructure rather than from the largest hyperscale operators.
Only one in five run AI in production at scale
We asked where organizations sit in their AI deployment journey. Most are still building toward production rather than operating at scale.
The maturity curve is front-loaded. Three-quarters of enterprises (76%) are either experimenting or running only some workloads in production, and just 21% describe AI in production at scale. This matters for everything that follows: the infrastructure decisions in this report are being made largely by organizations still early in deployment, whose compute footprint — and whose costs — are about to grow. The evaluation and switching intentions in Findings 3 and 4 are the leading edge of that build-out, not the settled preferences of operators who have already found what works.
The specialized GPU clouds barely register — today
We asked which providers and platforms enterprises currently use to run their AI. The answer is a familiar one: the incumbents.
The current stack is hyperscaler-and-API. Google Cloud leads at 48%, and the general-purpose clouds (Google, Microsoft, AWS, Oracle) together with the major model APIs (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic) account for essentially all current deployment. The specialized “neocloud” GPU providers that dominate AI-infrastructure headlines — CoreWeave, Lambda, Crusoe, Nebius and peers — register at or near zero among these enterprises today. Only 6% run their own on-prem GPU clusters and 4% a custom open-source stack. Enterprises are, for now, running AI on the providers they already buy from — which makes the evaluation intentions in Finding 3 all the more striking.
(A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, this sample is self-selected and skews mid-market, and this question counted every provider a respondent uses — an average of 2.1 selections each — so the figures measure presence in the stack rather than spending or primary status. A sample built this way will show a different provider mix than a spend-weighted census of the broader market; Google’s strength here, for example, is consistent with its long-standing position among smaller enterprises building on AI. Read these shares as a portrait of what this AI-active cohort runs today, and treat gaps between these figures and industry-wide market share estimates as a property of the sample rather than a contradiction of either.)
AI-specialized clouds top the evaluations list
We asked where enterprises planned to evaluate AI infrastructure over the next 12 months. Their answers point away from the stack they run today.
Here is the report’s sharpest tension. The single most-cited planned evaluation area — AI-specialized clouds, at 45% — is the very category almost none of these enterprises use today (Finding 2). Nearly a third (32%) intend to evaluate non-Nvidia accelerators, and 28% in next-generation Nvidia silicon; even decentralized compute networks (16%) and sovereign compute (11%) draw meaningful interest. Read against current usage, this is not incremental — it is the leading edge of a re-platforming. The direction-of-travel question tells the same story: every infrastructure approach is net-expanding, but specialized AI clouds carry the highest net momentum (+24), edging out even the hyperscalers (+22). Enterprises are preparing to move a meaningful share of AI compute off the general-purpose cloud.
This continues a trend we saw in our April-May survey wave. Back then, usage of the AI-specialized clouds was equally marginal — CoreWeave at 3%, Lambda at 4%, Crusoe at 2% of enterprises. When we asked enterprises what change they planned in their AI infrastructure strategy over the next twelve months, the most-cited answer was moving workloads to specialized AI clouds, at 33%. Asked in April-May which emerging compute option they were most likely to evaluate AI-specialized clouds again drew the most responses. Two waves, two differently worded questions, one consistent picture: the type of cloud enterprises are most eager to assess is the type they have barely begun to use.
Six in 10 plan to change providers within a year — many within a quarter
We asked whether and when enterprises plan to switch or add an infrastructure provider. Very few intend to stand still.
For a category as foundational as compute, this is a remarkable amount of intended movement. Only 36% have no plans to change, meaning a clear majority (64%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months — and 38% within the next quarter alone. Where that interest points is telling: the providers drawing the most switching consideration are again the incumbents — Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud (33% each), OpenAI (30%), and Gemini (22%) — which suggests much of the near-term movement is reshuffling among the majors and consolidating spend rather than defecting to new entrants. The neocloud interest in Finding 3 is a 12-month evaluation thesis; the switching in the next quarter is mostly incumbents trading share.
(Method note: Respondents who selected both “no plans to change” and a specific switching window are counted as switchers, on the logic that naming a timeframe is the more specific answer; three respondents were reclassified under this rule.)
Integration and total cost of ownership decide — not sticker price
We asked what matters most when enterprises select an AI infrastructure provider. Headline price finished last.
Enterprises do not buy AI infrastructure on pricing, which is the place vendors compete on hardest. Integration with the existing stack (41%) and total cost of ownership (35%) dominate, while the headline metric — cost per million tokens — is the deciding factor for just 8%, dead last. The pattern is coherent: buyers are optimizing for how a provider fits and what it truly costs to operate, not for the advertised unit rate. It also foreshadows Finding 7 — enterprises say TCO matters most, yet most cannot yet measure it rigorously. The stated priority and the measured capability are out of step.
83% report GPU utilization of 50% or less
We asked what share of their GPU capacity enterprises actually utilize. The answer is a well-known but rarely quantified inefficiency.
Disclosure: Band percentages count every selection against all 107 qualified respondents; 14 respondents selected more than one band, so bands overlap. At the respondent level, 83 of the 100 GPU-operating enterprises reported utilization at or below 50%
The compute already in place runs cold. Adding the bands at or below half capacity, 83% of enterprises that operate GPUs report utilization of 50% or less, and nearly half (49%) run at 25% or below. Only 12% clear the 50% mark, and a further 8% do not measure utilization at all. Idle accelerators are expensive accelerators, and this is the clearest single measure of the compute gap: enterprises are planning to buy more GPUs and specialized compute (Finding 3) while the capacity they already own sits substantially unused. The efficiency headroom in the current fleet is large — and largely unmeasured.
Fewer than half rigorously track what their compute costs
We asked whether enterprises can quantify the cost and return of their AI infrastructure spend, and how satisfied they are with what they run. Confidence in the ledger lags the spending.
Measurement trails money. Fewer than half of enterprises (44%) rigorously track the cost and return of their AI compute; the majority track only partially (39%), cannot quantify it yet (20%), or have not prioritized it (6%). That gap is consequential given Finding 5, where total cost of ownership was the second-ranked buying criterion — enterprises are choosing providers on an economic basis they mostly cannot yet measure. Satisfaction with current infrastructure is moderately positive but not enthusiastic: on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation (3.8) and value for money (3.9) trailing slightly — the softness landing, tellingly, on cost. Enterprises are spending quickly and accounting slowly.
As inference shifts from compute to memory, the field scatters
Finally, we asked how enterprises would address the emerging constraint in large-scale inference — the shift from GPU compute to memory, specifically KV-cache capacity. The responses reveal a frontier that is not yet a priority.
The memory frontier is real but barely governed. Asked which approach they would rely on as the binding constraint in inference shifts from compute to memory bandwidth, enterprises scatter: Dell leads at 31%, Nvidia follows at 16%, and the rest fragments across storage vendors, open-source tooling, and model-level efficiency techniques. Most telling is that roughly one in five (18%) either do not recognize the constraint or have not begun to address it. For a shift that will reshape inference cost and architecture, this is an early and unsettled market — and, consistent with the measurement gap in Finding 7, one where many enterprises simply do not yet have a view. It is the next chapter of the compute gap, arriving before most have closed the current one.
Organizations with more than 100 employees are investing in AI infrastructure faster than they can measure it. Most are still early in deployment, yet their spending intentions point past their current stack — toward specialized clouds and alternative accelerators almost none of them run today — and a clear majority intend to change providers within the year. They buy on integration and total cost of ownership rather than headline price, which is rational; the difficulty is that most cannot yet see those economics clearly.
The visibility gap is concrete. The GPUs enterprises already own run at half utilization or less for the overwhelming majority, and fewer than half can rigorously track what their compute costs or returns. Satisfaction is decent but unenthusiastic, softest on value for money — the dimension hardest to judge without measurement. And the next constraint, the shift from compute to memory in large-scale inference, is arriving while most enterprises are still unaware of it. At 107 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market and earlier-stage adopters — but the direction is consistent: the appetite to spend is running well ahead of the instrumentation to spend well. The compute gap is not a capacity problem that more hardware will solve on its own; it is, first, a problem of seeing what the hardware already costs. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises build that visibility before the re-platforming arrives — or buy the next layer of infrastructure as blind to its economics as the last.
Based on survey responses from 107 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the results read cross-sectionally rather than as a month-over-month trend, and at 107 respondents this is a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, skews mid-market, and leans toward earlier-stage adopters rather than the largest hyperscale operators. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with buyer-credible purchasing authority, across Technology/Software, Healthcare/Life Sciences, Financial Services, Retail/E-commerce, and other industries.
Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them.
The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production.
Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence.
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%.
By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.
At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators.
More than half have traced agent errors to bad context
We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had.
This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know.
The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem.
Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method
We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin.
Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface.
One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business.
OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools
We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists.
The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy.
The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from.
A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack
We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage.
Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool.
Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient
We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure.
The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed.
Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production
We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived.
The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the “confident but wrong” failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production.
Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security
We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical.
Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%).
Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted.
A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest
We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack.
The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle.
Organizations with more than 100 employees are wiring agents into their business faster than they can guarantee the context those agents run on. Retrieval is the default source of enterprise context, and it increasingly comes from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than the dedicated vector databases — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched agents answer confidently and wrongly because that context was thin or inconsistent. The failure is not exotic; it is the predictable result of pointing authoritative-sounding agents at an unreliable foundation.
The industry’s answer — a governed semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls — is being built but is mostly not yet in production, and enterprises are pulled between the convenience of provider-native bundles and a stated preference for best-of-breed independence. At 101 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: the context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack, and right now agents are running ahead of it. The context gap is not a retrieval-volume problem that more documents or bigger indexes will solve on their own; it is a problem of governed, consistent, access-aware context. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter.
Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. At this sample size the results should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — it’s a self-selected sample, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with strong purchasing authority, across technology, healthcare, retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.
Across 157 enterprises, organizations are granting AI agents more autonomy while trusting the evaluations meant to gate that autonomy less. Half have already shipped an agent that passed their internal evaluations and then failed a customer in production; only one in twenty fully trusts automated evaluation today; and the most-cited weakness is that evaluations do not align with real-world outcomes. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively engineering toward, deploying agent changes to production on automated evaluation alone — with no human in the loop. The result is an evaluation gap — the distance between how much autonomy enterprises are handing their agents and how far they trust the tests that are supposed to catch the failures.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines how technical leaders measure agent performance: which reliability and evaluation platforms they use, how they select and trust them, what breaks in production, and how far they are willing to let agents run without a human in the loop.
The central finding is an evaluation gap — the distance between the autonomy enterprises are granting their agents and the trust they place in the evaluations meant to govern it. Half of organizations (50%) have, in the past year, deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations and then caused a customer-facing failure, and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Trust in the tests themselves is thin: only 5% say they fully trust automated evaluation today, and the single most-cited limitation is that evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes (29%). Enterprises are discovering that a passing eval is not the same as a working agent.
What makes the gap consequential is the direction of travel. Two-thirds of organizations (66%) already permit fully automated, zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to allow it within twelve months (33%). At the same time, the evaluation stack that would have to earn that trust is fragmented and immature: the most common primary tools are the model providers’ native evals, tied with having no dedicated tooling at all (17% each); and only about a quarter of enterprises run real-time quality checks on live production traffic. The autonomy is arriving faster than the assurance.
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this survey — the Agentic Reliability & Evals tracker — focused on how technical leaders evaluate agent performance and reliability. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=157), drawn from a single survey in June 2026; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Where questions were multiple-select, those shares can sum to more than 100%.
By role the sample is senior and buyer-credible: 38% are final decision-makers for AI purchases and another 34% recommenders or influencers. Product and program managers (15%), consultants and advisors (10%), directors of engineering/IT (8%), and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (8%) lead the named titles, alongside a large “Other” function (37%). By organization size the sample is mid-market-weighted: 100–499 (37%) and 500–2,499 (27%) employees lead, with 2,500–9,999 (20%), 10,000–49,999 (10%), and 50,000+ (6%) above them. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 23%, followed by Retail/Consumer (15%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (12%), and Manufacturing (10%).
At 157 respondents the sample is large enough to read directionally but should be treated as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It skews toward the mid-market, so it is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up agent evaluation practices rather than from the largest operators.
Note: This survey was rebuilt for the June wave from the earlier “LLM observability and evaluations” survey; because the questions and sample differ, no comparisons are made to the April–May data.
Half have shipped an agent that passed evals, then failed a customer
We asked whether, in the past 12 months, organizations had deployed an agent or LLM feature that passed their internal evaluations but then caused a customer-facing failure. Half of those that run evaluations had.
This is the report’s defining number. Half of organizations (50%) have shipped an AI feature that cleared their internal evaluations and then failed in front of a customer — an incorrect output, a broken workflow, or a quality incident — and a quarter have seen it happen more than once. Only 36% report no such failure, and the remainder either run no pre-deployment evaluations (8%) or don’t track the root cause closely enough to know (6%). The failure is precise and expensive: the evaluation said the agent was ready, and it was not. Everything that follows — how enterprises trust their evals, what they monitor, and how much autonomy they grant — is shaped by this experience.
The top complaint: Evals don’t match real-world outcomes
We asked which limitation most reduces trust in automated agent evaluations today. Only a sliver of enterprises had no complaint at all.
Trust in automated evaluation is scarce, and specific. Only 5% of organizations say they fully trust automated evaluation as it stands — meaning 95% name a limitation that holds them back. The most common, at 29%, is the one that most directly explains Finding 1: evaluations align poorly with real-world outcomes, passing agents that later fail. Bias or inconsistency (21%) and a lack of explainability (18%) follow — enterprises cannot always tell why an evaluation reached its verdict — and 17% cite data-leakage or privacy concerns in the evaluation process itself. The tests meant to certify agents are not yet trusted to certify them, which is precisely why the autonomy trajectory in Finding 3 is so striking.
Two-thirds already allow, or are building toward, zero-human deployment
We asked whether organizations would let an autonomous agent deploy a code or system change to production on automated evaluation results alone, with no human-in-the-loop validation. The trajectory runs straight through the trust gap.
Here is the paradox at the heart of the report. Even though almost no one fully trusts automated evaluation (Finding 2), two-thirds of organizations (66%) either already allow zero-human-in-the-loop deployment for low-risk agents (34%) or are actively engineering their pipelines to permit it within a year (33%). Only 22% rule it out for the foreseeable future. The direction is unambiguous: enterprises are moving to let evaluations gate production autonomously — removing the human check — at the same moment they say those evaluations don’t reliably match reality. The autonomy ceiling is rising faster than the assurance beneath it, which is the mechanism by which the false-confidence failures of Finding 1 will scale rather than shrink.
Notably, the autonomy bet is not just a small company phenomenon. Splitting the sample by company size, larger enterprises are slightly further down the path toward zero human review than smaller companies (70% versus 64%) and slightly more likely to have shipped an evaluation-passing agent that then failed a customer (54% versus 48%). The assumption that large, regulated organizations are holding the human in the loop longest is, in this sample, backwards. To be sure, these are directional figures, since the survey was not a huge sample — 57 respondents from companies with 2,500+ employees and 100 from companies smaller than that.
Provider-native evals lead — tied with no dedicated tool at all
We asked which agent reliability or evaluation platform enterprises primarily use today. The market has no clear leader — and a large share has nothing dedicated.
The evaluation layer is early and unconsolidated. Provider-native tooling leads — OpenAI’s native evals and traces (17%) and Anthropic’s Claude Console evals (13%) together outweigh any independent platform — but it is tied at the top by a striking answer: 17% of enterprises use no dedicated agent-evaluation tooling at all, a notable gap for organizations shipping agents to customers. The specialist evaluation vendors — DeepEval (12%), Braintrust (8%), LangSmith, Weave, Promptfoo, Langfuse, Arize — are scattered across single to low double digits, and 11% have built their own. No independent platform has yet become the category standard, which leaves most enterprises evaluating agents with provider-native tools, home-grown scripts, or nothing.
Only a quarter run real-time quality checks on live traffic
Production monitoring for an AI agent can watch two very different things. It can watch whether the system is functioning — is the agent up and responding, did each request complete, how fast, at what cost, with any errors. Or it can watch whether the agent’s output is correct — automated checks that evaluate the content of each answer as it goes out: did the agent give the right answer, take the right action, stay within policy. The distinction matters because a confidently wrong answer is invisible to the first kind of monitoring: the request completes, the response is fast, no error is thrown, and every functioning-metric reads healthy. We asked organizations which kind their live production monitoring is built for today.
Grouped by what is actually being watched, the split is stark: 51% of organizations monitor only whether the agent is functioning, while 23% monitor whether its answers are right. Counting the ad-hoc reviewers and the don’t-knows, roughly three-quarters of organizations run no automated, real-time evaluation of output correctness in production — they can see that the system is up and what it costs, and they are taking the correctness of its answers on faith. That blind spot is the runtime counterpart to the pre-deployment gap in Finding 1: the same organizations engineering the human out of the deployment decision mostly cannot see, in real time, when the deployed agent starts getting things wrong.
Price and integration drive selection; evaluation consistency is the goal
We asked what most influenced enterprises’ choice of an evaluation vendor, and what they treat as their primary measure of success. Both answers are pragmatic.
Enterprises buy evaluation tooling on economics and trust it on repeatability. Cost of evaluations (28%) narrowly leads selection, just ahead of ease of integration (27%) and evaluation accuracy (24%) — breadth of observability (13%) and vendor roadmap (4%) matter far less. On what success looks like, more than a third (36%) name evaluation consistency — getting the same verdict on the same behavior every time — well ahead of speed of experimentation (19%), reduction in failures (18%), production visibility (13%), and compliance (11%). The emphasis on consistency is telling: before enterprises can trust an evaluation’s verdict, they need it to be stable — the very property whose absence (bias and inconsistency) ranked among the top trust limitations in Finding 2. Satisfaction with current tooling is only moderate, averaging 3.8 on a five-point scale across overall satisfaction, ease of implementation, and value for money.
Investment is flowing to oversight, not just automation
We asked which reliability and evaluation investment will grow most over the next year. The money is going toward watching agents more closely — including with people.
The second-largest planned investment — behind only production observability — is human review workflows, at 26%. Read against Finding 1, that is the report’s quietest contradiction: at the same moment two-thirds of enterprises are engineering the human out of the deployment decision, more of them plan to grow spending on human reviewers (26%) than on the automated evaluation pipelines (16%) that would replace them. The zero-human trajectory and the human-review budget are rising in the same companies at the same time. Indeed, only 8% report that their budget is not increasing.
Taken together, enterprises are hedging: building toward autonomy while spending to watch agents more closely and keep humans available for the calls that automated evaluation cannot yet be trusted to make.
Nearly two-thirds plan to adopt or switch platforms within a year
We asked whether enterprises plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement evaluation platform, and which they are considering. Few intend to stand pat.
The evaluation market is wide open. While 36% have no plans to change, a clear majority (64%) intend to adopt a new, additional, or replacement platform within twelve months, and 31% within the next quarter. The consideration set points where current usage is thinnest: Confident AI’s DeepEval leads what enterprises are evaluating (20%), ahead of OpenAI’s native evals (13%) and Braintrust (9%) — the open-source specialists drawing more interest than their present footprint.
Given that so many enterprises today rely on provider-native tools or nothing at all (Finding 4), this is less a defection than a first real wave of tooling adoption — the moment the evaluation layer starts to consolidate. Which platforms earn that trust, in a market where almost no one trusts automated evaluation yet, is the open question this series will keep tracking.
Organizations with 100 or more employees are granting AI agents more independence than they trust their evaluations to support. Half have already shipped an agent that passed its evals and then failed a customer; almost none fully trust automated evaluation, chiefly because it doesn’t match real-world outcomes; and most watch production for uptime and cost rather than for whether the agent’s answers are right. Yet two-thirds already allow, or are actively building toward, deploying to production on automated evaluation alone.
The vendor market is early and unsettled: the most common primary evaluation tools are provider-native evals, tied with no dedicated tooling at all, and a clear majority plan to adopt or switch platforms within the year. Encouragingly, the next dollar is going to observability and — pointedly — human review, suggesting enterprises sense the gap even as they engineer past it. At 157 respondents in a single wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: autonomy is being granted on the strength of evaluations that the people granting it do not yet trust. The evaluation gap is not a coverage problem that more tests alone will close; it is a problem of evaluations that reflect reality and can be trusted to gate it. The open question for later waves is whether assurance catches up to autonomy — or whether the false-confidence failures move from customer incidents into changes that deploy themselves.
Based on survey responses from 157 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. This is a directional read rather than a precise measurement — the sample is self-selected, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include product and program managers, consultants and advisors, directors of engineering/IT, and CIOs/CTOs/CISOs, among other functions, across technology/software, retail/consumer, healthcare/life sciences, manufacturing, and other industries.
Across 101 enterprises, agent orchestration is consolidating onto model-provider platforms — Anthropic’s Claude leads by a wide margin — chosen for the gravity of the underlying model and judged on reliable multi-step execution. But the ambition runs well ahead of the reality: most deployed “agents” are still chatbot wrappers, the control plane enterprises expect is deliberately hybrid to avoid lock-in, and real-time fiscal control over token burn remains the exception.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines enterprise agent orchestration: which platforms enterprises run on, what drives the choice, what they optimize for, how they expect agent control to be structured, and — most revealingly — how orchestrated their deployed “agents” actually are and how tightly they control the cost of running them.
The central finding is a gap between orchestration ambition and orchestration reality. Enterprises are consolidating fast onto the major model platforms: Anthropic’s Claude is the primary platform for 40%, more than double any rival, followed by Microsoft (18%) and OpenAI (13%). The choice is driven by “model gravity” — native alignment with a state-of-the-art base model (21%) — and success is judged by reliable, multi-step execution (task completion reliability 32%, multi-step workflow management 28%). Yet asked to assess their portfolios honestly, 71% say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows rather than single-prompt chatbot wrappers, and only 10% have crossed the halfway mark. The orchestration layer is being built well ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run.
That gap shapes the architecture enterprises are putting in place. By the end of 2026 a clear majority (51%) expect a hybrid control plane — provider-native plus external orchestration — and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service, because vendor lock-in (35%) is the risk they fear most if control lives inside a model provider. Investment follows the build-out: agent workflow tooling leads the spend (34%), with security and permissions enforcement (25%) behind. And fiscal control lags throughout — more than a quarter (27%) have no real-time way to stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives.
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on enterprise agent orchestration. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees (n=101), drawn from a single June 2026 wave; because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends.
By organization size the sample is spread evenly across the enterprise bands: 100–499 employees, 2,500–9,999, and 50,000+ (21% each), with 10,000–49,999 and 500–2,499 (19% each). By role it is senior and buyer-credible: product and program managers (15%), CIO/CTO/CISO (13%), consultants and advisors (13%), and a spread of data, AI, and engineering directors and VPs, with an “Other” function at 18%. On purchasing, 81% are recommenders, influencers, or final decision-makers for AI solutions (66% recommender/influencer, 15% final decision-maker). Technology/Software is the largest industry at 44%, followed by Financial Services (17%) and Healthcare/Life Sciences (8%).
At 101 respondents the sample is robust enough to read directionally with reasonable confidence, though it remains self-selected and is not a probability sample.
Anthropic’s Claude leads; open frameworks are marginal
We asked which agent orchestration platform enterprises primarily use today. The answer concentrates on the major model providers — and on one in particular.
A note on reading these shares. As described in the methodology section, the respondents are self-selected, and this question asked them for a single primary platform — so the figures measure which platform leads each enterprise’s deployment, within a self-selected audience of AI-active technical decision-makers. A sample built this way can diverge substantially from spend-weighted market measures, and each VB Pulse survey draws its own sample with its own company-size mix, so vendor figures should not be compared across our surveys either. Read these shares as a portrait of where this cohort has placed its primary orchestration bet today, rather than as market share.
The model platforms dominate. Anthropic, Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Amazon together account for roughly 80% of deployments (81 of 101), while the open frameworks (LangChain/LangGraph) and custom in-house builds that anchor engineering discussion sit in single digits. Anthropic’s lead — 40%, more than double the next platform — mirrors the “model gravity” selection logic in Finding 2: enterprises are choosing the orchestration layer that comes with the model they want to build on. As with the security vendors in the prior agent-security wave, the tools that define the category in technical circles are not yet where enterprise deployment concentrates. A small 3% are not orchestrating at all.
Respondents rate the platforms they run at 3.94 out of 5 overall (109 answered), with “value for money” specifically at 3.94 and “ease of implementation” the weakest score, at 3.85 — placing orchestration near the bottom of our five-tracker satisfaction range, ahead of only evaluation tooling. A rating just under 4 out of 5, from users of whom 96% plan to change their orchestration approach within the year, reads as provisional acceptance: the platforms work well enough to run today, and not well enough to stop the search for something better. The ratings sit alongside near-universal intent to change; this is a layer enterprises tolerate more than they love.
The base model, not the tooling, decides the platform
We asked what most influenced the orchestration platform choice. The single largest factor is the pull of the underlying model — though flexibility and ease of development follow close behind.
Model gravity leading is the selection-side explanation for Anthropic’s platform lead: enterprises pick the orchestration environment closest to the frontier model they have standardized on. But the next tier complicates the picture — flexibility across models and tools (17%) and ease of development (17%) say enterprises also want to avoid being trapped by that choice, foreshadowing the lock-in fear in Finding 6. Security and permissions (14%) and total cost of ownership (11%) round out a pragmatic buying logic. Performance (latency/memory) sits last at 4%, a reminder that at this stage of adoption the binding constraints are model fit and optionality, not raw speed.
Enterprises just orchestration by whether it completes the work
We asked what enterprises optimize for — their primary success metric for orchestration. Reliability and multi-step workflow management dominate; developer- and user-facing metrics trail.
Task completion reliability (32%) and multi-step workflow management (28%) together account for 59% of responses (60 of 101): orchestration succeeds, in the enterprise view, when it reliably carries a task through multiple steps to completion. Developer productivity (17%) matters but is secondary — the inverse of its prominence in framework discussion — and end-user experience (9%) is a minor concern, consistent with orchestration being an internal execution problem rather than a UX one. This reliability-first standard is exactly what makes the Chatbot Trap finding so pointed: enterprises define success as dependable multi-step execution, yet most of their deployed “agents” do not yet do multi-step work at all.
The trap is not evenly distributed. Splitting the sample by organization size, 77% of smaller enterprises say a quarter or fewer of their agents do true multi-step work, against 62% of larger ones. Larger enterprises are meaningfully further into genuine multi-step deployment; the chatbot trap is, directionally, a mid-market condition.
Three strategic moves are nearly tied for the year ahead
We asked what major change enterprises anticipate in their orchestration strategy over the next 12 months. Three moves cluster at the top, almost evenly split.
The top three — building in-house control (25%), standardizing on one framework (24%), and moving agents from sandbox to production (23%) — are statistically indistinguishable and tell a single story: enterprises are moving from experimentation to operational consolidation. They want fewer frameworks, more production exposure, and more ownership of the control layer; only 4% expect no change. The appetite for custom in-house control planes is notable alongside the platform concentration in Finding 1 — enterprises are standardizing on model-provider platforms while simultaneously planning to wrap them in control logic they own, the hybrid posture that Finding 6 makes explicit.
The strategic change enterprises anticipate (previous finding) comes with vendor motion attached. Asked whether they plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement agent orchestration platform in the next twelve months, more respondents are moving here than in any other layer we track.
Asked which platforms they are considering, the most common answer among those in motion is none yet: 29% of all respondents are evaluating without a shortlist, the largest single response after “not considering a change.” Among named candidates, OpenAI leads at 16%, followed by LangChain/LangGraph at 12% and Anthropic at 7% — and notably, the independent frameworks draw roughly double their current usage footprint in forward consideration, the same pattern our security tracker found for specialist vendors. Read with this report’s concentration and lock-in findings, the picture completes itself: the major model-platform providers hold roughly four-fifths of today’s primary usage, vendor lock-in has become the leading fear, 96% anticipate a strategic change — and now the purchase intent to act on all of it, with the largest bloc of buyers still undecided. The most concentrated layer of the agentic stack is also, as of June, the least settled.
Tooling and permissions lead the spend; monitoring trails
We asked which orchestration-related investment will grow most next year. Agent workflow tooling leads, with security and permissions enforcement behind.
Workflow tooling leading (34%) is the budget-side expression of the reliability-and-multi-step priority in Finding 3: the money is going to the machinery that strings steps together dependably. Security and permissions enforcement (25%) and scaling infrastructure (20%) follow — the investments required to take agents from sandbox into production, the strategic move in Finding 4. Monitoring and debugging draws a smaller 11%, with another 11% reporting flat budgets. The weight on tooling, permissions, and scaling over pure observability signals that enterprises are spending to build and harden orchestration, not merely to watch it run.
Enterprises expect to split control between providers and their own layer
We asked where enterprises expect the primary control plane for agents to live by the end of 2026, and what worries them most if that control sits inside a model-provider platform. A clear majority expect a hybrid model — and vendor lock-in is the reason.
Hybrid control is the dominant expectation by a wide margin (51%), and only 6% expect to hand control to a provider-managed service outright. Read together, the hybrid, custom, and externally-abstracted options — every architecture that keeps control at least partly outside the provider — sum to 88% (89 of 101). The reason surfaces directly when we asked about the risk of provider-resident control: vendor lock-in leads at 35% (35 of 101), ahead of security and permissioning limitations (28%) and inflexibility across models and tools (21%). The pattern echoes the prior wave’s “don’t trust the model to police itself” posture — here, enterprises will build on a provider’s platform but decline to be governed entirely by it. The hybrid control plane is the architectural hedge against the lock-in they most fear.
The June figure asserting a preference for a hybrid control plane marks movement from earlier. In the April–May survey (n=145), only 34% expected a hybrid control plane, and a greater number (12%) expected to hand control fully to a provider-managed service. These two snapshots don’t yet measure a confirmed longitudinal trend — but the direction of the conversation is unambiguous: toward keeping control.
Lock-in is also a new arrival as a top concern. In the April–May wave, the leading concern was security and permissioning limitations (32%), with lock-in second at 24%; by June the two had traded places. The worry about provider platforms appears to be maturing from whether they can be secured to whether they can be replaced.
Enterprises admit most deployments are still chatbot wrappers
We asked enterprises to assess their portfolios honestly: what share of their deployed “agents” are true multi-step orchestrated workflows versus simple single-prompt chatbot wrappers. The answer is the defining finding of this wave.
This is the gap at the center of the report. Combining the bottom two bands, 71% of enterprises (72 of 101) say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are genuinely orchestrated — and just 10% (10 of 101) have crossed the halfway mark. The ambition documented in the earlier findings — model-provider platforms, reliability-first success metrics, production rollouts, a deliberate control architecture — runs well ahead of the deployed reality, which remains overwhelmingly single-prompt assistants dressed as agents. This is less a contradiction than a roadmap: the platforms, budgets, and strategies are being put in place precisely because the orchestrated portfolio is still so thin. The open question for later waves is how fast the reality closes on the ambition.
Only a minority can stop a runaway agent before the bill arrives
Finally, we asked how enterprises enforce fiscal control over agent token consumption — the risk that an autonomous loop exhausts a budget before anyone intervenes. Most rely on native caps or after-the-fact monitoring; real-time programmatic control is the exception.
More than a quarter of enterprises (27%) admit they have no real-time, programmatic way to stop an agent before a budget-breaking bill arrives — they learn of it from the logs afterward. Another 32% lean entirely on the native caps and throttles built into their primary platform, a control only as good as the provider’s tooling and one that ties back to the lock-in concern of Finding 6. The enterprises building custom gateways (23%) or exploiting cross-model routing to arbitrage cost (19%) are the ones treating token burn as an engineering problem to be controlled deterministically. As with orchestration maturity, fiscal control is an area where the operational reality lags the ambition: agents are moving toward production faster than the cost-control plane around them is being built.
It’s worth noting, a split appears according to company size: roughly one in three enterprises under 2,500 employees (34%) exercises only reactive control of agent spend, against 20% of larger enterprises — directional figures, but consistent with the chatbot-trap split. The mid-market is running the least mature agents on the least instrumented budgets.
Organizations with 100 or more employees describe an orchestration strategy that is consolidating quickly and maturing slowly. They are standardizing — for now — on model-provider platforms, which collectively hold roughly four-fifths of primary usage, chosen for the gravity of the underlying model, and they judge success by reliable multi-step execution. Investment is flowing to workflow tooling and permissions, the strategy is to consolidate frameworks and push agents into production, and the control plane they expect is deliberately hybrid, because vendor lock-in is the risk they fear most. But the standardization is provisional: 68% plan to adopt a new, additional, or replacement orchestration platform within twelve months — the highest switching intent of any layer we track — and the largest group of those movers has not yet shortlisted a candidate. Today’s concentration describes where enterprises are, and visibly does not describe where they intend to stay.
But the honest self-assessment punctures the ambition. Seventy-one percent say a quarter or fewer of their deployed “agents” are truly orchestrated, only 10% are past the halfway mark, and more than a quarter cannot stop a runaway agent in real time. The orchestration layer — the platforms, the budgets, the control architecture — is being built ahead of the orchestrated portfolio it is meant to run. At 101 respondents in a single June wave this reads as a clear directional signal rather than a precise measurement: enterprises have decided how they want to orchestrate agents well before most of their agents are doing anything an orchestration layer is for. The questions for subsequent waves are whether the deployed reality closes the gap on the ambition — and, with nearly seven in ten buyers in motion and most of them undecided, which platforms the settled stack finally lands on.
Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single June 2026 wave. Because this is one wave rather than a pooled multi-month sample, results read directionally rather than as a confirmed trend. Respondents include product and program managers, CIOs, CTOs and CISOs, consultants and advisors, and directors and VPs of data, AI, and engineering, across Technology/Software, Financial Services, Healthcare, and other sectors.
AI portfolios are expanding far faster than the ability to govern them across enterprises. Most organizations run a contested field of platforms, each claiming to be the “primary” AI layer; few could confidently detect a model drifting or failing in production; and the single most-cited barrier to control is the absence of any one owner accountable for AI across the stack. The result is a widening control gap — ambition and spend racing ahead of visibility, ownership, and cost control — with autonomous agents already producing real financial and operational failures.
This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise AI control gap: how many platforms claim to be the primary AI layer, who actually governs AI behavior across them, whether organizations could detect a model failing in production, what most blocks cross-platform governance, and how the financial and operational control failures of autonomous agents are already surfacing.
The central finding is a control gap — the distance between how aggressively enterprises are expanding AI and how little of it they can see, own, or govern. Just under three-fifths (58%) are net-adding AI initiatives, with “expanding significantly” the largest single posture.
Yet 85% run two or more platforms each claiming to be the “primary” AI layer and only 8% have consolidated to one. Against that contested surface, 40% say they are very confident they would detect a model drifting, behaving unsafely, or failing in production — but only 10% back that confidence with active monitoring and alerting, the rest leaning on manual human review. The machinery to expand AI is running well ahead of the machinery to control it.
The gap is, above all, a question of ownership. Only a third (38%) say a central team governs AI today, and a fifth (20%) say each platform team governs its own independently; the single most-cited barrier to cross-platform governance is the absence of a single accountable owner (32%), and roughly one in six (17%) say no role holds formal accountability at all. The same vacuum shows up in spend: just under half (49%) name shadow AI — unauthorized agentic pipelines run on corporate cards outside central oversight — as their most severe control failure, and another 25% have been hit by a runaway “infinite loop” agent bill. Enterprises have standardized the ambition well before they have standardized the control.
VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series, this instrument focused on the enterprise AI control gap — governance, observability, and cost control across multiple AI platforms. Responses are filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees and, for this cut, exclude the respondents who selected “Other” as their job function, leaving a base of identifiable roles (n=145); all are drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave.
By organization size the sample tilts toward the mid-market and lower-large bands: 100–499 and 500–2,499 employees (23% each) lead, with 10,000–49,999 (22%) and 2,500–9,999 (20%) close behind and 50,000+ at 11%. By role it is senior and technical: consultants and advisors (20%), CIO/CTO/CISO (18%), directors of engineering/IT (14%), product and program managers (13%), and enterprise architects (12%) make up the core. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 41%, followed by Financial Services and Professional Services (12% each) and Healthcare/Life Sciences and Manufacturing/Industrial (10% each).
The findings should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. Where a single share would be fragile on its own, the report leans on the direction and grouping of responses rather than the exact percentage point.
AI portfolios are growing faster than the means to govern them
We asked enterprises to describe how their AI portfolio has changed over the past 12 months. Growth leads — with a meaningful minority deliberately pulling back.
Expansion leads. Combining “expanding significantly” (33%) and “net positive growth” (25%), just under three-fifths of enterprises (58%) are net-adding AI initiatives. Yet a substantial share is easing off deliberately: roughly a quarter (23%) are actively rationalizing — scaling what works and cutting the rest — and another 12% hold their portfolios flat. Only a handful (3%) have paused to get governance in order first.
This is the engine behind every gap that follows: enterprises are accelerating into a landscape they have not yet learned to see or own, and a notable 4% cannot even describe their own portfolio. The ambition documented here is exactly what makes the visibility and ownership shortfalls in Findings 3 and 4 consequential rather than academic.
More than four in five run multiple platforms each claiming primacy
We asked how many enterprise platforms currently claim to be the organization’s “primary” AI layer — the ERP, EHR, ITSM, productivity suite, or data platform each positioning itself as the center of gravity. Almost no one has a single answer.
The defining condition is contested primacy. Adding the two multi-platform bands, 85% of enterprises have at least two platforms each asserting itself as the primary AI layer, and more than a third (36%) describe an open four-way-or-more contest. Only 8% have consolidated to a single layer, and another 6% have not even mapped the question. This is the structural reason governance is hard: there is no agreed center of gravity to govern from. Each platform brings its own AI, its own controls, and its own assumptions — and, as Finding 3 shows, the question of who governs across them increasingly has no settled answer.
A central team owns it on paper; in practice, it’s fragmenting
We asked who is actually responsible for governing AI behavior across all of those platforms today, and which function holds primary accountability. The headline answer is reassuring; the detail is not.
On the surface, a central governance function is the leading answer — but only a third (38%) claim one, well short of a majority. The rest of the distribution undercuts it further: a fifth (21%) say ownership is unclear or contested between teams, a fifth (20%) say each platform team simply governs its own AI independently, and 19% say no one has addressed it at all.
Accountability fragments further when we asked which role actually holds it — CIO/CTO/CISO leads at 27%, a Chief AI Officer or equivalent at 22%, and a striking 17% say no one holds formal accountability yet. Even where a central team is claimed, the named owner is most often the general technology executive rather than a dedicated AI authority. The governance function exists more often as an org-chart aspiration than an operating reality — the precondition for the detection gap in Finding 4.
Only one in 10 have active monitoring and alerting
We asked how confident enterprises are that they would detect an AI model in production that was drifting, behaving unsafely, or failing to complete tasks correctly. This is the heart of the control gap.
This is the report’s central number. While 40% say they are very confident they would detect a failing model, the overwhelming majority of that confidence rests on manual human review (30%) rather than automation — just 10% have active monitoring and alerting actually in place.
At the other end, more than a quarter combine the two reactive answers — no systematic visibility (8%) and would hear it from end users first (19%) — meaning they would learn of a production failure after the fact, from the people it affected. The plurality (32%) sit in a hopeful middle, expecting to “catch most issues eventually.” Set against the aggressive expansion of Finding 1, this is the crux of the control gap — enterprises are scaling AI into production faster than they are building automated means to know when it breaks. Confidence is real, but it is largely manual, and automated detection remains the exception.
Governance stalls on accountability first, visibility second
We asked enterprises to name their single biggest barrier to governing AI across multiple platforms. The org chart tops the list.
The single missing owner leads at 32%, the most-cited barrier. Vendor opacity (25%) and the lack of tooling or infrastructure to observe across platforms (16%) sit behind, and together these two technical-visibility barriers (41%) outweigh the ownership gap. Leadership deprioritization accounts for another 17%, while a clear lack of talent is rare (5%). Rounding out the picture, another 5% say it isn’t a barrier for them at all — they’ve already solved it.
Read together, the picture is more contested than the headline suggests: enterprises still most often name a missing owner, but a good share locate the obstacle in vendor black boxes and the absence of cross-platform observability.
Asked in a free-text question what one thing they would fix, respondents converged from different directions on the same answer — a single accountable owner, and a control plane that abstracts cost, drift, and model choice away from the end user.
Roughly seven in 10 have little to show for custom model investment
We asked what share of the proprietary foundation models enterprises have invested in fine-tuning over the past 18 months have delivered clear, measurable positive ROI in production today. Most describe a sandbox graveyard — or a deliberate decision to avoid one.
Custom fine-tuning has, for most, not paid off. Combining the three disappointing outcomes — sandbox graveyard, strategic avoidance, and total write-off — roughly seven in ten (73%) either failed to get custom models into productive use or deliberately declined to try, against 27% for whom fine-tuned models are a reliable advantage. The largest single group (45%) remains the graveyard: projects too expensive or complex to maintain, stranded in development. Another quarter (24%) never started — they priced in the downstream maintenance burden and avoided it.
The signal is that many enterprises still treat bespoke model training as a cost trap, which helps explain the pragmatic, buy-and-blend vendor posture in Finding 7.
Enterprises blend open and closed models; more are now trimming a vendor
We asked two related questions: whether enterprises are shifting workloads toward open-weight models to escape API costs and lock-in, and which proprietary vendor, if any, they are most likely to phase out over the next year. The answers describe hedging — and a rising willingness to cut.
On open weights, a clear majority (51%) strike a hybrid balance, with a deliberate closed commitment second at 32% and a hard pivot to self-hosted open models at 16%. The hybrid plurality is the same instinct visible throughout this survey — keep optionality, avoid being trapped — while the closed group remains candid that the operational overhead of self-hosting still outweighs the savings for them.
On vendor defection, loyalty by inertia no longer leads: Microsoft is now the single most-named target (29%, often citing Copilot/Azure cutbacks in favor of direct model access), narrowly ahead of the 27% who are downsizing no one at all. OpenAI follows at 21% (citing pricing volatility), with Anthropic at 15% and Google at 6%. No single vendor faces a wholesale exodus, but among identifiable roles the balance has tipped from “expanding across all” toward actively trimming at least one provider.
Unauthorized pipelines, not runaway loops, are the top control failure
Finally, we asked what the most severe financial or operational control failure enterprises have experienced as autonomous agents run over longer execution windows. Shadow AI tops the list — and very few have escaped a scare.
The control gap has a price, and it is being paid. Just under half of enterprises (49%) cite shadow AI — unauthorized agentic pipelines spun up on corporate cards outside any central oversight — as their most severe failure, the operational twin of the “no single owner” barrier in Finding 5. Another 25% have been burned by a runaway infinite-loop agent bill, and 6% by an agent that degraded production databases. Only 21% report guarded stability — the minority that has imposed hard token throttling and budget caps at the infrastructure layer and avoided surprises.
Put differently, roughly four in five of these enterprises (79%) have already experienced a real financial or operational control failure from autonomous AI, not merely worried about one. As with detection in Finding 4, the deterministic controls that would prevent these failures exist at only a fraction of organizations.
Organizations with 100 or more employees describe AI programs that are expanding fast and governing slowly. Just under three-fifths are net-adding to their portfolios; more than four in five run a contested field of platforms with no agreed primary layer; and the thing they most often name as their chief obstacle is a single accountable owner. The visibility to match the ambition is largely manual — only 10% have active monitoring and alerting, and confidence in detecting a failing model rests mostly on human review rather than automation.
The consequences are already concrete rather than hypothetical. Custom fine-tuning has disappointed more often than not, pushing enterprises toward a hedged, hybrid, buy-and-blend model posture; and the autonomous agents now reaching production have produced real control failures for roughly four in five respondents, led by shadow AI running outside any central oversight. This reads as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — but the direction is consistent across every question: ambition, spend, and deployment are racing ahead of ownership, observability, and cost control. The control gap is not a tooling problem that more spending will close on its own; it is, first, a question of who owns the answer.
Based on survey responses from 145 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees). Sample size is small; data should be treated as directional. Respondents include Directors, VPs, CIOs, CTOs, and Enterprise Architects across Technology, Financial Services, Retail, Healthcare, and other sectors.
In Q1 2026, VentureBeat’s Pulse Research surfaced the “Governance Mirage”: the gap between the governance org charts enterprises had drawn and the control layers they had actually built. Forty-three percent said a central team owned AI governance; 23% couldn’t agree on who owned it at all; and 31% named vendor opacity as the single biggest obstacle.
This new wave of research asks the next question: Once you’ve admitted the governance problem, what breaks first when you try to fix it? The answer from our respondents is unambiguous. The failure point is not the model. It’s the runtime.
Enterprises are discovering that AI agents built on stateless infrastructure — Python scripts, LangChain chains, ad hoc orchestration — cannot survive the operational realities of production. Container restarts erase context. Token costs breach business cases. Hallucinations in Step 3 compound into catastrophic failures by Step 12. And the majority of engineering teams are spending more time managing this “plumbing” than building the intelligence that was supposed to justify the investment.
What emerges from this survey is a picture of an industry at a critical fork. The organizations that survive the Agentic Reckoning will be those that treat runtime durability as a first-class engineering concern — not an afterthought to be patched with retries and prompting. The ones that don’t will find themselves back where RPA left enterprises a decade ago: a graveyard of clever pilots that couldn’t survive Day Two.
VentureBeat conducted this survey in May 2026 as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series on agentic AI adoption in the enterprise. Respondents were filtered to organizations with 100 or more employees. The final qualified sample consists of 132 verified, highly qualified technology leaders at the forefront of enterprise AI agent deployment.
They span:
|
Directors of AI/Analytics (8%) |
Directors of Engineering/IT (16%) |
|
VP of Data/AI/Analytics (5%) |
VP of Engineering/IT (5%) |
|
CIOs/CTOs/CISOs (15%) |
Product and Program Managers (13%) |
|
Consultants (9%) |
Software and ML Engineers (9%) |
|
Enterprise Architects (8%) |
Other (12%) |
Industries represented include Technology/Software (42%), Financial Services (20%), Professional Services (8%), Healthcare/Life Sciences (7%), Retail/Consumer (6%), Education (4%), and others.
Given our strict filtering criteria, this cohort provides a robust and authoritative look at emerging agentic infrastructure trends.
Respondent demographics by company size:
Large enterprise (10,000+ employees): 35% of the sample
Mid-to-large enterprise (500–9,999 employees): 48% of the sample
Growth enterprise (100–499 employees): 17% of the sample
These quantitative findings capture a critical moment in infrastructure evolution and are best synthesized alongside VentureBeat’s Q1 2026 governance reports and our deep-dive practitioner conversations conducted throughout the quarter.
The “spine vs. brain” debate is over
The foundational question of enterprise AI in 2026 is whether agent failures trace back to the model’s reasoning capability — the Brain — or to the runtime infrastructure’s inability to manage state, survive failures, and coordinate execution — the Spine. We asked our respondents directly.
Integration/governance challenges were the biggest problem. But Spine issues were close behind.
However, 17% still say the Brain is the primary failure mode. That’s not a rounding error — it’s a signal. The organizations in this cohort are not disputing the infrastructure problem; they are telling us that the models themselves are not yet reliable enough for the edge cases their workflows are generating. The model-versus-runtime debate is genuinely three-sided. Read together, these three answers are not fully in conflict. The Spine and Gap camps are struggling with infrastructure and governance respectively. The Brain cohort is struggling with something upstream: reasoning reliability at scale.
This is a significant finding. The frontier model wars — GPT-5 vs. Claude 4.7 vs. Grok — are consuming enormous mindshare in the enterprise technology press. Our respondents are telling us that war is, for now, beside the point. The models are smart enough, but the infrastructure around them is not.
“The models are smart enough, but our stateless infrastructure is too fragile to manage long-running, multi-step agentic processes.”
— Director of Engineering / IT, Financial Services, 10,000–49,999 employees
Engineering capacity is being consumed by plumbing, not intelligence
If the Spine is a primary failure mode, what does that cost in practice? We asked respondents what percentage of their team’s weekly engineering capacity is consumed by building and maintaining custom “plumbing” — manual retries, state-persistence, checkpointing — rather than actual agentic logic.
The results reveal a market in two distinct camps, with a dangerous middle.
The arithmetic is stark. Seventy-seven percent of respondents are spending meaningful engineering time on infrastructure overhead. Just 23% — those whose frameworks are handling reliability — have escaped the tax. The distribution is notably flat: the Crisis and Efficiency poles are the same sizes as the middle categories (Trap and Maintenance Tax). This is the signature of a market that has partially addressed the worst failures but has not yet escaped the structural overhead.
The Efficiency Zone respondents are not necessarily in a more sophisticated position. In many cases, they may be on managed platforms that abstract away the durability problem — or they may simply not yet have hit the scale at which stateless architectures begin to fail. The Complexity Trap is often where the Efficiency Zone ends.
There’s a direct business consequence for organizations in the Crisis zone. Every engineering hour spent writing retry logic or debugging a “ghost failure” — a silent API timeout that leaves an agent hanging without a traceback — is an hour not spent on the differentiated logic that was supposed to justify the AI investment in the first place.
The No. 1 technical obstacle has shifted: Cost and hallucination now lead state failures
When AI agents fail to reach production or scale, what is the primary technical obstacle? We named five candidates, ranging from model hallucination to cost overruns to latency failures.
Hallucination Propagation at 24% compounds silently — reasoning errors in early steps become catastrophic by Step 10. Ghost Failures at 20% are invisible by definition, which means their real prevalence is likely higher than this number suggests.
Platform visibility costs are not equally distributed
Our Q1 2026 research identified vendor opacity as the single biggest obstacle to AI governance — ahead of talent gaps, tooling, and budget. That finding pointed to this question: Which vendor ecosystem, in practice, imposes the highest cost to achieve basic production visibility?
We asked respondents which platform requires the most custom telemetry, manual instrumentation, and “logging glue” to achieve visibility into agentic failures.
Microsoft’s position at the top of this ranking is not noise. It is a structural characteristic of the Microsoft agentic ecosystem — the same Azure/Copilot stack that dominates enterprise AI adoption requires the most instrumentation overhead to see inside.
It also reinforces the warning that Brian Gracely, Senior Director at Red Hat, made at VentureBeat’s Boston event in March: that building your control system entirely inside one cloud provider’s toolset means “renting a cage.” The organizations paying the highest observability tax are precisely those most locked into provider-native tooling.
The implication for teams currently evaluating orchestration architecture is direct: observability cost is a real budget item that should appear in any build-vs-buy analysis. A platform that appears cheaper at the API layer may impose substantially higher engineering costs at the telemetry layer.
Agentic coding marketing is significantly ahead of production reliability.
We asked respondents a pointed question: Which major platform’s Agentic Coding marketing is the most disconnected from the actual technical reliability and fault-tolerance of their product? Thirty-two percent said they didn’t know — a figure that has held roughly constant across all three waves, suggesting persistent uncertainty is structural, not a sample artifact. Cursor also registered 6% in this wave. Among those with enough production experience to have a view.
Microsoft leads at 45%; OpenAI is second at 22%. The gap is too large to attribute solely to deployment footprint. It suggests that GitHub Copilot Workspaces and AutoGen are generating a specific category of disappointment — probably around the reliability of multi-agent orchestration in production — that accumulates with use. A platform that fewer enterprises are running in production will accumulate fewer credible disappointed practitioners.
The more significant observation is what this gap means for decision-makers evaluating new agentic tooling. The marketing around all major platforms describes agentic autonomy and reliability at a level that production deployments are not yet delivering. The organizations in our survey who have moved beyond pilots are encountering the difference firsthand.
Enterprises are not waiting for vendors to solve agent security
How are enterprises protecting proprietary research data from AI leakage and prompt-driven exfiltration? The security architecture question is one of the most consequential in agentic AI, because agents — unlike static models — can actively call APIs, traverse file systems, and execute code. The blast radius of a security failure is qualitatively different.
Policy-as-Code is a leading security mechanism, but not by much.
The NHI and Policy-as-Code approaches are meaningfully different in their security philosophy. NHI is identity-centric: The question it answers is “who is this agent and what is it allowed to touch?” Policy-as-Code is rule-centric: The question it answers is “regardless of what the model decides to do, what hard stops exist at the infrastructure level?”
Rough parity across all four mechanisms is the headline finding. This is what market convergence looks like in early motion: No dominant pattern has emerged. Notably, though, Egress-Locked Sandboxing is a relatively new trend in agentic AI deployments, yet it’s already at 22%. As more agents gain terminal-level access to enterprise systems, the cost-benefit of sandboxing is improving. This is notable given the maturity of the identity management and policy-as-code disciplines in traditional IT security. The AI security layer is, for now, being built largely from scratch.
The Egress-Locked Sandboxing number deserves attention despite its smaller share. Sandboxing untrusted code execution is the most technically intensive of the four approaches, but it is also the most direct defense against prompt injection attacks that try to execute malicious code through agent tooling. As agentic systems gain more terminal-level access — a trend our survey confirms is accelerating — this approach may prove more important than its current adoption rate suggests.
“How do we audit agentic tools that have terminal-level access to our proprietary repos?”
— Composite concern expressed by multiple respondents
The migration away from stateless architectures is underway — but fragmented
The central thesis of the Agentic Reckoning is that stateless Python/LangChain architectures cannot survive the complexity cliff — the point at which multi-step, long-running agent workflows begin failing at rates that make production deployment untenable. We asked respondents directly: are you migrating toward durable execution frameworks to solve for state loss?
The answers reveal a market in transition, with meaningful disagreement about the right destination.
The 20% committed to stateless architectures — attempting to solve a structural durability problem through better prompting — are the cohort most likely to encounter State Amnesia and Ghost Failures as their workloads scale. It’s essentially the same trap that RPA teams fell into a decade ago, when brittle process automations were patched with increasingly elaborate rule sets rather than re-architected on more resilient foundations.
The Stateless Commitment cohort deserves a reinterpretation. These teams are not all naive: some are building on managed platforms that genuinely abstract state management. But a portion is patching structural fragility with prompting improvements, and the Ghost Failures data in Finding 3 suggests this approach may be encountering its ceiling.
The combined 59% who are either in Active Migration or in Governance-First Evaluation represent the market’s leading edge — organizations that have recognized the architectural problem and are investing to solve it structurally.
Architectural conviction is spread across multiple bets
What is the longterm architectural philosophy winning enterprises’ strategic investment? We offered four options representing the major bets available in the current market.
The Polyglot Bet’s lead suggests that enterprises are seeing advantages of using a flexible approach: Using model-driven architectures where non-deterministic reasoning works well, but using deterministic structures and pipelines where accuracy and mission-critical execution is at stake.
This has direct competitive implications for the frontier labs and cloud providers. The cohort saying the use a Cloud-Native Managed Stack is significant. This likely reflects the enterprise reality that Azure OpenAI Service and AWS Bedrock deployments come with built-in organizational gravity — procurement relationships, security approvals, and existing data pipelines. The Independent Durable Runtime bet at 16% signals that a cohort of teams have rejected both cloud lock-in and frontier lab dependency in favor of full architectural sovereignty.
The Polyglot result also helps explain why the observability and governance problems described in this survey are so persistent. When your architecture deliberately spans multiple orchestration layers and multiple providers, no single vendor’s telemetry gives you the full picture. The “Dynatrace for AI” — the unified observability platform called for by Mass General Brigham’s CTO Nallan Sriraman at the VentureBeat Boston event — becomes not just desirable but structurally necessary.
“Enterprises trust no single provider enough to give them full control, yet they lack the engineering capacity to build entirely from scratch.”
— Survey respondent
The market is settling on a human-trust metric as its primary A-SLA
What metrics are enterprises actually using to determine whether an AI agent is ready for production? We asked respondents to identify their primary Agentic SLA (A-SLA) indicator — the number that, above all others, tells them whether an agent can ship.
User Acceptance Rate as the dominant production metric is significant because it is a human-trust measure, not a technical performance measure. It does not ask whether the agent ran fast or maintained state. It asks whether a human who reviewed its output chose to accept it. This is, in effect, a field-level Turing test applied at the action level.
The persistence of UAR as the leading metric reflects the reality of where most enterprise agentic deployments still sit: in a human-in-the-loop posture, where agent actions require human review before execution. That is a rational response to the Hallucination Propagation and Ghost Failures described earlier in this survey. Organizations that have not yet solved runtime durability are, sensibly, keeping humans in the loop — and at 132 respondents, there is no evidence this is changing.
Context Fidelity’s position at 30% is the most significant finding. It tracks directly with the Active Migration data in Finding 7: As more teams move into durable execution frameworks, the 48-hour+ memory problem becomes their primary production concern. Teams that have solved State Amnesia are now focused on whether their agent can remember what it was doing yesterday. Latency Jitter’s collapse from 25% to 11% tells the complementary story: raw speed is no longer the primary anxiety. Correctness and durability have taken its place.
The data tells a consistent story: There’s a runtime deficit for agents. Enterprises are spending more time on infrastructure plumbing than on agent intelligence, and State Amnesia is still claiming production deployments. But fault lines are visible. The ROI Ceiling has overtaken State Amnesia as the leading production killer — which means the infrastructure problem is no longer purely a technical one. Token economics and orchestration overhead are now consuming enough business value that project sponsors are making the kill decision before engineering teams can solve the durability problem. Hallucination Propagation remains a big problem. The Brain vote in Finding 1 remains significant. And the Polyglot lead is fragile, with varied architectures well represented.
The models are, by most respondents’ own assessment, smart enough — but 17% disagree. What is not yet smart enough is the infrastructure surrounding them: the state management, the fault-tolerance, the observability, the identity governance, and the deterministic execution layer that turns a model’s judgment into something an enterprise can stake its operations on.
The 39% making the Polyglot Bet represent the current leading edge of enterprise architectural thinking. They are building systems where the model’s intelligence is preserved and leveraged, but where the execution layer — the Spine — is deterministic, auditable, and durable by design. They are not waiting for a frontier lab to solve this for them. They are not betting that better prompting will patch infrastructure fragility. They are building the control plane.
The organizations still committed to stateless architectures — still trusting that manual retries and clever prompting can substitute for durable execution — are the ones most likely to contribute to the next wave of this data. Ghost Failures are a primary obstacle. The pattern is familiar: Early adopters diagnose the problem architecturally, migrate to durable runtimes, and escape the failure mode. Late movers inherit it. The Complexity Cliff is not theoretical. It is the wall that most current agentic architectures are already climbing toward.
The reckoning is runtime and economics, not reasoning.
Based on survey responses from 132 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees). Sample size is small; data should be treated as directional. Respondents include Directors, VPs, CIOs, CTOs, and Enterprise Architects across Technology, Financial Services, Retail, Healthcare, and other sectors.