Is the Gartner Top 25 Still Relevant? Challenging the Perception of Supply Chain “Excellence”
When marketing trumps metrics, are we rewarding the wrong supply chains?
Every year, Gartner’s Supply Chain Top 25 gets paraded around as the gold standard for operational excellence. Media picks it up, executives repost it, and the same brands end up celebrated again. But this year, Lora Cecere - who was in the room when this ranking was first created - reignited a debate that’s been brewing beneath the surface for decades: Are we measuring what actually matters?
“How can you declare a company excellent without a comparison to its peer group?”
That’s the question Cecere posed on LinkedIn, and it hit a nerve.
A Brand List or a Performance Benchmark?
Let’s start with the core problem: 50% of Gartner’s rating is based on “opinion.” Not operational KPIs, not audited results, but perception.
When Cecere compared Gartner’s list to her own data-driven "Supply Chains to Admire" rankings, the numbers were stark:
66% of Gartner Top 25 companies underperform their peers on revenue growth
48% underperform on inventory turns
38% underperform on operating margin
41% underperform on ROCE (Return on Capital Employed)
62% trail their peer groups in stock market valuation
Is that what we call excellence?
Comments from the Front Lines
Lora’s post triggered a flood of agreement - and a deeper, more grounded critique from across the supply chain profession. Here’s a breakdown of the perspectives that emerged:
1. The Peer Context Problem
From DKSH’s Jayanandhan Vasudevan to Srini Paruchuri of Agillence, the message was clear: you cannot benchmark performance without peer comparison. Automotive OEMs, for instance — which manage some of the most complex global supply chains — are glaringly absent from the list. Why? Likely because they’re not trendy or publicly loud enough.
Srini put it bluntly: “Benchmarking without peer context leads to misleading conclusions.”
2. Popularity over Performance
Several voices, including Max Henry (GSCC) and Richard B., called out a more cynical issue: brand recognition is being used as a proxy for operational capability. Visibility wins over value. That’s not just lazy — it’s damaging.
As Lucy Alexander pointed out, excellence should align with how well a supply chain delivers on company strategy. Growth-focused firms might have lower inventory turns, and that could still be a sign of alignment — not failure. But that nuance is lost in Gartner’s oversimplified cross-industry snapshot.
3. Real-World Discrepancies
Others went even further. Lori Foster, speaking from personal experience as a customer, said bluntly: “I would not rank their supply chain in the Top 25 at all.” That’s the disconnect — marketing says one thing, the customer experience says another.
And Ben Cook, formerly of Apple, brought receipts: “We redefined the game… 3x’d revenue in 5 years, 580k consumer units delivered to homes in a single day.” That’s performance. That’s benchmarkable.
4. The Data Dilemma
Several comments pointed to the lack of clarity in methodology. What exactly goes into Gartner’s rankings? Maurice Shneor dissected the breakdown and found something odd — 20% of the score is ESG-related, including “water stewardship.” While important, this makes the list less about supply chain performance and more about ticking boxes.
If we’re measuring excellence, let’s agree on the metrics: ROCE, inventory turns, customer satisfaction, cash efficiency. Not vague ESG checklists that shift with corporate marketing agendas.
5. Courage to Speak Out
Didier Stickens said what many were thinking: “Congratulations for daring to go against the big marketing machine named Gartner.”
This isn’t just a debate about rankings. It’s about who shapes the narrative of what “good” looks like in supply chain. When a research firm like Gartner dominates the conversation — and vendors chase placement in their quadrants — it becomes more about optics than outcomes.
Andrew Tanner-Smith put it best: “Gartner isn’t selling expertise. They’re selling a brand.”
The Need for a New Standard
The takeaway here isn’t just that Gartner’s methodology is flawed — it’s that the entire framework for recognizing supply chain excellence needs a reset.
Lora’s approach at Supply Chain Insights offers a different path. Her rankings are based solely on public data, hard metrics, and peer comparison. No opinions. No branding games.
The industry needs more of that.
So what now?
We can start by asking better questions:
Are we rewarding visibility or true agility?
How does performance compare within the company’s specific industry?
Do rankings reflect the end-to-end experience, including customers, suppliers, and partners?
And most importantly: Should recognition come from research firms, or from real-world performance data that anyone can verify?
Final Thoughts
The Gartner Top 25 may still carry weight. But weight isn’t the same as worth. If nearly half of the companies listed underperform their peers, it’s time to admit the emperor has no clothes.
Recognition in this industry should be earned, not awarded for brand cachet. The companies driving real transformation — quietly, sustainably, and measurably — deserve a better spotlight.
Let’s make that happen.
Want to challenge the rankings with your own data or experience? Join the discussion on Chain.NET — the global supply chain community. Ask questions, debate, and connect with professionals who care about real performance.
 | A guest post by
|