2x.com No paid content found

What is 2X?

2X is a B2B go-to-market (GTM) services provider that combines AI automation with embedded human teams. Its core offer is what it calls "human-agentic services": marketing and GTM work delivered through a mix of AI agents, production-ready workflows, and specialist people, with the aim of moving faster and at greater scale than either could alone. It is aimed at enterprise B2B CMOs and GTM leaders, not small businesses or self-serve users.

What 2X actually offers

The page groups its work into four service lines:

Who it is for

The stated audience is CMOs and GTM leaders at large enterprises. The page cites work with Emburse, JAGGAER, SAP, Ricoh and Brightcove, spanning things like rebuilding a GTM engine, improving ABX efficiency, unifying brand identity across 11 countries, and fixing an underused martech stack. That pattern — multi-country, multi-system, large existing tech investments — is the clearest signal of fit. If you are a startup looking for a single campaign or a freelancer-level engagement, this is not the shape of the offer.

How to judge whether it fits

The trade-off is control and commitment versus speed and breadth. Handing over an entire marketing engine to one partner reduces vendor management and coordination overhead, but it also concentrates dependency. The consulting layer is designed to help you decide what to keep in-house before you commit, which is a sensible place to start.

A practical next step: before any conversation, write down which parts of your GTM you want to own, which you would outsource, and which you would automate. That is exactly the diagnosis the Transformation Consulting service claims to perform, so arriving with a draft makes the first meeting far more useful — and it tests quickly whether their recommendation matches your own read of the operating model.

How does 2X's human-agentic GTM service model work in practice?

2X's model pairs AI agents and workflows with human expert teams, then sells the combination as a managed GTM function rather than a tool you operate yourself. The page frames it as "human-agentic services where marketing and GTM are delivered faster and at greater scale than either could alone" — so the practical claim is speed and coverage, not full autonomy.

What the four service lines actually cover

The operating logic is that these stack: consulting sets the target model, AI automation supplies the agents, MaaS supplies the people, and GTM engineering wires it into your systems so results are measurable.

How it looks in a real week

Picture an enterprise CMO with a product launch already two years late. 2X-style delivery would mean an embedded team running launch content and ABM plays, agents handling research, list building, enrichment and reporting inside the client's own stack, and a GTM engineer connecting CRM, intent data and analytics so pipeline attribution is visible. The client's own staff keep strategy and approval; the partner absorbs execution volume and tooling work.

Trade-offs to weigh

• Speed and scale vs. control. A single accountable partner removes coordination overhead, but you concentrate dependency. Ask what happens if you insource later.
• Embedded teams vs. internal capability. Flexible scaling up and down suits launch spikes; it builds less permanent in-house skill unless you plan for knowledge transfer.
• Agents in your stack vs. a black box. Deployment in your environment is better for data ownership, but requires your team to govern and maintain what's built.
• One partner across brand, ABM, web and analytics vs. specialists. Broader coverage, potentially less depth in any single niche than a boutique.

The page names CMOs and GTM leaders at large enterprises as the core audience, with referenced work alongside Emburse, JAGGAER, SAP, Ricoh and Brightcove — useful as a signal of enterprise-scale engagements rather than SMB self-serve. One customer quote on the page stresses responsiveness and a "customer-first mentality," which suggests service culture matters as much as the technology layer.

Next step: before a call, write down which of the four service lines you'd buy first and which you'd never outsource. Then ask 2X to show a comparable engagement where the AI layer ran inside the client's stack, and ask who owns the agents and workflows if the contract ends. If your gap is a single channel, a specialist agency is likely cheaper; if the gap is an operating model that can't convert strategy into pipeline, the combined model is the more relevant pitch.

What kinds of enterprise B2B growth challenges does 2X solve?

2X targets enterprise B2B growth problems that appear when a company's operating model can't keep pace with its ambitions. Its page frames this as a GTM engine problem, not just a marketing problem: entering new markets, shipping long-planned product launches, and moving on openings before competitors react. The services are grouped around four kinds of challenges.

H3 Service areas and the challenge each addresses

H3 Who this fits

The page names CMOs and GTM leaders at large enterprises, and cites work with Emburse, JAGGAER, SAP, Ricoh and Brightcove. The recurring themes are budget efficiency, pipeline acceleration, and getting more value from technology already owned. That points to organizations with existing martech stacks and complex, multi-team GTM motions rather than small teams seeking a single campaign vendor.

H3 Practical trade-offs

A single accountable partner across strategy and execution can reduce coordination overhead and speed up delivery, but it also concentrates dependence. The consulting layer is diagnostic and roadmap-oriented, so it suits leaders who need clarity on what to own versus outsource; it is less obviously a fit if you only need short-term execution capacity. The AI Automation offer emphasizes avoiding "pilot debt," which suggests value depends on your willingness to deploy agents into live workflows rather than run experiments.

H3 A concrete reader scenario

If you are a CMO who has just been handed a new-market mandate for next quarter, the relevant question is whether your current teams and vendors can absorb it without new headcount. A useful first step is to map your GTM workflow end to end and mark where work stalls: strategy, content production, data handoffs, or reporting. Bring that map to a first conversation, because the diagnosis-versus-execution split is where 2X's services divide.

For comparison, 2X sits alongside other B2B marketing and GTM providers such as 6sense for intent data and HubSpot for CRM and marketing operations, though 2X positions itself as an orchestration layer over tools you already run.

How does 2X's Marketing-as-a-Service differ from traditional marketing agencies?

2X's Marketing-as-a-Service is closer to an outsourced marketing operating model than to a traditional agency engagement. A traditional agency typically sells you a defined scope — a campaign, a retainer of creative hours, a channel program — and hands work back for your internal team to integrate, staff and measure. 2X, by contrast, describes delivering "your entire marketing engine, end-to-end, from strategy to execution, delivered by a single accountable partner," with flexible teams across brand, content, creative, growth marketing, ABM, web and AI visibility that scale up or down. The difference is accountability for the whole function, not just deliverables.

H3. Where the practical differences show up

• Scope: An agency usually owns a slice (say, paid media or content). 2X positions itself across the full marketing and GTM stack, including the systems underneath it.
• Team shape: Agency teams are often fixed by contract and account structure. 2X emphasizes flexible, embedded teams that flex with your needs, which suits companies whose priorities shift quarter to quarter.
• Technology: Traditional agencies rarely take responsibility for your MarTech stack. 2X's GTM Engineering & Orchestration service explicitly covers the systems, data and automated workflows behind GTM, connecting RevOps, tech, data and analytics.
• AI: Many agencies now use AI internally. 2X sells "human-agentic services" — production-ready agents and workflows deployed in your stack, with the stated aim of turning AI mandates into measurable business value rather than pilot debt.
• Decision-making: 2X's Transformation Consulting diagnoses your operating model and advises what to own, outsource or automate. That is management-consulting territory, not typical agency work.

H3. Who each model suits

If you need a campaign executed well and have a strong internal marketing organization, a traditional agency is often the cheaper, simpler choice. If your problem is that the operating model itself can't keep up — new market entry, a long-planned launch, a stack that is underused — a service that takes end-to-end accountability is the more coherent fit. 2X's own framing targets CMOs and GTM leaders at large enterprises, and its published examples include Emburse rebuilding its GTM engine for lower costs, JAGGAER improving ABX efficiency with 6sense, SAP getting more from its 6sense investment, Ricoh unifying brand identity across 11 countries, and Brightcove consolidating a siloed MarTech stack. Those are integration and operating-model problems, not single-campaign problems.

The trade-off is real: broader accountability usually means deeper dependence on one partner, less granular control over individual workstreams, and a harder exit than ending a single-channel contract. It also demands more of you up front — clear goals, access to systems and data, and a willingness to let an outside team work inside your stack.

H3. A useful next step

Before comparing proposals, write down which of these you actually need: (a) more execution capacity, (b) a rebuilt operating model, or (c) both. Then ask any provider — 2X included — to show how they would be measured on pipeline and revenue, not activity, and who is accountable when a workstream underperforms. For context on the wider category, see 2X and, for comparison, established agency models such as Ogilvy or consulting-led GTM providers. If your need is genuinely (a) alone, a traditional agency will likely be the more efficient answer.

What results have companies like Emburse and Ricoh achieved by working with 2X?

Emburse and Ricoh both used 2X to fix a structural problem rather than just add campaign capacity: Emburse rebuilt its go-to-market engine for scalable growth and lower costs, while Ricoh unified brand identity across 11 countries. Those are the outcomes 2X itself highlights on its site, so treat them as vendor-reported case study headlines, not independently verified metrics.

What the examples suggest

• Emburse: the emphasis is on efficiency and scalability — a smarter GTM engine intended to support growth while reducing cost. That points to consolidation: fewer disconnected agencies and workflows, more shared systems and data.
• Ricoh: the emphasis is on consistency across many markets. Unifying brand identity across 11 countries is an operating-model win, not a single campaign win. It usually means shared messaging, templates, approval paths and local execution that stays on-brand.

How to judge whether similar results are realistic for you

Ask what specifically changed, not just what improved. Useful questions for any 2X reference call:

1. What was the before-state? Siloed teams, unclear ownership, underused martech, inconsistent regional messaging?
2. What did 2X actually own — strategy, execution, AI workflows, GTM engineering, or all of it?
3. Which metric moved, over what period, and how was it measured?
4. What stayed in-house, and what was outsourced or automated?
5. What would they do differently in the first 90 days?

A practical next step

If your situation resembles Emburse (cost pressure, fragmented GTM) or Ricoh (multi-market brand inconsistency), use that resemblance to pick your reference calls. Ask 2X for a customer whose starting point matches yours, then compare notes against 2X's own account of how it works at 2X. If your problem is mainly one campaign or one channel, a full human-agentic GTM engagement may be heavier than you need; if the problem is the operating model itself, the Emburse and Ricoh examples are the more relevant ones to study.

How does 2X help CMOs decide what to own, outsource, or automate?

2X addresses that decision through its Transformation Consulting service: it diagnoses the operating model against the CMO's growth goals, then gives leaders a framework for what to own, outsource, and automate, and a roadmap from the current state to the target one. The stated emphasis is on fixing the operating model rather than only refreshing strategy — the practical difference being that a strategy deck says what to achieve, while an operating-model review assigns each capability an owner, a delivery model, and a tooling path.

How the four services map onto the three choices

The useful way to read this: the three choices are not mutually exclusive at the portfolio level. A CMO might own positioning and revenue operations, outsource campaign execution capacity, and automate reporting, routing and research. 2X's pitch is that one partner spans all three, which reduces the coordination cost of stitching together separate agencies, consultancies and systems integrators — but also concentrates dependence on a single vendor.

A concrete decision path for a CMO

1. List the capabilities your growth plan requires over the next four quarters.
2. Mark each as a source of competitive advantage (own), a capacity problem (outsource), or a repeatable process (automate).
3. Test the automate column first: if a workflow is rule-based and high-volume, automation usually beats both hiring and outsourcing on cost per output.
4. For the outsource column, check whether the work needs enterprise context — if it does, an embedded team model matters more than a project-based agency.
5. Revisit quarterly; the own/outsource/automate split shifts as internal capability grows.

When this approach fits, and when it does not

It suits enterprise B2B organisations with an existing martech stack, an executive mandate for growth, and enough internal leadership to direct an embedded partner. It fits less well if you lack clear goals to diagnose against, if you want purely project-based creative work, or if you prefer to keep vendor relationships separate for leverage and resilience.

If you want to evaluate 2X against alternatives, compare it with firms that publish their own operating-model diagnostics, such as Accenture for large-scale transformation, Deloitte Digital for consulting-led GTM change, or Sigma for B2B revenue operations. Ask each one the same question: which specific capabilities do you recommend we keep in-house, and what evidence supports that?