Most teams asking for a rebuild do not need one. They need someone to establish, with evidence, which of the six or seven things they suspect is actually causing the reporting they cannot trust. We do that as advisory work — scoped, documented, and useful whether or not we build the fix.
Trusted by 500+ organizations — including B2B SaaS and technology companies running marketing in HubSpot and revenue in Salesforce with Twopir Consulting.
Advisory Across the Revenue Stack
Integration consulting exists because the symptoms all look the same from the outside. These are the situations that bring teams to an advisory engagement rather than straight to a build.
Marketing's sourced-pipeline figure and the CRM's do not agree, and no one can explain the gap without a week of spreadsheet work. Until the discrepancy is explained, every forecast conversation stalls on methodology.
Marketing wants everything synced for visibility. Sales wants almost nothing synced to keep the queue clean. Both positions are defensible, which is exactly why the argument never resolves internally.
There is no mapping document, no record of why fields were set the way they were, and nobody willing to change anything in case it breaks something invisible.
An agency has proposed a six-figure re-implementation. Without independent architecture input there is no way to judge whether that scope is necessary or convenient.
A merger, a platform consolidation or a move between systems is on the roadmap, and the integration decisions made now will either survive it or have to be redone.
Native connector, Operations Hub data sync, an iPaaS layer or custom middleware — the right answer depends on volume, transformation needs and team capacity, not on which vendor presented last.
Salesforce HubSpot integration consulting is a scoped advisory engagement that establishes what your integration is actually doing, designs what it should do, and sequences the work to get from one to the other. It ends with documents you own, not with a proposal you have to accept to get value from what you paid for.
The distinction from implementation matters commercially. Implementation is paid to build a defined thing. Consulting is paid to define the right thing. When the same firm does both without separating them, the assessment tends to conclude that a large build is required. We scope and price the advisory phase on its own so that its conclusion is not predetermined — including the conclusion that your existing setup needs configuration changes rather than a rebuild, which is a common finding.
A typical engagement runs a structured diagnostic across both systems: stakeholder interviews with the marketing, sales and revenue operations owners; a record-level reconciliation to quantify how far the two databases have diverged; a review of every mapped field against how it is actually used; and an examination of the sync error queue, which is usually where the real story is. HubSpot documents the sync error surface in its sync error guidance, and the error queue is the first place we look.
You leave with three artefacts: a findings document that quantifies the gap, a target-state architecture including a field-level mapping specification, and a prioritised remediation roadmap with effort estimates. If you then want us to build it, we can — and if you want your internal team or another partner to build it, the documents are written to be handed over. For the mechanics of what we would be specifying, see how the Salesforce HubSpot integration works; for the design discipline behind the target state, see Salesforce HubSpot architecture.
Twopir Consulting is a Salesforce Partner and a HubSpot Partner. We work with growing and mid-market companies solving complex CRM, integration and business system challenges, and with enterprise organisations running the same stack at higher volume. If you have already made the decision and want delivery rather than advice, that is our Salesforce and HubSpot integration services engagement instead — and if you already know the problem is the sync layer specifically, Salesforce HubSpot data sync covers that ground directly.
Not every question needs a full diagnostic. Matching the engagement to the decision is the first piece of advice we give, usually on the first call and at no charge.
| Engagement | The question it answers | Typical shape | You leave with |
|---|---|---|---|
| Integration audit | What is our integration actually doing, and where is it wrong? | Structured diagnostic across both systems | Findings document with quantified divergence and ranked root causes |
| Architecture design | What should the target state be? | Design workshops plus specification work | Field-level mapping spec, source-of-truth matrix, lifecycle model |
| Second opinion | Is the scope and cost we have been quoted reasonable? | Short, focused review of a proposal against your actual environment | A written position on scope, risk and what we would change |
| Fractional RevOps advisory | Who owns this after we fix it? | Ongoing retained advisory alongside your internal team | Standing governance, change control and quarterly architecture review |
An audit that only checks whether the connector is running tells you nothing you did not already know. These are the layers that determine whether your data is trustworthy.
Whether the objects on each side correspond to how your business actually sells, and whether the lead-object decision still fits the motion.
The layer that decides whether the architecture survives its second year. Almost never documented, and almost always the root cause.
Where marketing and sales stop agreeing. HubSpot lifecycle stage and Salesforce lead status measure different things and cannot be mapped one to one without translation.
Whether the numbers each team presents can be reconciled to one another — and to the closed-won figure finance recognises.
Advisory work drifts when it has no defined end. Every engagement is scoped to specific deliverables with a date attached.
We establish which decision you are trying to make. Frequently this call alone redirects the engagement to something smaller than what was requested. It is not billed.
Read access to both systems, plus interviews with the marketing, sales and revenue operations owners. We are establishing intent as well as configuration — the gap between them is usually the finding.
Record-level comparison across both databases to quantify divergence, a field-by-field review of every mapping, and an audit of the sync error queue and API allocation.
Target-state design: object model, source-of-truth matrix, field-level mapping specification, lifecycle definitions and conflict rules — written to be implemented by anyone competent.
A working session with your team, then handover of the documents with a prioritised, effort-estimated remediation plan. What you do next, and who does it, is your decision.
A documented engagement with a North America B2B SaaS company. The diagnostic ran before any configuration work was scoped — and changed what the scope turned out to be.
The diagnostic surfaced three problems we did not even know we had. By the time we saw the field mapping spec, it was obvious why the previous sync had been silently corrupting data for months. What impressed us most was that every decision was documented — we were not handed a black box. We owned the system at handover.
A two-day diagnostic that quantified 35% contact divergence and identified three automation conflicts corrupting data before any build work began.
Advice from people who never implement tends to be elegant and unbuildable. Advice from implementers who never assess tends to conclude that a big build is required.
So its conclusion is not predetermined. Recommending configuration changes over a rebuild costs us revenue and happens regularly, which is the point.
Divergence is measured against actual data on both sides. "It feels like the data is off" is a symptom; a percentage is a finding you can act on.
A field-level mapping document your admin can implement. Not a slide that says "improve data governance".
Native connector, Operations Hub data sync, iPaaS or custom middleware each fit different volumes and transformation needs. We have no reseller incentive in any direction.
Written so your internal team or another partner can execute them. Retaining us afterwards should be a choice, not a dependency we engineered.
Implementation is paid to build a defined thing; consulting is paid to define the right thing. A consulting engagement produces documents — findings, architecture, a mapping specification and a prioritised roadmap — and ends there. You can then have us build it, have your internal team build it, or take the documents to another partner. We scope and price the two separately so the assessment's conclusion is not predetermined by who stands to win the build.
No, and the deliverables are written on that assumption. A field-level mapping specification is implementable by any competent Salesforce administrator or HubSpot operations person. Clients regularly take the roadmap and execute it internally, which is a legitimate outcome of the engagement rather than a failure of it.
Read access to both platforms is enough for the diagnostic: a Salesforce user that can view setup and configuration, and a HubSpot user with access to the integration settings and sync health. We do not need write access to assess, and we do not take write access until an implementation is actually scoped and agreed.
The structured diagnostic phase is typically about two days of assessment work, with findings and architecture documentation following over the subsequent one to two weeks depending on the size of the environment and how quickly stakeholder interviews can be scheduled. On the documented B2B SaaS engagement referenced here, diagnostic through to governance handover was completed in under eight weeks including the build.
That is a valid and useful outcome, and you still leave with the mapping specification and governance documentation you did not previously have — which is what stops the next person to add a field from breaking it. In practice, environments that have been running for more than a year without documented governance almost always have findings; the question is whether they are severe enough to justify a rebuild.
Yes. We review the proposed scope against your actual environment and give a written position on what is necessary, what is optional and what is missing. We will say when a proposal is sound — the value is an independent read, not a competitive one.
Yes, and it is often the highest-value part. The native connector, HubSpot Operations Hub data sync, an iPaaS platform and custom middleware fit different volumes, transformation requirements and team capacities. Because we hold no reseller position in that decision, the recommendation follows your constraints rather than a margin.
The scoping call is not billed and frequently redirects the engagement to something smaller than what was asked for. Start there.
Salesforce Partner · HubSpot Partner · Serving US, Canada, UK, UAE, Australia & New Zealand
