Capital is rotating. Growth has given way to value, and within technology the divergence is increasingly pronounced. While broad indices have stabilized, many software names have not. Since late 2025, software equities have materially underperformed other parts of the technology complex. Forward revenue growth across many mid-cap SaaS firms has slowed from prior expansion levels, net retention rates have edged down in several categories, and valuation multiples have compressed accordingly. Markets are repricing both growth durability and margin structure.
The prevailing explanation is straightforward. Generative AI lowers barriers to entry, reduces the cost of building applications, and compresses differentiation. If application logic becomes easier to produce, competitive intensity increases and pricing power weakens. The result is visible not only in equity valuations, but in moderated expansion rates and tighter forward guidance. There is substance behind that concern. But reducing enterprise software economics to code production misses where the structural leverage in these platforms actually resides.
The Core Bear Case
The bearish thesis rests on three related propositions: AI commoditizes application logic, accelerates competitive entry, and pressures margins. If enterprises can generate software dynamically, recurring subscription models face structural pressure. If workflows can be automated through agents, reliance on fixed applications may decline. If code becomes less scarce, incumbents may struggle to defend premium multiples.
The repricing in software reflects these risks. Multiples have compressed meaningfully, and growth expectations have moderated across several verticals. In certain categories, retention softness suggests substitution pressure is already emerging. These signals should not be dismissed as temporary volatility.
At the same time, equating software value solely with feature output or code generation is a simplification. Enterprise software durability rarely rests on feature sets alone.
What Enterprise Software Actually Represents
In supply chain environments, systems function as operational coordination layers rather than isolated applications. Transportation management systems, warehouse platforms, planning suites, and multi-enterprise visibility networks sit at the center of integrated transaction flows. They embed years of configuration, exception handling logic, compliance mappings, and cross-functional workflows. Over time, they accumulate operational data that informs sourcing, forecasting, transportation optimization, and execution decisions across the enterprise.
Replacing those systems is not equivalent to generating new code. It requires rebuilding institutional memory, re-establishing integration points, and re-validating compliance controls across internal and external stakeholders. The switching cost is not interface retraining; it is operational re-architecture.
In our research on AI system design in supply chains
AI in the Supply Chain-sp
, the recurring conclusion is that structural advantage stems from coordination, persistent context, and integration density. Model capability matters. Economic durability flows from how systems connect and govern activity across distributed networks. That distinction is central to evaluating enterprise software in the current environment.
Where Risk Is Real
Not all software categories have equivalent structural protection. Risk is most evident in narrowly defined vertical tools, lightweight workflow utilities, and productivity-layer applications with limited proprietary data accumulation. In these segments, generative models can replicate core functionality with relatively low switching friction. Pricing pressure can intensify quickly, and margin compression may prove structural rather than cyclical.
By contrast, enterprise workflow orchestration platforms deeply embedded in core business processes create operational dependency. Replacing them requires redesigning process architecture, not simply substituting interfaces. Systems that accumulate years of transaction data, customization layers, and ecosystem integrations generate switching costs that extend beyond feature parity. Observability and monitoring platforms that collect continuous telemetry function as operational infrastructure; as AI agents proliferate, the need for measurement, traceability, and governance increases rather than declines.
In supply chain software specifically, planning platforms and transportation orchestration systems accumulate integration density over time. That density represents economic friction against displacement and reinforces durability when market volatility increases.
AI as Architectural Pressure
AI will alter software economics. It will increase development intensity, shorten product cycles, and compress margins in commoditized segments. Vendors operating at the surface layer of functionality will face sustained pressure.
However, AI simultaneously increases coordination complexity. As autonomous agents proliferate, enterprises require more governance controls, more integration layers, and more persistent contextual memory. The economic question shifts from “Who can build features fastest?” to “Who can coordinate distributed intelligence most reliably?”
Agent-to-agent communication, contextual memory frameworks, retrieval-based reasoning, and graph-aware modeling are becoming foundational design considerations in supply chain environments, as described in ARC’s white paper AI in the Supply Chain: Architecting the Future of Logistics. Vendors capable of governing these interactions at scale may strengthen their structural position. Vendors confined to interface-layer differentiation may see pricing pressure intensify. The outcome is not uniform decline; it is structural differentiation within the sector.
Valuation vs. Structural Impairment
Markets reprice sectors quickly when uncertainty rises. The current adjustment reflects legitimate concerns: slower growth trajectories, reduced retention durability, increased competitive intensity, and rising research and development requirements. These are measurable economic factors.
The open question is whether valuations reflect permanent impairment across enterprise software broadly, or whether the market is failing to distinguish between commoditized applications and structurally embedded coordination platforms.
Some observers argue that AI may ultimately expand the addressable market for enterprise systems rather than compress it. As AI adoption increases, enterprises may require additional orchestration frameworks, governance layers, and system-level controls. In that scenario, platforms with embedded workflows and distribution reach could see increased strategic relevance. The impact will vary materially by category and architectural depth.
In supply chain markets, complexity is not declining. Cross-border regulation is tightening, network volatility remains elevated, and multi-enterprise coordination is becoming more demanding. Economic value accrues to platforms that integrate and govern transactions, not to those that merely present information.
Implications for Enterprise Buyers
For supply chain leaders, the relevant issue is not short-term equity performance but architectural positioning. Does the platform function as a system of record embedded in transaction flows, or as a reporting layer adjacent to them? How deeply is it integrated into compliance processes, procurement logic, and transportation execution? Does it accumulate proprietary operational data that reinforces switching costs over time? Is it evolving toward coordinated AI architectures, or layering assistive tools onto a static foundation?
AI will not eliminate enterprise systems. It will expose those whose economic value rests primarily on surface functionality rather than integration depth.
A Measured Conclusion
The current narrative captures real pressure within segments of the software sector, but it does not fully account for structural differentiation. Certain categories face sustained pricing compression where differentiation is shallow and switching friction is low. Others may strengthen as AI increases coordination demands, governance requirements, and integration complexity.
The decisive factor will not be branding or feature velocity. It will be integration density, data gravity, and the ability to coordinate distributed intelligence across enterprise and partner networks. In supply chain contexts, platforms that govern transactions, maintain contextual continuity, and orchestrate multi-node operations retain structural advantage. Platforms that merely automate isolated tasks face a more uncertain economic trajectory.
That distinction, rather than headline narrative, will determine long-term outcomes.
_______________________________________________________________________________
A2A is only one component of a broader intelligent supply chain architecture. For a structured analysis of how A2A integrates with context-aware systems, retrieval frameworks, graph-based reasoning, and data harmonization requirements, download the full white paper:
The paper outlines the architectural model, governance considerations, and practical implementation path for enterprises building connected intelligence across their supply networks.
Download the white paper to explore the complete framework.