How to Show Your Integrations Without Building a Logo Wall

Why does a logo wall of integrations stop working?

Because it answers a question nobody asked. A buyer looking at integrations is almost never wondering how many you have. They are checking for one specific tool their company already runs, and a grid of thirty logos makes that check slower, not faster. Volume is your metric, not theirs.

I keep finding this pattern on otherwise good B2B sites. Somebody builds an integrations section, fills it with a tidy grid, and it performs the idea of an ecosystem without doing any work. The visitor scans it, does not find Salesforce or whatever they came for, and cannot tell whether that means it does not exist or just did not make the grid.

That ambiguity is the actual damage. A logo wall creates a false negative, and a false negative on a dealbreaker integration ends the evaluation silently. Nobody emails to ask. They close the tab, and you never learn it happened.

What is a logo wall actually trying to communicate?

Usually three different things at once, which is why it does none of them well. It is trying to say we are established enough that real tools work with us, we probably work with whatever you use, and we are technically mature. Those are three separate claims that need three separate treatments.

Credibility by association is the honest motive underneath most logo grids. Putting recognisable marks on the page borrows trust, and that does work to a degree. But it works best with a small number of highly relevant names, and it degrades as you add more. Thirty logos reads as a directory. Four reads as a statement.

The coverage claim is the one that needs a different mechanism entirely. If you genuinely want a visitor to believe you probably work with their stack, a grid cannot do that, because they will always be checking for one name. What answers that claim is search, and a grid is not searchable. This is a design problem with a known solution and most sites reach for the decorative option instead.

What should replace it on the homepage?

A short named set plus a clear route to everything else. Pick the four or five integrations that matter most to your core buyer, show those with a sentence each about what the integration actually does, and put a single obvious link to the full, searchable list next to them. Depth for the common case, a door for the rest.

The sentence is the part that changes the page. Showing the HubSpot logo says almost nothing. Saying that contacts sync both ways with HubSpot and deal stages update automatically tells a buyer whether the integration does the thing they need. Most integrations are shallower than buyers assume, and a one line description is where you either earn or lose the assumption.

This also has a side effect worth naming. Writing one honest sentence per integration forces your team to find out what each integration actually does today, and that audit almost always surfaces two or three that are broken, deprecated, or were never more than a webhook. Better you find those than a prospect does.

How do you handle having a hundred integrations?

Make it a searchable directory rather than a display. At real volume the integrations page stops being a marketing section and becomes a tool, and it should be designed like one, with a search field at the top, filtering by category, and each entry stating what the integration does rather than just naming it.

Put the search field above the fold and let it work on the first keystroke. The entire job of this page is to answer does it work with my thing in under five seconds. Every design decision that gets between the visitor and that answer, including a hero section explaining your integration philosophy, is working against the page.

Categories should follow the buyer's mental model rather than your architecture. People think in terms of CRM, email, analytics, storage, payments, and automation, not in terms of native versus API versus partner built. Group by job, and if the build type matters, say it on each entry where it is relevant to that decision.

Should every integration get its own page?

Only if each page has something specific to say. An individual page is worth building when you can describe the actual setup, the data that moves, the limits, and the situations it does not cover. If all you can produce is a templated paragraph with the partner name swapped in, that page is a liability rather than an asset.

Google's guidance for generative AI features is direct about this. It warns that creating separate content for every possible variation, primarily to manipulate rankings or generative AI responses, violates its scaled content abuse spam policy, and states plainly that a high quantity of pages does not make a website higher quality or more relevant to users. A hundred near identical integration pages is exactly that shape.

So the test is substance, not coverage. Build the fifteen integration pages you can write properly, and let the other eighty five live as rich entries in the directory. Fifteen genuinely useful pages will outperform a hundred templated ones, and they will not put your domain in a category Google has explicitly named. I went through the underlying mechanism in how AI search picks between two pages that say the same thing.

What do integration pages need to avoid being duplicates?

Detail that could only come from having built the integration. The setup steps specific to that tool, the fields that map, the sync direction, the refresh frequency, what happens on conflict, and what the integration deliberately does not do. That last one is the most valuable and the least common.

Google also advises reducing duplicate content, noting it can be a bad user experience and that search engines might waste crawling resources on URLs you do not care about. Templated integration pages are the purest form of self inflicted duplication, because you generated them on purpose and each one competes with the others for the same attention.

The design implication is that an integration page template should have more required fields than most teams want. If the template makes it impossible to publish without describing the data flow and the limitations, you get either good pages or no pages, which are both better outcomes than eighty thin ones. I laid out a fuller version of that template in designing an integration page template for B2B software.

How do you design for the buyer with one dealbreaker integration?

Assume they exist and design the fastest possible path to yes or no. That means search that works, honest labelling of what each integration supports, and an explicit answer when something is not supported, including whether it is on the roadmap and whether an API or automation platform can bridge the gap today.

Saying no well is underrated. If you do not have a native integration with a tool, the buyer's real question is whether they can still make it work. Telling them that no native integration exists but that the connection is commonly built through a platform like Zapier, Make, or n8n keeps the evaluation alive. Silence ends it.

I would also give these buyers somewhere to go. A short form to request an integration, or simply a stated contact route for stack questions, converts a dead end into a conversation and gives you a ranked list of what to build next. Most companies guess at that roadmap while the answer is sitting unasked on their integrations page.

What does this look like when you only have three integrations?

Lean into the three. With a small number, you can afford to explain each one properly on the page itself, with what it connects, what moves, and who it is for. Three well explained integrations read as deliberate. Three logos in a wide grid read as a page waiting to be filled.

Do not pad. The instinct to add browser extensions, a Zapier connection, and a CSV import to reach a respectable count is understandable and it undercuts you, because a buyer who clicks through discovers the padding immediately. The credibility you borrowed is repaid with interest at the worst moment.

If the honest story is that you integrate deeply with a small number of tools and connect to everything else through an automation platform, say exactly that. It is a coherent position, it is true, and it tells a buyer whose stack is unusual precisely what to expect. Clarity about scope is its own kind of confidence, and it also keeps the page from competing with your primary calls to action, which I wrote about in how many CTAs a B2B page should have.

What should you do next?

Open your integrations section and try to answer one question as a stranger would. Pick a tool you know is in the list and see how long it takes to confirm it, then pick one you know is absent and see whether you can confirm that. If either takes more than a few seconds, the section is decorative.

Then write one honest sentence for each integration you currently display, describing what actually moves between the systems. That exercise takes an afternoon, it produces the copy you need, and it will tell you which integrations deserve a page, which belong in a directory entry, and which quietly stopped working some time ago.

The pattern underneath all of this is the same one that governs most B2B page design, which is that specificity converts and volume does not. If you want someone to look at how your site presents its integrations and tell you where buyers are silently dropping out, reach out and let's chat.