Equal is not always fair
Round-robin routing distributes leads equally. Rep A, Rep B, Rep C, repeat. Everyone gets the same count, and nobody can argue the system is biased.
Except the system is biased. It's biased toward a fiction: that every rep should receive the same volume of leads at every point in time. That fiction breaks the moment you have a new hire who's still learning the product, a senior AE who converts at 2x the team average, or a rep returning from two weeks of PTO with an empty pipeline.
Weighted round-robin keeps the rotation but drops the pretense that equal distribution is always the right distribution. Each rep gets a multiplier that controls their share of incoming leads. A weight of 1.0 is baseline. A ramping rep might get 0.5x. A top performer might get 1.5x. The rotation still cycles through everyone, but the volume matches what each rep can and should handle.
This is not a complex routing overhaul. It's a single configuration change to the system you're already running. And for most teams between 10 and 30 reps, it's the highest-leverage routing improvement you can make before investing in territory-based or skills-based routing.
How weighted round-robin works
The mechanics are straightforward. Each rep in the routing pool is assigned a weight. The routing engine distributes leads proportionally based on those weights.
The math
If you have three reps:
- Rep A: weight 2.0
- Rep B: weight 1.0
- Rep C: weight 0.5
Total weight is 3.5. Over 35 leads:
- Rep A receives roughly 20 (2.0/3.5 = 57%)
- Rep B receives roughly 10 (1.0/3.5 = 29%)
- Rep C receives roughly 5 (0.5/3.5 = 14%)
The exact distribution per lead won't be perfectly proportional (it's still a rotation, not a random distribution), but over any meaningful volume the proportions converge.
Implementation approaches
Repeat-based weighting. The simplest method: if Rep A has a weight of 2 and Rep B has a weight of 1, the rotation goes A, A, B, A, A, B. This creates perfectly proportional distribution but can lead to burst assignment (Rep A gets two leads in a row before Rep B gets one).
Probability-based weighting. Each lead assignment is a weighted random selection. Rep A has a 57% chance, Rep B has 29%, Rep C has 14%. This is smoother over time but can create short-term variance.
Token-based weighting. Each rep gets tokens proportional to their weight. Reps spend one token per lead assigned. When a rep's tokens are depleted, they're skipped until the token pool refreshes (hourly, daily, or on a rolling basis). This gives precise control over distribution windows.
Most routing tools that support weighted round-robin use either repeat-based or probability-based methods. The differences in practice are minor. What matters is that the weights are set correctly and reviewed regularly.
When to use weighted round-robin
New hire ramp schedules
This is the most common and most valuable use case. A new rep on day one of onboarding should not receive the same lead volume as a rep who's been closing deals for two years. But pure round-robin doesn't care about tenure.
A typical ramp schedule using weights:
| Week | Weight | Lead Volume vs. Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Weeks 1-2 | 0.0 | No leads (shadowing and training) |
| Weeks 3-4 | 0.25 | 25% of normal volume |
| Weeks 5-8 | 0.5 | 50% of normal volume |
| Weeks 9-12 | 0.75 | 75% of normal volume |
| Week 13+ | 1.0 | Full volume |
This protects new reps from drowning in leads they can't work effectively. It also protects your pipeline: leads routed to overwhelmed, untrained reps convert at significantly lower rates, which means pure round-robin during ramp periods is actively destroying value.
Temporary workload adjustments
Life happens. Reps go on PTO, come back to empty pipelines, deal with personal situations, or get pulled into special projects. Weighted routing lets you adjust without restructuring your entire system:
- Returning from PTO: Set to 1.25x or 1.5x for a week to rebuild pipeline quickly.
- Heavy quarter-end commitments: Reduce to 0.5x for reps deep in closing cycles who shouldn't take on new leads.
- Training or certification periods: Reduce to 0.25x while a rep is focused on product training.
- Pipeline recovery: Bump to 1.5x for a rep who lost a major deal and needs to refill the top of funnel.
The key advantage over manual reassignment: weighted routing is systematic and temporary. You set the weight, the system adjusts, and you change it back when the situation resolves. No one-off routing rules that get forgotten.
Performance-based volume allocation
If your data clearly shows that certain reps convert at meaningfully higher rates, weighting them higher captures more revenue from the same lead volume. A rep converting at 30% should arguably receive more leads than a rep converting at 15%, all else being equal.
This gets into performance-based routing territory, and the caveats there apply. Weighted round-robin is the blunter version: you're manually setting the weight based on your judgment rather than letting a system dynamically adjust. That bluntness is actually an advantage because it keeps a human in the loop and avoids the reinforcement loops that fully automated performance routing can create.
Role differentiation within a shared pool
Some teams mix roles in a single routing pool: senior AEs and junior AEs, or closers and appointment setters. Weighted routing lets you allocate differently by role without building separate routing flows:
- Senior AEs: 1.5x weight
- Mid-level AEs: 1.0x weight
- Junior AEs / SDRs handling simple qualification: 0.5x weight
This is simpler than building separate routing queues for each role, and it works well when the leads are similar enough that any rep could handle them but you want the distribution to reflect experience levels.
Setting weights correctly
Start with data, not intuition
Don't set weights based on gut feel. Pull the data:
- Conversion rates by rep. If some reps convert at 2x the average, that's a signal their weight should be higher.
- Average time to first contact by rep. Reps who are consistently slow to respond may be at capacity. Lowering their weight might improve their response times and conversion rates.
- Current pipeline load. A rep managing $2M in active pipeline has different lead needs than a rep with $200K. (This overlaps with capacity-based routing, which is the more sophisticated approach to this problem.)
- Rep tenure. Newer reps need lower weights by default, increasing as they demonstrate proficiency.
Avoid extremes
Setting a weight to 0.0 effectively removes a rep from the rotation. That's appropriate during onboarding or extended leave, but it means their slot is completely reallocated. A weight of 0.1 or 0.25 keeps them in the rotation at minimal volume, which is usually better for reps who need some lead flow to stay engaged and practice.
On the high end, avoid weighting any single rep above 2.0x unless you want them receiving more leads than any two other reps combined. High weights create concentration risk: if that rep goes on PTO, gets sick, or leaves the company, a disproportionate share of your routing collapses.
Review cadence
Weights should be reviewed on a regular cadence, not set and forgotten:
- Weekly during ramp periods. New hires' weights should increase steadily as they demonstrate capability.
- Monthly for the full team. Check whether current weights still reflect reality. Performance changes, roles shift, and what made sense last month may not make sense today.
- Immediately on material changes. Rep leaves, new rep starts, someone gets promoted, someone changes roles. Update weights the same day.
Weighted round-robin vs. capacity-based routing
Weighted round-robin and capacity-based routing both address workload imbalance, but they solve it differently.
Weighted round-robin uses static multipliers set by a human. The weights don't change automatically based on current workload. You decide that Rep A should get 1.5x and Rep B should get 0.5x, and the system follows that instruction until you change it.
Capacity-based routing uses dynamic thresholds based on real-time data. The system checks each rep's current pipeline, open leads, or activity level and routes accordingly. No human needs to adjust weights because the system adjusts itself.
When to choose which:
- Weighted round-robin when you want manual control, have a small team (under 20 reps), or when the primary driver is planned differences (ramp schedules, role tiers) rather than real-time workload variation.
- Capacity-based routing when workload fluctuates unpredictably, you have 20+ reps, or when the data to measure capacity in real time is available and reliable.
Many teams use both: weighted round-robin for structural allocation (ramp reps get less, senior reps get more) with capacity limits as a safety valve (nobody exceeds their maximum regardless of weight).
Common mistakes
Setting weights and forgetting them
A rep who was ramping six months ago shouldn't still be at 0.5x. A top performer who left the company two months ago shouldn't still have a 2.0x slot creating an imbalance. Stale weights are worse than no weights because they create systematic misallocation that looks intentional.
Using weights to punish underperformers
Reducing a struggling rep's weight feels logical: they're not converting, so give them fewer leads. But if the conversion problem is coaching-fixable, reducing lead volume also reduces practice reps. Work with sales management to determine whether lower volume is the right intervention or whether the rep needs coaching, not fewer opportunities.
Not communicating weight changes
Reps notice when their lead flow changes. If you adjust weights without explanation, they'll assume the system is broken or that they're being penalized. Communicate changes proactively. "We're adjusting your weight to 1.25x this week because you're coming back from PTO and need to rebuild pipeline" is far better than radio silence followed by a confused Slack message.
Over-engineering the weights
If you have 15 reps with weights of 0.87, 1.13, 0.94, 1.22, and so on, you've created a system that's impossible to reason about. Keep weights in clean increments: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 2.0. The precision of 1.13 vs. 1.15 is meaningless at the lead volumes most teams deal with.
The bottom line
Weighted round-robin is the simplest meaningful upgrade to basic lead distribution. It acknowledges what every sales leader already knows: not every rep should receive the same volume of leads at every point in time.
If you're running pure round-robin today and have reps at different tenure levels, performance tiers, or capacity states, weighted round-robin is probably the right next step before investing in more complex routing methods. It's easy to implement, easy to explain, and the impact on conversion and rep experience is immediate.
For teams ready to move beyond weights into dynamic, multi-signal routing, see our guide on advanced lead routing. And for the full picture of how routing methods layer together, check our lead routing best practices.
At RevenueTools, weighted distribution is built into our routing engine from day one. Set weights per rep, per team, or per routing pool, and adjust them as your team evolves. See what we're launching March 10th.