What is a competitive analysis?
A competitive analysis is a structured comparison of your company with the alternatives a buyer could choose instead: direct rivals, adjacent tools that cover part of the job, and the status quo of changing nothing or building in-house. It scores each one on the same criteria, records the evidence, and ends with decisions about positioning, product, pricing and where to compete.
It is not the same as a battlecard. A competitive analysis covers several competitors at once, is written for product marketing, product and leadership, and is refreshed every quarter or two. A sales battlecard covers one competitor on one page, is written for a seller in a live deal, and is built from the analysis. If you need the seller-facing card, use the sales battlecard template; this page is the strategic layer underneath it.
The analysis matters because most deals are contested. In Crayon's 2025 State of Competitive Intelligence report, based on data from hundreds of product marketers, competitive intelligence professionals and sales enablement leaders, sellers go head-to-head with competitors in 68% of deals (Crayon, State of Competitive Intelligence 2025, page updated 2026-07-08). That is Crayon's survey result, not Revspire data.
When should you run a competitive analysis?
- Annual or half-year planning, before you set positioning, pricing and product priorities.
- Before entering a new segment or region, or launching a product into a category with established players.
- Win rates against a specific rival have dropped, or a new name keeps appearing in your CRM competitor field.
- A competitor raises a large round, is acquired, changes pricing or launches into your core use case.
- Before you write or refresh battlecards, so every card is built on the same evidence.
- Skip the full exercise for a single deal: open the battlecard and ask the account team what they are hearing.
Competitive analysis vs battlecard vs competitive intelligence
A competitive analysis and a battlecard draw on the same evidence but serve different readers. Build the analysis first, then turn each top rival into a one-page battlecard for sellers.
| Asset | Who it is for | Scope and format | Question it answers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competitive analysis (this template) | Product marketing, product, sales and executive leadership | Several competitors plus the status quo; a workbook or multi-page document, refreshed quarterly or twice a year | Where should we compete, and how should we position, price and build? |
| Sales battlecard | Account executives, SDRs and partners | One competitor on one page, updated whenever something changes | How do I win this deal against this rival today? |
| Competitive intelligence | Everyone in go-to-market | The ongoing process of collecting, checking and sharing competitor information | What changed, and who needs to know? |
| Competitive matrix | Product marketing and product | One table of criteria across competitors; a section of the analysis | How do we compare, criterion by criterion? |
| SWOT analysis | Leadership and planning teams | Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for your company or one rival | What is our strategic position overall? |
| Win/loss analysis | Sales leadership, product marketing and product | Interviews and deal data on why specific deals were won or lost | Why do buyers actually choose us or a rival? |
The competitive analysis template
Fill in the scope first, then complete the landscape, the scored matrix and the win/loss evidence before you write conclusions. Score on evidence, and record the source and the date checked beside every claim about a competitor. Replace everything in brackets.
1. Scope and sources
| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Decision this analysis informs | [e.g. next year's positioning, entering the enterprise segment, a pricing change] |
| Market or segment | [The segment, region and buyer you are analyzing; one analysis per segment] |
| Competitors in scope | [Three to five: the direct rivals you meet most often, one adjacent tool, the status quo] |
| Owner / reviewers | [Product marketing owner] / [sales, product and leadership reviewers] |
| Evidence sources | [Win/loss interviews, CRM competitor field, call recordings, competitor websites and pricing pages, review sites, analyst reports; date each] |
| Date completed / next refresh | [Date] / [date, quarterly or twice a year] |
2. Competitive landscape
| Competitor | Type | Target segment | Positioning (their words) | Pricing model (published only) | Go-to-market | Recent moves |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Your company] | Us | [Segment] | [Your positioning statement] | [Your model] | [Direct sales, partners, product-led] | [Launches in the last two quarters] |
| [Competitor A] | Direct rival | [Segment] | [Main claim, paraphrased from their homepage] | [Model, with source link and date; "not published" if it is not] | [Channel] | [Funding, launches, pricing changes, leadership hires] |
| [Competitor B] | Direct rival | [Segment] | [Main claim] | [Model, source, date] | [Channel] | [Recent moves] |
| [Competitor C] | Direct rival | [Segment] | [Main claim] | [Model, source, date] | [Channel] | [Recent moves] |
| [Competitor D] | Adjacent tool (covers part of the job) | [Segment] | [Main claim] | [Model, source, date] | [Channel] | [Recent moves] |
| [Competitor E] | Suite add-on (a module in a platform the buyer already owns) | [Segment] | [Main claim] | [Model, source, date] | [Channel] | [Recent moves] |
| [New entrant to watch] | Emerging rival | [Segment] | [Main claim] | [Model, source, date] | [Channel] | [Why it is on the watch list] |
| Status quo | Changing nothing, spreadsheets or an in-house build | Every segment | "What we have works well enough." | Hidden cost: staff time and workarounds | Not applicable | [Internal changes that make the status quo harder to defend] |
3. Scoring guide
| Score or weight | What it means |
|---|---|
| Score 5 | Clearly stronger: buyers and win/loss interviews name it as a reason to choose them |
| Score 4 | Stronger on the evidence, but buyers rarely mention it unprompted |
| Score 3 | On par: no difference a buyer would notice |
| Score 2 | Weaker: a gap buyers notice, with a workaround |
| Score 1 | Clearly weak: missing, or named as a reason to lose |
| Weight 3 | A top buying criterion: it decided several deals in win/loss interviews |
| Weight 2 | Matters to some buyers or some segments |
| Weight 1 | Rarely decides a deal, but buyers ask about it |
4. Scored comparison matrix
| Criterion | Weight (1-3) | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | Status quo | Evidence and date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fit for the main use case | [3] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [Source, date checked] |
| Ease of use for the main user | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Time to value and implementation effort | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Integrations with the buyer's core systems | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Key capability 1: [name] | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Key capability 2: [name] | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Reporting and analytics | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Security and admin controls | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Pricing model and total cost of ownership | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Support, services and customer success | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| References and market presence in the segment | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Partner ecosystem and channel | [Weight] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Source, date] |
| Weighted total | [Sum of weights] | [Sum of weight x score] | [Total] | [Total] | [Total] | [Total] | Maximum = sum of weights x 5 |
5. Strengths and weaknesses (one row per finding)
| Competitor | Finding type | Finding | Evidence and date | So what for us |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Competitor A] | Strength | [What buyers credit them for] | [Win/loss quote, review or trial; date] | [How we respond, or where we avoid competing] |
| [Competitor A] | Weakness | [A gap buyers mention] | [Evidence; date] | [Where we press the advantage] |
| [Competitor B] | Strength | [Finding] | [Evidence; date] | [So what] |
| [Competitor B] | Weakness | [Finding] | [Evidence; date] | [So what] |
| [Competitor C] | Strength | [Finding] | [Evidence; date] | [So what] |
| [Competitor C] | Weakness | [Finding] | [Evidence; date] | [So what] |
| Status quo | Strength | Familiar, already paid for, no change project | [Where deals end in "no decision"] | [How to make the cost of waiting visible] |
| Status quo | Weakness | [Hidden cost: manual work, errors, key-person risk] | [Discovery notes; date] | [Trigger events that make change urgent] |
6. Win/loss patterns
| Competitor | Deals met (last four quarters) | Won / lost / no decision | Win rate (won out of decided) | Top reasons we win | Top reasons we lose |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Competitor A] | [Count] | [Won] / [lost] / [no decision] | [Won] of [won + lost] | [From win/loss interviews] | [From win/loss interviews] |
| [Competitor B] | [Count] | [W / L / ND] | [Win rate] | [Reasons] | [Reasons] |
| [Competitor C] | [Count] | [W / L / ND] | [Win rate] | [Reasons] | [Reasons] |
| [Competitor D] | [Count] | [W / L / ND] | [Win rate] | [Reasons] | [Reasons] |
| [Competitor E] | [Count] | [W / L / ND] | [Win rate] | [Reasons] | [Reasons] |
| Status quo | [Count] | [W] / not applicable / [ND] | Track the no-decision count instead | [Reasons] | [Reasons] |
| All competitive deals | [Count] | [W / L / ND] | [Win rate] | [Most common reasons] | [Most common reasons] |
| Deals with no competitor recorded | [Count] | [W / L / ND] | [Win rate] | Fix the CRM field before trusting the rows above | [Reasons] |
7. Implications and actions
| Area | What the analysis shows | Decision or action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning | [Where we win and lose, and against whom] | [Positioning change, or "no change" with the reason] | [Name] | [Date] |
| Target segments | [Segments, deal sizes or regions where we win most and least] | [Focus, deprioritize or test] | [Name] | [Date] |
| Product roadmap | [Gaps that cost deals, with deal evidence] | [Roadmap request with the evidence attached] | [Name] | [Date] |
| Pricing and packaging | [Where price or packaging decided deals] | [Change to test, or guardrail to add] | [Name] | [Date] |
| Battlecards and enablement | [Rivals that need a new or refreshed battlecard] | [Cards to build or update; training to run] | [Name] | [Date] |
| Messaging and content | [Claims that land, and claims rivals now also make] | [Messaging framework or content updates] | [Name] | [Date] |
| Partnerships and ecosystem | [Integrations or partners that tip deals] | [Partnership to pursue or deepen] | [Name] | [Date] |
| What to monitor | [Signals that would change these conclusions] | [Alerts to set and the trigger for an early refresh] | [Name] | [Date] |
Prefer a file? Both downloads are free and ungated.
Competitive analysis example
Example: fictional company
Here is the template filled in for an invented software company comparing itself with three alternatives in one segment. All scores and deal counts are invented for illustration.
Ferncastle Analytics sells revenue-forecasting software to mid-market sales teams. Ahead of annual planning, its product marketing manager, Ines Calloway, compared it with Harborview Metrics (a BI suite with a forecasting add-on), Brindlecove Software (a low-cost forecasting point tool) and the status quo of spreadsheets. Every company named here, including Brindlecove Software, is invented.
Scope
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Decision it informs | Positioning and roadmap priorities for the next fiscal year. |
| Segment | North American B2B companies with 50 to 300 sellers. |
| Competitors in scope | Harborview Metrics, Brindlecove Software, spreadsheets and in-house models (status quo). |
| Evidence | 18 win/loss interviews, the CRM competitor field for the last four quarters, competitor websites and pricing pages checked in week 1, and review-site comments. |
| Owner / next refresh | Ines Calloway, Product Marketing Manager / in six months. |
Scored comparison matrix
| Criterion | Weight | Ferncastle | Harborview Metrics | Brindlecove Software | Spreadsheets | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecast call workflow for frontline managers | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | Win/loss interviews; pilot feedback |
| Ease of use for sales managers | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | Review-site comments; demo feedback |
| Time to value | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | Implementation plans; spreadsheets need no rollout |
| Integration with CRM and BI tools | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | Integration documentation; Harborview is strongest inside its own suite |
| Finance-grade reporting | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | Interviews with finance stakeholders |
| Deal-level risk signals | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Product pages and trials, checked in week 1 |
| Pricing model and total cost | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | Published pricing pages; status quo cost is analyst time |
| Admin effort for RevOps | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | Pilot feedback from RevOps champions |
| Weighted total (maximum 85) | 17 | 69 | 50 | 57 | 46 | Weight x score, summed |
Strengths and weaknesses
| Competitor | Finding type | Finding | Evidence and date | So what for us |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harborview Metrics | Strength | Finance already trusts its data and owns the BI budget | Six of 18 win/loss interviews | Position Ferncastle as feeding Harborview, not replacing it |
| Harborview Metrics | Weakness | Sales managers need an analyst to build a new forecast view | Win/loss interviews; review-site comments | Open demos with a manager building their own view |
| Brindlecove Software | Strength | Quick to set up, with a lower entry price | Published pricing page, checked in week 1; two lost deals | Do not compete on entry price; show total cost at 100 sellers |
| Brindlecove Software | Weakness | No deal-level risk signals; the forecast is a roll-up of rep calls | Product documentation; pilot comparisons | Make deal risk a stated buying criterion in discovery |
| Spreadsheets (status quo) | Strength | Free, familiar and fully under RevOps control | Most no-decision outcomes in the CRM | Quantify the hours spent preparing the forecast each week |
| Spreadsheets (status quo) | Weakness | Breaks when the analyst who built the model leaves; no single version | Discovery notes | Use RevOps turnover as a trigger event |
Win/loss patterns (last four quarters)
| Competitor | Deals met (last four quarters) | Won / lost / no decision | Win rate (won out of decided) | Top reasons we win | Top reasons we lose |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harborview Metrics | 22 | 9 / 7 / 6 | 9 of 16 | Manager workflow; deal risk signals | Finance owns the decision and prefers one vendor |
| Brindlecove Software | 14 | 8 / 5 / 1 | 8 of 13 | Risk signals; depth of CRM integration | Entry price in deals under 60 sellers |
| Spreadsheets (status quo) | 19 | 7 / not applicable / 12 | 12 no-decision deals to watch | A clear cost of manual work | No compelling event, so the deal stalls |
| All competitive deals | 55 | 24 / 12 / 19 | 24 of 36 | Manager workflow | Finance ownership; entry price |
Implications and actions
| Area | What the analysis shows | Decision or action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning | We win when the sales manager owns the forecast and lose when finance does | Lead with "built for frontline managers" and add a finance-facing integration story | Ines Calloway | Q1 |
| Target segments | Brindlecove wins small deals on price | Focus outbound on companies with 80 to 300 sellers; stop discounting below 60 sellers | VP Sales | Q1 |
| Product roadmap | Finance-grade reporting is our biggest gap against Harborview (3 vs 5) | Prioritize the Harborview export and a finance summary view | Head of Product | Q2 |
| Battlecards | The Harborview card is a year old and there is no Brindlecove card | Refresh the Harborview card; build a Brindlecove card from this analysis | Ines Calloway | Within four weeks |
| No-decision deals | 12 of the 19 status quo deals ended with no decision | Add a cost-of-manual-forecasting worksheet to discovery | Sales enablement lead | Q1 |
Example: fictional company. Ferncastle Analytics, Harborview Metrics, Marlow & Finch Logistics, Brindlecove Software and every person named in this example are invented for illustration. Any resemblance to real companies or people is coincidental.
How to do a competitive analysis with this template
Start with the decision, not the competitors
Write down what the analysis will inform: a positioning refresh, a segment to enter, a pricing change. The decision tells you which criteria and which competitors matter, and keeps the document from turning into a feature census.
Pick competitors from your own deal data
Use the CRM competitor field and win/loss notes to find who you actually meet, then add one adjacent tool and the status quo. A rival that dominates the headlines but never shows up in your deals belongs on a watch list, not in the matrix.
Choose criteria the way buyers do
Take criteria from win/loss interviews and lost-deal notes, not from your own feature list. Weight them by how often they decided a deal, so the matrix reflects buying decisions rather than product pride.
Score on dated evidence
For every score, record the source and the date you checked it: a pricing page, a review-site comment, a win/loss quote, a hands-on trial. Use only information that is public or legitimately shared with you, and re-check anything older than six months.
Write the "so what" before you share it
Every finding needs an implication for positioning, product, pricing, segments or enablement, with an owner and a date. An analysis without decisions is a reading assignment.
Turn it into battlecards and refresh it on a schedule
Give each top rival a one-page battlecard built from this analysis, using the sales battlecard template. Refresh the analysis quarterly or twice a year, and sooner when a competitor makes a major move.
Common competitive analysis mistakes
A feature census instead of an analysis
Listing every feature of every rival hides what matters. Score the criteria buyers decide on, and say what you will do differently.
Leaving out the status quo
Deals are often lost to "no decision" rather than to a rival. Score changing nothing and in-house builds like any other competitor.
Scoring yourself generously
If you are "clearly stronger" on every criterion, the analysis will not survive the first lost deal. Ask sales and product to challenge your own scores.
Undated, unsourced claims
Competitors change pricing, packaging and messaging. A score without a source and a date cannot be checked and quietly becomes wrong.
Handing the analysis to sellers
A long analysis is the wrong tool in a live deal. Turn it into one-page battlecards for reps and keep the analysis for planning.
Gathering intelligence the wrong way
Posing as a buyer or using confidential material from a competitor's former employees creates legal and reputational risk. Stick to public sources, your own buyers and legitimate trials.
How Revspire connects competitive analysis to battlecards
A spreadsheet analysis captures one point in time; the hard part is keeping it current and getting what it found in front of sellers. Revspire's AI Playbook Engine supports competitive intelligence and AI win/loss analysis of deals and calls, and builds seller-ready battlecards with AI grounded in your approved revenue knowledge, routed for approval before they are published.
Approved battlecards and messaging are published into seller workflows, and playbook usage and performance analytics show which competitive plays reps actually use, which tells you where the next refresh should start.
Competitive analysis template FAQs
What is the difference between a competitive analysis and a battlecard?
A competitive analysis compares several competitors on the criteria buyers use, is written for product marketing and leadership, and informs positioning, product and pricing decisions. A battlecard covers one competitor on one page and tells a seller how to win a live deal. Build the analysis first, then turn each top rival into a battlecard.
What should a competitive analysis include?
The decision it informs and its scope, a landscape of competitors including the status quo, a weighted comparison matrix scored on dated evidence, strengths and weaknesses for each rival, win/loss patterns from your own deals, and a list of actions with owners. The template above has a section for each.
How many competitors should a competitive analysis cover?
Usually three to five: the direct rivals you meet most often in your CRM and win/loss notes, one adjacent tool that covers part of the job, and the status quo. Beyond that the analysis gets shallow; keep other names on a watch list and add them if they start appearing in deals.
How often should you update a competitive analysis?
Refresh the full analysis quarterly or twice a year, ahead of planning cycles. Update the affected sections sooner when a competitor changes pricing, launches into your core use case, is acquired or starts showing up in more of your deals, and then update the matching battlecards.
What is a competitive matrix?
A competitive matrix is a table with competitors across the top and comparison criteria down the side, with a score or rating in each cell. It is one section of a competitive analysis. Weight the criteria by how often they decide deals, and record the evidence and date behind each score.
Related templates and reading
- Free templateMutual action plan templateA shared, dated plan from discovery to go-live, with a buyer owner and a seller owner on every milestone.
- Free templateStakeholder map templateEvery person in the buying group on one page, with buying role, influence, stance, priorities and a next action.
- Free templateSales call scorecard templateA weighted 1-5 rubric for scoring recorded calls on agenda, discovery, value messaging, objections, next steps and talk/listen balance.
- Free templateSDR onboarding plan templateA week-by-week ramp plan for SDRs and BDRs: ICP, messaging, sequences, cold calls, qualification and the first qualified meeting, with gates.
- Template: the one-page seller card per rivalSales battlecard template
- Blog: running a CI programAI for competitive intelligence
- Blog: feeding win/loss into the analysisAutomated win/loss analysis
- Research: Revspire win/loss dataB2B win/loss benchmark
- Glossary: competitive intelligenceWhat is competitive intelligence?
Sources
- Crayon, The State of Competitive Intelligence 2025 (2026-07-08 (page updated))