Menu

FOR SMALL B2B TEAMS · FREE RESOURCE

Competitor
analysis kit.

Who else could your buyer choose?

Another company. A spreadsheet. Doing nothing for another month. Put the real alternatives side by side, then decide what your offer needs to say or do.

Download the Excel workbook ↗Use it here ↓

3 editable sheets · No signup · See a filled example

Start with a decision.

A long list of features rarely tells you what to do next. This competitor analysis template starts with a question: how should you position an offer, explain a difference, or respond to an alternative your buyers already use?

Choose three alternatives first. Include your own offer and the current way of doing the work. The workbook has a decision brief, comparison, evidence log and completed example. Add more alternatives in Excel if your research needs them.

Created by Rakibul Huda · October 2026

Free to adapt for your own work and client projects. Please link to this page when sharing the original kit.

A useful first pass.

  1. 01

    Choose the question and criteria

    Write one decision and three things that could affect the buyer's choice. Pick alternatives that solve the same problem, even if they belong to different categories.

  2. 02

    Keep the source beside the claim

    Look at service or product pages, pricing, documentation, demos and direct quotes. Record the page, date and exact observation. A supplier's claim is evidence of its messaging, not proof that it delivers.

  3. 03

    Make a call, then test it

    Explain what the evidence supports, what is still unknown and the next action. Missing information is a research question. It is not a reason to give a competitor a low score.

Work through your analysis.

Your entries stay in this browser when local storage is available. They are not sent to a server. Use Download your notes to keep a separate copy, especially on a shared device. This form does not research companies for you.

JavaScript enables local saving and export.

1. Set the scope

What will you decide after this research? Keep it to one question.

Who is choosing, what triggered the search, and what do they need done?

Choose criteria that could change the buyer's choice. Explain why each matters.

State the market, offer or plan, research date and when you will check again.

2. Compare the alternatives

Use source IDs such as S1 and S2. Put the full reference in Evidence and source, then use that ID when interpreting it. The workbook has a separate evidence log for larger research projects.

Option 1: your offer

Your offer, a direct competitor, or the current way of doing the work.

Record the audience stated in the source. Separate your interpretation.

Scope, exclusions, currency, billing period and tax basis. Write unknown where needed.

Quote or closely paraphrase the message. A promise is not proof.

Give each source an ID. Record URL or document/page, access date and the exact observation.

Address each criterion in order. Use source IDs. Describe tradeoffs without arbitrary scores.

Why might a buyer prefer this option? Label assumptions and include the cost of switching.

Missing evidence, unclear terms, or a question to ask a buyer. Absence on a website is not proof of absence.

Option 2: a competitor

Your offer, a direct competitor, or the current way of doing the work.

Record the audience stated in the source. Separate your interpretation.

Scope, exclusions, currency, billing period and tax basis. Write unknown where needed.

Quote or closely paraphrase the message. A promise is not proof.

Give each source an ID. Record URL or document/page, access date and the exact observation.

Address each criterion in order. Use source IDs. Describe tradeoffs without arbitrary scores.

Why might a buyer prefer this option? Label assumptions and include the cost of switching.

Missing evidence, unclear terms, or a question to ask a buyer. Absence on a website is not proof of absence.

Option 3: the current approach

Your offer, a direct competitor, or the current way of doing the work.

Record the audience stated in the source. Separate your interpretation.

Scope, exclusions, currency, billing period and tax basis. Write unknown where needed.

Quote or closely paraphrase the message. A promise is not proof.

Give each source an ID. Record URL or document/page, access date and the exact observation.

Address each criterion in order. Use source IDs. Describe tradeoffs without arbitrary scores.

Why might a buyer prefer this option? Label assumptions and include the cost of switching.

Missing evidence, unclear terms, or a question to ask a buyer. Absence on a website is not proof of absence.

3. Write the decision brief

Write two or three findings and cite the source IDs that support each.

Choose a change to the offer, message or research plan. Explain the tradeoff.

Which tempting claims are not supported by the evidence?

Name an owner, date, action, and the result that would change your decision.

What is assumed, out of date, or missing? What would reverse the recommendation?

FOLLOW THE REASONING

An offer for customer stories.

Fictional practice example. All businesses, source excerpts, terms and research notes below were invented for this exercise. They are not client work or market evidence.

A new service wants to help a sole marketer turn a customer interview into a case study. Here is the comparison and the decision it leads to.

The question

The decision
How should a new interview-to-case-study service describe its first offer?
The buyer and situation
A sole marketer at a small B2B software company needs a customer story for sales. They have a willing customer but little time to manage interviews and approvals.
Three things that matter
1. Interview ownership: who arranges and runs it? 2. Approval workload: who handles revisions and customer sign-off? 3. Time to first draft: can the work fit a planned sales campaign?
Scope and review date
One case study in English. Compare the proposed service, a general content studio and in-house work. Exercise prepared 12 October 2026. Validate the offer before publishing it.

Three alternatives

Specialist service (our proposed offer)
Who it is for
B2B software marketers with a customer willing to be interviewed (S1).
Offer and price
One interview and one written case study. Two revision rounds. Client secures customer consent and final approval. Price has not been set (S1).
Main promise
Proposed message: Turn one customer interview into a sales case study. This is an offer draft, not a proven result (S1).
Evidence and source
S1: fictional internal offer draft, section Scope. Interview, first draft within seven working days of interview, two revision rounds. No delivery track record yet.
Fit against your three criteria
1. Provider runs the interview; client introduces the customer. 2. Two revision rounds; client owns sign-off. 3. Seven working days to first draft is a proposed service target, not observed performance (S1).
Reason to choose or stay
A defined assignment may be easier to buy than ongoing content support. This is our inference. Switching still requires onboarding a writer and sharing customer context.
What you still need to know
Will buyers pay for the interview work? How much time will approval take? Can the provider meet the proposed draft schedule?
General content studio
Who it is for
Marketing teams needing several kinds of written content (S2).
Offer and price
Monthly writing support covering articles, newsletters and case studies. Public price and interview scope are unspecified in the fictional excerpt (S2).
Main promise
Fictional headline: Your extra pair of hands for content (S2).
Evidence and source
S2: fictional studio service-page excerpt. Monthly writing support. Articles, newsletters and customer stories. Two anonymised writing samples. Interview and sign-off terms are not stated.
Fit against your three criteria
1. Interview ownership unknown. 2. Approval responsibilities unknown. 3. First-draft timing unknown. The excerpt cannot support a delivery-speed comparison (S2).
Reason to choose or stay
A buyer already using the studio may prefer one supplier for several tasks. Inference only; no buyer interviews were conducted.
What you still need to know
Request a scoped quote: interview, revision limits, approval handling, timing and price. Do not infer that the studio lacks these services.
Write it in-house / defer it
Who it is for
The same marketer, using existing customer relationships and internal knowledge (S3).
Offer and price
No new supplier invoice. Internal time still has a cost, which has not been measured. Work competes with other priorities (S3).
Main promise
No supplier message. The practical appeal is keeping customer context and control inside the team. Interpretation based on S3.
Evidence and source
S3: fictional planning note. Marketer owns the interview and draft. Customer success introduces the customer. No writing time is reserved this month. Approval responsibilities are not documented.
Fit against your three criteria
1. Marketer runs the interview. 2. Approval process remains undefined. 3. No reserved writing time, so no supported delivery date (S3).
Reason to choose or stay
Staying in-house avoids briefing a new supplier. Deferring also avoids spending now. The tradeoff is delaying a usable story; its business cost is unknown.
What you still need to know
Would a scheduled writing block solve the problem? Is the story important enough to buy external help?

The decision brief

What the evidence suggests
Our offer defines interview ownership and revision limits (S1). The studio excerpt leaves those terms open (S2). The in-house plan has no reserved writing time (S3). These sources do not show that our service is faster or better.
What you will do
Test a specific message: One customer interview. A case study your sales team can use. Follow it with the scope, revision limit and who owns approval. Keep price and delivery promises provisional until tested.
What you will not claim
Do not claim fastest delivery, guaranteed sales results or that competitors do not handle interviews. Do not describe a proposed turnaround as a proven record.
The next test
Service owner: before publishing the offer, show the scope to five target marketers. Ask what they would still need to know and what they would use instead. Rework the offer if three or more see no useful reduction in their workload. Then trial one paid assignment to check the delivery schedule.
Limits of this analysis
This exercise contains no real interviews, quotes or observed delivery results. The five-person test is a learning step, not a representative market estimate. A studio quote with the same scope or buyers preferring in-house work could change the recommendation.
Read the three fictional source excerpts

S1 · Internal offer draft / Scope

One customer interview. One written case study. First draft within seven working days of interview. Two revision rounds. Client obtains consent and final approval. Price to be decided.

S2 · Studio service page / Services

Monthly writing support for marketing teams. Articles, newsletters and customer stories. Two anonymised writing samples are shown. No price, interview process or delivery schedule is included in this excerpt.

S3 · Internal planning note / This month

Marketer will conduct the interview and write the story. Customer success will introduce the customer. No writing time is reserved this month. Approval responsibilities have not been documented.

Before you share it.

  • Check that every material claim has a source and date.
  • Compare equivalent plans and scopes. Note taxes, currencies and billing periods when comparing prices.
  • Keep observed facts, supplier promises and your interpretation distinct.
  • Include a reason someone might stay with their current approach.
  • Name the missing information that could change your decision.

Questions about the template

Can I use it in Google Sheets?

Download the .xlsx file, then import it into Google Sheets. It uses ordinary editable cells and no macros. Review the column widths after import. You can also use it in Excel.

Is this a SWOT analysis?

No. This worksheet compares buyer alternatives against a specific decision. You can use the findings in a SWOT analysis, but it does not ask you to fill four boxes before you know what matters.

Can AI help with the research?

It can help organise excerpts and suggest follow-up questions. Give it the sources you actually collected, ask it to cite their IDs, and check its interpretation. Do not ask it to fill missing facts with plausible answers.

How many competitors should I include?

Start with the alternatives your buyer is likely to consider. This kit gives you three slots, including your offer and the current approach. Add more columns in the workbook when another option could change the decision.

Put the findings to work.

Write a content brief ↗Review your website copy ↗All free resources ↗

Enough about me.
Let’s talk.

Say hello ↗Find me on LinkedIn ↗