# Competitor research brief template

Compare public competitor offers with dated evidence, consistent criteria and visible unknowns. Copy a brief and download an editable evidence table.

A competitor brief should let another person reopen the evidence and understand the comparison. Its job is to document published offers, not guess private revenue, identify undisclosed customers or prove that your product is better. Start with a buying decision and a short, relevant comparison set.

This template uses one row per material observation. Record the exact source page, access date, buyer segment and conditions. If a feature is not mentioned, write not found in the reviewed sources. That is different from saying the competitor does not offer it. Use the same criteria for your own offer and the alternatives.

## How to use it

### 1. Define the comparison set

Select a small number of alternatives a buyer could realistically choose. Include a manual or no-purchase option where it changes the decision. Write why each belongs in the set instead of selecting only weak competitors.

### 2. Choose consistent criteria

Use the buyer's needs: supported task, plan limits, published cost, setup requirements and terms. Keep a criterion separate from a verdict. For instance, exports CSV is an observable claim; easy to use would require a different kind of evidence.

### 3. Collect public sources

Prefer the vendor's current documentation, pricing and terms for its published offer. Save the URL and date. Accessible third-party reviews can raise questions, but attribution and sample limitations still matter. Respect access controls and source permissions.

### 4. Build the evidence table

Create columns for vendor, criterion, observed statement, source, date, caveat and follow-up. Separate an exact quoted statement from your interpretation. Normalize billing terms before comparing price and keep taxes, add-ons and usage assumptions visible.

### 5. Write a bounded conclusion

Explain which criteria favor which alternatives and what remains unknown. Propose the smallest next test, such as asking a vendor to confirm a documented limit. Do not convert published marketing claims into independently verified performance.

## Copyable prompt

```text
Prepare a competitor research brief from these public sources: [URLs or pasted pages].
Buyer scenario: [task, team size, country].
Alternatives: [names, including our offer when appropriate].
Criteria: [same criteria for every alternative].
Use a dated evidence table: alternative | criterion | observed claim | source URL | access date | caveat | next check. Separate observations, interpretations and missing evidence. Missing from a reviewed page means not found, not absent. Do not infer private revenue, customer lists, negotiated prices or tested performance. End with conditional tradeoffs and a verification checklist, not a winner based on unsupported scores.
```

## Example evidence table: public scheduling offers

Fictional vendors and observations, shown only to demonstrate the table format. Replace them with current source-backed entries.

| Alternative | Observation | Next check |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Service A | The fictional basic plan lists one calendar connection | Open the actual plan documentation and date the observation |
| Service B | The fictional offer describes team routing | Confirm which plan includes it and any per-seat conditions |
| Manual process | A shared inbox can receive booking requests | Measure your own handling time; do not assume it is free |

This table supports questions and tradeoffs. It does not establish usability, reliability or total cost until those criteria have their own evidence.

## Review checklist

- [ ] Every alternative fits the buyer scenario

- [ ] Criteria are applied consistently

- [ ] Material claims have dated public sources

- [ ] Price conditions and unknowns remain visible

- [ ] Conclusions distinguish observation from judgment

Source: https://growit.lol/templates/competitor-research-brief
Updated: 2026-10-01
Growit / o1