Competitive matrix template, with an honest example

A competitive matrix is a grid that compares you and your competitors on the things buyers weigh up when they choose: price, features, service, proof. Competitors run across the top, criteria down the side, and each cell holds a fact or a score.

The template below differs from most in two ways. The rows come from buyers rather than from your feature list. And it deliberately includes the rows you lose, because a matrix where you win everything gets disbelieved by everyone who reads it, including your own sales team.

Four kinds of competitive analysis matrix

Pick the type before you build, because each answers a different question.

The weighted version has a formal name and method, covered in the competitive profile matrix template. The two-axis version is a positioning map. This page covers the first two, which are what most teams mean by a competitive comparison matrix.

The competitive matrix template

Write three things above the grid: who the buyer is (one segment), the date you checked, and where the facts came from.

The "Why it is a row" column keeps you honest. Every row needs a reason a buyer cares, such as "named in 6 lost deals" or "top complaint in rival reviews". If you cannot fill it, the row is there for you, not for them.

The scoring key

Use facts in the cells wherever you can: the actual price, the actual rating and review count, the actual contract length. Score only what cannot be stated as a fact, and use a written key so two people would give the same score.

How to choose the rows

The rows are the whole game. Four sources tell you what buyers actually compare.

Lost deal and cancellation reasons. The reasons people gave for choosing someone else are, by definition, decision criteria.

Competitor reviews. What reviewers praise and complain about is what they compared. Reading rivals' reviews for positioning shows how to pull these out quickly.

Comparison searches. Search for "[rival] vs [rival]" and "[rival] alternatives". The pages that rank, and the "People also ask" questions, show which criteria the market uses.

Rivals' pricing pages. How they split their tiers shows what they believe buyers will pay for.

Then apply four rules:

• 8 to 12 rows. Fewer misses things that matter; more hides them.
• Price as a real number for a typical customer, not the "from" price on the cheapest tier.
• At least two rows where a rival wins. If you cannot find two, you have not looked hard enough or you chose the rows to flatter yourself.
• One row per decision, not per feature. Six integration rows become one: "works with the tools they already use".

Competitive matrix example

Say you sell a hypothetical booking and payments app for dog groomers, call it Pawprint, at $29 a month. Customers compare it with a general salon booking platform, a pet business suite, and what most one-person groomers already use: a free calendar and a card reader.

All four products and every figure are invented. In a real version, each cell would trace back to a rival's pricing page, feature page, help docs or app store reviews, with the date.

What the matrix says:

• Pawprint wins with solo groomers and small salons that want pet-specific records without a yearly contract.
• It loses to the suite on route planning, so mobile groomers are a segment to qualify out, not a feature to rush. It loses to both rivals for multi-location businesses for the same reason.
• The real competitor for one-person groomers is the free calendar. The row that beats it is deposits, because a deposit is protection against no-shows. That becomes the headline for that segment, and it would never have surfaced from a feature list.

The comparison page version for your website

The same matrix, trimmed, makes a strong "[You] vs [Rival]" page. Buyers search for these comparisons, and they trust the ones that look fair.

• Six to eight rows, the criteria buyers raise, not every feature you have.
• Facts only, with links to the rival's own pricing or feature page so a reader can check.
• A visible date, such as "Checked 4 October 2026", and a re-check whenever their pricing changes.
• Keep a row they win, and say who should choose them. A page that admits a weakness gets believed on everything else.

This is also a legal point. In the UK, the advertising code requires comparisons with identifiable competitors to "objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative feature" (CAP Code rule 3.34), and EU law sets similar conditions. Sticking to dated, checkable facts keeps you on the right side of it.

Keeping the matrix true

A matrix is accurate on the day you build it. Prices, tiers, limits and features move, and the first wrong cell a buyer spots discredits the rest.

Re-check quarterly, and immediately when a rival changes its pricing page. Tracking a competitor's pricing page covers the free ways to get alerted. If the matrix feeds sales conversations, the shorter version belongs on a battlecard.

Figo checks each competitor's pricing page and new pages every week and puts the changes in a Monday email, which tells you which cells to update. Ours, so judge accordingly. It does not build the matrix or choose the rows; that judgement stays with you.