Competitive analysis template for B2B software

Filled preview

Illustrative worked example. Names, volumes, dates, and outcomes are fictional; replace them with approved evidence before use.

Sources: WorkOS Directory Sync documentation

Use evidence states before scores

For each requirement, record a weight, the source, the condition, and one of four states: demonstrated, documented, unknown, or does not meet. Unknown must remain distinct from a low score. Otherwise the matrix quietly rewards the vendor that makes the broadest unsupported claim.

Keep commercial terms separate from technical capability. A published price can be useful evidence for packaging, but it is not proof of implementation effort, adoption, or realized return.

Sources: WorkOS pricing · WorkOS Directory Sync documentation

Illustrative comparison

Illustrative worked example. Names, volumes, dates, and outcomes are fictional; replace them with approved evidence before use.

A team weights ‘directory changes reach our application’ at 5, ‘read-only audit export’ at 4, and ‘regional retention policy’ at 3. Vendor A has documented directory events and receives a documented status for the first requirement. Both vendors are unknown on regional retention because the review packet lacks an applicable source. The decision is therefore ‘continue evidence collection,’ not ‘Vendor A wins 9–0.’

Sources: WorkOS Directory Sync documentation

Decision discipline

• Score only after the buying group agrees on the requirement wording and weight.
• Link each row to the original source, demo timestamp, or test evidence.
• Require an owner and next step for every unknown that could change the decision.
• Review the conditions behind any headline conclusion.

Sources: WorkOS Directory Sync documentation