Sales battlecard template with dated evidence

Filled preview

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

Sources: WorkOS Directory Sync documentation

Compare one job, not two companies

Define the decision as a workload: for example, ‘provision employees from a directory into a B2B application.’ Then compare documented capabilities, operating conditions, and unknowns. Avoid broad scores such as ‘better security’ or ‘more scalable’ unless an agreed criterion and evidence supports them.

WorkOS documents Directory Sync as a way to connect directory providers and receive user, group, and access-rule changes through its integration and events. That is a product capability, not proof that it is the best fit for every identity architecture.

Sources: WorkOS Directory Sync documentation

A defensible objection response

Write: ‘If your evaluation needs a directory integration that surfaces user and group changes through a single integration, verify that workflow with the documented Directory Sync API and your target provider. If your requirement is a different identity boundary, record the gap before comparing.’ This response gives the buyer a test, a source, and an honest limit.

Refresh the card when a pricing page, API, packaging term, or customer requirement changes. A source date lets a seller know when an old comparison needs review.

Sources: WorkOS Directory Sync documentation · WorkOS pricing

Battlecard quality check

• Each claim names its source and check date.
• The scope is one buyer job and named evaluation condition.
• Unknown is a permitted result.
• The fair-fit section describes conditions, not marketing language.

Sources: WorkOS Directory Sync documentation