See how your messaging compares to the market using the same evidence and structure, so differentiation is based on reality, not assumption.

Internal views are subjective
Messaging decisions are shaped by opinions, preferences, and historical choices.
Market context is incomplete
Comparisons are often based on a small number of competitor examples.
There’s no shared lens
Your messaging and competitor messaging are rarely analysed in the same way.
Confidence is fragile
Without evidence, teams second-guess decisions or overcorrect unnecessarily.
These approaches help alignment - but they don’t reliably show whether messaging is actually different in-market.
Your messaging is analysed using the same structure and lens as the broader market - allowing you to see clearly where you align, where you overlap, and where you are genuinely distinct.

Instead of debating messaging internally, teams can ground decisions in:
This turns differentiation from a belief into something that can be validated.
These signals are structured so similarities and differences are immediately visible.

Product marketing managers
validating positioning and messaging
Marketing leaders
pressure-testing strategic differentiation
Brand teams
ensuring clarity and consistency
Agencies
supporting client messaging decisions
Refreshing positioning or messaging frameworks
Preparing for a homepage or content overhaul
Aligning stakeholders ahead of a launch
Challenging assumptions during internal debates
Supporting messaging decisions with evidence