Data-driven competitive landscape mapping: how to build one using verifiable sources

Most competitive maps are created in a conference room: someone draws two axes on a whiteboard, the sales team names the five companies they hear about most often in tenders, and an hour later the document makes its way into a management presentation. The problem is that such a picture describes the organization’s memory, not the market. The question “how to create a competitive map” only makes sense if the answer starts with data sources, how they are verified, and defining who actually counts as a competitor – and only then moves on to selecting axes and visualization.

How to understand a competitive map and when do you need one?

A competitive map is a structured overview of entities operating within the same customer decision space, described using a set of comparable, verifiable attributes. Three words are key: customer decision space (rather than PKD classification), comparable (the same attribute measured in the same way for all entities), and verifiable (each cell in the table has a source, date, and confidence level).

The question “how to create a competitive map” typically arises at several common points in the work of a marketing or strategy team. Below are situations in which data-driven competitor analysis usually replaces a workshop-based version:

• when repositioning an offering, where it is necessary to determine which communication promises have already been claimed by other players;
• when entering a new segment or sales channel, where sales teams’ knowledge is nonexistent or anecdotal;
• when building a pricing architecture, where actual rather than stated price levels and terms are needed;
• when preparing sales materials such as battlecards that must withstand comparison in front of a client;
• when conducting ongoing market monitoring, where comparability of measurements over time is essential.

It is worth distinguishing between three levels of sophistication. The simplest is a competitor list – an inventory of names. The next level is competitor mapping – assigning each entity a set of characteristics: business model, reach, target group, channels, and product portfolio. The most advanced level is a positioning map, meaning that these characteristics are translated into dimensions relevant to the customer’s purchase decision. Each of these levels requires different data and different levels of effort, which is why the first project decision concerns not the tool but the level of ambition.

An important limitation of scope: a competitive map describes market structure and the positions of market players. It is not, in itself, an assessment of market attractiveness or an investment recommendation. The research material provides a picture on the basis of which the organization makes its own decisions – and this boundary should be clearly stated in the report.

How to build a competitive map step by step using verifiable sources?

The procedure used in competitive intelligence projects consists of six stages. Each produces an artifact that can later be audited.

1. Define the competitive set from the demand side

The starting point is not the industry but the consideration set – the set of solutions that customers genuinely consider before making a purchase. This set should be identified through research, not through internal assumptions. Core techniques include open-ended questions about unaided brand awareness, questions about alternatives considered during the most recent purchase, and – in B2B – interviews with members of the buying committee after completed procurement processes, including with lost customers.

A common mistake in competitor analysis is confusing competitors identified by the company with those customers actually consider. Companies identify entities similar to themselves – with comparable scale, technology, or history. Customers compare solutions that solve the same problem, regardless of whether they come from the same category. As a result, the competitive set often includes substitutes from outside the industry, as well as the option of “doing nothing / handling it in-house,” which can be an important alternative in many B2B procurement processes.

2. Build a source register

Verifiability begins with source discipline. In practice, a competitive map draws on several layers of data, organized by degree of robustness:

• Registry and reporting data – KRS, financial statements in the Repozytorium Dokumentów Finansowych, CEIDG, patent and trademark registers, industry and licensing registers. This is one of the most robust layers: it may allow legal status, ownership structure, selected financial data, and held rights and licenses to be confirmed.
• Public procurement data – tender notices and procurement outcomes in Polish and EU databases. These may enable observation of the value of selected bids, winning contractors, and procurement terms under comparable conditions.
• Product and pricing data – price lists, configurators, online stores, marketplaces, and sales materials. These should be collected consistently, with the measurement date and a screenshot retained as evidence.
• Communication data – websites, advertising libraries of social media platforms, job postings (a useful source of information about sought-after capabilities), press materials, and conference presentations.
• Market data – quantitative research among customers and qualitative research: IDIs with decision-makers, interviews with business partners, distributors, and former employees of competitors, conducted in line with ethical and legal standards, including without obtaining confidential information.
• Observational data – point-of-sale audits, mystery shopping, and tests of the online purchase journey.

Each record in the database should include four metadata fields: source, date obtained, collection method, and verification status. This makes it possible to answer the question that always comes up in management meetings: “How do we know this is the case?”

3. Use triangulation

The operating principle can be stated as follows: no material figure should be included on the map unless it has been confirmed by at least two independent sources or comes directly from a reliable register or report. For example, a competitor’s stated number of implementations can be compared against the number of employees shown in financial statements, its reference list, job postings, and accounts from partners. If sources diverge, the discrepancy should be described rather than averaged out.

4. Establish comparison attributes before collecting data

Competitive benchmarking only makes sense when each attribute has a consistent definition. “Delivery time” must mean the same thing for all analyzed entities – measured from the same event, in the same units, and for the same product variant. An attribute card containing the definition, unit, and measurement method is the basic tool for ensuring comparability, especially when data is collected by several people.

5. Define map axes based on data, not intuition

The axes of a positioning map should reflect dimensions that genuinely differentiate customer choice. They should be identified through research. A quantitative approach may use factor analysis of attribute ratings, multidimensional scaling based on brand similarity data, or correspondence analysis of a “brand – association” matrix. In a qualitative approach, the starting point is a repertory grid or an analysis of the language customers use to describe differences between suppliers. The result is usually less obvious than the default “price – quality” axes, which may have limited discriminatory power in many categories.

6. Describe uncertainty

A mature competitive map includes a layer of information about data quality: which positions are confirmed, which are estimated, and which are based on a single source. This can be coded using color or a confidence index. The report recipient then receives not only a picture, but also information on how strongly they can rely on individual elements.

What mistakes most often undermine competitor mapping?

Even a well-planned project can produce a misleading picture. Below are the pitfalls that occur most often in practice:

• A competitive set determined internally. The list is created from salespeople’s memory, systematically overlooking players operating in channels where the company is not present, as well as substitutes from outside the category.
• Confusing claims with data. A competitor’s marketing materials are primarily data about its communication. Operational claims made in those materials require independent verification.
• Axes selected to support a thesis. If map dimensions are selected so that the company’s own brand ends up in an empty, attractive corner, the map ceases to be a diagnostic tool.
• No timestamp. Prices, offers, and product portfolios can change in weekly cycles. A map without a measurement date cannot be replicated and is therefore unverifiable.
• Mixing levels of aggregation. Comparing a corporate group with an individual product brand distorts scale and shares.
• Ignoring the “no purchase” option. In many categories, the main alternative is postponing the decision or the customer’s in-house solution. A map without this position overstates competition among suppliers.
• Too many dimensions. A map with a dozen or more attributes on a single chart stops communicating effectively. It is better to separate the database layer from the visualization layer.

It is also worth comparing a competitive map with alternative approaches. A classic competitor SWOT analysis is faster, but it relies on qualitative assessments and does not ensure comparability across entities. Operational benchmarking can provide highly precise data, but it often requires access to detailed data from the organizations being compared, which may be limited in a competitive market. In practice, a mixed-methods approach can produce useful results: quantitative measurement of brand perceptions among customers determines the axes and positions, while qualitative desk research plus expert interviews supplement the factual layer relating to portfolios, channels, and operating models.

What should a completed competitive map include?

The following list serves as an acceptance checklist – both for an internal team and for an external provider conducting competitive intelligence:

1. Market definition and inclusion criteria – a clear explanation of why a given entity was included in the set and another was not.
2. Source database – a spreadsheet containing records, each with a link to the source and the date obtained.
3. Attribute cards – definitions of all comparison dimensions, including units.
4. Competitor profiles – standardized profiles covering business model, portfolio, channels, target groups, communication, and resources.
5. Positioning map with a description of the method used to determine the axes and information on the data used to build it.
6. Confidence layer – identification of confirmed, estimated, and uncertain data.
7. Update protocol – who updates what and on what schedule, so that subsequent measurements remain comparable.

For ongoing monitoring, consistency of definitions is critical. Changing how an attribute is measured between research waves means that differences in results cease to be information about the market and become a methodological artifact.

Frequently asked questions

What is a competitive map?

A competitive map is a structured representation of entities competing for the same customer, described using a comparable set of attributes and – in its expanded version – plotted along dimensions relevant to the customer’s purchase decision. It differs from a simple competitor list in that it is based on documented sources and consistent measurement definitions. It can take the form of a database, a set of profiles, or a positioning chart – most often all three at once.

Which sources of competitor data are reliable?

The most reliable sources include registry and reporting data (KRS, financial statements, patent registers, and public procurement data), because their publication or filing is usually subject to formal procedures. The second layer consists of data collected through consistent observation: price lists, configurators, point-of-sale audits, and mystery shopping. A competitor’s marketing materials are treated primarily as data about its communication; operational claims included in them require independent verification. The guiding principle remains triangulation – confirming key findings through at least two independent sources.

How often should competitor analysis be updated?

The cycle depends on the volatility of a given dimension, not on the management calendar. Prices and promotions in fast-moving categories require weekly or monthly monitoring; product portfolios and channels require quarterly monitoring; brand perceptions among customers and the structure of the competitive set usually require annual or semiannual measurement, as they change more slowly and require research on a sample. The condition for comparability across successive measurements is maintaining identical attribute definitions and data collection methods.

Ask about data-driven competitor analysis

If the competitive map in your organization is currently based on the sales department’s knowledge, it is worth considering what it would look like if built on verifiable sources and research into the actual set considered by customers. Contact Hume’s Institute to discuss the scope and methodology of such a project.