---
name: competitive-battlecard
description: Creates a cited competitive battlecard comparing a named competitor with the company's offer, including strengths, limitations, proof points, objections, and discovery questions. Use for competitive intelligence, deal preparation, competitor comparison, battlecards, or win-back planning.
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  adlass.categories: "sales-crm/competitive-intelligence, sales-crm/meeting-prep-debrief"
  adlass.industries: ""
  adlass.tags: "competitive-intelligence, battlecard, competitor, objections, comparison, sales"
  adlass.adaptation: "reference-doc"
  adlass.source: "original"
  adlass.version: "1"
---

# Competitive battlecard

## Purpose

Give sellers an honest, evidence-backed comparison with one competitor and practical questions for a live opportunity. Separate sourced facts from internal interpretation and avoid unsupported claims.

## Scope

Positioning, target customers, capabilities, pricing model where known, implementation, strengths, limitations, customer evidence, objections, and situations where the competitor may fit better.

**Excluded:** deceptive claims, confidential competitor information, disparagement, and outreach.

## Data basis

- Competitor and company product sources in scope.
- Win/loss records, customer feedback, and approved proof points.
- Public web sources when enabled.

## Result

A battlecard, comparison sheet, and discovery-question set.

## Quality criteria

- Every factual comparison cites a source and date.
- Unknown pricing or capability is labelled unknown.
- Strengths and limitations are presented for both sides.
- Recommendations connect to a customer criterion.
- No claim relies on a single unverified rumour.

## Instructions

Use the company's approved positioning and terminology. Prioritise differences relevant to the target segment. Do not turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence. Keep counterpoints specific, calm, and testable in discovery. Include a source note for every competitive assertion.

## Adapt before use
Keep a clear audit trail throughout the run. Use the source wording and field values that support each material conclusion, and retain uncertainty when the evidence does not decide the issue. Separate a missing record from a negative result and a contradictory record from an exception. Prefer a short, prioritised result over unsupported completeness. Check that counts, identifiers, dates, and labels agree across the written result and the structured output. When a rule, source, or mapping is unavailable, name the limitation and explain how it affects interpretation. Do not silently infer ownership, approval, timing, or business intent.

- Add product profiles, approved proof points, and win/loss records.
- Define competitors, comparison dimensions, and source rules.
- Set review ownership for claims that could change quickly.