Market fit for new fintech features

Our client was building new features. We advised how to package, pitch and price.

A global fintech company wanted to strengthen its core offering with new features and modules. Before committing product and marketing resources, it needed to understand five major competitors: what they offered, how they priced, which customer segments they served and what customers thought after using their products.

The challenge

The client could see several possible directions for product development, but the competitive picture was incomplete. Public materials described a wide range of features without showing which ones customers used, valued or disliked. Pricing information was limited, and the apparent popularity of each product varied across different parts of financial services.

This affected product marketing as well as product management. Any new module would need a clear market position, a credible value proposition and evidence that it addressed a real customer need. Building something simply because competitors offered it risked creating another undifferentiated feature.

The client needed to answer several connected questions. Which competitors were strongest in each customer segment? Where were their products weak? Which features influenced buying decisions? How did customers view pricing, professional services and the overall experience? Where could the client offer something meaningfully better?

The research also had to support sales. The company wanted feature comparisons and battlecards grounded in actual customer experience and verified evidence.

What we did

We analyzed five fintech companies that competed directly with the client. The work combined public-source research with interviews involving competitor customers, partners and employees. This gave us several perspectives on each company’s product, pricing and market position.

We first documented the features offered by each competitor. We looked beyond feature names to establish how capabilities worked, which customer needs they addressed and where limitations appeared. The findings were organized into detailed comparison tables so that the client could assess its position across the areas that mattered.

Pricing was examined alongside product functionality. This helped the client understand how competitors packaged their offers, how customers perceived value and where pricing created friction. Individual price points were only useful when placed in context. Product scope, service levels and packaging could substantially change the value of an offer.

Customer sentiment formed a major part of the research. We surveyed 200 customers across the five competitors and asked about their preferred and least preferred features, pricing, professional services and wider product experience. Interviews provided additional detail on why customers held those views.

This evidence helped separate market reputation from customer reality. Some features that appeared prominently in marketing had limited influence on satisfaction. Other capabilities received less attention in competitor messaging but mattered greatly to particular customer groups.

We then mapped the competitor products across different financial services segments. The analysis showed which vendors were strongest in each area, where customer requirements differed and where the client had a credible opportunity to compete.

The findings were translated into recommendations for product management, product marketing and sales. The client received product and pricing analysis, feature comparison tables, customer sentiment findings and guidance for its go-to-market materials.

Results

The research gave the product team a clearer basis for deciding which features and modules to develop. Investment decisions could be tied to identified customer needs and gaps in competitor offerings.

The client also revised its pricing strategy using the competitor and customer evidence. Product marketing used the feature comparisons in website content and sales materials, focusing on differences that customers understood and valued.

Sales leaders incorporated the findings into training and battlecards. Representatives received clearer guidance on competitor strengths, customer concerns and the proof points that supported the client’s position. The sales team could also target accounts where the research indicated a stronger chance of displacing an incumbent.

The project gave product, marketing and sales a shared view of the market. The same evidence informed product priorities, pricing, positioning, sales enablement and account targeting. This reduced the risk of each team working from a different interpretation of the competitive landscape.

Product marketing gained a more defensible value proposition. Claims about product superiority could be linked to detailed competitor comparisons and direct customer feedback. The company could explain where its offer was stronger, which customers would care and why those differences were commercially relevant.