Proving vertical leadership

A CRM vendor wanted industry credibility. We provided the proof.

A CRM provider believed its product was particularly well-suited to manufacturing and retail companies. Its product team could point to relevant capabilities, and its commercial teams saw an opportunity to challenge larger, established vendors in those sectors. The company still lacked independent evidence showing where its offer was stronger, why buyers selected competing products and which claims would carry weight in the market.

The challenge

The client was competing against CRM companies with greater scale, stronger name recognition and a larger installed base. Broad claims about flexibility or customer focus would do little to change buyer perceptions. The client needed to show specific expertise in manufacturing and retail, using evidence that product marketers and sales teams could defend.

Its working hypothesis was that the product addressed important requirements in those industries more effectively than the leading alternatives. Before building campaigns around that position, the company needed to test the hypothesis carefully.

Several questions mattered. Which product capabilities were genuinely differentiated? Where did competitors perform well? What did their enterprise pricing look like? Why did buyers choose them? What prevented those same buyers from considering the client? The answers would affect positioning, campaign themes, sales content and product priorities.

What we did

Aqute designed a competitor analysis around three evidence sources: product research, enterprise pricing and customer interviews.

We began with a detailed feature comparison between the client’s CRM and the main competing products. The work drew on product websites, documentation, demonstration videos and other public sources. We checked how each feature worked, which editions included it and whether the vendor’s claims matched the available evidence.

The comparison focused closely on requirements that mattered in manufacturing and retail. This allowed us to identify areas where the client’s product offered a meaningful advantage and areas where the difference was too small to support a strong claim. PMM could then base its positioning on capabilities that buyers in those industries were likely to recognize as useful.

We also gathered non-public enterprise pricing. This gave the client a better view of how competitors packaged their products, where additional charges appeared and how pricing differed from the simple figures sometimes shown publicly. The findings helped sales teams prepare for pricing discussions and gave PMM more context on the value competitors claimed for their offers.

Customer interviews provided the third part of the analysis. We spoke with users of competing CRM products about their buying process and their experience after purchase. The interviews covered why they selected the product, which capabilities mattered most, what they liked, where they encountered problems and why the client had not made their shortlists.

This work tested internal assumptions. It showed which messages reflected customer priorities, which needed revision and which objections sales representatives were likely to hear.

We converted the findings into material for each audience. PMM received evidence for sector-specific positioning and campaign development. Sales received battlecard content, objection responses and stronger inputs for RFPs. Product teams received a clearer view of customer needs and competitive gaps.

Results

The client used the research to sharpen its manufacturing and retail positioning. Its marketing could describe where the product was stronger in concrete terms and connect those capabilities to problems buyers in each sector already recognized.

The feature comparison gave sales teams a consistent way to explain product differences. Representatives could discuss the areas where the client had an advantage, acknowledge areas where competitors were credible and avoid claims that would collapse under buyer scrutiny.

Customer evidence improved the sales narrative further. The client understood why buyers had chosen competing CRMs, what they valued after implementation and which frustrations remained. This supported more relevant battlecards and better responses during competitive pitches and RFPs.

The findings also informed product decisions. Where interviews exposed recurring gaps or unmet needs, the client could assess whether product development would strengthen its sector position. PMM and product teams were working from the same evidence, reducing the risk of marketing a capability that customers did not value or overlooking one that influenced purchases.

The project turned industry expertise into a position the company could explain and support. The client could show how its CRM addressed manufacturing and retail requirements, where larger competitors were weaker and why buyers should take its offer seriously. That gave the business a stronger basis for competing for market share in two sectors where it already had a credible product story.