Competitive benchmarking

Where are you winning, and what are you winning on?

Every brand in the set is described with the same attributes and joined to sales. What a brand sold and what shoppers said about it are read together, on the same products, so the comparison holds.

Eight brands, one set of attributes

Ready to drink coffeeCompetitive benchmarking

One category, read brand by brand

$1.2B

of category sales across eight leading brands, with what shoppers said about each read against what each one sold. The same attributes on every brand, so the comparison holds.

Eight brands · more than 1,000 reviews each · cans and multi-serve read apart

Where the brands divergedThree of eight

Brand · movement · what reviews own

IBrand AGaining

Sales +21.4%

Rating +7.5%

Owns "coffee shop experience at home" in the way shoppers describe it. Its formula change drew complaints about sweetness in the same reviews.

IIBrand BLosing

Sales −3.2%

Rating −12%

Satisfaction fell further than sales did over the same period, which is the half of the picture a sales report does not carry.

IIIBrand CLanguage only

Its seasonal flavor strategy resonated strongly in reviews. This engagement did not size a separate sales read for it, so none is shown.

Sentiment and sales moved together, in both directions. The brands are anonymized; the movements are as reported.

Figures from one published engagement in ready to drink coffee. Every brand in the set is described with the same attributes, so the same benchmark runs on any category.

Why the comparison holds

A benchmark is only as good as the definitions under it. When every brand is described the same way, a difference in the read is a real difference. When it is not, you are comparing how two vendors coded rather than the products themselves.

One definition, every brand

the same attributes across the set

Your brands and every competitor in the set carry the same attributes, applied the same way, down to the individual UPC. Nothing is matched by name or rolled up by hand, so a gap in the read is a gap in the products.

Sales and sentiment together

dollars and ratings, one view

What a brand sold and what shoppers said about it are read on the same products rather than in two separate studies. A brand whose satisfaction is falling faster than its sales shows up as exactly that, instead of being averaged away.

Down to the format

cans and multi-serve, read apart

What a shopper expects from a can is not what they expect from a multi-serve bottle. Formats are read apart rather than rolled into one category number that flatters both, and the same split applies wherever pack format changes the job the product does.

The same read, in other categories

The worked example above is one category. Here are three more, each read on one definition across the whole set.

Read on one definitionThree more engagements

One brand against its closest rival

4.2

average with 54% five star reviews, against a competitor at 4.1 with 61%. Higher overall, less consistent underneath, in the same read.

High protein frozen meals →

Reviews behind one positioning read

5,000

across 104 weeks of a salty snacks portfolio, so a positioning gap reads as a trend rather than a moment.

Health forward positioning →

Preference patterns in tortilla chips

separated out of about 4,000 reviews, from flavor balance to salt sensitivity, none of them visible in the category's own sales cut.

Tortilla chip category →

Figures as reported in the linked case studies

Harmonya Helps You Make Faster, More Confident Decisions

A benchmark is only worth the decision it changes. Knowing which brand owns which language, and where your own read is slipping, is what the next brief runs on.

Shopper Insights

See what shoppers say about every brand in your set, on the same attributes, alongside what each one sold.

See the use case