Capability template for sales

Competitor battlecard

Your salespeople get one page on one named competitor: where it is strong, where you are stronger and the proof, what to say when it comes up, and the questions to ask. Nothing about the competitor goes on the card without a dated source; anything unsupported is held back for the approver.

The outcome

Every salesperson walks into a competitive deal with the same honest picture of the other side. The card says what the competitor tells buyers and what it charges, then sets out where it is genuinely strong before it gets to where you win. Each of your advantages comes with the proof you are allowed to share and a question that puts the difference in front of the buyer.

Nothing about the competitor is stated as fact without a page behind it. Each line about the competitor names the page it came from and the date that page was saved, so a buyer who checks finds exactly what your salesperson said. Rumours, stale pages and figures nobody can show are listed separately for the approver and kept off the card. When a competitor really is the better choice for a kind of deal, the card says so, and your sales lead decides whether to chase it.

Who starts the work, and when

The sales lead, a product marketer or whoever looks after sales material starts it when a competitor keeps turning up in deals, when new salespeople start meeting it, or when the card's recheck date arrives. It runs again when the competitor changes its prices or your own facts change.

The person who starts it names the competitor and supplies the evidence. The approver, usually the sales lead, reads the draft and approves it before anyone uses it, and a person shares it with the team. The AI assistant shares nothing, contacts no one and changes no record.

What they supply

  • The competitor's pages, saved with the date of each: homepage, pricing and product pages, or the observed lines of a competitor profile from public pages.
  • Your fact sheet, with its date: what you sell, prices and what each includes, what you do not offer, and the proof you may share with prospects.
  • Notes from deals where the competitor came up, with what buyers said in their own words.
  • An export of closed deals that name the competitor, if you want the head-to-head count.
  • Who the card is for, the buyers they sell to, the approver and how often the card is rechecked.

What comes out

One card, the same shape every time:

  1. In short, in two sentences.
  2. What they say: their positioning, their published prices and their main claims, recorded as claims.
  3. Where they are strong, stated plainly.
  4. Where you are stronger, each point with its proof and a question to ask.
  5. If they come up: what to say in a sentence or two, and the next question.
  6. What buyers have told you, in their words, with dates.
  7. The objections they bring, each with a short, true answer and a follow-up question.
  8. Questions that bring out the difference, what not to raise first, and where they fit better.

Beneath the card sit the head-to-head count from your export, what changed since the last card, the lines held back and why, and every source with its age and the date to recheck by.

An invented example

Illustrative example with invented data. The companies, the deals, the people, the pages, the dates and the prices below are all invented, and the web addresses use the reserved .example domain. Company Z is an invented 30-person company that sells time-tracking, budgeting and invoicing software to architecture and engineering practices. Competitor A is an invented competitor. First come the inputs the sales lead supplied, in full, then the card the capability returned.

The inputs

1. The card settings (typed by the sales lead)

Competitor: Competitor A
Our company: Company Z
For: account executives, selling to architecture and engineering
practices of 10 to 150 people
Card date: Monday 2 November 2026
Approver: sales lead
Recheck interval: 90 days
Head-to-head period: 1 July to 31 October 2026
Group minimum: 10

2. Sources on Competitor A (pages saved by the sales lead)

Homepage, https://competitor-a.example/, saved 26 October 2026
  Headline: "Time tracking your whole firm will actually use."
  Under the headline: "Enter time from any device, even offline."
  Shows: "Trusted by 2,000 firms" above a row of customer logos.
  Button: "Start your free 14-day trial"

Pricing page, https://competitor-a.example/pricing, saved 26 October 2026
  Team: $15 per user per month, billed annually. Time tracking and
  timesheets.
  Business: $29 per user per month, billed annually. Everything in
  Team, plus project budgets and invoicing.
  "Guided onboarding is available for a one-time fee."
  Email support on all plans.

Product updates page, https://competitor-a.example/updates, saved 26 October 2026
  14 October 2026: "Offline time entry is now on Android as well as
  iPhone."
  2 September 2026: "Budget alerts by project: get notified when a
  project reaches a set share of its budget."

Integrations page, https://competitor-a.example/integrations, saved 15 June 2026
  "Connect with 40 apps, including payroll."

3. The fact sheet (Company Z, owned by the sales lead, confirmed 1 October 2026)

F1 What we sell: time tracking, phase budgets and invoicing for
   architecture and engineering practices of 10 to 150 people.
F2 Price: $24 per user per month, billed annually, minimum 10 users.
   Includes phase budgets, invoicing, two onboarding sessions and
   phone support.
F3 Mobile app: time entry on iPhone and Android. It needs a
   connection; there is no offline entry.
F4 Phase budgets: a budget in hours and fees for each phase of a
   project, with an alert to the project lead when a phase passes 80%
   of its hours.
F5 No free trial. We offer a demo set up with the buyer's own
   projects.
F6 Reference: Practice B, a 60-person engineering practice. May be
   named to prospects on calls; permission recorded by the sales lead
   on 12 August 2026. Approved quotation: "We see which phase is over
   budget before the invoice goes out."
F7 Case study: Practice C. Permission to share with prospects: not on
   record.

4. Deal notes (pasted from the team's call notes)

D-412, 8 September 2026 (account executive): Office manager: "Competitor
A's app works with no signal on site. Half our engineers are on
construction sites all day."

D-418, 22 September 2026 (account executive): Principal of a 25-person
architecture practice: "Competitor A is cheaper per person." We showed
phase budgets on their own projects. They signed with us.

D-425, 6 October 2026 (sales lead): Finance manager: "Competitor A's
budgets are by project, not by phase. We bill by phase." Signed with us.

D-431, 20 October 2026 (account executive): The buyer said Competitor A
quoted them $3,000 for onboarding. They chose Competitor A for offline
entry; their surveyors work in areas with no signal. My note: I heard
Competitor A is cutting staff.

5. The deal export (deals-competitor-a.csv, taken 2 November 2026)

deal_id,outcome,closed_date,competitor,close_reason
D-405,lost,2026-07-14,Competitor A,Price
D-409,won,2026-08-05,Competitor A,
D-412,lost,2026-09-10,Competitor A,Competitor
D-418,won,2026-09-24,Competitor A,
D-421,lost,2026-09-30,Competitor A,No decision
D-425,won,2026-10-08,Competitor A,
D-431,lost,2026-10-22,Competitor A,Competitor
D-436,open,,Competitor A,

No previous card was supplied.

The output

COMPETITOR BATTLECARD: Company Z vs Competitor A

For: account executives, selling to architecture and engineering practices of 10 to 150 people. Card date: 2 November 2026. Recheck by: 30 December 2026 (90 days after 1 October 2026, the fact sheet). Status: draft for the sales lead's approval. Read: 4 sources on the competitor (S1 to S4; S4 past recheck, not used), fact sheet of 1 October 2026, 4 deal notes, deal export of 2 November 2026, no previous card.

In short: Competitor A leads with time entry from any device, even offline (S1, S3), and a free 14-day trial (S1). We are stronger for practices that bill by phase and want onboarding and phone support in the price (F4, F2, S2, N3).

What they say: "Time tracking your whole firm will actually use." (S1). Price: Team, $15 per user per month, billed annually, time tracking and timesheets; Business, $29 per user per month, billed annually, adds project budgets and invoicing; guided onboarding for a one-time fee, figure not stated; email support on all plans (S2). Like for like: our $24 per user per month, billed annually (F2), against Business at $29 (S2): $5 less per user per month. Business has project budgets and email support, onboarding extra (S2); ours has phase budgets, two onboarding sessions and phone support (F2). Their main claims, as they make them: they show "Trusted by 2,000 firms" and a row of customer logos (S1).

Where they are strong:

  1. Their pages describe time entry even offline, on iPhone and Android (S1, S3, N1, N4). Our app needs a connection (F3). The D-431 buyer chose them for it (N4).
  2. A lower entry price: Team, at $15, covers time tracking and timesheets (S2); ours is $24 with budgets and invoicing (F2).
  3. A free 14-day trial (S1). We offer a demo on the buyer's own projects (F5).

Where we are stronger:

  1. Budgets for each phase, in hours and fees, with an alert to the project lead at 80% of a phase's hours (F4). Their side: budget alerts by project (S3); no mention of budgets by phase found in (S1 to S3) as of 26 October 2026. Why it matters: a buyer who bills by phase raised it (N3). Proof: Practice B may be named on calls: "We see which phase is over budget before the invoice goes out." (F6). Ask: "How do you find out a phase is running over today?"
  2. Two onboarding sessions and phone support in the price (F2). Their side: onboarding is a one-time fee, figure not stated; support is by email (S2). Why it matters: a buyer comparing price per person (N2) pays their onboarding fee on top (S2); see Like for like. Proof: no shareable proof: say only what (F2) states. Ask: "Is setup priced on top for each option you're comparing?"

If they come up: "They're a good choice when most of your time is entered on site without signal. If you bill by phase, compare how each shows a phase running over and what budgets and invoicing cost." Then ask: "Who enters time, and where?"

What buyers have told us:

"Competitor A's budgets are by project, not by phase. We bill by phase." (finance manager, D-425, note of 6 October 2026, N3) "Competitor A is cheaper per person." (principal, D-418, note of 22 September 2026, N2) "Competitor A's app works with no signal on site. Half our engineers are on construction sites all day." (office manager, D-412, note of 8 September 2026, N1)

Objections they bring to the buyer:

"Competitor A is cheaper per person." (N2) Answer: Their Team plan is cheaper, but it covers time tracking and timesheets only; with budgets and invoicing it is $29, against our $24 with onboarding (S2, F2). If time tracking is all you need, theirs costs less. Ask: "Do you need budgets and invoicing this year?"

"Competitor A's app works with no signal on site." (N1) Answer: That's right: their pages describe offline entry, and our app needs a connection (S1, S3, F3). If most time is entered without signal, weigh that first. Ask: "How many of your people enter time without signal?"

Questions that bring out the difference:

  1. "How do you bill your clients: by project or by phase?" (brings out point 1)
  2. "Who will train your team, and how will they reach support?" (brings out point 2)

Do not raise first: offline entry (strength 1); the entry-plan price (strength 2); the free trial (strength 3).

Where they fit better: Practices whose staff enter most of their time on sites without signal (S1, S3, N1, N4). The sales lead decides whether to pursue these deals.

Head-to-head, closed deals naming Competitor A, 1 July 2026 to 31 October 2026: 7 (won 3, lost 4), too few for a rate, under 10. Lost, by reason as recorded: Competitor 2 (D-412, D-431); Price 1 (D-405); No decision 1 (D-421). Not recorded: none. Not read: D-436, open.

What changed: no previous card.

Held back (not for use with buyers):

  • "Competitor A is cutting staff." (N4): about their staff, left off by rule.
  • "The buyer said Competitor A quoted them $3,000 for onboarding." (N4): one buyer's report; no source states a figure, and the pricing page says only "a one-time fee" (S2).
  • "Connect with 40 apps, including payroll." (S4): source past recheck: reread the integrations page.
  • "Practice C case study" (F7): no permission on record.

Sources:

S1 Homepage, https://competitor-a.example/, saved 26 October 2026, 7 days old. S2 Pricing page, https://competitor-a.example/pricing, saved 26 October 2026, 7 days old. S3 Product updates page, https://competitor-a.example/updates, saved 26 October 2026, 7 days old. S4 Integrations page, https://competitor-a.example/integrations, saved 15 June 2026, 140 days old. Past recheck. F Company Z fact sheet, dated 1 October 2026, 32 days old. N1 D-412, note of 8 September 2026, account executive. N2 D-418, note of 22 September 2026, account executive. N3 D-425, note of 6 October 2026, sales lead. N4 D-431, note of 20 October 2026, account executive. Export: deals-competitor-a.csv, taken 2 November 2026, 8 rows.

Draft for the sales lead's approval before it is shared. Nothing has been sent or posted, and no record has been changed.

Where it fits

  • Sales: the page a salesperson checks before a call where the competitor's name will come up.
  • Marketing and content: sales material kept accurate, dated and consistent with what the competitor actually publishes.
  • Software technology: competitors publish plans and prices and change them often, so dated sources matter.
  • Professional services: buyers compare firms on trust, and one overstated line about a rival can lose the engagement.
  • Growth & scaling: new salespeople meet competitors before they have heard every story, and the card gives them the same footing as your best seller.

It sits beside Competitor profile from public pages, which gathers the evidence the card draws on, and Objection answers and sales one-pager, which prepares answers and a leave-behind for one particular call.

What has to change for your company

  • Your fact sheet. Give it an owner and a date. Your side of the card is built only from it, and the proof you may share is whatever it records permission for.
  • Your approver. Name who approves a card before salespeople use it and who shares it.
  • Your recheck interval. Ninety days by default; shorten it for a competitor that changes its prices often.
  • Your export. Agree the columns once. If your sales system names them differently, write the mapping down; the assistant stops and asks rather than guess.
  • Which competitors get a card, and where the approved cards live.
  • Your platform. The instructions are written to be pasted into ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. It works from files and notes you supply and needs no connection to your sales system.

What has been checked

Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template. It was editorially reviewed on 9 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example on 9 November 2026 in two runs; the record of the second is published with it, and lists the small edits made afterward that have not been run again. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.

Testing in your environment means running it on a competitor your team already knows well, plus hard cases written in advance, each with its expected behavior: a pricing page saved months ago, a rumour in a salesperson's note, a figure only one buyer reported, a case study with no permission on record. The approver checks every line against its source before anyone relies on the card. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that test set, and What we test before we call an AI workflow ready shows the record.

The full capability template

Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.

View the full template

Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.

Next step

Bring a real piece of this work to a call. We’ll walk through what it takes to fit this capability to your rules, prove it on your work and put it in the hands of the roles that own it.

Talk with us Discuss adapting this

  • Competitor profile from public pages

    Your marketing lead gets a dated profile of a named competitor, built only from its public pages: what they say, sell and charge, kept apart from what that suggests and the questions it raises for you. Any figure no page states is marked unavailable, never estimated.

  • Objection answers and sales one-pager

    Walk into the call with an answer for every objection you expect, each with its honest limit and the proof behind it, and one page to leave behind. Everything is built from the facts you supply, so nothing on the page is a claim you cannot stand behind.

  • Sales call preparation brief

    Your salesperson, partner or account manager walks into every meeting with a brief they can read in five minutes: who will be there, what has been said and promised so far, what is still open, and a plan for the call. Every line traces to your own notes or a public page, and anything inferred is labelled.