# Competitor analysis that changes decisions
Source: https://unrivals.com/blog/competitor-analysis/
Site: UNRIVALS · Language: en · Updated: 2026-10-27
> We ran a competitor analysis on a Romanian bread maker and the 28 bakeries of similar size around it. Nearly half of their growth went to companies losing money, and 95% of the profit our company lost came from margin. The five steps, so you can repeat it on your own business.
---
*Competitor analysis*, also called competitive analysis, is the process of comparing your company with the companies a customer would choose instead of you, on money, on moves and on what each one promises in public. A useful competitor analysis ends with a written decision that someone in the company owns and carries out.
**TL;DR.** We analysed the public accounts of 5,346 bread and pastry makers in Romania for 2024 and 2025. We then ran a competitor analysis on Trei Brutari, within a group of 28 similar-sized bakeries. Nearly half of the group's growth went to four companies that made a loss. And 95% of the profit Trei Brutari lost came from margin.
Most guides to competitor analysis stop at the template. A grid of competitors, a column of strengths, a column of weaknesses, maybe a SWOT at the end. The template is easy to fill and easy to file. What it rarely does is change a price, a target customer, an investment or a sentence on the homepage.
This article takes the opposite route. We show the method we use in our audits and then run it, step by step, on a real company with real public numbers. Romania is a useful laboratory for this, because every company files its annual accounts and anyone can read them for free, competitors included.
[Our guide to brand positioning](/blog/brand-positioning/) shows where a good competitor analysis ends up. This one shows how the decision is produced in the first place.
**The decision only appears when you put three things next to each competitor**, its numbers, the cause of its moves and the sentence it uses to present itself. Taken alone, each of the three usually points to the wrong conclusion.
## What does competitor analysis involve?
Competitor analysis involves three things. You compare the money each competitor makes, you trace the moves they made in recent years and you read what they promise to customers. **Its value is measured in the decision it changes.**
In most companies the analysis looks like a spreadsheet with ten rows, one per competitor, listing products, prices, strengths and weaknesses. It gets presented once, in a meeting, and then archived. **An analysis that changes no decision is an inventory.** Inventories are useful, but they do not tell you what to do on Monday morning.
In practice, a competitor analysis can move four kinds of decision. It can change the price you hold, the customers you pursue, the investment you make next and what you say about yourself. If none of those four has moved by the end of the work, you have built a collection of data.
The difference from a [SWOT analysis](/blog/swot-analysis/) is one of direction. SWOT starts from the company and looks outward. *Competitor analysis starts from the customer* and asks who else the customer considers, and why.
It also tells you whether what you call your [sustainable competitive advantage](/blog/sustainable-competitive-advantage/) survives next to what others are doing. A claimed advantage that three competitors also claim is a shared assumption, and the analysis is where that shows.
The starting question for a founder is simple. When my customers do not choose me, whom do they choose? The answer decides who goes into the analysis, and **picking the wrong competitors leads to the wrong decision** however well the rest is done.
## Why do so many competitor analyses end up in a drawer?
They end up in a drawer because they are built to describe the market, and a description asks nobody to change anything. Meanwhile competitive pressure rises every year and the tool used to read it stays the same. **When pressure rises and the tool stands still, decisions get made on reflex.**
Crayon's [State of Competitive Intelligence 2026](https://www.crayon.co/state-of-competitive-intelligence-2026), the ninth edition of a survey run by a company that sells competitive intelligence software, found that 57.5% of teams have more competitive deals than a year earlier. Only 16% said the pressure had eased.
Crayon's earlier [2024 edition](https://www.crayon.co/state-of-competitive-intelligence-2024), based on more than 700 respondents, put the share at 65% of sales opportunities being competitive for the average B2B software company. The figure covers software companies only.
The same Crayon report for 2026 shows that 60.5% of teams now track key performance indicators for their competitive work, up from 30% in 2022. Teams that track indicators see their win rate rising in 66% of cases, against 24% for teams that track nothing. **An analysis that is never measured cannot prove it changed anything.**
There is one more detail in the Crayon 2026 data. Nearly eight in ten teams actively track 30 competitors or fewer, and the largest group tracks between 11 and 30. For a mid-sized manufacturer, that is a list nobody reads after the first month. Crayon's own reading of the data is depth over breadth.
Price shows the cost of this gap most clearly. Simon-Kucher's [Global Pricing Study 2025](https://www.simon-kucher.com/sites/default/files/media-document/2025-06/COR_GPS_2025_Brochure_Digital_Final.pdf), based on more than 2,200 business leaders in 28 countries, found that the average price realization rate has dropped to 43%. In plain terms, less than half of the planned price increases reach the invoice, held back by customer resistance and rising competition.
In the same Simon-Kucher study for 2025, only 40% of companies ranked pricing as their top profit lever, while sales volume remains the top profit driver for the next 24 months. That is where competitor analysis earns its keep, because without it you cannot tell whether the volume you are chasing brings profit or only keeps the factory busy.
The missing piece is usually the question of why a specific deal was lost. According to Klue's [2025 Win-Loss Trends Report](https://klue.com/win-loss-trends-report), a survey of 313 programme leaders, even companies that run a dedicated programme put only 40% of their deals, on average, through a win-loss analysis. The rest close without one.
Competition rises, analysis lags
- 57.5% of teams have more competitive deals than a year earlier
Crayon, 2026
- 43% of planned price increases reach the invoice, on average
Simon-Kucher, 2025
- 40% of deals go through a win-loss analysis, on average, at companies with a dedicated programme
Klue, 2025
Sources · Crayon, State of Competitive Intelligence 2026 · Simon-Kucher, Global Pricing Study 2025 · Klue, Win-Loss Trends Report 2025
The three cards tell one story from three angles. Competition presses harder on sales and on price, and few companies have a way to turn what they learn about rivals into a decision. The first card is the pressure, the second is the price you cannot collect and the third is the question nobody asks.
We hear the same pressure, in different words, from the founders we talk to in Romania. Costs rise and cannot be passed on. Someone in the market cuts the price and drags everyone with them. Imports arrive on the shelf at a lower price. All three are questions about competitors, and all three usually get an answer without numbers.
## What are the four types of competitors?
The four types of competitors are direct, indirect, substitute and potential. Direct competitors sell the same product to the same customer. Indirect ones sell a different product for the same need. **The type matters less than one test, which is whether the customer actually compares you.**
Substitutes are the other ways a customer can solve the problem, including doing it in-house or not doing it at all. Potential competitors are the ones who could enter tomorrow, such as an importer, a supplier moving downstream or a retailer launching its own label.
In our audits we choose competitors on seven criteria and keep only the companies that meet at least five. The criteria are product category, positioning, end customer, sales channel, size, presence on the same Google searches and presence in the same answers from AI assistants such as ChatGPT.
Size follows a simple rule. A company enters if its revenue is between 0.3 and 3 times that of the company being analysed. A business ten times larger has different costs, different access to retail and a different budget, so comparing yourself with it tells you little about what you can do.
The last two criteria are the newest. A buyer who asks an AI assistant for a shortlist gets a handful of names before calling anyone. **The companies the assistant names are your real competitors**, even if they never appear in the spreadsheet in your drawer.
When you cannot check all seven criteria from public sources, say so, and list what remains to be verified. That is exactly what we did in the example below, where public data let us apply two criteria, category and size. *The competitor on paper may not be the competitor on the shelf*, and the difference only shows at step three.
## What are the 5 steps of a competitive analysis?
A competitive analysis that produces a decision has five steps. You choose competitors on criteria and put their money side by side. You find the cause of every large move, then read what each competitor promises in public. Finally you write the decision, split into what you know, what you estimate and what you still have to verify.
**1. Choose the competitors.** Start from the seven criteria and keep a small group of 10 to 30 companies. We call this group the *competitive perimeter*, the fixed set you compare against throughout the analysis. **Without a fixed perimeter, every number is compared with something different.**
**2. Put the money side by side.** From public accounts, take each company's revenue, profit, headcount and profit kept from every 100 units of sales. Work out each one's share of the group's revenue. Then check whether your own profit moved because of volume or because of margin.
**3. Find the cause of every large move.** The accounts tell you what happened. The reasons sit in the press, in interviews with executives, on the company's website and in the companies register, for example a new plant, a large loan, an acquisition or a key customer lost.
**4. Read what each one promises.** Take the sentences on each competitor's homepage and ask one question of every sentence. Could another competitor sign it, word for word, tomorrow? If yes, the sentence distinguishes nobody. We call this the competitor test and run it on every company we analyse.
**5. Write the decision.** Split what you found into three columns, what we know, what we estimate and what we validate with the company. **The decision is written before the meeting.** The rest of the analysis exists to support it or to overturn it.
Five steps of an analysis that decides
- Perimeter
Competitors chosen on criteria, at least five of seven
- Money
Revenue, profit per 100 sold, share, from public accounts
- Cause
Why each large competitor grew or shrank
- Promise
Homepage sentences put through the competitor test
- Decision
What we know, what we estimate, what we validate
The red link is the one missing from most analyses. Steps one, two and four produce the usual table. Step three turns it into a decision, because growth bought with losses and growth built with profit look identical in a revenue column.
## What does a competitor analysis example look like on a real company?
We ran the five steps on Trei Brutari SA, a bread maker from Târgoviște. We chose it because it is one of the seven largest companies in the industry by revenue and because its 2025 numbers changed visibly. **We did not speak to the company, and everything below comes from public sources.** Where we estimate, we say so.
According to [the 2025 accounts Trei Brutari filed, as published by ANAF](https://webservicesp.anaf.ro/bilant?an=2025&cui=23784748), the Romanian tax authority, the company sold 181.6 million lei of products in 2025 with 434 employees and kept a net profit of 14 million lei.
In 2024, per the same ANAF records, revenue had been 186.9 million lei and profit 35.6 million.
We first looked at the whole industry. The 5,346 bread and pastry makers that reported revenue in both 2024 and 2025, according to the accounts published by ANAF, sold 9.2% more in 2025 while their combined profit fell by 24.7%.
Out of every 100 lei sold, the industry kept 6.06 lei as profit in 2024 and 4.18 lei in 2025, per the same ANAF accounts.
Of the 3,188 makers that grew revenue in 2025 vs 2024, according to ANAF data, 1,395 still earned less. In total, 1,931 makers, 36.1% of the 5,346, ended 2025 with a loss. **The industry sells more and keeps less of every leu.**
The pattern is not limited to bakeries. Across the whole Romanian economy, among the 24,808 companies with revenue above 10 million lei in 2024, 14,484 grew revenue in 2025 and 5,468 of those growers, 37.8%, still ended up with lower profit, per our calculation on the ANAF filings.
The bakery market remains fragmented, though it is slowly concentrating at the top. The four largest companies by revenue made 19.26% of industry sales in 2025, per the same ANAF accounts, up from 14.83% in 2021. The remaining 80% or so is split among thousands of bakeries, many of them local.
**Step one, the perimeter.** We kept the bread makers whose 2025 revenue fell between 54.5 and 544.8 million lei, that is between 0.3 and 3 times Trei Brutari. That left 28 companies, Trei Brutari included. From the seven criteria, public data let us apply only category and size, and the rest would be verified with the company.
**Step two, the money.** The table shows eight of the 28 companies, the largest in the group and the ones that moved most in 2025. Profit is shown as lei kept from every 100 lei sold. The last row shows the middle company of the 28 on that measure.
| Company | Revenue 2025, m lei | Revenue 2025 vs 2024 | Profit per 100 lei, 2024 | Profit per 100 lei, 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fornetti România | 281.8 | +17.9% | 7.10 | 6.92 |
| Lidas | 222.9 | +19.8% | −17.36 | −16.86 |
| Lantmännen Unibake România | 207.4 | +23.4% | −29.16 | −39.88 |
| **Trei Brutari** | **181.6** | **−2.8%** | **19.04** | **7.70** |
| Panemar | 138.5 | −0.3% | 16.49 | 10.17 |
| Derpan | 125.7 | +27.6% | 0.92 | −2.85 |
| Harmopan | 123.7 | +6.0% | 10.90 | 8.98 |
| R & B Com | 84.5 | +19.1% | 21.44 | 16.03 |
| All 28 (total revenue, profit of the middle company) | 2,807.3 | +9.1% | 9.89 | 6.74 |
The table is built from the ANAF accounts for 2024 and 2025, with our calculations. Read the usual way, it says Trei Brutari is losing ground. Its share of the group's revenue fell from 7.26% to 6.47%. Lidas, Lantmännen Unibake and Derpan grew by roughly 20% or more.
**This is where the analysis that ends up in a drawer stops.** The natural reflex is to answer in kind, with lower prices and more volume, to win the share back. Steps three, four and five change the conclusion.
## Which decision does the competitor analysis change?
The first number that changes the decision is the breakdown of the lost profit. Trei Brutari's profit fell by 21.6 million lei. Had the 2024 margin held, the lower revenue would have cost only about 1 million lei. The remaining 20.6 million, 95%, came from keeping less out of every 100 lei sold.
Where the profit Trei Brutari lost in 2025 came from
- From lower revenue, at the 2024 margin 1 m lei
- From a thinner margin, on 2025 revenue 20.6 m lei
Source · Trei Brutari accounts for 2024 and 2025, ANAF, UNRIVALS calculation
The red bar shows where to look. **Almost all the lost profit sits in the margin, and margin gets repaired inside the company.** The share lost to competitors explains only a thin slice of the fall. [Our guide to profit margin](/blog/profit-margin/) shows how to run the same breakdown on your own accounts.
The whole market had a hard year, and the perimeter shows it. The middle company of the 28 kept 9.89 lei out of every 100 sold in 2024 and 6.74 lei in 2025, a fall of 3.15 lei. Trei Brutari fell by 11.34 lei per 100 and still stayed above the middle company.
The gap of roughly 8 lei per 100 is not explained by what happened to the whole market. **That is our hypothesis, and it gets checked against the company's own costs**, product by product and customer by customer. Without the competitor analysis, those 8 lei would have been blamed on the competitors.
The second number concerns the competitors that grew. Revenue across the 28 companies rose by 234.5 million lei in 2025. Four of them, Lidas, Lantmännen Unibake, Derpan and Dobrogea Panificație, took 109 million of that growth, 46.5%. All four ended 2025 with a loss, a combined result of minus 126.7 million lei.
**Answering their growth with price means copying a move that, on paper, loses money.** That is how a [price war](/blog/price-war/) starts, from the reflex to defend share without asking what that share cost the company that took it.
**Step three, the cause.** For Lidas, the cause is public. In an [interview with Newsweek Romania in May 2026](https://newsweek.ro/economie/lidas-cea-mai-mare-si-mai-moderna-fabrica-de-panificatie-si-patiserie-congelata-in-europa-ridicata-la-tulcea), its CEO, Liviu Șotre, describes a frozen bread and pastry plant of more than 100 million euros built in Tulcea, on the Danube Delta, and a preventive composition procedure with its creditors.
In the same interview he says production started in 2024 without the working capital it needed, just as higher loan instalments kicked in with its bank, CEC Bank. Before that, he names the pandemic, which delayed planned financing, the energy crisis of 2021 to 2023 and the war in Ukraine, which hit the Tulcea area.
Its revenue growth comes, we estimate, from the new capacity, which needs volume to pay for itself.
That gives a hypothesis the table could not. **Price pressure in frozen bakery may continue for as long as new plants need volume.** Our hypothesis is that Trei Brutari has nothing to gain by answering with a lower price, because public sources show no new plant on its side that needs filling.
Step three surfaces one more thing. Lidas describes its products on its website as frozen bread and pastry, and so does Fornetti. The Trei Brutari homepage talks about freshness and points visitors to its own locations.
If the two companies sell to different customers, the large competitor in the table meets Trei Brutari on only part of the shelf. That is something to verify with the company before anyone touches a price.
**Step four, the promise.** On its homepage, in the version we read on 27 October 2026, Trei Brutari presents itself in three words, Tradition, Freshness, Variety. Lidas says "tradiție, inovație, calitate", tradition, innovation and quality. Panemar says "Magazine aproape de tine", shops close to you. Any of the 28 companies could sign all three.
The competitor test
"Tradition, Freshness, Variety"
Trei Brutari homepage, read on 27 October 2026
- Lidas
"tradition, innovation, quality", translated from Romanian
- Panemar
"shops close to you", translated from Romanian
- Harmopan
"You can count on us, since 1965", translated from the Hungarian page
Any company in the group could sign the first three, while 1965 belongs to Harmopan alone
The exception in the group is Harmopan, from Miercurea Ciuc in Transylvania. The Hungarian version of its homepage says, translated, "You can count on us, since 1965", and backs the promise with around 400 specialists, more than 160 products and more than 20,000 customers a day.
The year and the numbers are its own. **A competitor cannot copy them without lying.**
This is where a pillar of our doctrine, SIGNAL DOCTRINE™, comes in. We call it reducing the cognitive cost, meaning the effort a customer makes to understand who you are and how you differ.
The pillar says an unclear brand charges a *cognitive tax* on every impression, and that reducing the effort of understanding (the customer thinks less, understands faster and buys) lowers the cost per click and per lead and raises the return on advertising.
When every producer says tradition, freshness and quality, the customer pays that tax at every shelf and falls back on price. **A promise anyone can sign pushes the customer toward a price comparison**, which is probably the comparison Trei Brutari has the least reason to seek.
**Step five, the decision.** We write it in three parts, what we know, what we estimate and what we validate, as in every audit we run without access to a company's internal data.
- **What we know.** Profit fell by 21.6 million lei, and 95% of the fall comes from margin. Four loss-making competitors took 46.5% of the group's growth. Lidas's CEO publicly links the company's difficulties to the pandemic, the energy crisis, the war, starting the new plant without working capital in 2024 and higher loan instalments with CEC Bank.
- **What we estimate.** Roughly 8 lei out of every 100 that Trei Brutari lost are not explained by what happened to the whole market. Price pressure in frozen bakery may continue.
- **What we validate with the company.** Which costs rose in 2025 and on which products, which customers put Trei Brutari next to Lidas or Fornetti, and what verifiable thing it can say about itself, the way Harmopan says its year and its numbers.
The decision that comes out of this, as a hypothesis, has three parts. Trei Brutari does not chase lost share with price. It looks for the roughly 8 lei per 100 in its own costs and product mix. And it picks one verifiable fact to say in place of three words anyone can say.
*That is the ground worth fighting for, and the table alone would not have shown it.*
## Which principles of our method sit under this kind of analysis?
Four pillars of our doctrine, SIGNAL DOCTRINE™, sit under the analysis above. One already appeared in the competitor test, and the other three apply here, to the pricing decision, to the competitor map and to the message. **Each pillar changes one question in the analysis.**
The budget pillar says that marketing budget is for development, meaning strategy and architecture, and not for optimising the same channel forever. The right strategy lowers the real cost of winning a customer. Applied to competitors, repeated discounts and promotions on the same shelf are optimisation, while leaving the comparison is development.
The second pillar is cognitive ownership, the core of our method. The end goal is to own the mental space of the category, so that when the need appears, the market comes to you on its own. **A competitor analysis shows which mental space is already taken and which is still free.** Without it, you pick a territory by instinct.
In [our audit for Therezia](https://unrivals.ro/deck/therezia), a Romanian dairy producer, the competitor map ended in a single sentence, "Three producers, three properties. Only one is free, and it is yours." We placed the producers by the property each one claims and looked for the corner of the map nobody occupied.
The third pillar is the Golden Circle, with the rule that the message starts from WHY, the reason the company exists, before describing the service. The competitor test shows why order matters. Tradition, freshness and variety describe what a bakery does, and what it does, any of the 28 can do.
The reason you exist, said with proof only you hold, is the one sentence a competitor analysis cannot find anywhere else in the market. **That is where [differentiation](/blog/differentiation-strategy/) begins, and the analysis only tells you whether the place is free.** What you put there depends on what the company has already built.
## On which layers do you act on what the analysis finds?
What a competitor analysis finds gets fixed on four layers, from L1, the commercial infrastructure, up to L4, positioning and brand. AI Brain, our system that reads company and competitor data every month, is the third layer, and keeps the analysis current between two sets of accounts. **A problem found on one layer gets fixed on that same layer.**
Where the findings of a competitor analysis get fixed
- L4 · Positioning and brand
The property you claim and a competitor cannot sign
- L3 · AI Brain
Company and competitor data, read monthly, ahead of the accounts
- L2 · Systems and measurement
Margin by product, by customer and by channel
- L1 · Commercial infrastructure
The customers you pursue and the channels you sell through
Read the four-layer figure from the bottom up. The first layer, L1, covers the customers you pursue and the channels you sell through. In our example, the question on this layer is whether Trei Brutari competes with frozen bakery plants for the same customers or only on part of the shelf.
The second layer, L2, is measurement. The roughly 8 lei lost out of every 100 can only be found if margin is measured separately by product, by customer and by channel. **If you only look at total revenue, the cause stays hidden**, and competitors become the convenient culprits.
The third layer, AI Brain, reads the company's data and its competitors' signals every month, from shelf prices to their web pages and to the answers AI assistants give. Annual accounts arrive once a year and show what already happened. Monthly data shows the change while there is still time to decide.
The fourth layer, L4, is positioning and brand. This is where the sentence nobody else in the group can sign ends up. The order matters, because a new position announced on top of a leaking margin and the wrong customers does not hold for long.
## What tools do you need for a competitor analysis?
For a competitor analysis built like the one above, you do not need an expensive subscription. Public accounts, competitors' websites, Google results and AI assistants' answers are open to anyone. **The hard part to copy is the method, while the data is within everyone's reach.**
**Public accounts.** In Romania, the tax authority publishes every company's annual accounts for free. Elsewhere, check what your national company register publishes. Where accounts are not public, the money step leans on estimates, and they must be labelled as such.
**Press and registers.** A competitor's big moves almost always show up in the press or in the companies register, from a new plant to a change of ownership. Public procurement portals show contracts with the state, and they can explain margin gaps.
In our Therezia audit we compared two dairy producers. Lactate Brădet sold mostly through public contracts, which are won on price, and had a net margin of 1.05%, while Therezia, with only 1.7% of its revenue from that channel, had 11.51%.
**Homepages and AI answers.** Each competitor's homepage shows what it promises. A question put to an AI assistant, such as "which bread maker near me would you recommend", shows whom the machine puts in front of the customer and with which arguments.
**Lost deals.** The most valuable tool sits inside your own company. For one month, record every deal you lose and the name of the competitor who won it. The Klue data cited above shows that even companies with dedicated programmes analyse, on average, only 40% of their deals.
## How can you run your own competitor analysis in 30 minutes?
You can repeat these steps on your company in half an hour, with public accounts and a sheet of paper. The result is a first check ahead of a full audit, and it tells you whether your problem sits with competitors or in your own margin. **The volume and margin calculation takes five minutes and often changes the whole conversation.**
1. Write down the five competitors your customers named in the last three months, when they chose someone else or when they negotiated your price.
2. Pull their public accounts for the last two years and work out, for each one, the profit kept from every 100 units sold.
3. Break down the change in your own profit. The volume effect is the change in revenue multiplied by last year's margin. The margin effect is this year's revenue multiplied by the change in margin between the two years.
4. For every competitor that grew fast, look in the press for a reason, from a new investment to a large customer or an acquisition.
5. Copy the first three sentences from each competitor's homepage and from yours. Cross out the ones anyone could sign.
6. Write a single decision, with what you stop doing, what you check inside the company and what you say about yourself from now on.
If at step three the margin effect is larger than the volume effect, as it was at Trei Brutari, the conversation about competitors can wait. If the volume effect dominates and the competitors that grew are making a profit, competitor analysis becomes the priority.
## Frequently asked questions
### What are the four P's of competitor analysis?
The four P's are product, price, place, meaning distribution, and promotion. You can use them to compare competitors under the same four headings, and [our guide to the marketing mix](/blog/marketing-mix/) shows their limit. The four P's describe what each competitor does, but they do not tell you why a customer would choose one of them.
### What are the five C's of competition?
The five C's usually refer to company, customers, competitors, collaborators and context, a checklist for reading a market around a decision. In a competitor analysis they keep the competitor set honest, because customers decide who counts as a competitor and context explains why a competitor moved.
### How often should you do a competitor analysis?
Run the full analysis once a year, after the annual accounts appear, and whenever a competitor makes a large move such as a new plant or an acquisition. Track the small signals monthly, meaning prices, competitors' pages and lost deals, so you do not learn about a change from next year's accounts.
### What is the difference between competitor analysis and SWOT analysis?
A SWOT analysis starts from the company and lists strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A competitor analysis starts from the customer and compares the company with those the customer would choose instead. The two complement each other, and the numbers from a competitor analysis make a SWOT harder to colour with wishful thinking.
### What is a competitor analysis example?
The example in this article is a full one. We took a Romanian bread maker, built a perimeter of 28 companies of similar size from public accounts, split its profit drop into volume and margin, traced the public cause behind a large competitor's growth and ran the competitor test on four homepages.
## What do you do once you have the analysis?
**A competitor analysis is worth the decision it changes.** At Trei Brutari, the same numbers could have led to a price cut or to a search for the 8 lei lost inside the company. The difference came from three things placed next to each competitor, its numbers, the cause of its moves and the sentence it uses to present itself.
If you want us to run the same steps on your company, [ask for a diagnostic](/#diagnostic) and we will show you, on your accounts and your competitors', where profit leaks and which place in the customer's mind is still free.