A rival deck describes the company a buyer has heard of, and the purchase turns on the product sitting beside this one on the day. Sena reads that product: its pack, its shelf price, its claim, and what buyers did with it.
Competitive product analysis sets one product against the alternative a buyer could take instead. Three patterns move the comparison away from the choice the buyer actually makes.
The comparison runs against the largest competitor in the category. In a given market the product a buyer weighs is often smaller, local, and absent from the deck entirely.
The analysis lands as a matrix of features present and absent. A buyer weighs two or three attributes, and the grid gives every row the same weight.
Rival positioning gets read off the website and the press page. What the pack says on the shelf and what the buyer repeats back differ from both.
Sena is the decision AI with access to real-world data. It records which product a buyer weighed, what it cost on the shelf, and what the buyer took home instead, so the comparison names the actual alternative.
Buyers state which product they considered alongside this one, so the comparison set comes from the choice itself.
Every alternative carries its pack, its shelf price, and the claim printed on it, read off images captured in the outlet.
The recorded purchase covers both products, so the comparison ends on what buyers did.
Competitive product analysis compares one product against the products a buyer could choose instead and reports what separates them.
The exercise sets attributes side by side and names the difference: what each product contains, at what price, with what claim, and sold through which outlets. The decision it feeds is narrow and specific: whether to change the pack, the price, the claim, or the specification in a named market.
Four practices compare against rivals, and they answer four questions.
| Practice | The unit compared | What it answers |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive intelligence | The rival organization. | What competitors are doing, as a standing program. |
| Competitive landscape analysis | The market. | Who plays here, at what scale, and where the space is. |
| Competitive positioning | The claim. | Which position this product should hold. |
| Competitive product analysis | One product against another. | Whether to change the pack, price, claim, or specification. |
Five steps, applied per market.
Ask category buyers which product they weighed alongside this one. That answer differs by market, and it differs from the rival list.
Pack size, shelf price, facing count, and the on-pack claim, photographed and dated.
Ask which attribute settled the last purchase, then compare the two or three that carry weight.
Set recorded purchase for both products over the same weeks in the same market.
Ask buyers who chose the alternative what would have moved them, and treat that as the specification target.
| Section | What it carries |
|---|---|
| The set | Alternatives named by buyers, with how often each came up, per market. |
| The shelf | Pack, shelf price, facing, and on-pack claim for each, dated. |
| The weighting | The attributes buyers state decided the choice, ranked. |
| The outcome | Recorded purchase for each product over the same weeks. |
| The condition | What buyers who chose the alternative state would have moved them. |
Four collected inputs build the product-level read, applied per market.
| Input | What it answers |
|---|---|
| Stated preference | Which product the buyer weighed, and what would have changed the choice. |
| Store captures | Pack, shelf price, facing, and on-pack claim for each alternative. |
| Receipts | What buyers took home across both products, dated, over the same weeks. |
| Geo-verified photos | The alternative photographed where it sat, dated to the day. |
Three questions sit outside a feature comparison, and each one changes a product decision. Which alternative the buyer weighed is a market fact, answerable by asking, and it moves between markets. A grid weights every row equally, and a buyer weights two or three.
The buyer who chose the alternative states the condition, and that condition is the specification target.
Real people share what they buy and prefer, under explicit consent. Sena captures it directly at the source, so every figure traces back to where it came from whenever a number comes under question.
Stated preference and consented purchase arrive from the same buyers, and every reading carries the market and the day.
The comparison set arrives from the people making the choice, so it describes the market being decided.
Attributes carry the weight buyers state they carry, so the comparison lands on the two that decided it.
Buyers who chose the alternative state what would have moved them, which turns the comparison into a target.
A rival comparison carries weight only as far as the list behind it. Sena builds every figure on this page from real-world signals captured when the question needs it, from a buyer naming an alternative through to the receipt showing which one they took.
Records what buyers took home across both products over the same weeks, so the comparison closes on the outcome.
Reads pack, shelf price, facing count, and the on-pack claim for each alternative, off images captured in real outlets.
Signal arrives from the consumer network under explicit consent. Which product a buyer weighed comes from that buyer.
Win-loss records, specification sheets, pricing history, and sales data join over 250+ integrations, so the internal read sits beside the shelf read.
Every reading holds its market and its capture day, so a comparison claim opens back onto the buyer or the photograph behind it.
Sena sets past rival comparisons, win-loss archives, and pricing records beside the market they came from, covering every period the product has been compared in.
Four teams read the same rival comparison, and each one needs a different cut of it before they can act.
The specification. Needs the switch condition buyers stated, per market.
The claim. Needs the on-pack claim the alternative carries and what buyers repeat back.
The gap. Needs shelf price for the alternative where it sells.
The objection. Needs the attribute buyers ranked first when they chose the alternative.
The same buyer-named alternative, read in the terms each category competes on.
Pack, shelf price, and on-pack claim for the alternative buyers named, per market.
Which specification the alternative carries at that price, and what moved.
Which pack the counter offered instead, and what the buyer asked for.
Which plan and handset pairing buyers weighed against this one.
One mechanism, applied per market and per category. Each step is documented, which is what carries a comparison claim through a specification review.
Real contributors in the markets named state which product they weighed alongside this one, and share what they took home under explicit consent.
Sena reports the pack, shelf price, facing, and the on-pack claim for every named alternative, photographed and dated.
The comparison runs on the attributes buyers state decided the choice, with recorded purchase for both products beside it.
Most rival comparison starts from a maintained list and a feature grid, and both are internal artifacts describing a market from outside it. Sena starts from the buyer.
| Capability area | Typical setup | Sena |
|---|---|---|
| Who the rival is | The largest competitor in the category. | The product buyers in that market named weighing. |
| How attributes get weighted | Every row counts the same. | The weight buyers state each attribute carries. |
| The price compared | List price from the rival site. | Shelf price where the alternative sells. |
| The claim compared | Website and press copy. | The claim printed on the pack, photographed. |
| The outcome | Inferred from market share. | Recorded purchase for both over the same weeks. |
| The switch condition | An internal hypothesis. | Stated by buyers who chose the alternative. |
| Evidence in a review | A comparison matrix. | Open any figure onto the buyer or the photograph behind it. |
Three situations where the buyer-named alternative changes a comparison already drawn.
Ask buyers in each market which product they weighed, and read that against the rival list held centrally.
Compare shelf price for the named alternative on the capture day, and hold rival list price aside.
Take the condition buyers who chose the alternative stated, and carry it into the next specification review.
A product comparison settles one pair. The four decisions below are what a product team asks around it.
Every product decision Sena answers, in one place
The whole set at once
Widens from one alternative to every product sharing the shelf.
Explore product benchmarking 02The rival as a company
Runs the standing programme against competitor activity, above the product level.
Explore competitive intelligence 03Who plays in this market
Maps the players and the scale before any product comparison starts.
Explore competitive landscape analysis 04What buyers state they want
Supplies the attribute weighting the comparison runs on.
Explore voice of the customerThe walkthrough takes one product in one market, asks buyers there which alternative they weighed, and reads that alternative on pack, price and claim while the team watches.
Tell us the product and the market, and we will name the alternative.