Define the customer choice before listing competitors
Start with a particular customer and job. A team collecting files for a recurring client review might use a shared folder and workbook, configure a task tool or consider a product built around document requests. The relevant comparison depends on how that team works, who maintains the process and what prompts it to consider a change.
Sequoia’s business-plan guidance asks founders to consider direct and indirect competition and explain their approach to winning. For a pitch deck, that means looking beyond a list of businesses with similar product descriptions. Include the current way of doing the work when it is a real alternative for your target customer.
State the scope above the comparison: the customer group, the task and any important requirement. Then select the alternatives that fit that situation. An enterprise-wide system and a narrow tool may compete for one workflow while serving very different needs elsewhere. Explain why each belongs on this slide.
Replace broad ratings with questions a buyer can answer
Rows labelled “Easy”, “Flexible” or “Advanced” leave the reader guessing what has been assessed. Turn each label into something observable. Instead of “Easy”, ask what the customer must configure before using the product. Instead of “Automation”, identify the specific task that is automated and the conditions under which it works.
Nielsen Norman Group’s comparison-table guidance emphasizes consistent information and attributes that matter to the person making the choice. Its examples concern websites and product selection. Applying that principle to an investor slide means comparing the same buyer question across each alternative, using equivalent definitions.
Choose criteria that could affect a decision for this customer. If a proposed feature is included, label its current stage. A capability in a prototype and one available in a deployed system represent different evidence. Make that difference visible before asking the reader to compare them.
Source: Nielsen Norman Group — Comparison Tables for Products, Services, and Features
A worked example: make the comparison specific
Consider a fictional document-request product for small service teams preparing recurring client reviews. Its draft competition slide has three rows — “Easy”, “Flexible” and “AI-powered” — with ticks under its own name and crosses under “Others”. No definition or supporting evidence accompanies those ratings. This is an illustrative editing exercise, not a Pitchwave project or research into real vendors.
The revision names three example setups and asks how each handles the work. It distinguishes an existing workbook process, a configured task workflow and a proposed product still at prototype stage. The descriptions below are invented solely for this example; they do not describe every workbook, workflow tool or document product.
Notice what the revised slide makes possible. The reader can ask whether the prototype’s evidence-request structure is valuable enough to justify changing from an existing process. The team can also see which question needs investigation next: whether its proposed workflow reduces coordination effort compared with a configured task tool.
The comparison establishes an intended product focus. It does not yet demonstrate a performance advantage. If the team has no evidence that its approach is better for the target customer, that remains a question for research or a pilot. A cleaner layout cannot supply the missing result.
Compare the work, and keep the product’s stage visible.
↳ A prototype can show an intended workflow. Its effect on coordination effort still needs to be tested.
Make every comparison traceable
For a real competitor, record the source, access date, product or plan and the scope of the claim. A public feature page can establish what a provider describes. It may leave questions about implementation, plan restrictions or your customer’s particular workflow. A product test answers only the questions that were actually tested.
Keep an unresolved cell explicit. “Not verified in the reviewed material” is different from “Not available”. If a capability depends on configuration, a service package or an integration, say so. Apply the same discipline to your own column: distinguish available, demonstrated, in development and planned capabilities.
Use a short source note on the slide and keep a fuller evidence record for follow-up. A useful record might say: “Request assignment — provider documentation, plan reviewed, date accessed; behaviour in the target workflow not tested.” That lets the team revise the cell when new information appears instead of treating an old cross as a permanent fact.
Choose a layout that preserves the comparison
A compact table works when the same criteria can be checked across a small set of alternatives. Put the alternatives in columns and use one clearly worded question per row. Keep the wording short enough to scan, with qualifications close to the cell they affect. Nielsen Norman Group recommends this consistent structure for product comparisons; the slide application here is an editorial choice.
A positioning map can be useful when two well-defined dimensions explain the market. Define the axes, explain the basis for placing each alternative and avoid implying a measured distance when the positions are qualitative judgments. If those details take longer to explain than the comparison itself, use a table or a focused account of the relevant alternatives.
Check the exported slide at the size people will read it. A table that needs tiny type may be trying to answer too many questions. Keep the most decision-relevant comparison in the main deck, retain material qualifications and move the broader research record into suitable backup material.
Source: Nielsen Norman Group — Comparison Tables for Products, Services, and Features
Connect the comparison to a defensible position
After reading the slide, an investor should be able to describe whom you are targeting, the alternatives those customers have and the reason you think your approach deserves consideration. If the comparison reveals that your proposed distinction is already common, revisit the position or gather better evidence before strengthening the headline.
For the fictional example, a defensible statement would be: “The proposed product focuses on recurring evidence requests for small service teams. The prototype organises requests with their review history; its effect on coordination effort still needs testing.” The statement connects the intended focus to the present evidence without turning the roadmap into an achieved result.
When briefing a pitch deck designer, provide the comparison criteria, the supporting research and the claim you are prepared to defend. That gives the design a clear job: make the choice and the basis for your position easy to examine.
- CustomerIs the target group and job specific?
- AlternativesDoes the slide include the current approach where relevant?
- CriteriaDo the rows describe the same observable questions?
- EvidenceCan the claims, dates, plans and unknowns be traced?
- PositionDoes the conclusion match what is available or demonstrated today?