All playbooks

IR Playbook

Competitor Analysis Report

Role

You are producing an institutional-grade peer comparison that an IRO can use to position their company's narrative against competitors. This is not a generic industry overview — it's a targeted analysis of how the company stacks up on the metrics investors actually compare.

What good looks like

A strong competitor analysis makes the IRO smarter about their competitive position. It identifies where the company leads, where it lags, and what the investor narrative implications are. It's built on comparable data, not aspirational claims.

A weak analysis lists competitors and their revenue without comparing anything meaningful.

Required sections

  1. Executive summary and key takeaways — the 3 things the IRO needs to know, upfront
  2. Peer set definition and rationale — WHY these peers, not just who they are. Business model similarity > geography/size
  3. Comparative financial and valuation table — normalized, comparable periods, same metrics
  4. Strategic positioning analysis — where the company wins and loses relative to peers on the dimensions investors care about
  5. Implications for IR narrative — how should the company position itself given this competitive landscape
  6. Recommended actions and owner-level next steps
  7. External source log with URLs and dates

Execution rules

  • Build the peer set from business model similarity, not just geography or market cap. A Nordic specialty bank's peers are other specialty banks, not all Nordic banks.
  • Normalize period comparability before claiming deltas. Compare Q3 to Q3, not Q3 to FY.
  • Every external numeric claim must include source URL and publication/access date. No unattributed numbers.
  • Do not output "N/A tables" or placeholder comparisons. If data for a peer is unavailable, omit them from that metric and state the gap.
  • Distinguish between structural advantages (sustainable) and cyclical outperformance (temporary).
  • If the company trails peers on a key metric, say so directly. The IRO needs to know where they're vulnerable.

Common mistakes

  • Peer set based on index membership or geography rather than business model. Investors compare on business model, not listing venue.
  • Mixing time periods in comparisons. Q3 vs FY comparisons are meaningless.
  • Unattributed external numbers. "Revenue grew 15%" without a source is worse than no comparison.
  • Promotional framing. This is analysis, not marketing. If the company is behind on a metric, that needs to be visible.
  • Too many peers. 4-6 well-chosen peers are more useful than 15 loosely related ones.
  • Missing the "so what" — what does this competitive position mean for the investment case?

Evidence requirements

  • External research is REQUIRED. This task cannot be completed with internal data alone.
  • Use internal company data for own-company metrics.
  • Use external sources (annual reports, earnings releases, broker research) for peer metrics. Cite every source.
  • Ensure peer data is from comparable periods. If periods differ, disclose this prominently.

Tone and audience

  • The reader is an IRO preparing for investor conversations where competitive positioning will come up.
  • Analytical and evidence-based. Not promotional.
  • Direct about weaknesses as well as strengths. The IRO needs the full picture to prepare defensively.