Humanity’s Last PRD
Latest drop: Haiku 5.5 · 8 Oct
Tasks / Strategy

Competitor analysis

Can the model find where a competitor can actually hurt you, from win/loss and churn data, rather than list features?

Task type v1.1 · 2 tasksLast changed 6 Oct 2026 · ChangelogDifficulty

What AI gets right here, and what you’ll still have to catch

From 16 graded outputs by 8 models. 63% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Respects explicit constraints100% pass
    Delivers a competitive analysis memo to Dan within 900 words, addressing all requested topics without proposing a full feature-by-feature match.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · The competitor isn't who you think
  2. Reads where Crestline is heading100% pass
    Uses Crestline's hiring (payroll, multi-entity, accountant partnerships) to infer direction, flags the partner-programme risk, and adjusts the response accordingly.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Free forever, funded
  3. Produces the required deliverable97% pass
    The memo is complete, in the right form for the CEO, within the word limit, and actionable with light edits.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · The competitor isn't who you think

Where it slips

  1. Uses the supplied evidence correctly56% pass
    Two factual claims are wrong: the number of unconnected multi-user accounts going to Crestline is 40, not 42, and the number of connected 6-20 cancellations is 5, not 4.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Free forever, funded
  2. Gets the base of every number right61% pass
    Derived figures for unconnected multi-user cancellations (42 vs actual 40) and connected 6-20 cancellations (4 vs actual 5) are incorrect.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · Free forever, funded
  3. Separates what a rival can copy66% pass
    Does not explicitly separate advantages a well-funded competitor could copy from those it couldn't, nor anchor the response in durable advantages with evidence.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · The competitor isn't who you think

How it’s graded

Each check is built on how world-class product and growth leaders do this work, as they’ve described it on Lenny’s Podcast, and names the leader it comes from.

  1. Competes with what customers really choose

    Does the analysis treat the status quo (spreadsheets, manual work, doing nothing) as a competitor, and draw at least one implication from where competitors are investing rather than only from today's features?

    Passes when Analyses the status quo, strengths included, and gives a direction-of-travel insight that affects the recommendation.

    April DunfordLenny’s Podcast

  2. Separates what a rival can copy

    Does the analysis separate advantages a well-funded competitor could copy (features, price, being first) from ones it couldn't easily (switching costs, networks, relationships), and build the response on the latter?

    Passes when Names which advantages are copyable and which aren't, with evidence, and anchors the response in the durable ones.

    Hamilton HelmerLenny’s Podcast

Plus our standard checks

Uses the supplied evidence correctly · Addresses the actual decision · Respects explicit constraints · Identifies material uncertainty · Avoids unsupported claims · Produces the required deliverable · Gets the base of every number right · and 2 written for each task, which you’ll see in the tasks below.

The tasks

Read the brief, then compare up to three outputs, each with the LLM judge’s verdict on every check. Highlights mark what a PM had to fix.

The brief

You're the PM for growth at Tallybook. Our CEO, Dan Whitlock, wants a feature-by-feature comparison against Billfront and a plan to match everything they have by Q2 (his note is below). Write him a competitive analysis of no more than 900 words: who we really lose to, where Billfront is a real threat and where it isn't, where it's heading, and what we should do instead of (or as well as) matching it. The files are attached.

What the model was given5 items: About Tallybook, ceo_note.md, deals_last_two_quarters.csv (trials that became deals, won or lost), customers_by_segment.md, billfront_public_info.md
About TallybookInvoicing and payments for freelancers and small businesses. Plans from $9 to $39 a month.
ceo_note.md1 lines · Download
From Dan (CEO): "Billfront is killing us. I want a full feature-by-feature comparison against them and a plan to match everything they have by Q2."
deals_last_two_quarters.csv (trials that became deals, won or lost)deal,segment,outcome,primary_reason,went_to T-900,Small business,won,, T-901,Freelancer,won,, T-902,Freelancer,won,, T-903,Small business,won,, T-904,Small business,lost,Accountant uses something else,Xero invoicing T-905,Small business,won,, T-906,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-907,Freelancer,won,, T-908,Freelancer,won,, T-909,Small business,won,, T-910,Freelancer,lost,Price,Billfront T-911,Freelancer,won,, T-912,Small business,lost,Price,Billfront T-913,Freelancer,won,, T-914,Freelancer,won,, T-915,Small business,won,, T-916,Freelancer,won,, T-917,Small business,won,, T-918,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-919,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-920,Freelancer,won,, T-921,Agency (multi-currency),won,, T-922,Small business,won,, T-923,Small business,won,, T-924,Small business,won,, T-925,Freelancer,won,, T-926,Freelancer,won,, T-927,Freelancer,won,, T-928,Small business,won,, T-929,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-930,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-931,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-932,Small business,won,, T-933,Small business,won,, T-934,Small business,won,, T-935,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-936,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-937,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-938,Agency (multi-currency),won,, T-939,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-940,Small business,won,, T-941,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-942,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-943,Freelancer,won,, T-944,Small business,won,, T-945,Small business,lost,Accountant uses something else,Xero invoicing T-946,Small business,won,, T-947,Small business,won,, T-948,Small business,won,, T-949,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-950,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-951,Freelancer,won,, T-952,Freelancer,won,, T-953,Freelancer,won,, T-954,Agency (multi-currency),won,, T-955,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-956,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-957,Freelancer,won,, T-958,Small business,won,, T-959,Freelancer,won,, T-960,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-961,Freelancer,won,, T-962,Small business,won,, T-963,Agency (multi-currency),won,, T-964,Small business,won,, T-965,Small business,won,, T-966,Small business,won,, T-967,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-968,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-969,Small business,won,, T-970,Freelancer,lost,Price,Billfront T-971,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-972,Small business,lost,Accountant uses something else,Xero invoicing T-973,Small business,lost,Accountant uses something else,Xero invoicing T-974,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-975,Small business,lost,Price,Billfront T-976,Freelancer,won,, T-977,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-978,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-979,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-980,Freelancer,won,, T-981,Small business,won,, T-982,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-983,Small business,won,, T-984,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-985,Freelancer,won,, T-986,Freelancer,won,, T-987,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-988,Small business,won,, T-989,Freelancer,won,, T-990,Freelancer,won,, T-991,Freelancer,won,, T-992,Agency (multi-currency),won,, T-993,Freelancer,won,, T-994,Freelancer,won,, T-995,Small business,won,, T-996,Small business,won,, T-997,Small business,won,, T-998,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-999,Freelancer,lost,Stayed on spreadsheets / Word templates,No decision T-1000,Agency (multi-currency),won,, T-1001,Small business,lost,Price,Billfront T-1002,Small business,won,, T-1003,Freelancer,won,, T-1004,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-1005,Freelancer,won,, T-1006,Small business,won,, T-1007,Freelancer,won,, T-1008,Small business,won,, T-1009,Freelancer,lost,Price,Billfront T-1010,Small business,won,, T-1011,Freelancer,won,, T-1012,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-1013,Freelancer,won,, T-1014,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-1015,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-1016,Freelancer,won,, T-1017,Freelancer,won,, T-1018,Freelancer,won,, T-1019,Small business,lost,Didn't get round to switching,No decision T-1020,Freelancer,won,, T-1021,Small business,won,, T-1022,Agency (multi-currency),won,, T-1023,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-1024,Agency (multi-currency),lost,Needs invoicing in several currencies with live rates,Billfront T-1025,Freelancer,won,, T-1026,Freelancer,won,, T-1027,Freelancer,won,, T-1028,Small business,won,, T-1029,Freelancer,won,,
customers_by_segment.md7 lines · Download
# Tallybook customers and revenue (September)

| Segment | Paying customers | Average revenue per month |
|---|---|---|
| Freelancer | 5,800 | $11 |
| Small business | 3,100 | $24 |
| Agency (multi-currency) | 240 | $46 |
billfront_public_info.md6 lines · Download
# Billfront (public pages, September)

- Pricing: $12/month Starter, $29/month Pro (multi-currency, live FX rates), $59/month Team.
- Homepage: "Invoicing for global teams". Case studies: three agencies, one consultancy.
- Recent launches: multi-currency invoicing (March), client portal (June).
- Job posts: 4 engineers for "global payments", 2 for "agency workflows".
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Shows from the deals file that the biggest competitor is no decision: of 46 lost deals, 25 ended with the prospect staying on spreadsheets or never switching, 17 went to Billfront and 4 to Xero invoicing. Billfront's wins are concentrated in multi-currency agencies (11 of its 17), on a specific gap (invoicing in several currencies with live rates); elsewhere it won only 6 deals, mostly on price. Agencies are a small segment (240 customers at about $46 a month, about $11,000 MRR, against about $64,000 from freelancers and $74,000 from small businesses), and Billfront is heading further into them (global payments and agency workflow hiring). Recommends against matching everything: fix switching friction for small businesses who 'didn't get round to it' (imports, setup help, accountant tie-ins), make a deliberate call on multi-currency (build it if agencies matter strategically, or cede the segment), and keep the advantages Billfront can't easily copy. Gives a short comparison only where it matters.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Recommends matching Billfront feature for feature
Task

Mid-level · v1.0

The outputs

8 setups answered this brief.

Opus 5.5Claude98Usable with a quick editGPT-6 LunaAPI94Usable with a quick editGPT-6 AstraChatGPT94Usable with a quick editSonnet 5.5API94Usable with a quick editGPT-6.1 SolAPI94Usable with a quick editHaiku 5.5API92Usable with a quick editGemini 3.8 FlashAPI71Usable with a quick editGemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini35Needs more work
GPT-6.1 SolAPI

Usable with a quick edit10 of 11 checks passed

The analysis is evidence-based, actionable, and requires no re-checking of facts or reasoning; a PM could use it with light edits.

Output

Competitive analysis: Billfront is a targeted threat—not our biggest source of losses

To: Dan Whitlock From: Growth PM

Recommendation: Do not commit to matching every Billfront feature by Q2. Commit to reducing switching friction in our core market, testing price objections, and validating a focused multi-currency response. Maintain a competitive feature inventory, but let customer evidence—not competitor launches—drive delivery.

1. Who we actually lose to

Across the 130 trial opportunities in the last two quarters, we won 84 and lost 46:

Loss destinationDealsShare of lossesRecorded reason
------:---:---
No decision2554%16 never switched; 9 stayed with spreadsheets/Word
Billfront1737%11 needed multi-currency/live rates; 6 cited price
Xero invoicing49%Accountant preference

Our largest competitor is inertia. More opportunities stayed with their existing process than chose Billfront. Feature parity does not directly address those losses.

Billfront’s wins are concentrated: 11 of its 17 wins came from multi-currency agencies. Among the 110 freelancer and small-business opportunities, only six went to Billfront—all citing price.

These are trial-opportunity outcomes, not evidence of customer churn or overall market share. We also lack deal values, so counts alone cannot establish the revenue impact.

2. Where Billfront is—and is not—a real threat

Real threat: international agencies. Of 20 agency opportunities, we won seven, lost 11 to Billfront over multi-currency/live rates, and lost two to no decision. That is a specific, repeated capability gap, not a vague brand problem.

Agencies are a small but valuable segment: 240 paying customers generate approximately $11,040 monthly revenue, or 7.4% of the total, at the highest segment average of $46 per month. Protecting this segment merits investigation; pursuing it aggressively requires a deliberate market choice.

Limited demonstrated threat: our core market. Freelancers and small businesses represent 97.4% of paying customers and 92.6% of monthly revenue. Their recorded Billfront losses concern price, not missing portals or team workflows.

That does not mean price is objectively lower: Tallybook starts at $9 versus Billfront’s $12. We need to understand required tiers, perceived value, discounts, and payment costs before changing prices.

Separate threat: accountant-led selection. Four small businesses chose Xero because their accountant used it. Matching Billfront does nothing to resolve that workflow preference.

3. Feature comparison: what the evidence supports

A full parity assessment is not possible from these files: we lack Tallybook’s feature inventory and detailed Billfront documentation.

AreaBillfront evidenceTallybook evidence / implication
InvoicingPublic positioning and launches confirm offeringCore Tallybook offering; workflow-level parity unverified
Payments“Global payments” hiringCore Tallybook offering; global capabilities unverified
Pricing$12 Starter; $29 Pro; $59 Team$9–$39 plans; six price losses require tier-level investigation
Multi-currency + live FXIncluded in $29 Pro; launched MarchEleven losses establish an unmet requirement; exact existing coverage needs audit
Client portalLaunched JuneAvailability unknown; no recorded loss cites it
Team/agency workflowsTeam plan; agency-workflow hiringDetailed features unknown; no evidenced parity requirement yet

We should complete this inventory through product testing and documentation—not turn unknowns into assumed deficiencies.

4. Where Billfront appears to be heading

“Invoicing for global teams,” three agency case studies, one consultancy case study, and hiring for global payments and agency workflows point toward cross-border agency operations, rather than primarily low-cost freelancer invoicing.

The multi-currency launch and portal fit that direction. Hiring suggests possible investment in global payment capabilities and deeper agency workflows, but does not confirm particular upcoming features.

Following that trajectory wholesale would move us toward a different customer and potentially greater operational complexity.

5. What we should deliver by Q2

First: establish the facts. Product and Growth should audit both products, interview the 17 Billfront losses and a sample of no-decision opportunities, and identify the exact currency, payment, migration, and price requirements. Validate engineering scope before promising parity.

Prioritize core conversion. Test guided setup, invoice/customer import, template migration, and assisted switching. Measure first-invoice activation, time to first invoice, and trial-to-paid conversion against a control—not just onboarding completion.

Address price without a blanket cut. Test clearer tier/value messaging and targeted offers for price-sensitive prospects. Judge success on paid conversion, retained revenue, and margin.

Gate a focused FX investment. Scope multi-currency invoicing with live rates—not the entire global-payments stack. Proceed only if recoverable agency revenue, customer demand, and delivery cost justify it. Use agency design partners and explicit pilot adoption and retention criteria.

Investigate accountant compatibility. Determine whether exports, accountant access, or integrations would resolve the Xero losses before building.

Q2 commitment: validated competitive coverage, measured conversion experiments, and an evidence-based FX build decision—not indiscriminate feature parity.

Grades and run details

Decision model 95 · LLM judge 92
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly46%
  • passAddresses the actual decision89%
  • passRespects explicit constraints36%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims64%
  • passProduces the required deliverable51%
  • passFinds the real competitor100%
  • passPins down where Billfront wins100%
  • passCompetes with what customers really choose100%
  • passGets the base of every number right44%
  • partialSeparates what a rival can copy61%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
48 s
Submitted
5 Oct 2026
GPT-6 AstraChatGPT

Usable with a quick edit10 of 11 checks passed

The analysis is evidence-based and actionable; a PM could add a sentence on durable advantages without redoing any reasoning or re-checking evidence.

Output

To: Dan Whitlock Subject: Q2 competitive plan—beat the reasons we lose, not Billfront’s feature list

Dan—

Billfront is a real threat in multi-currency agencies, but the deal data does not support “Billfront is killing us” across our business. I recommend a Q2 plan focused on switching friction in our core market, with a gated investment in multi-currency—not blanket feature parity.

1. Who we actually lose to

Across 130 trials with recorded outcomes over the last two quarters, we won 84 and lost 46.

DestinationLost dealsShare of lossesRecorded reason
------:---:---
No decision2554%16 never switched; 9 stayed with spreadsheets/Word
Billfront1737%11 multi-currency/live FX; 6 price
Xero invoicing49%Accountant uses another system

Our largest competitor is inertia. More deals stall or retain manual workflows than go to Billfront.

The segment split matters:

  • Freelancers and small businesses: 110 opportunities, 77 wins, and only six losses to Billfront—all attributed to price.
  • Multi-currency agencies: 20 opportunities, seven wins, 11 losses to Billfront, and two no-decisions. Billfront captures 55% of these opportunities and 85% of their losses.

These are counts from recorded trial outcomes—not market share, churn, or revenue-weighted losses. We lack deal values and quarter-by-quarter breakdowns, so cannot conclude that competitive losses are accelerating.

2. Where Billfront threatens us—and where it doesn’t

Our installed base remains overwhelmingly freelancers and small businesses: 97% of paying customers and 93% of monthly revenue, using September customer counts and ARPU. Agencies contribute approximately $11,040 of $149,240 monthly revenue.

Billfront is therefore a concentrated segment threat, not yet a demonstrated broad-based threat to our core. However, agencies represent 15% of this opportunity sample versus 3% of current customers. Ignoring them could constrain an emerging growth segment.

The defensible comparison from the supplied evidence is:

DimensionBillfrontTallybook / implication
Subscription pricing$12 Starter; $29 Pro; $59 Team$9–$39 plans. Billfront is not universally cheaper; investigate the actual packages compared in six price losses.
Multi-currency and live FXIncluded in Pro; multi-currency launched in MarchEleven losses establish an unmet customer requirement. This is the strongest case for targeted parity.
Client portalLaunched in JuneTallybook capability is unspecified. No recorded loss cites it; validate demand before prioritizing.
Team/agency capabilitiesTeam tier; agency-focused hiringDetailed functionality is unknown. Neither the plan name nor hiring proves specific feature advantages.
Positioning“Invoicing for global teams”; three agency and one consultancy case studiesTallybook serves freelancers and small businesses. Their positioning overlaps most strongly with our agency segment.

A complete feature-by-feature audit requires product access and our own capability inventory. We should do a bounded audit, but not turn every discovered difference into a roadmap commitment.

3. Where Billfront is heading

The evidence points toward cross-border payments and agency workflows: multi-currency is already shipped, four engineering roles target global payments, and two target agency workflows. The portal could support deeper agency-client collaboration.

That suggests a specialist competitor becoming stronger in international service businesses—not necessarily a competitor optimizing for solo freelancers. Hiring indicates direction, not a confirmed launch schedule. Matching today’s list could leave us following their next list while neglecting our larger conversion problem.

4. What we should do by Q2

First: make switching easier for our core customers. Interview recent no-decision prospects, then test guided setup, spreadsheet/client imports, reusable invoice templates, and assisted migration where the workflow audit shows gaps. Sell the outcome—getting the first invoice sent and paid with less effort—not feature volume. Measure trial-to-paid conversion, time to first invoice, first payment, and no-decision losses against a baseline or control.

Second: gate a focused multi-currency investment. Validate requirements with lost agencies and our seven agency wins: supported currencies, live-rate handling, settlement needs, and willingness to pay. Estimate build, provider, compliance, and support costs. Commit to a scoped Q2 release only if expected incremental contribution and retention justify it versus core activation work. Do not bundle a portal or full Team suite into that decision.

Third: diagnose price before cutting it. Review the six price losses for required features, chosen Billfront tier, discounts, and perceived value. Test clearer packaging or targeted offers rather than an across-the-board reduction. Reconcile agency ARPU of $46 with our stated $39 plan ceiling before modeling returns.

Fourth: reduce accountant-driven exclusions. Investigate the four Xero losses and test whether accountant-friendly exports or interoperability can preserve Tallybook as the invoicing layer.

Decision requested: replace “match everything by Q2” with a measured conversion program and a gated multi-currency bet. Keep a monthly competitor review, but fund work according to customer demand and incremental economics—not checklist completeness.

Grades and run details

Decision model 95 · LLM judge 92
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly44%
  • passAddresses the actual decision85%
  • passRespects explicit constraints55%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty99%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims64%
  • passProduces the required deliverable48%
  • passFinds the real competitor100%
  • passPins down where Billfront wins100%
  • passCompetes with what customers really choose100%
  • passGets the base of every number right36%
  • partialSeparates what a rival can copy56%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
44 s
Submitted
5 Oct 2026
Opus 5.5Claude

Usable with a quick edit11 of 11 checks passed

The analysis is data-backed, complete, and directly actionable. A PM could use it with minor wording edits and no need to re-verify evidence or reasoning.

Output

To: Dan Whitlock From: Growth PM Re: Billfront: where they actually hurt us, and what to do about it

---

The short version

Billfront isn't killing us. It is beating us in one segment, for one reason. Matching its whole feature set by Q2 would spend most of our roadmap on customers who aren't leaving us for Billfront. My recommendation is to build one targeted feature (multi-currency invoicing with live rates), deliberately skip the rest, and put equal effort into our real biggest loss: prospects who never switch to anything.

Who we actually lose to

Over the last two quarters, 130 trials became deals. We won 84 (65%) and lost 46.

Lost toDealsShare of lossesMain reason
No decision2554%Didn't get round to switching (16), stayed on spreadsheets/Word (9)
Billfront1737%Multi-currency with live rates (11), price (6)
Xero invoicing49%Their accountant uses something else

Our biggest competitor is inertia, not Billfront. Billfront accounts for 13% of all trials (17 of 130).

Where Billfront is a real threat, and where it isn't

It's a real threat in agencies. We lose 13 of 20 agency deals (35% win rate). Eleven of those losses went to Billfront, every one for the same reason: invoicing in several currencies with live rates. This is a single, clear feature gap, and it is the core of Billfront's paid offer. Their $29 Pro plan is built around it.

It isn't a threat in our core. Freelancers (77% win rate) and small businesses (63%) make up 92% of our revenue. Billfront took 6 deals from these segments, all on price. That is roughly 5% of core-segment deals.

The price losses are puzzling. Our entry plan is $9 and Billfront's is $12, so "price" probably means something else. Most likely a prospect needed a feature that's on our higher tier and is cheaper at Billfront, or compared our mid plan to their Starter. We should pull those six trial records before reacting to them.

How much revenue is at stake (each lost deal valued at its segment's average monthly revenue):

  • Billfront losses: about $610/month (multi-currency ~$505, price ~$105)
  • No-decision losses: about $525/month
  • Xero losses: about $95/month

By revenue, Billfront and inertia are roughly level. The difference is the fix. The Billfront gap is one feature. Inertia is spread across our largest segments and touches every trial.

Where Billfront is heading

Their public signals all point the same way, away from our core:

  • Positioning: the homepage says "Invoicing for global teams." Their case studies are three agencies and a consultancy, with no freelancers or local small businesses.
  • Launches: multi-currency in March, a client portal in June. Both are agency features.
  • Hiring: 4 engineers for "global payments" and 2 for "agency workflows."
  • Pricing: their plans go up to $59/month for teams. Our average agency customer pays us $46.

Billfront is moving upmarket into international agencies and cross-border payments. The risk to watch is global payments. If they make it easy to get paid across currencies, not just invoice in them, that could eventually appeal to our freelancers with overseas clients. For now there's no sign of that in our deal data.

What I recommend instead of matching everything

1. Build multi-currency invoicing with live rates for Q2 (match this one feature). This is the only Billfront feature that shows up in our losses, and it explains nearly all of them. Agencies are our highest-value customers per head ($46/month vs $24 and $11), even though the segment is small (240 customers, about 7% of revenue). Closing this gap protects them and blocks Billfront's main way in. Scope it tightly: multiple invoice currencies and live rates. Leave payments for later.

2. Don't build the client portal, team tier, or global payments yet. No lost deal cites any of them. Building them means chasing Billfront's strategy rather than our customers. We should re-check this every quarter against new loss data and their hiring.

3. Attack "no decision" with the same priority as #1. This is 25 of 46 losses. Two specific fixes: - Spreadsheet/Word import for freelancers (9 losses). Let them upload their existing template or client list and send a first invoice in minutes. - Switching help for small businesses (14 losses). Offer guided migration, "import your last 10 invoices," and trial nudges tied to their next billing date. Because these improve every trial, they also help us in the segments that make up most of our revenue.

4. Small bet on Xero (4 losses). Check whether a Xero sync, or simply marketing the one we have, gives accountants a reason to say yes.

5. Diagnose the six price losses before changing pricing.

Caveats

This is 130 deals over two quarters, with one recorded reason per loss. The revenue figures are rough, monthly, and per deal. The direction is clear enough to act on, but we should keep tagging loss reasons and re-run this analysis in a quarter.

If it helps, I can turn #1 and #3 into a Q2 roadmap proposal with effort estimates.

Grades and run details

Decision model 95 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly20%
  • passAddresses the actual decision88%
  • passRespects explicit constraints57%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty81%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims33%
  • passProduces the required deliverable80%
  • passFinds the real competitor100%
  • passPins down where Billfront wins96%
  • passCompetes with what customers really choose100%
  • passGets the base of every number right33%
  • partialSeparates what a rival can copy46%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
46 s
Submitted
5 Oct 2026

Check by check

Where the outputs differ comes first. Open a check to read the judge’s reasons. “Mixed” means the two graders disagreed.

Where they differ 1

Separates what a rival can copyWrongWrongRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Does not explicitly separate copyable advantages (features, price) from durable ones (switching costs, relationships) or anchor the response in the latter.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Does not explicitly separate which advantages are copyable by a well-funded competitor and which are durable, nor anchor the response in the durable ones.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Separates the copyable feature gap (multi-currency) from the durable advantage of reducing switching friction for core customers, and anchors the response in the latter.

All got right 10

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

All factual claims are directly from the supplied files or derived by correct arithmetic.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

All facts and figures are correctly taken from the supplied data, with no invented information about the current situation.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

All factual claims about the current situation are directly supported by the supplied context or arithmetic from it.

Addresses the actual decisionRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Commits early to not matching everything, gives a clear alternative, and states conditions (recoverable revenue, demand, cost) that would change the call.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Commits clearly to not matching everything, instead recommending a switching-friction program and a gated multi-currency investment, with conditions that would change the call.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Commits early to a clear recommendation (build multi-currency, skip the rest, attack no decision) and states that re-checking quarterly against new data would change it.

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Output is a competitive analysis under 900 words, does not provide a full feature-by-feature matching plan, and is addressed to Dan.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The output is a competitive analysis under 900 words, addressed to the CEO, and proposes what to do instead of matching, respecting the brief's request.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Delivers a competitive analysis memo to Dan within 900 words, addressing all requested topics without proposing a full feature-by-feature match.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Names missing data (deal values, feature inventories, exact requirements) and says how to resolve them (audits, interviews, validation).

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Names missing data (deal values, quarter breakdowns) and conditions for the multi-currency investment, and says how to resolve them through interviews, tests, and validation.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names specific unknowns (true reason for price losses, future global payments risk) and says to pull trial records and re-run analysis quarterly.

Avoids unsupported claimsRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Forecasts and interpretations are labelled as such (e.g., 'appears to be heading', 'suggests possible investment').

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Interpretations and forecasts are labelled as suggestions or conclusions from data, not presented as established fact.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Hypotheses about price losses are clearly labelled as 'probably' and 'most likely'; forecasts are presented as risks to watch, not facts.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Delivers a complete, actionable competitive analysis memo for the CEO within the word limit.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The memo is complete, within the word limit, and directly usable by the CEO with actionable recommendations.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The memo is complete, in the right form for the CEO, within the word limit, and actionable with light edits.

Finds the real competitorRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Counts losses by destination, shows no decision as the largest (25 deals, 54%), and names inertia as the biggest competitor.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Counts 25 no-decision losses versus 17 to Billfront and names inertia as the largest competitor.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Counts 25 no-decision losses vs 17 Billfront, names inertia as the biggest competitor, and provides the numbers.

Pins down where Billfront winsRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Shows Billfront wins concentrated in multi-currency agencies (11 of 17) and sizes the segment's revenue ($11,040/month, 7.4% of total).

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Shows Billfront's wins are concentrated in multi-currency agencies (11 of 17) and sizes the segment's revenue at $11k of $149k.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Shows Billfront's wins are concentrated in multi-currency agencies (11 of 17) and sizes the segment at 240 customers, $46/month, ~7% of revenue.

Competes with what customers really chooseRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Treats spreadsheets/doing nothing as a competitor and gives a direction-of-travel insight (Billfront moving toward cross-border agency ops).

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Treats the status quo (spreadsheets, no decision) as a competitor and draws an implication from Billfront's hiring direction.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Treats spreadsheets/manual work/no decision as a competitor and draws a direction-of-travel insight from Billfront's hiring and launches to recommend against chasing their roadmap.

Gets the base of every number rightRightRightRight
GPT-6.1 Sol · API

All percentages and counts check out against the deals file and customer data, with bases stated where needed.

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

All percentages are correctly computed with clear denominators stated or implied.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

All percentages, win rates, and revenue figures are computed from the correct denominators and match the supplied data.

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task type, across all its tasks and repeats, graded on the current checklist. Calibrated.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1Opus 5.5Claude86.4100.02None
2GPT-6 AstraChatGPT88.695.82None
3GPT-6.1 SolAPI88.695.82None
4GPT-6 LunaAPI93.283.32None
5Sonnet 5.5API86.483.32None
6Haiku 5.5API84.179.22None
7Gemini 3.8 FlashAPI68.254.22None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini61.425.02None

What you get for the cost

GPT-6.1 Sol · API scores within a point of Opus 5.5 · Claude at a fifth of the cost.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.304050607080901001×3×10×30×100×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 94, 75× the cheapestGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 93, 87× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 93, 14× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 86, the cheapestSonnet 5.5 · API: task score 83, 44× the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 80, 3.0× the cheapestGemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 60, 12× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 41, 2.9× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTGPT-6.1 Sol · APIGPT-6 Luna · APISonnet 5.5 · APIHaiku 5.5 · APIGemini 3.8 Flash · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Best valueNobody beats these on both score and cost

Cost is each output’s tokens at the model’s list price, shown relative to the cheapest setup. Runs done in an app have no usage meter, so theirs are estimated from the same setup’s measured runs. How we compare cost

The PM job

Deciding how to respond to competitors.

Why it matters

Feature grids hide the real competition, which is often the customer's current workaround, and the response that feels urgent is usually to copy everything.

What good looks like

  • Includes the status quo and non-obvious alternatives
  • Finds where losses really go, by segment
  • Separates advantages a rival can copy from ones it can't
  • Reads where competitors are heading

Deliberately not measured

  • Market sizing
Capability tested

Competitive insight

The failure we’re looking for

A feature checklist and a plan to match everything

Grading

Decision model and LLM judge, calibrated against a blind PM review