Usable with a quick edit10 of 11 checks passed
The analysis is clear, data-backed, and actionable; a PM could use it with minor wording edits without rechecking evidence or redoing reasoning.
Output
To: Dan Whitlock From: Growth PM Re: Billfront: what the deal data says
Bottom line
Billfront is a real threat in one segment, not across the board. Most of our losses aren't to Billfront at all. I recommend we don't match everything by Q2. We should build the one feature that is costing us deals, and fix the larger problem, which is trials that never convert.
Who we lose to
In the last two quarters we closed 84 of 130 trials and lost 46:
| Lost to | Deals | Share of losses |
|---|---|---|
| No decision (didn't switch, or stayed on spreadsheets/Word) | 25 | 54% |
| Billfront | 17 | 37% |
| Xero invoicing (accountant's choice) | 4 | 9% |
Billfront took 17 of 130 trials, about 13%. Most of our losses are people who never chose anyone.
Where Billfront is a threat
Agencies needing multi-currency invoicing with live rates. Of 20 agency trials, we won 7 (35%). We lost 11 to Billfront on this one capability, and every one of them gave exactly that reason. Billfront launched it in March and bundles it in its $29 Pro plan. Our agency customers average $46 a month.
Outside agencies, Billfront barely registers. Win rates are 77% for freelancers (41 of 53) and 63% for small businesses (36 of 57). Billfront beat us on price in 6 deals, 3 freelancer and 3 small business, which is about 5% of trials in each segment.
The price losses are odd. Billfront's Starter is $12 and ours starts at $9, so list price at the entry tier doesn't explain them. I don't know what those prospects compared. We should find out before discussing any price changes.
Sizing it in revenue
Using segment average revenue (assuming lost deals would have paid the average):
- Agency multi-currency losses to Billfront: 11 × $46 ≈ $506/month
- No-decision losses: 14 small business × $24, 9 freelancer × $11, 2 agency × $46 ≈ $527/month
- Billfront price losses: ≈ $105/month
- Xero losses: ≈ $96/month
The multi-currency gap and the no-decision problem are about the same size. The multi-currency losses come from 11 deals, while the no-decision losses are spread across 25 and are probably cheaper to fix.
Agencies are only 240 of our 9,140 paying customers and about 7% of monthly revenue ($11k of $149k). They are our highest-value segment per customer, though, and they are where Billfront is heading.
Where Billfront is heading
Every public signal points at agencies and global teams, not at our core:
- The homepage says "Invoicing for global teams".
- Its case studies are three agencies and one consultancy.
- It launched multi-currency in March and a client portal in June.
- Of its open engineering roles, 4 are for "global payments" and 2 for "agency workflows".
- It has a $59 Team tier above anything we sell.
A full-parity plan means following a roadmap aimed at a segment that is 7% of our revenue. It also means matching features like the client portal, which appears in none of our loss reasons. The same data suggests it's a risk to our 240 existing agency customers, not just to new deals. That's about $11k a month to defend.
What I recommend
- Build multi-currency invoicing with live FX rates, scoped tightly, as our one parity feature. It's the only feature with direct evidence behind it (11 lost deals). I need an engineering estimate before committing to Q2. I'd also check whether our current agency customers are asking for it, since that's the retention case.
- Attack "didn't get round to switching" and spreadsheet users. This is 25 deals and 54% of losses, concentrated in small business (14) and freelancers (9). Candidate fixes are guided import of existing clients and invoices, template migration from Word and spreadsheets, and a trial-end nudge with a done-for-you setup offer. We don't yet know why these people stalled. Before building, we should run about 10 calls with them. That costs days, not a quarter.
- Look into the Xero losses, but keep it small. All four came from accountants preferring another tool. A light accountant referral or integration push is worth a look, but it's 9% of losses and I wouldn't prioritise it above the other items.
- Investigate the price losses. I'd ask lost prospects what plan comparison they made. I wouldn't change pricing on 6 deals.
- Monitor Billfront rather than chase it. I'll track its releases and pricing quarterly and re-check agency win rate. If its pitch starts working on small businesses with teams, we revisit.
Caveats
- The sample is 130 trials, and the loss reasons are as recorded by the team, not verified with prospects.
- The data has no dates, so I can't tell whether the agency losses accelerated after Billfront's March launch. I'd add dates to the loss data.
- I only have Billfront's public pages, so I can't do a true feature-by-feature comparison. I can build one from their product and pricing pages if you still want it, but I'd treat it as reference, not as a roadmap.
I'm glad to walk through the numbers, and I'll bring the engineering estimate and call findings to our next review.
Grades and run details
Decision model 95 · LLM judge 92
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly40%
- passAddresses the actual decision76%
- passRespects explicit constraints62%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty97%
- passAvoids unsupported claims42%
- passProduces the required deliverable46%
- passFinds the real competitor100%
- passPins down where Billfront wins100%
- passCompetes with what customers really choose100%
- passGets the base of every number right35%
- partialSeparates what a rival can copy62%
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 43 s
- Submitted
- 6 Oct 2026