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
Gemini 3.8 FlashAPI

Usable with a quick edit6 of 11 checks passed

The output is well-structured, evidence is correctly used, and the recommendation is clear. A PM could use it with minor wording edits (e.g., softening the 'vacating' claim) without re-checking data or redoing reasoning.

Output

MEMORANDUM

TO: Dan Whitlock, CEO FROM: PM for Growth DATE: October 14, 2023 SUBJECT: Competitive Analysis: Billfront & Win/Loss Findings

---

Executive Summary

Billfront is not killing us. Across the last two quarters (130 evaluated deals), our win rate stands at 65% (84 wins).

Of the 46 deals lost, 54% (25 deals) were lost to inertia and the status quo (“No decision”), not a competitor. Billfront won 17 deals (37% of losses), but 65% of those losses were concentrated in a single niche: cross-border agencies needing live multi-currency rates.

Matching Billfront feature-for-feature by Q2 would misallocate our roadmap to chase a customer segment that accounts for just 7.4% of our revenue, while ignoring the friction costing us half of our lost pipeline in our core market.

---

1. Who We Really Lose To

Our win/loss data over the last two quarters paints a very clear picture of why prospective customers fail to convert:

``` Loss Reasons Across All Segments (46 Lost Deals) ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────┬───────┐ │ Competitor / Outcome │ Deals │ Share │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────┼───────┼───────┤ │ No Decision: "Didn't get round to switching" │ 16 │ 35% │ │ Billfront: Multi-currency FX gap │ 11 │ 24% │ │ No Decision: Stayed on Spreadsheets / Word │ 9 │ 20% │ │ Billfront: Price │ 6 │ 13% │ │ Xero: Accountant preference │ 4 │ 9% │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────┴───────┴───────┘ ```

  • #1 Competitor: Status Quo & Inertia (25 deals / 54% of losses). Small businesses abandon onboarding because switching is too painful (14 deals), and freelancers default back to Word/Excel templates (9 deals).
  • #2 Competitor: Billfront (17 deals / 37% of losses). 11 of these were multi-currency agencies; only 6 were core domestic freelancers or small businesses citing price.
  • #3 Competitor: Accounting Ecosystem Lock-in (4 deals / 9% of losses). Small businesses whose external accountants mandate Xero.

---

2. Where Billfront Is (and Isn't) a Threat

To evaluate Billfront’s threat level, we must cross-reference our losses against where our revenue actually comes from:

Customer SegmentPaying CustomersARPUMonthly Revenue% of Total MRR
:---:---:---:---:---
Freelancer5,800$11$63,80042.7%
Small Business3,100$24$74,40049.9%
Agency (Multi-Currency)240$46$11,0407.4%
Total9,140—$149,240100%

#### Where Billfront is a real threat: * Multi-Currency Agencies: Billfront launched multi-currency invoicing with live FX in March and is winning on that capability. We lost 11 agency deals specifically on this feature. If an agency invoices international clients in varying currencies, we currently do not compete.

#### Where Billfront is NOT a threat: * Freelancers and Domestic SMBs: These two groups generate 92.6% of our revenue ($138k MRR). Out of 110 pipeline trials in these segments, Billfront took only 6 deals (5.5%). * Billfront’s starting tier is $12/month (vs. our $9/month). The 6 price losses suggest confusion around feature gating between our tiers rather than Billfront undercutting our baseline price.

---

3. Where Billfront Is Heading

Billfront’s public positioning and hiring roadmap reveal an explicit upmarket strategy: * Positioning: Rebranded to "Invoicing for global teams", with agency-only case studies. * Recent Releases: Client portal (June), multi-currency (March). * Hiring: Actively recruiting 4 engineers for "global payments" and 2 for "agency workflows".

Billfront is vacating the simple domestic SMB and freelancer market to become specialized back-office software for distributed, cross-border agencies. Chasing them feature-for-feature means chasing them into an enterprise agency tier.

---

4. Strategic Recommendation: What We Should Do Instead

Matching Billfront’s entire product by Q2 would consume all engineering resources on agency workflows (portals, complex multi-currency ledgering, global payments) for our smallest segment, while leaving our 93% revenue engine vulnerable to churn and onboarding friction.

Instead, I propose a focused, dual-track plan for Q1–Q2:

#### Pillar 1: Attack the 54% "No Decision" Leak (Growth Priority) Reducing activation friction will yield 3x the revenue impact of chasing agency features: 1. Frictionless Migration Tooling: Build 1-click CSV/spreadsheet import for customer lists and open invoices to eliminate the "didn't get round to switching" barrier for SMBs. 2. Template-to-App Onboarding: Create lightweight web invoice generators that let spreadsheet users experience Tallybook’s value before forcing account creation. 3. Accountant Collaboration View: Introduce a basic accountant export/read-only seat to stop leakage to Xero.

#### Pillar 2: Selective Multi-Currency Response (Monetization Priority) We should not build custom "agency workflows," but we should neutralize the specific product gap causing deal losses: 1. Targeted Multi-Currency & Live FX: Integrate automated FX exchange rates for cross-border invoicing by Q2. 2. Package as a Premium Tier / Add-on: Billfront charges $29/mo (Pro) and $59/mo (Team) for this. We can package multi-currency into a dedicated $49/mo "International Tier" or a paid add-on, immediately lifting agency ARPU without bloating the product for domestic users.

#### Pillar 3: Audit Pricing Tiers Investigate the 6 lost deals to Billfront on price. Ensure our $9 entry plan is clearly differentiated and does not wall off basic capabilities that drive price-sensitive users away.

---

Next Steps

I recommend holding off on an across-the-board feature-parity initiative. I will deliver a detailed spec and ROI projection by Friday for (1) Migration/Switching Flow Optimization and (2) Multi-Currency Invoicing as a Premium Add-on for Q1 delivery.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Billfront is vacating the simple domestic SMB and freelancer market to become specialized back-office software for distributed, cross-border agencies.

Grades and run details

Decision model 73 · LLM judge 67
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly20%
  • passAddresses the actual decision41%
  • passRespects explicit constraints35%
  • partialIdentifies material uncertainty46%
  • failAvoids unsupported claims25%
  • passProduces the required deliverable70%
  • passFinds the real competitor96%
  • passPins down where Billfront wins100%
  • passCompetes with what customers really choose100%
  • passGets the base of every number right13%
  • partialSeparates what a rival can copy65%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
26 s
Submitted
6 Oct 2026
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 LunaAPI

Usable with a quick edit10 of 11 checks passed

The memo is clear, evidence-based, and actionable; a PM could use it with minor wording edits without rechecking data or redoing reasoning.

Output

To: Dan Whitlock Subject: Billfront: where we’re losing—and what to do by Q2

Bottom line: Billfront is a real, focused threat in multi-currency agency invoicing, and a smaller price competitor elsewhere. But it is not the main explanation for our losses overall. A plan to match every feature by Q2 would spread effort across threats the deal data doesn’t support.

Who we really lose to: In 130 trial deals from the last two quarters, we won 84 and lost 46. Billfront was named in 17 losses (37%): 11 for multi-currency invoicing with live FX, and six for price. The other 29 losses were to no decision (16), spreadsheets or Word templates (9), and an accountant’s preference for Xero (4). In other words, stalled switching and familiar alternatives together account for more losses than Billfront.

These are recorded reasons from trial deals, not a complete view of the market. But they argue for fixing activation and switching friction alongside competitive product work—not treating every loss as a feature gap.

Where Billfront is a real threat: The signal is concentrated in agencies. Of 20 agency multi-currency deals, 11 were lost to Billfront specifically because prospects needed invoicing in several currencies with live rates. That’s a clear, repeated unmet need. The segment is small today—240 of our 9,140 customers—but its $46 average monthly revenue makes up about 7% of Tallybook MRR. It merits focused investment.

Where it isn’t: Billfront is not demonstrably beating us across freelancers and small businesses on a broad product advantage. Six price losses matter, but our public starting price is lower ($9 vs. Billfront’s $12); we don’t have enough plan-level detail to compare value or packaging. Nor should we assume we lack Billfront’s other features: the materials provided don’t document Tallybook’s feature set beyond invoicing and payments.

AreaWhat we can verify about BillfrontWhat we can verify about Tallybook
Pricing$12 Starter; $29 Pro; $59 TeamPlans from $9–$39; tier details unavailable
Multi-currency / live FXIncluded in Pro; cited in 11 lossesCapability not documented
Client portalLaunched in JuneCapability not documented
Global payments / agency workflowsHiring for both; these are signals of direction, not proof of shipped featuresCapability not documented

Where Billfront is heading: Its “invoicing for global teams” positioning, recent multi-currency and portal launches, and hiring across global payments and agency workflows point toward a broader agency platform. That makes the agency threat more likely to grow. Hiring is a roadmap signal, though—not confirmation those capabilities have shipped.

Recommendation: match the need, not the whole product.

  1. By Q2, validate and deliver a focused multi-currency offer for agencies. Start with discovery among lost and won agency prospects. If confirmed, prioritize multi-currency invoices and transparent, reliable live-rate handling; test packaging and willingness to pay before committing to a larger build. Track agency win rate and conversion, not feature count.
  2. Reduce the larger pool of avoidable losses. Improve trial onboarding, migration help, and prompts that get a first invoice sent. For Xero-driven losses, assess an integration or accountant-friendly workflow before building accounting features. These address observed losses without trying to replace established systems.
  3. Test price and packaging before cutting prices. The six Billfront price losses warrant follow-up on what customers compared and what value they perceived. Our lower entry price alone isn’t resolving those objections.
  4. Gate further parity work on evidence. Revisit portals, global payments, and agency workflows only if customer research, win/loss data, or retention shows they block adoption.

Decision: Approve a targeted agency multi-currency initiative plus switching and activation improvements—not a blanket commitment to match everything Billfront has by Q2.

Grades and run details

Decision model 95 · LLM judge 92
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly46%
  • passAddresses the actual decision86%
  • passRespects explicit constraints64%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty89%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims69%
  • passProduces the required deliverable61%
  • passFinds the real competitor85%
  • passPins down where Billfront wins93%
  • passCompetes with what customers really choose100%
  • passGets the base of every number right45%
  • partialSeparates what a rival can copy77%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
24 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 4

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

All factual claims about the current situation are taken correctly from the supplied context or derived by accurate arithmetic; the one unsupported claim is a forecast, not a current-situation fact.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

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

GPT-6 Luna · API

All factual claims about the current situation are directly supported by the supplied data or arithmetic.

Addresses the actual decisionMixedRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The output commits to a clear recommendation (don't match everything, do Pillars 1-3) but does not state what result or condition would change that call, as required.

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 Luna · API

Commits to a clear answer (targeted agency multi-currency plus switching improvements, not blanket matching) and states what would change it (further parity work gated on evidence).

Identifies material uncertaintyWrongRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The output does not name specific unknowns that could change the decision, nor say how they would be resolved or what would change the call.

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 Luna · API

Names unknowns (lack of plan detail, Tallybook feature set, hiring as signal not shipped feature) and says how to resolve (discovery with agency prospects, gating further work on evidence).

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The claim that 'Billfront is vacating the simple domestic SMB and freelancer market' is presented as an established fact, but the evidence only shows they are targeting agencies, not that they are leaving other markets.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

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

GPT-6 Luna · API

Interpretations are labelled as such (e.g., 'argue for', 'not demonstrably beating us'), and confident claims are backed by data.

All got wrong 1

Separates what a rival can copyWrongWrongWrong
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The output does not explicitly name which advantages are copyable and which are durable, nor anchor the response in the latter, as required.

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 Luna · API

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.

All got right 6

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The output is a competitive analysis memo under 900 words, addressed to the CEO, and does not propose a full feature-by-feature matching plan, respecting the brief's request to say what to do instead.

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 Luna · API

Output is a competitive analysis memo under 900 words, does not propose a full feature-by-feature matching plan, and addresses the CEO as requested.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo is complete, within 900 words, addressed to Dan, and provides a usable competitive analysis with a clear recommendation.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

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

GPT-6 Luna · API

Delivers a complete competitive analysis memo to the CEO within the word limit, with actionable recommendations.

Finds the real competitorRightRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The analysis counts losses by destination, shows 25 no-decision losses vs 17 to Billfront, and names no decision as the biggest competitor.

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 Luna · API

Counts losses by destination, shows 16 'didn't get round to switching' and 9 spreadsheets/Word templates, and names no decision as the biggest loss category.

Pins down where Billfront winsRightRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It shows Billfront's wins are concentrated in multi-currency agencies (11 of 17) and sizes the agency segment at 7.4% of MRR against freelancer and small business.

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 Luna · API

Shows Billfront wins concentrated in multi-currency agencies (11 of 17), and sizes the segment at 240 customers, ~7% of MRR.

Competes with what customers really chooseRightRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The analysis treats spreadsheets and inertia as a competitor, and draws a direction-of-travel insight (Billfront moving upmarket) that affects the recommendation.

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 Luna · API

Treats spreadsheets/doing nothing as a competitor, and gives a direction-of-travel insight (Billfront hiring signals broader agency platform, making threat likely to grow).

Gets the base of every number rightRightRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

All derived percentages and rates use the correct denominators (130 deals, 46 losses, 110 freelancer+small business trials) and check out against the data.

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 Luna · API

All derived figures (130 deals, 84 won, 46 lost, 17 Billfront, 11 multi-currency, 6 price, 29 other, 7% MRR) check out against the 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