Competitive battlecard template

The template

Copy this block into a doc. The template and the steps under it are our own battlecard method, the one the Battlecard tool on this site runs.

# Battlecard: <Competitor>

**Last reviewed:** YYYY-MM-DD   **Review by:** YYYY-MM-DD (30 days)
**Buyer seat:** <one seat>
**Built from:** <competitor profile file and its date>

## One-line read
<who they are and when they show up in deals>

## Where they win
- <strength>. Source: <url>, checked YYYY-MM-DD

## Where we win
- <strength>. Proof: <source>, checked YYYY-MM-DD

## Our honest weaknesses against them
- <weakness, stated plainly>

## Three traps
1. <trap>. Instead: <what to do>
2. <trap>. Instead: <what to do>
3. <trap>. Instead: <what to do>

## The real objections
| Objection, in the buyer's words | The honest answer | When to walk |
|---|---|---|

## Discovery questions
1. <question>

## Claims cut for lack of proof
- <claim removed>: restore with <evidence>

## Sources
| Claim | Source | Checked |
|---|---|---|

## Refresh log
- YYYY-MM-DD: <created or refreshed, and what changed>

How to fill each slot

1. Gather the three inputs first. The method will not start without a competitor profile no older than 30 days, your current messaging, and real objections from calls that happened. If one is missing, it names it, names who can supply it, and stops. It never writes a stub card.
2. Fill the header. Last reviewed is today and Review by is 30 days out. Pick one buyer seat. If a practitioner picks the product and an executive signs, note both and say which one this card serves.
3. Write the one-line read. One sentence on who they are and when they show up in deals. If you need two, the profile has not answered its question yet.
4. Fill where they win. List what a buyer would actually choose them for, each with a public source and the date you checked it. "Bigger brand" does not count.
5. Fill where we win. Hold your side to the same standard, and map each line to a claim already in your messaging. A win you cannot prove moves down to claims cut.
6. Write at least one honest weakness. Use the same plain type you used for theirs. The method calls this the point of the card, because the seller already knows where you are strong.
7. Write three traps. Each trap names the feature comparison you lose, the question that makes you look evasive, or their claim that sounds unanswerable. Each one ends with what to do instead.
8. Answer the real objections. Every row has the buyer's words, the honest answer, and a when-to-walk line: the point where the honest answer is "we are not the right fit". Never discredit a product the buyer already owns.
9. Write three to five discovery questions. They surface the difference early, before the buyer frames the deal on the rival's terms.
10. List claims cut for lack of proof. Each removed claim stays visible, with the evidence that would restore it. A rival claim you cannot verify is labelled UNVERIFIED or cut. Two sources that disagree go to a person and get marked CONFLICT, ESCALATED with the date.
11. Close with sources, a log and a cut. Every rival claim gets a source and a check date. Cut until the card fits one page, then add a refresh log line. Someone other than the author reads it before sellers do.

Worked sample: ClickUp's Asana comparison page

In our view, a public vendor comparison page is the closest public copy to a battlecard, since real cards stay inside sales teams. We read ClickUp's page for the slots a card would fill. The hero reads:

"The work management platform you won't outgrow."

"The Asana alternative with tasks, docs, chat, time tracking, and AI in one Workspace that keeps up as you grow."

Read on 2026-10-13. Source: ClickUp vs. Asana comparison page. The address in our plan, clickup.com/compare/asana-alternative, redirected here that day.

Further down, a list headed "When Asana may fit better" says:

"Your team prefers a focused project setup over combining Docs, Chat, and time tracking."

"You have two users and value Asana Personal's unlimited storage with a 100MB per-file limit."

"You need more than 500 active rules on ClickUp Unlimited. Asana Starter lists unlimited rules."

Read on 2026-10-13. Source: ClickUp vs. Asana comparison page

What the copy does well. The "When Asana may fit better" list is the template's Where they win slot, written in plain type. Each line is something a buyer could check. The same three lines also read as when-to-walk lines. The page names a storage trade-off on ClickUp's own free plan, which fills the honest weakness slot. Its comparison table shows a last-updated date and says when prices were checked. That covers the header and the Sources slot. The hero names the rival outright.

What is missing, against the template. The page speaks to several readers, and its verdict table sorts five team types. A card serves one seat. It has no traps, no objections in a buyer's words and no discovery questions. In our view, a page for buyers does not need them, and a card for sellers does. "Won't outgrow" and "keeps up as you grow" are promises about the future. In our view, no source on a card could back them as written, so the template moves them to claims cut.

The fix, as a filled-in card. Each slot uses the page's words or stays a question. On a real card, check each Asana line against Asana's own pages too.

# Battlecard: Asana
Last reviewed: 2026-10-13   Review by: 2026-11-12 (30 days)
Buyer seat: [one seat: needs a choice]
Built from: [competitor profile and date: needs a profile]

## One-line read
[when Asana shows up in your deals: needs call evidence]

## Where they win
- A focused project setup, for teams that do not want Docs, Chat and
  time tracking combined. Source: clickup.com/compare/asana-vs-clickup,
  checked 2026-10-13
- Unlimited rules on Asana Starter. Source: same page, checked 2026-10-13

## Where we win
- Tasks, docs, chat, time tracking and AI in one Workspace.
  Proof: same page, checked 2026-10-13

## Our honest weaknesses against them
- Free plan storage is 60MB total. Source: same page, checked 2026-10-13

## Three traps
1. [the feature comparison we lose: needs call evidence]
2. [the question that makes us look evasive: needs call evidence]
3. [their claim that sounds unanswerable: needs call evidence]

## The real objections
| [buyer's words: needs real calls] | [honest answer] | Walk if: two users who value free storage |

## Claims cut for lack of proof
- "won't outgrow": restore with [evidence a buyer can check]

The open slots are the point. The method takes objections only from calls that happened. In our view, no public page can supply the traps either.

Common mistakes

• Building from memory. The method builds the card from a dated profile, never from fresh research. Build or refresh the profile first.
• Leaving our side flawless. The quality bar asks for at least one honest weakness. Write it before the seller meets it on a call.
• Inventing objections. Use only objections from calls that happened, in the buyer's words. Ask sales for them.
• Dropping the when-to-walk column. Every objection row needs one. In our view, a card without it teaches sellers to bluff.
• Smoothing over a conflict. The method bans "reportedly" and "some users say" as cover for sources that disagree. Escalate the conflict and mark it with the date.
• Letting it run to two pages. The method keeps a card to one page so a seller can use it mid-call. Cut until it fits.

Questions people ask

Is there a free battlecard template?

Yes. The block at the top of this page costs nothing to copy into a doc. Whichever template you use, check that it has two slots: our honest weaknesses and when to walk. In our view, a card without them flatters your side and loses the seller's trust the first time a buyer pushes back. The Battlecard tool builds a card from your inputs: where they win and where you win, three traps, the real objections and questions to ask on the call.

Can you provide some examples of sales battlecards?

In our view, real cards rarely go public, because they hold call notes and private objections. We think the closest public copy is a vendor's comparison page, like the ClickUp sample above. Read one against the template. In our view, a public page fills where they win and the dated sources, but not the traps, the objections or when to walk.

What is the purpose of a battle card?

In our method, a card helps a seller on a live call against one named rival. It shows where you win, where they win, the traps, and the language to use. It warns the seller where they are about to get hit. The full definition, with what a card is not, is on our sales battlecard guide.

Sources

• ClickUp vs. Asana comparison page, ClickUp, https://clickup.com/compare/asana-vs-clickup, read 2026-10-13
• Google results for "competitive battlecard template" (People also ask, People also search for), https://www.google.com/search?q=competitive+battlecard+template, read 2026-10-13
• Our battlecard method skill and the Battlecard tool on this site (ours, read 2026-10-14)