This article is based on Tye Davis’s talk at the Developer Marketing Summit in San Francisco. As a DMA member, you can enjoy the complete recording here.
Since giving this talk, Tye has taken on a new role as Director of Product Marketing at Harness. Congratulations, Tye!
Today, I’m going to dive into technical competitive analysis. My hope is that by the end of this article, you’ll understand how deep technical analysis can help your organization develop a better competitive strategy and improve its product strategy.
We’ll cover three key themes:
- Transparency: I spent the better part of my last five years at GitLab, and transparency was huge for us as a company. When it came to competitive and technical analysis, it was crucial that we were upfront about what we offered and what we didn’t.
This clarity helped customers figure out whether GitLab was the right tool for them. - Innovation and differentiation: This is about identifying gaps in the market and figuring out how we can offer something unique. It’s not just about what we do better than our competitors, but also about acknowledging where we fall short.
This helps us decide whether to address those shortcomings or focus on areas that align more closely with our strategic goals. - Market positioning: This is crucial for developing effective marketing and sales tactics that will help you get buy-in from developers and buyers.
How GitLab approaches competitive analysis
To give you some context, let me tell you a little about GitLab.
GitLab is unique in that it offers a single application platform, unlike many companies that offer a suite of separate products. This “one application” model is divided into nine categories, with each of these having its own set of competitors.
When I first joined GitLab, the CEO was adamant about having full visibility into every single competitor within these nine categories – we’re talking analyzing around 100 different competitors!
Our task was to conduct deep technical analyses on all of them. The idea was to have this information transparently available on the website for anyone to see.
However, with just two technical marketers at the time, this approach wasn’t sustainable. Technical marketing wasn’t solely responsible for competitive analysis; our primary focus was on demos and creating technical content for developers.
As a result, over time, our approach evolved. Instead of trying to match every competitor across all possible areas, we focused on the nine specific categories into which our product was divided. We selected the top competitor in each category and conducted a deep analysis of how we compared.
The exception was GitHub, our most frequent competitor, where we did a comprehensive analysis across all nine categories. This allowed us to address GitHub's strengths and weaknesses holistically.
Building a competitive strategy: GitLab's transparent approach
GitLab is extremely transparent about almost everything it does. If you wanted to start a startup, you could practically use GitLab’s public resources as a blueprint.
They have a massive handbook – last I checked, it was around 6,000 pages, though it’s probably even more now – that’s available to everyone. You can just Google it, and you'll find a wealth of information, including competitive strategies and how different departments within the company operate.
This level of openness is a core part of GitLab’s identity and plays a crucial role in its competitive strategy.
There are six key areas of GitLab’s competitive strategy:
- Tactics
- Assets
- ROI
- Case studies
- Partner leverage
- Products
Of these six key areas, five are public – only the tactics are private. The vast majority of GitLab’s competitive assets are out there for anyone to access.
This transparency helps eliminate any hesitation potential users might have because they can see exactly what we’re doing and where we stand. The information is all there, and anyone can read through it.
Now, let me tell you a little more about three of those six elements of GitLab’s competitive strategy: tactics, assets, and products.
Tactics
When I talk about tactics, I’m referring to the internal, private resources that technical marketing provides to sales teams. These include workshops for sales engineers, which give them the knowledge to discuss GitLab’s product in detail when facing competition, helping them articulate where it adds value.
For sales teams, it’s not about engaging in a feature-for-feature comparison – that’s not the way to win. Instead, it’s about understanding the gaps in competitors' offerings and demonstrating how GitLab can fill those gaps to create additional value.
Assets
One of the primary assets we created was comparison pages on our website. For example, if you visit the GitHub vs. GitLab comparison page, you’ll find a detailed breakdown of where GitHub excels and where we believe GitLab has the upper hand.
A lot of companies create biased comparison pages, showing all green checks for their own product while the competitor has none. We aimed to be more honest and balanced, acknowledging areas where our competitors might be stronger while clearly highlighting where we believed GitLab truly excelled.
Products
The products area of our strategy involved close collaboration with product management, which was a really exciting aspect of the work.
Since we were diving deep into competitors' tools, we were in a unique position to help product management understand what our competitors were doing that we weren’t, as well as where we were excelling.
This allowed us to make strategic suggestions – not to tell product management what to do, since they usually have a good sense of the competitive landscape themselves – but to provide insights from our in-depth analysis.
This collaboration was not just about competitive strategy; it also influenced product strategy by identifying gaps in our toolset that we might need to address or deciding if certain features wouldn’t be relevant in the future.
The four goldmine areas of competitive analysis
So, how did we go about this analysis? There were four "goldmine" areas that were essential to building out our competitive strategy. So, what were these four intelligence goldmines? Let’s take a look.
Goldmine #1: Product demos
One of our primary tasks was to gather product demos from our competitors. If these demos were readily available on their websites, we’d analyze them directly. If not, or if they were gated, we turned to YouTube, which is often where the most current product demos can be found.
Goldmine #2: External technical blogs, forums, and release notes
We also gathered insights from external technical blogs and forums, like Hacker News and Reddit, where developers tend to share honest opinions about the products they use.
These sources provided a wealth of real-world feedback, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of our own products as well as those of our competitors.
Goldmine #3: Free versions of competing products
Additionally, we explored free versions of competitors’ products – within legal bounds, of course. Some products have fine print in their terms and conditions, prohibiting their use for competitive comparisons, so we had to tread carefully.
This hands-on approach was the most accurate way to see what was actually out there and understand how developers were using and comparing different tools.
Goldmine #4: Analyst research
We also made use of analytics and research reports like Gartner’s Magic Quadrants and Forrester Waves. These reports, based on demo evaluations and other assessments, offered valuable insights into how products were perceived in the market. They often provided a mix of positives and negatives that we could leverage in our own competitive strategy.
Using competitive analysis to build transparent comparison pages
So, once we had this wealth of information, what did we do with it? One key part of our strategy was building comparison pages. Let’s take a look at an example comparing GitLab to GitHub.
At the top of these comparison pages, we’d highlight where we believed GitLab excelled, such as in source code management. Below that, we’d break down the comparison into the nine different categories that GitLab defines itself by, from planning and creating to verifying and releasing.
Essentially, we mapped out the entire software development lifecycle, from idea to production, showing how GitLab supports each stage. For example, in areas like code reviews and wikis, we got very granular, providing visibility into each specific feature.
However, our goal wasn't just to compare features directly. We focused on highlighting the value of those features.
So, we didn’t just list out features tit-for-tat. Instead, we provided our perspective on GitHub and the value it offers, acknowledging where they excel and where we do.
For instance, we might point out that GitLab excels in infrastructure, making it particularly enterprise-ready, but also note where we lack maturity, such as in feature-rich Web IDEs and remote environments.
Crucially, we also followed up with how we were addressing any gaps. For example, we would reference GitLab’s product roadmap, showing what we were doing to improve and where we were headed. We’d even direct users to GitLab’s release system if they wanted to see the progress we were making firsthand.
How we used our technical and competitive research
The research we conducted in technical marketing was used across the board:
- Board presentations: As a multibillion-dollar company, especially post-IPO, the board wanted to understand the competitive landscape. We compiled our findings into a detailed 100-page analysis, which we then distilled into a shorter format for our largest investors to grasp the key points.
- External availability: It was crucial that this information was also made available externally. Transparency, as mentioned earlier, is a core part of GitLab’s approach, so making sure stakeholders outside the company could access relevant competitive information was important.
- Internal enablement: We needed to equip our internal teams, especially sales and marketing, with the best possible assets. This meant ensuring they had access to the insights and tools needed to effectively compete in the market.
Creating impactful demos and emphasizing value through transparency
Before we wrap up, let me share one last way that we communicated the value of GitLab's features.
We created short-form demos that were directly aligned with our pricing tiers – Free, Premium, and Ultimate. For instance, if you were looking at the Premium tier, one of the selling points was faster code reviews.
The technical marketing team created quick, three to four-minute demos showcasing the specific features that enabled faster code reviews. These demos were not just about showing off the product – they were about tying those features to real value.
By watching these brief videos, our users could see the product in action and understand how it would benefit them, like improving code review times or providing more advanced security testing.
These demos were well-received in a couple of key ways. First, they were a great resource for our sales teams. Sales reps could follow up with prospects by sending them a quick video, like, "Hey, are you interested in feature flags? Here’s a short video on how they work." This kept the conversation going and made it easier for prospects to visualize the benefits.
Second, these demos were valuable for external audiences searching for information on how to use specific GitLab features. Developers often look for educational content, not marketing fluff, so these demos served as practical guides while subtly showcasing GitLab's broader capabilities.
Revisiting the three key themes: Transparency, innovation, and market positioning
To tie it all together, let’s go back to the three themes I’ve mentioned repeatedly: transparency, innovation, and market positioning.
Transparency was at the heart of everything we did. By diving deep into product analysis, we could identify where we were excelling, where we were missing features, and how we could improve. This openness allowed us to have meaningful conversations with product management and influence the product strategy.
Innovation was another crucial aspect. By understanding our competitors and our own product in detail, we could pinpoint areas for improvement and work closely with the product team to ensure our roadmap aligned with customer needs.
Finally, market positioning was key, especially for the developers or security engineers using our tools. It’s not just about selling another tool; it’s about showing them how GitLab makes their daily work easier and more efficient.
For instance, instead of worrying about plugins breaking or managing integrations, they could use GitLab’s unified platform and save valuable time. The value here is clear: by simplifying their workflow, they can focus more on what they do best – developing great software.
Through these strategies – creating targeted, educational content, embracing transparency, fostering innovation, and positioning our product effectively – we were able to show the real value of GitLab to our users and stand out in a competitive market.
