Choosing Competitive Intelligence Tools: What Actually Matters

My competitive intelligence tool evaluation scorecard had 40 criteria across 6 categories:

Data Collection: 8 criteria (news monitoring, web scraping, social listening, etc.) Battle Cards: 7 criteria (templates, customization, version control, etc.) Analytics: 9 criteria (win rate tracking, dashboards, trends, etc.) Integration: 6 criteria (Salesforce, Slack, SSO, API, etc.) Collaboration: 5 criteria (comments, sharing, permissions, etc.) Administration: 5 criteria (user management, billing, support, etc.)

I spent 6 weeks evaluating 12 tools: Klue, Crayon, Kompyte, SimilarWeb, Owler, and 7 others.

I scored each tool against all 40 criteria. I built comparison matrices. I calculated weighted scores.

Klue won with 87/100. Crayon was second with 82/100.

I presented the analysis to my boss with confidence: "Based on comprehensive evaluation, Klue is the clear winner."

She approved $18,000 for Klue.

Six months later, we weren't using most of the features I'd scored. And we were still spending 12 hours/week on competitive intelligence because Klue didn't reduce our workload—it just moved the work into a different tool.

I'd optimized for feature coverage instead of workflow reduction.

I'd measured what was easy to score (features) instead of what actually mattered (does this reduce my weekly workload?).

What I Thought Mattered

My evaluation criteria seemed logical:

Category 1: Data Collection

• Automated news monitoring (✓ Klue had this)
• Web scraping and tracking (✓ Klue had this)
• Social media monitoring (✓ Klue had this)
• App store review tracking (✓ Klue had this)
• Pricing change alerts (✓ Klue had this)

Klue scored 8/8. Perfect.

Category 2: Battle Card Features

• Template library (✓ Klue had 20+ templates)
• Custom fields (✓ Klue had unlimited custom fields)
• Version control (✓ Klue tracked versions)
• Approval workflows (✓ Klue had approval routing)
• Export options (✓ Klue exported to PDF, PowerPoint, Word)

Klue scored 7/7. Perfect.

I evaluated all 40 criteria this way. Klue consistently scored highest.

The problem: These criteria measured feature existence, not feature value.

Klue had automated news monitoring. But it generated 40 alerts/day, 35 of which were noise. Having the feature didn't mean it helped.

Klue had 20+ battle card templates. But they were all 8-page comprehensive templates. Sales reps wanted 1-page quick reference. Having templates didn't mean they matched our needs.

I'd scored tools on what they had, not on what I needed.

What Actually Mattered (That I Didn't Measure)

After six months with Klue, I documented what actually mattered:

1. Does it reduce my weekly time on competitive intelligence?

I never measured this during evaluation.

Before Klue: 8 hours/week on competitive intelligence After Klue: 12 hours/week

Klue increased my workload because:

• Automated alerts required filtering (4 hours/week)
• Template system was more complex than PowerPoint (3 hours/week)
• Platform administration (1 hour/week)

If I'd measured "will this reduce your weekly time investment," Klue would have scored 0/10.

2. Will sales reps actually use it?

I never tested this during evaluation.

Klue had great Salesforce integration (scored 6/6 on my integration criteria).

But sales reps didn't use it because:

• Integration was slow (8-12 seconds to load a battle card)
• Battle cards were too long (8 pages vs. 1 page they wanted)
• Easier to ask me in Slack (2 minute response vs. 30 seconds searching Klue)

If I'd measured "what percentage of sales reps will actively use this weekly," Klue would have scored 2/10 (6% weekly active users).

3. Does it integrate with my actual workflow?

I measured technical integrations (Salesforce ✓, Slack ✓, SSO ✓).

I didn't measure workflow integration: Does competitive intelligence connect to messaging, launches, enablement?

Klue was standalone. When I updated competitive positioning in Klue:

• Battle cards updated in Klue
• But messaging docs in Notion required manual update
• Sales decks in Highspot required manual update
• Launch materials in Asana required manual update

If I'd measured "how many manual steps to propagate a competitive update across all systems," Klue would have scored 3/10 (5 manual steps).

4. Does it solve my actual problem?

I evaluated tools against industry standard criteria.

I didn't evaluate: What's my actual competitive intelligence problem?

My actual problem: Sales reps don't know how to handle competitive objections in deals.

Klue's solution: Comprehensive competitor tracking, automated news, detailed battle cards.

This solves a different problem: Not knowing what competitors are doing.

I didn't have an information problem. I had a sales enablement problem.

Klue gave me more information. It didn't help sales handle objections better.

If I'd measured "does this solve my actual problem," Klue would have scored 4/10.

The Evaluation I Should Have Done

After realizing my evaluation measured the wrong things, I documented what I should have measured:

Criterion 1: Weekly time reduction

Question: Will this reduce my time spent on competitive intelligence?

How to measure:

• Track current weekly time (8 hours)
• Use trial to test actual time with tool (12 hours with Klue)
• Calculate difference: +4 hours = worse, not better

Score based on time saved, not features.

Criterion 2: Sales rep adoption

Question: Will sales reps actually use this?

How to measure:

• Give 5 sales reps access during trial
• Track usage after 2 weeks (don't remind them)
• Measure: What % used it unprompted? What % said it was helpful?

With Klue: 1 of 5 used it without reminders. Score: 2/10

Criterion 3: Workflow integration

Question: Does this integrate with my actual PMM workflow?

How to measure:

• List current tools (Notion for messaging, Highspot for enablement, Asana for launches)
• Test: When I update competitive positioning, does it auto-update other tools?
• Count manual steps required

With Klue: 5 manual steps. Score: 3/10

Criterion 4: Problem-solution fit

Question: Does this solve my specific problem?

How to measure:

• Define actual problem ("Sales reps lose deals because they can't handle competitive objections")
• Evaluate: Does this tool solve that problem?
• Ask: Is there a simpler solution?

With Klue: Doesn't solve the sales objection handling problem. Score: 3/10

Criterion 5: Total cost of ownership

Question: What's the total cost including my time?

How to measure:

• Tool cost ($18K)
• Weekly time investment (12 hours × 50 weeks × $80/hour = $48K)
• Total cost of ownership = $66K

Compare to alternatives:

• Manual process: $0 tool + 8 hours/week × $80 = $32K total
• Klue is 2x more expensive than manual when you include time

If I'd used these 5 criteria instead of 40 feature criteria, Klue would have scored 14/50.

I would not have bought Klue.

What I Learned About Tool Evaluation

After this experience, I completely changed how I evaluate tools:

Old approach:

1. List all possible features
2. Score each tool against features
3. Buy highest-scoring tool

New approach:

1. Define the problem I'm solving
2. Test whether the tool solves that problem
3. Measure total cost including my time

Example: Competitive intelligence tool evaluation

Old scorecard:

• 40 criteria
• 12 tools evaluated
• 6 weeks of analysis
• Chose tool with most features

New scorecard:

• 5 criteria (time reduction, sales adoption, workflow integration, problem fit, total cost)
• 3 tools evaluated (free trial with real work)
• 2 weeks of testing
• Chose tool with best workflow reduction

The difference:

Old approach optimized for comprehensive evaluation. New approach optimized for correct decision.

Comprehensive evaluation gave me confidence I'd evaluated thoroughly. But thorough ≠ correct.

Testing the New Approach

After learning this lesson with Klue, I re-evaluated using the new criteria:

Option 1: Klue

• Weekly time: 12 hours (worse than manual)
• Sales adoption: 6% (terrible)
• Workflow integration: 5 manual steps per update (poor)
• Problem fit: Solves information problem, not enablement problem (wrong problem)
• Total cost: $66K (expensive)
• Total score: 14/50

Option 2: Manual process (Google Docs + Spreadsheets)

• Weekly time: 8 hours (baseline)
• Sales adoption: 0% (they ask me instead)
• Workflow integration: Manual everywhere (poor)
• Problem fit: No systematic solution (doesn't solve problem)
• Total cost: $32K (time only)
• Total score: 18/50

Option 3: Consolidated PMM platform (Segment8)

• Weekly time: 3 hours (significant improvement)
• Sales adoption: 67% (battle cards embedded in Salesforce) (good)
• Workflow integration: Auto-updates messaging and enablement (excellent)
• Problem fit: Solves sales enablement problem directly (correct problem)
• Total cost: $14K ($2.4K tool + 3 hours/week time) (affordable)
• Total score: 42/50

Using the new evaluation criteria, the consolidated platform scored 3x higher than Klue.

And in practice, it worked better: 73% less time, 10x higher sales adoption, automatic workflow integration.

The lesson: Measure what matters (workflow reduction), not what's easy to measure (feature counts).

The 5 Questions That Actually Matter

After refining this approach, I now evaluate any PMM tool using 5 questions:

Question 1: Will this reduce my weekly time investment?

Test: Use it for real work for 2 weeks. Track time.

Red flag: If trial time investment is higher than current state, the tool will make things worse.

Question 2: Will the people who need to use this actually use it?

Test: Give access to 5 target users. Don't remind them. Check usage after 2 weeks.

Red flag: If <50% use it unprompted, adoption will fail.

Question 3: Does this integrate with my existing workflow?

Test: Update one piece of content. Count how many tools you need to manually update.

Red flag: If adding this tool increases manual steps, it's creating workflow fragmentation.

Question 4: Does this solve my actual problem?

Test: Define the problem specifically. Ask if this tool solves that exact problem.

Red flag: If the tool solves a different problem than you have, it won't help.

Question 5: What's the total cost of ownership?

Calculate: Tool cost + (weekly time investment × 50 weeks × $80/hour)

Red flag: If total cost exceeds value of problem solved, it's not worth it.

If a tool fails any of these 5 questions, don't buy it—even if it has all the features.

Common Evaluation Mistakes

After talking to other PMMs about tool evaluation, I found common mistakes:

Mistake 1: Evaluating features instead of workflows

"Does it have battle card templates?" (feature) vs. "Does it reduce time to create battle cards?" (workflow)

Features don't matter if they don't improve workflow.

Mistake 2: Trusting demos instead of testing with real work

Demos show ideal scenarios. Real work reveals actual friction.

Always test with your actual content and workflows.

Mistake 3: Evaluating tools in isolation

"Is Klue the best competitive intelligence tool?" vs. "Will adding Klue to our existing 7 tools reduce or increase our overall workload?"

Tool quality doesn't matter if integration tax exceeds tool benefit.

Mistake 4: Optimizing for comprehensiveness

Evaluating 12 tools against 40 criteria feels thorough. But it's measuring the wrong things comprehensively.

Better: Evaluate 3 tools against 5 criteria that actually matter.

Mistake 5: Ignoring total cost of ownership

$18K tool cost seems reasonable.

$66K total cost (tool + time) is expensive.

Always calculate time cost.

What I Do Now

Current tool evaluation process:

Step 1: Define the problem specifically

Not: "We need better competitive intelligence" But: "Sales reps lose deals because they can't handle competitive objections. We need to reduce time from 'objection raised' to 'rep has talking points' from 2 hours (asking me) to 2 minutes (self-service)."

Step 2: Identify 2-3 potential solutions

Not: 12 tools evaluated comprehensively But: 2-3 approaches (manual optimization, point solution, consolidated platform)

Step 3: Test with real work for 2 weeks

Not: Watch demos and read feature lists But: Use trial with actual competitive updates, launches, enablement work

Step 4: Measure the 5 things that matter

1. Weekly time change
2. Target user adoption
3. Workflow integration
4. Problem-solution fit
5. Total cost of ownership

Step 5: Choose the solution that scores highest

Not: Most features But: Best workflow improvement

Result: Better decisions in less evaluation time.

Old approach: 6 weeks evaluating 12 tools, chose wrong tool New approach: 2 weeks testing 3 solutions, chose right tool

Do You Need a Competitive Intelligence Tool?

After this experience, my answer changed:

Old answer: "Yes, here are 12 options compared across 40 criteria."

New answer: "What's your specific competitive intelligence problem?"

If the problem is "We don't know what competitors are doing" → Maybe a CI tool

If the problem is "Sales reps can't handle competitive objections" → Need sales enablement, not CI tool

If the problem is "Competitive updates take too long to distribute" → Need workflow integration, not more data

If the problem is "We're spending too much time on competitive intelligence" → Need consolidation, not another standalone tool

Most PMM teams have workflow problems, not information problems.

Competitive intelligence tools solve information problems.

If you have a workflow problem, no amount of competitive intelligence features will help.

The Better Evaluation Framework

Instead of 40 feature criteria, use 5 workflow criteria:

1. Time reduction: Does this reduce my weekly time investment? 2. User adoption: Will target users actually use this? 3. Workflow integration: Does this integrate with existing workflow? 4. Problem fit: Does this solve my actual problem? 5. Total cost: What's the full cost including my time?

Score each 1-10. Total possible: 50 points.

Threshold: If a tool scores <30/50, don't buy it.

My results using this framework:

• Klue: 14/50 (didn't buy)
• Manual optimization: 18/50 (not good enough)
• Consolidated platform: 42/50 (bought)

The framework works because it measures what matters: workflow improvement, not feature coverage.

I spent $18,000 and six months learning to measure the right things.

You don't have to.

Before you evaluate competitive intelligence tools (or any PMM tools), ask:

• What's my actual problem?
• Will more features solve it?
• Or do I need better workflow integration?

Most PMM teams need workflow integration, not feature proliferation.

Evaluate for workflow reduction, not feature counts.

That's what actually matters.