Marketing automation competitor research checklist

Marketing automation competitor research should answer a commercial question, not produce a wall of logos. A useful dossier distinguishes provider claims, official records, reviewer observations and unknowns.

No platforms were tested for this checklist. It does not rank suppliers, estimate market share or report customer outcomes.

What to take away

Define the category by a job and audience before you include any provider.
Separate official records, provider statements, observed tests and unknowns in every worksheet.
A live company record does not prove product quality, solvency or operational capability.
Finish with evidence gaps and the next test, not a league table.
Recheck volatile product pages immediately before publication or procurement.

Set the inclusion rule

Write the decision firstpositioning, product scope, route to market or procurement preparation.
Define the category through a job, such as triggered journey orchestration or lead hand-off, rather than a broad software label.
State geography, customer type and research date.
Include providers only when a dated first-party page shows that they offer the relevant function to the chosen audience.
Record exclusions. A consultancy, email utility or analytics product may be adjacent without meeting the category rule.

Changing the inclusion test after seeing attractive examples biases the result. Keep an exclusion log so another analyst can reproduce the set.

Inclusion rule decision

Does a dated first-party page show the function?

Yes

Include provider in the set

Record exclusion in the log

Verify identity before comparing claims

Find the legal entity rather than assuming it matches a brand name.
Use the Companies House company information service to check records such as registered address, incorporation date, officers, filing images and previous names for UK companies.
Note that a live company record does not prove product quality, solvency or operational capability.
Check the UK Intellectual Property Office trade mark search when naming and brand-confusion questions matter.
Keep company numbers and trade mark owners in separate fields; ownership structures can differ.

These official services establish particular public records. They do not verify every commercial statement on a supplier website.

Identity verification steps

Find the legal entity, not the brand
Check Companies House company records
Check IPO trade mark search
Keep company numbers and owners separate
Note records do not prove quality

Capture product evidence consistently

For a marketing automation platform review, make the chosen functions explicit. Depending on the buying question, assess journey and campaign building, audience segmentation, lead hand-off or lead scoring, channel coverage, integrations, reporting, and consent and preference controls. Capture only what a dated provider source supports; test usability or performance separately.

For each included provider, save the URL, page title, access date, intended audience, described function, packaging unit, integration claim and documented limitation. Link directly to the provider's own feature, help, security or terms page. A search-result snippet is not adequate evidence.

Four evidence states

Official record

What it is: Legal identity
Example: Company number
Use for: Identity

Provider statement

What it is: Supplier claim
Example: Feature page
Use for: Capability

Observed test

What it is: Dated test result
Example: Repeatable test
Use for: Performance

Unknown

What it is: No evidence
Example: Not found
Use for: Gap log

Use the same criteria for all entries. If one provider has a clear retention page and another does not, enter "not found in reviewed material" for the second. Do not convert missing evidence into a negative claim. Likewise, a documented feature is evidence of availability, not usability or performance.

Separate four evidence states in the worksheet:

Official record:legal identity or registered right.
Provider statement:capability, packaging or policy asserted by the supplier.
Observed test:a dated result from a disclosed, repeatable test.
Unknown:no suitable evidence located within the defined review.

This article contains no observed-test results. Future hands-on work should state account type, configuration, data set, task, date and pass condition.

Examine routes to market

Record whether the provider sells directly, through partners or as managed delivery, using current first-party evidence.
Distinguish a free trial from a free operating tier and a public price from a negotiated quote.
Note the billing unit without copying a headline price into a long-lived comparison.
Capture implementation, data migration, training, support and exit as separate workstreams.
Identify which claims apply globally and which page is genuinely UK-specific.

Do not infer England revenue from customer logos, web traffic or a UK office. None provides a defensible regional market share.

Review public-facing comparisons carefully

Competitor pages often compare a supplier with named alternatives. Treat each as that supplier's marketing, not independent research. Preserve the date and criteria, check cited facts against the named provider's own record, and remove claims that cannot be substantiated.

Where research will inform consumer-facing advertising, the Competition and Markets Authority's current unfair commercial practices guidance is a relevant publication-review input. Its scope is business-to-consumer conduct under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Business-to-business teams still need specialist advice on the rules and contracts applying to their actual claims.

Finish with gaps, not a winner

The final page of the dossier should list evidence gaps, claims needing qualified review, and the next test that could change the decision. A provider can be strong on the selected criteria without being suitable for every buyer. Avoid a league table unless the weighting was set in advance and every score has comparable evidence.

Assign an owner and refresh date to each record. Recheck volatile product pages immediately before publication or procurement. A compact, auditable comparison is more useful than an apparently comprehensive matrix built from unverified repetition.

Before you act

Write the decision before you start collecting providers.
Record exclusions so another analyst can reproduce the set.
Save the URL, access date and evidence state for each claim.
Enter not found in reviewed material instead of a negative claim.
Treat competitor comparison pages as that supplier's marketing.
Assign an owner and refresh date to each record.

Common questions

What should the inclusion rule for competitor research define?

Write the decision first, such as positioning, product scope, route to market or procurement preparation. Define the category through a job rather than a broad software label. State geography, customer type and research date. Include providers only when a dated first-party page shows the relevant function for the chosen audience.

How should missing evidence about a provider be recorded?

Use the same criteria for all entries. If one provider has a clear retention page and another does not, enter not found in reviewed material for the second. Do not convert missing evidence into a negative claim. A documented feature is evidence of availability, not usability or performance.

Why should a dossier avoid a league table of suppliers?

Avoid a league table unless the weighting was set in advance and every score has comparable evidence. A provider can be strong on the selected criteria without being suitable for every buyer. The final page should list evidence gaps, claims needing qualified review and the next test that could change the decision.