Operating Principle

2–4 min read

Benchmarking Competitors Can Make You More Similar, Not Better

Benchmarking Competitors Can Make You More Similar, Not Better

Benchmarking Competitors Can Make You More Similar, Not Better

Copying a competitor’s best practices can erode the very differentiation that made your position defensible in the first place.

Copying a competitor’s best practices can erode the very differentiation that made your position defensible in the first place.

Copying a competitor’s best practices can erode the very differentiation that made your position defensible in the first place.

Benchmarking feels like disciplined improvement, but consistently adopting competitors’ practices pulls every firm in a category toward the same operating model. The result is often convergence, not advantage, with everyone competing harder on the same narrowing set of dimensions.

Benchmarking feels like disciplined improvement, but consistently adopting competitors’ practices pulls every firm in a category toward the same operating model. The result is often convergence, not advantage, with everyone competing harder on the same narrowing set of dimensions.

Benchmarking feels like disciplined improvement, but consistently adopting competitors’ practices pulls every firm in a category toward the same operating model. The result is often convergence, not advantage, with everyone competing harder on the same narrowing set of dimensions.

Benchmarking against competitors feels like exactly the kind of disciplined, evidence-based improvement a well-run firm should do. Look at what the best players are doing, adopt their strongest practices, close the gap.

Do this consistently, across an entire industry, and something less obviously useful happens. Every firm converges toward the same operating model, the same features, the same processes, because everyone benchmarked against the same set of leaders and adopted similar answers. The industry doesn’t get better at differentiating. It gets more similar, competing harder over an ever-narrower set of dimensions that all firms now share, while the actual variety that used to let customers choose meaningfully between options quietly disappears.

Explore positioning and messaging →

Operating Question

Which of your competitor’s practices have you copied recently, and did it make you more differentiated, or just more similar?

Which of your competitor’s practices have you copied recently, and did it make you more differentiated, or just more similar?

Which of your competitor’s practices have you copied recently, and did it make you more differentiated, or just more similar?

Why It Matters

Firms that benchmark reflexively, adopting whatever the leader does simply because the leader does it, are trading their own distinctive position for a safer, more average one that happens to converge with everyone else’s. Benchmarking operational efficiency is often reasonable. Benchmarking the things that are supposed to differentiate you is usually a mistake, since it erases the exact distinctiveness competitive advantage depends on.

Supporting Evidence

Michael Porter, “What Is Strategy?” (competitive convergence through imitation)

Research Notes

Some convergence is genuinely necessary, table-stakes practices that customers now expect from anyone in the category; the discipline is distinguishing those from real differentiators.

Benchmarking can still surface genuinely useful operational improvements; the risk is specifically benchmarking the dimensions meant to set you apart.

Practical Actions

Distinguish between benchmarking operational efficiency and benchmarking your actual differentiation.

Ask whether adopting a competitor’s practice moves you toward convergence or toward genuine advantage.

Protect the specific dimensions where you’re intentionally different, rather than benchmarking them away.