Pulse Payroll against two rivals
Competitor benchmark slide drawn as a radar on six axes
A radar chart is persuasive and easy to rig, so the honest version scores every competitor on the same axes with the same method and says what the method was. This one benchmarks Pulse Payroll, a fictional payroll product, against two fictional rivals on six axes scored by the same ten payroll managers.
What is on the slide
- Headline
- Pulse Against Two Rivals, with the framing line naming the method as six axes scored one to five by ten payroll managers in July.
- Pulse Payroll
- Price 3.4, onboarding 4.6, integrations 3.1, support 4.4, reporting 3.8, compliance 4.7.
- Ledgerwise
- Price 4.2, onboarding 3.2, integrations 4.5, support 3.1, reporting 4.4, compliance 3.9.
- Paybridge
- Price 2.8, onboarding 3.6, integrations 3.9, support 3.8, reporting 3.0, compliance 4.2.
- Observations
- Six notes, one per axis, each naming the products and the gap, including the two axes where Pulse trails.
When this is the right slide
A radar suits a capability comparison where every axis uses one scale and the shape of the trade off is more useful than any single score.
What to swap it for
Comparison: Feature Matrix Table. Swap to a feature matrix when the reader needs to know exactly what each product does rather than how a panel scored it.
What this slide shows
The headline reads Pulse Against Two Rivals with the method line underneath. A radar chart fills the left of the canvas with six spokes labelled price, onboarding, integrations, support, reporting and compliance, a radial scale running from zero, and three translucent shapes, one per product, with a legend beneath. Pulse Payroll scores 3.4, 4.6, 3.1, 4.4, 3.8 and 4.7. Ledgerwise scores 4.2, 3.2, 4.5, 3.1, 4.4 and 3.9. Paybridge scores 2.8, 3.6, 3.9, 3.8, 3.0 and 4.2. On the right, under a small uppercase label reading WHAT THE SHAPE SHOWS, six cards each carry an axis name and one sentence: onboarding runs a week against a month, compliance is the highest score on the chart, support differs on pay run day cover, reporting sits in the middle, price favours Ledgerwise because Pulse charges per pay run, and integrations trails because there is no rostering connector yet.
Who this slide is for and when to use it
Product strategy sessions, board reviews of competitive position and the internal half of a sales enablement pack. The audience is deciding where to invest, so the shape of the trade off matters more than any single score. A radar is a poor choice for a customer facing comparison, where a buyer wants to know what each product does rather than how a panel rated it, and a feature matrix answers that far better. It is also a poor choice with more than three products, since translucent shapes stack into an unreadable mesh, or with fewer than five axes, where a simple bar chart per dimension is clearer and less open to the criticism that the axes were chosen to flatter.
How to adapt it
First, fix the axes before you collect the scores, and use axes a customer would recognise. Choosing dimensions after seeing the results is how a radar becomes a sales graphic. Second, keep one scale across every axis, here one to five, and state it. Mixing a five point score with a percentage on the same radar produces a shape that means nothing. Third, order the axes deliberately and keep that order for every future version, because the same scores in a different axis order produce a visibly different shape, which is the most common criticism of radar charts. If the audience needs specifics rather than a shape, move to a feature matrix table, where each row is a capability and each column a product, and nobody has to interpret an area.
What makes this slide work
The method is on the slide
Six axes, scored one to five by the same ten payroll managers in July, is the line that separates a benchmark from a marketing graphic. It tells the reader who scored, how many of them, on what scale and when, in fewer than twenty words, and it means the two axes where Pulse loses were scored by the same people who scored the four it wins.
Two of the six observations are losses
Price gives Ledgerwise 4.2 against Pulse at 3.4, and integrations gives Ledgerwise 4.5 against Pulse at 3.1 with the note that there is still no rostering connector. A radar where one shape encloses the others on every axis is read as advertising, and the two admitted gaps are what make the four wins believable.
Every observation names an axis
The six notes are labelled ONBOARDING, COMPLIANCE, SUPPORT, REPORTING, PRICE and INTEGRATIONS, matching the axis labels exactly. A reader can go from a point on the chart to the sentence that explains it without hunting, which is the only way a radar with three overlapping shapes stays usable.
Questions people ask
Are radar charts honest?
They can be, if the axes are fixed in advance, the scale is the same on every spoke, and the method is stated. They become dishonest when the axis set is chosen after the scoring or when the order is arranged so one product's shape looks larger. Area on a radar is not a meaningful total, so never quote it as an overall score.
How many competitors fit on one radar?
Two or three shapes, including yours. This slide shows three. A fourth shape means four translucent layers and no reader can trace an individual line through the overlap. If you need to compare six products, use a feature matrix or a small multiple with one radar per product on a shared scale.
How many axes should a benchmark use?
Five to eight. Six is comfortable and keeps the labels readable. Below five the polygon degenerates into a triangle and comparison gets crude; above eight the labels crowd and the shape becomes a circle for every product, which is exactly when a reader stops learning anything from the picture.
Where should the scores come from?
From a defined panel or a defined test, described on the slide. Ten payroll managers scoring the same six axes in one month is reproducible. Scores assembled by a product team from memory are not, and the first competitor who sees the slide will say so. If the panel is small, say how small rather than rounding the count away.
Should you show the axes where you lose?
Yes. Two of these six favour a rival, and saying so is what makes the other four credible. It also produces better internal decisions, because a radar that encloses every competitor on every axis tells the team nothing about where to invest next and tells an experienced board that the scoring was not independent.
Can a radar be used with customers?
It is usually the wrong tool. Buyers want to know what a product does, not how it scored, and a radar invites a rival to publish their own version with different axes. A feature matrix with plain rows is harder to argue with, and the radar keeps its value as an internal picture of where the trade offs sit.
Build your own in about a minute
The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.
Make one like thisOther slide examples
Sales by region slide with four regions on vertical bars
Bars are for comparing things that sit side by side, and the first decision on a regional sales slide is what order to put them in. This one shows two quarters for four regions at Hartley Uniforms, a fictional workwear supplier, sorted so the weak region lands last.
Market share slide drawn as a donut with five slices
A market share slide is honest when the slices add to the whole market and dishonest the moment a category is quietly left out. This one covers a fictional regional pet insurance market, with four named insurers and every remaining company folded into one slice that is labelled as such.
Revenue trend slide with twelve months on one line chart
A revenue trend slide is read for its shape before anyone reads a single value, so the job is to make the shape true and then label the one month that breaks it. This one covers a year of wholesale and retail revenue at Harbour Coffee Roasters, a fictional roastery, on two lines that never cross.
Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts, maps and diagrams to slides, then Edit your deck with the AI assistant. For everything this generator can do, see the slide maker.
Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .