# Peer Benchmarking

> Compares a company's key financial ratios against true peer medians and quartiles, flagging which peers were excluded and why, so the read is defensible rather than a single flattering comparison. Use whenever the user wants to benchmark a company against competitors, needs a peer comparison for a board deck or investor update, or has a benchmarking claim with no stated peer set or exclusion logic behind it.

- Skill: `natan-mohart/peer-benchmarking` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add natan-mohart/peer-benchmarking`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/natan-mohart/peer-benchmarking/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: Natan-Mohart (https://skillmd.com/u/natan-mohart)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/natan-mohart/peer-benchmarking

---


# Peer Benchmarking

## When to use
Use whenever a performance claim needs external context, "our margin is strong" means nothing without knowing what peers actually post, or when preparing a board or investor update that will get challenged on comparability. Also use to check a benchmarking claim someone else made, where the peer set and exclusions were never stated.

## What it does
Builds a defensible peer comparison: a real peer set (not cherry-picked), calendarized to the same period, with median and quartile ranges per metric, and an explicit note on which companies were excluded and why. The output is a range with a position in it, not a single flattering number lifted from the best comparison available.

## Method
1. **Define the peer set by real comparability criteria** — similar business model, similar scale (revenue or headcount band), similar growth stage, similar geography — not just "companies in the same industry label."
2. **State exclusions explicitly.** If a company in the obvious peer group is excluded (different fiscal year, recent M&A distorting the numbers, private and unreported), name it and why. An unexplained exclusion is exactly how benchmarking gets cherry-picked.
3. **Calendarize before comparing.** Companies with different fiscal year ends are not directly comparable on a raw calendar-quarter basis — align to trailing twelve months or the nearest common period.
4. **Compute median and quartile range per metric**, not just an average — an average can be dragged by one outlier peer; the quartile range shows where the real distribution sits.
5. **Place the subject company's actual number inside that range** and state the percentile plainly: "24th percentile on gross margin" is a finding; "below average" is not.
6. **Separate metrics where the company is structurally different** (different revenue recognition, different capital intensity) — flag these instead of forcing a comparison that isn't apples-to-apples.
7. **State what the benchmark implies for action**, not just where the company sits — a bottom-quartile metric with a plausible structural explanation needs different follow-up than one with no explanation at all.

## Inputs
- The company's own financials for the metrics being benchmarked
- Candidate peer companies with comparability rationale
- Peer financial data (public filings, industry surveys, or available comparables)
- The specific metrics that matter for this comparison

## Output format
Peer set with comparability rationale; explicit exclusion list with reasons; calendarized metric table; median and quartile range per metric; subject company's percentile position per metric; a plain read on what the position implies.

## Example
A SaaS company claims "our gross margin beats the industry" citing one hand-picked competitor. Rebuilding the peer set with eight comparable companies (similar ARR band, similar go-to-market motion) calendarized to trailing twelve months shows the company actually sits at the 40th percentile, not top of class — the original claim relied on comparing against the one peer with unusually low margin, not a representative set.

## Common pitfalls
- Comparing against whichever peer happens to look most favorable instead of a defensible, stated peer set.
- Averaging instead of showing the quartile range, hiding how spread out the real comparison actually is.
- Comparing raw numbers across different fiscal year ends without calendarizing first.