Win-Loss Analysis Template

Sample and win rate, consent, buyer interview guide, reason coding frame, coded results by reason and competitor, deal log, findings, limitations

VertriebStandardwin loss analysisAktualisiert 29.10.2026

Im Editor öffnen.md herunterladen

Anleitung: Use it each half-year or quarter to learn why deals are won and lost, for sales and product teams. Fill the coding frame before the interviews and interview buyers, not only sellers. The main pitfall is drawing conclusions from a handful of interviews without stating the deal count.

Vorschau

Win-Loss Analysis: [Product or segment] [Period]

A structured review of why deals are won and lost: the programme scope, a buyer interview guide, a coding frame of reasons, the coded results across deals, and the actions for sales, product and marketing that follow. Based on common win-loss analysis practice used by sales and product teams. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Field	Value
Analysis ID	[WLA-YYYY-NN]
Scope	[Segment, region, product, deal size]
Period	[Decisions from YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD]
Version	[1.0]
Owner	[@product-marketing or @sales-operations]
Reviewers	[@sales-leader], [@product-leader]
Interviewer	[Internal, not the deal's seller / External firm]
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD
Classification	[Internal; interview notes confidential]

Revision history

Version	Date	Author	Change
1.0 (Example)	2027-01-22	Product marketing	H2 2026 analysis, 24 deals

1. Scope and sample

Measure	Value (Example)
Decisions in period (above [minimum deal size])	24
Won	10
Lost (including no decision)	14
Win rate	41.7%
Buyer interviews completed	16 of 24 (66.7%)
Interviews: wins and losses	7 wins, 9 losses

2. Consent and privacy

Explain the purpose: to learn how to serve buyers better, not to re-open the deal.
Ask permission before recording. Store recordings and notes with restricted access and delete them after [period].
Report findings without naming the buyer's organisation or people unless they agreed.

3. Interview guide

ID	Question	Probe
IQ-01	What problem were you trying to solve, and why then?	What would have happened if you did nothing?
IQ-02	How did you find and shortlist the options?	Who was involved, and what did each person care about?
IQ-03	What criteria mattered most in the final decision?	Did the criteria change during the process?
IQ-04	How did each option compare on those criteria?	Where did we fall short, or stand out?
IQ-05	How did you experience our sales process?	Was anything confusing, slow or especially helpful?
IQ-06	How did pricing and terms influence the decision?	Was it price, or value for the price?
IQ-07	What was the single deciding factor?	If we changed one thing, would the outcome change?
IQ-08	What advice would you give us?	Anything else we should have asked?

4. Coding frame

Code	Reason	Definition
WL-PRD	Product fit	Capabilities matched or failed the buyer's key requirements
WL-CAP	Missing capability	A specific required feature was absent
WL-PRC	Price and value	Price, or value for the price, decided the outcome
WL-IMP	Implementation	Speed, risk or effort of going live decided the outcome
WL-REL	Relationship	An existing relationship or trust in a vendor decided the outcome
WL-REF	References and proof	Comparable customers or proof points decided the outcome
WL-NDC	No decision	The buyer kept the status quo or stopped the project
WL-SLS	Sales process	Responsiveness, understanding or conduct of the sales team decided the outcome

5. Results

5.1 Primary reasons

Outcome	Code	Deals (Example)	Share of outcome
Won	WL-PRD	4	40.0%
Won	WL-IMP	3	30.0%
Won	WL-REF	2	20.0%
Won	WL-PRC	1	10.0%
Lost	WL-PRC	4	28.6%
Lost	WL-CAP	3	21.4%
Lost	WL-NDC	3	21.4%
Lost	WL-REL	2	14.3%
Lost	WL-IMP	2	14.3%

5.2 Win rate by main competitor

Main competitor	Won	Lost	Win rate (Example)
Competitor X	4	6	40.0%
Competitor Y	3	3	50.0%
None or status quo	3	5	37.5%
Total	10	14	41.7%

5.3 Deal log

Deal	Outcome	Competitor	Primary code	Secondary codes	Source	Buyer quote (paraphrased)
DEAL-201 (Example)	Lost	Competitor X	WL-CAP	WL-PRC	Interview	Needed multi-currency invoicing from day one
DEAL-202 (Example)	Won	Competitor Y	WL-IMP	WL-REF	Interview	Your pilot was live in two weeks
[ID]	[Won / Lost]	[Name]	[Code]	[Codes]	[Interview / CRM]	[Short paraphrase]

6. Findings and actions

ID	Finding	Deals	Action	Owner	Due
FND-01 (Example)	Losses coded WL-PRC often followed a late first price discussion	4	Share a price range by stage S2 (`sales/pipeline-forecast-review`)	Sales leader	2027-03-31
FND-02 (Example)	Multi-currency invoicing missing	3	Assess for the roadmap with deal IDs as evidence	Product leader	2027-02-28
FND-03 (Example)	Fast pilots win	3	Turn the two-week pilot into a standard offer	Solutions lead	2027-03-31
FND-[NN]	[Finding]	[N]	[Action]	[Owner]	YYYY-MM-DD

7. Limitations

[16 interviews; findings based on fewer than 3 deals are hypotheses.]
[Buyers who declined interviews may differ from those who agreed.]
[Deals below the size threshold are not included.]

Related templates: Opportunity Qualification (business/opportunity-qualification), Competitive Analysis (product/competitive-analysis), Root Cause Analysis (business/root-cause-analysis).

Standard and licence note

Based on common win-loss analysis practice in sales and product management. No standard governs this document; codes, questions and figures are original and illustrative. Template licence: MIT.