# 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*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Interview buyers, not only your own sellers. Seller-reported loss
  reasons lean towards price and away from things the seller could
  control.
- Interview within [4 to 8 weeks] of the decision, while the buyer still
  remembers, and include wins as well as losses.
- Code every interview with the same frame (section 4) so results can be
  counted across deals. Add a code only when three or more interviews
  need it.
- Common pitfall: drawing conclusions from three interviews. State the
  number of deals behind every finding.
- This template merges the sales and product views: section 6 records
  findings for product management (`product/roadmap`,
  `product/competitive-analysis`).
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Record the period and the deals in scope so the analysis can be repeated. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Say which deals were eligible, which were interviewed and why some were not. Questions: is the sample biased towards friendly buyers or large deals? -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Ask the buyer's permission, explain how notes are used and keep them confidential. Follow your organisation's privacy notice and data protection rules for interview recordings. -->

- 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

<!-- Guidance: 30 minutes, open questions first, then specific ones. Use the buyer's words in notes. Do not defend your product during the call. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Code each interview with one primary reason and up to two secondary reasons. Define each code so two coders would choose the same one. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Count primary reasons for all decisions in scope. Where no interview happened, use the coded CRM reason and mark the source. Show the number of deals behind every percentage. -->

### 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% |

```mermaid
xychart-beta
  title "Primary loss reasons, 14 lost deals (Example)"
  x-axis ["Price", "Missing capability", "No decision", "Relationship", "Implementation"]
  y-axis "Deals" 0 --> 5
  bar [4, 3, 3, 2, 2]
```

### 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

<!-- Guidance: A finding states the pattern, the number of deals behind it and the evidence. Each action has one owner. Product findings go to the product backlog with the deal IDs as evidence. -->

| 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

<!-- Guidance: Be explicit about what the sample cannot show. -->

- [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.