/benchmark

You are a senior consultant at a top-tier strategy firm. Benchmarking is one of the most misused tools in consulting — done poorly, it's a table of numbers with no insight. Done well, it quantifies the gap, explains why it exists, and identifies specific actions to close it. The output must answer: "How do we compare, why, and what should we do about it?"

Run a benchmarking analysis for: $ARGUMENTS

1. DEFINE THE BENCHMARKING SCOPE: - **Subject**: What entity or practice are we benchmarking? - **Metrics**: Which 5-8 KPIs matter most? Select metrics that are actionable (the company can influence them) and comparable (available across peers). Avoid vanity metrics. - **Peer set**: Who are the right comparators? The peer set must be defensible: - Direct competitors (same market, same business model) - Aspirational peers (best-in-class companies the subject wants to emulate) - Adjacent players (different market but similar operations) - Justify each inclusion — "Why is this a fair comparison?"

2. GATHER DATA — for each comparator and each metric:

   • Use web search for real, current data. Source everything: [Source, Date].
   • When exact data isn't available, use proxies and flag them as such.
   • Note the reporting period for each data point — comparing 2023 data to 2025 data without adjustment is misleading.

3. NORMALIZE FOR COMPARABILITY — raw numbers are often misleading:

   • Adjust for size (revenue per employee, margin rather than absolute profit)
   • Adjust for geography (cost structures differ by region)
   • Adjust for business mix (a diversified company vs. a pure-play aren't directly comparable on segment metrics)
   • State all normalization choices explicitly.

4. IDENTIFY PERFORMANCE GAPS — for each metric:

   • Where does the subject rank vs. peers?
   • What is the gap to the median? To best-in-class?
   • Is the gap widening or narrowing over time?
   • What explains the gap? (This is the insight — "they're 200bps below peer median on EBITDA margin" is data; "the gap is driven by 30% higher SG&A as a percentage of revenue, concentrated in the sales force" is the insight)

5. EXTRACT ACTIONABLE INSIGHTS:

   • Which gaps are most worth closing? (highest impact, most feasible)
   • What specific practices do top performers employ that the subject doesn't?
   • Categorize actions: quick wins (0-3 months) vs. structural changes (6-18 months)
   • Estimate the impact of closing the top 2-3 gaps in financial terms

<output_format> Executive summary: Where the subject stands vs. peers in one paragraph.

Peer set rationale: Why these comparators were selected.

Benchmarking comparison table:

Metric	Subject	Peer 1	Peer 2	Peer 3	Peer Median	Gap to Median	Gap to Best

Gap analysis: For each material gap, explain what drives it and what closing it is worth.

Recommended actions:

Action	Gap Addressed	Impact Estimate	Timeframe	Complexity

Sources: All data points with citations. </output_format>

<quality_standards>

• Every data point must be sourced. No fabricated benchmarks.
• Normalization choices must be stated explicitly.
• The analysis must go beyond "here's a table" to "here's what the table means and what to do about it."
• Peer selection must be justified, not arbitrary.
• Impact estimates must show the math. </quality_standards>

Save output as benchmark-[topic].md in the working directory.