Reports
Get a manually reviewed report on your offer, proof, pricing, website flow, checkout friction, and competitor pressure before you spend on a rebuild.
The Full Competitor Review is the default when the problem is already costing money. Use the free check only if you still need proof before buying.
This page leans on proof you can inspect yourself: actual output examples, source-linked evidence, and delivery standards instead of anonymous quotes or a decorative logo wall.
Reports pricing
The Quick Review is the smallest paid step, the Full Review is the main choice, and the Funnel Add-On covers hidden steps when public pages are not enough.
1 competitor | paid proof step
Best when you want a small paid review before deciding whether the full competitor review is worth it.
5 competitors | best default
Best when the problem is real and you want the full working report with broader benchmarks, sharper priorities, and owner-specific actions.
Full review plus hidden-funnel evidence
Best when public pages are not enough and deeper funnel evidence could change the recommendation.
Optional proof step
Use the free competitor check when you still want proof before buying. The paid report is the main path once the leak is expensive enough to act on.
Rules-first preview with one clear signal and a clean next step if you want to go deeper.
Fit
This lane is for teams deciding what to change next. It is not the recurring retainer, and it is not a generic audit that leaves the team assembling the answer alone.
Who it's for
Use the quick or full review when you need a clear competitor comparison before changing your offer, pricing, page, or campaign.
What it's for
The report is built to help you decide what to change next, not bury the answer in a huge deck.
What you receive
Every review ends with clear next moves your team can use right away. The funnel add-on includes hidden steps when needed.
What it is not
Competitor reviews are one-time purchases. Monthly updates stay separate, the Sales Funnel Review uses your own data, and custom workflows come in only when something needs to be built.
See the output early
Use the sample to see how Zendory turns competitor evidence into concrete next steps for the team.
You send the brand, target market, and main goal. Zendory confirms whether the quick review is enough, the full review fits better, or the funnel add-on is justified.
A readable teardown with benchmark notes, scorecards, screenshots, and clearer priorities for what the team should change next.
The quick review is the first proof step, the full review is the action plan, and the funnel add-on only appears when deeper evidence changes the answer.
Detailed sample
No money-case summary was captured.
Sample report snapshot
72-hour competitor improvement teardown One executive summary plus role-specific action blocks and an evidence appendix.Top pressure
Competitors are getting attention, but the pages still feel softer on proof, pricing clarity, and CTA flow. Trust densityShip this week
Tighten the headline Move proof higherFirst owner
Founder view The sample includes owner-specific handoff so the document can move into execution.Why this over DIY
Most alternatives produce fragments. The point of the paid report is to package the market pressure, evidence, and next actions into one thing the team can circulate and act on.
Compare software analysis with a research agencyYou end up with screenshots, tabs, and scattered notes that someone still has to translate into a decision.
The report packages the benchmark, evidence, and next moves into one readable document the team can circulate.
You get ideas quickly, but the evidence, ranking, and action packaging still need to be checked and stitched together.
Zendory keeps the answer tied to visible competitor proof and ranks what matters first instead of stopping at commentary.
The output usually covers fragments of CRO, SEO, or messaging without showing who in the market is actually creating the pressure.
The report stays centered on competitor pressure, why it matters now, and what to change before you spend time implementing.
The team makes changes quickly, but they are often based on instinct rather than a shared market read.
Quick Review, Full Review, and Funnel Review Add-On give you a clear path from a small comparison to deeper evidence without vague consulting in the middle.
Plan chart
Use the Quick Review for the smaller paid entry, the Full Review for the complete working document, and the Funnel Add-On when hidden steps need review.
Plan chart
The third tier includes the Full Competitor Review plus the extra funnel evidence layer.
| Feature | Quick Review | Full Review | Funnel Add-On |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive summary | |||
| Competitor scorecard | |||
| Top conversion and offer gaps | |||
| Next-step recommendation | |||
| Priority matrix | |||
| Role-specific actions | |||
| Strategy pack | |||
| Signup or quiz checks | |||
| Cart or checkout evidence | |||
| Welcome-flow or hidden-funnel capture |
What arrives
Once the buyer understands the ladder, show the named files and action packaging that make the report usable by the team right away.
A readable first section that explains where the market is stronger, where your angle is exposed, and which gaps matter first.
Founder, paid, landing-page, and outbound handoffs so the report can move into execution instead of stopping at commentary.
Ranked response priorities, sharper benchmark framing, and a clear plan for what to copy, counter, and change next.
Focused briefs
These offers are for teams that do not need the full report every time. They still run on the same reporting runtime, but the packaging stays tighter around one decision.
Use this when the core question is where competitor offers, bundles, pricing, or proof pressure your current positioning.
Use this when you know the market move and want paid, landing-page, and outbound counter-moves packaged tightly.
Use this when you want a narrower category read before commissioning the full teardown.
Premium upsell
Use this after the full review when you need to confirm which problem is actually costing money inside your own analytics and sales data.
How it differs from the base report
That keeps the first purchase simple, then adds the heavier analytics and commerce intake only when the team needs proof of which leak is real inside the funnel.
Separate upsell
Keep the one-time report clean. If you want recurring visibility afterward, use monitoring as the next purchase instead of bloating the base report packages.
Why it is separate
That keeps the buyer journey cleaner and makes the upsell more credible. You are not asking someone to buy a recurring service before they have seen the baseline work.
Other products
Reports should stay the first purchase. These two only matter after the baseline is useful or when the fix needs a website, automation, AI workflow, or operating layer.
Use the recurring layer after the report baseline exists and the job becomes tracking new competitor changes over time.
See MonitoringUse the higher-touch lane when the website, form, checkout path, automation, AI workflow, or operating system needs to be built.
See Custom SystemsDetailed sample
Competitors are getting attention, but the pages still feel softer on proof, pricing clarity, and CTA flow.
Format
72-hour competitor improvement teardown One executive summary plus role-specific action blocks and an evidence appendix.Role blocks
