How to Write a Comparative Study Between Two Competing Business Models
Admin
Academic Content Expert
Choosing Your Two Subjects
The most effective comparative studies pit subjects that are comparable on some dimensions and meaningfully different on others. If your two subjects are identical in every relevant way, there's nothing interesting to compare. If they're so different that they have nothing in common, comparison becomes artificial.
Some of the most compelling comparative business model studies examine: direct competitors in the same market taking radically different approaches (Netflix versus Blockbuster as a historical case; Aldi versus Waitrose as a contemporary positioning contrast); the same company's different strategic approaches in different national markets (IKEA's adaptation strategies for different geographies); or businesses using fundamentally different models to serve similar customer needs (Airbnb versus traditional hotel chains; Uber versus traditional taxi companies).
The key is that your two subjects should be connected by a genuine tension or question — one that your comparative analysis will actually answer.
Establishing Your Comparison Criteria
Before writing any descriptive content about your two subjects, establish clearly what you're comparing and why. Your comparison criteria are the analytical categories through which you'll evaluate both subjects throughout the dissertation. These might include: revenue model and pricing strategy, customer acquisition and retention approach, operational structure and cost efficiency, innovation and product development, market positioning and brand equity, financial performance metrics, and sustainability and long-term viability.
Your choice of criteria should be theoretically grounded. If your dissertation is about business model innovation, the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur) provides nine dimensions (customer segments, value propositions, channels, customer relationships, revenue streams, key resources, key activities, key partnerships, and cost structure) that can structure a systematic comparison. If your dissertation focuses on competitive strategy, Porter's Five Forces and generic strategies framework provides a ready-made comparison template.
Establishing your criteria upfront prevents the most common structural failure: sections that describe Company A then describe Company B without ever actually comparing them.
Structural Options: Whole-Subject vs. Criterion-by-Criterion
There are two main structural approaches for a comparative study, each with advantages and disadvantages.
The whole-subject structure presents Company A in full, then Company B in full, with a separate analytical section that draws comparisons. The advantage is narrative coherence — each company's story is told completely. The disadvantage is that comparisons can feel belated and the earlier descriptive sections become less interesting to read.
The criterion-by-criterion structure organises the dissertation around comparison dimensions rather than individual subjects. Each chapter or section examines one criterion — say, customer acquisition strategy — and explores how both companies approach it, comparing them directly throughout. This structure tends to produce more genuinely analytical work but requires more sophisticated organisation.
For most business management dissertations at undergraduate or Master's level, a modified version of the criterion-by-criterion structure works best: brief descriptions of each company (perhaps 500 words each) establishing necessary context, followed by criterion-by-criterion comparative analysis.
Using Evidence to Drive Comparison
Comparative claims must be evidenced. "Company A has a more efficient cost structure than Company B" is an assertion. "Company A's cost-to-revenue ratio of 0.61 (Company A Annual Report, 2023) compares favourably to Company B's 0.78 (Company B Annual Report, 2023), suggesting significantly greater operational efficiency in translating revenue to operating profit" is evidenced analysis.
Mix qualitative and quantitative evidence where possible. Financial ratios, market share data, customer satisfaction scores, and employee engagement metrics provide quantitative foundations; qualitative evidence from company reports, executive interviews, industry analyst commentary, and academic case studies provides contextual interpretation.
Drawing Conclusions That Go Beyond the Obvious
The weakest comparative studies conclude with an obvious winner: "Company A's business model is superior because it has stronger financial performance." The strongest comparative studies use the comparison to generate genuinely new insight — about the conditions under which certain strategies outperform others, about the trade-offs inherent in different business model choices, about the relationship between strategic decisions and external environmental factors.
Ask yourself: what does my comparison reveal about business strategy more broadly? What can readers learn from these two companies' different experiences that applies beyond these two specific companies? Those insights are the real intellectual contribution of your comparative study.
Recommended For You
How to Conduct a Brand Audit Using Marketing Frameworks
A brand is one of the most valuable assets a business owns and one of the least systematically managed. Most organisations can tell you exactly what their financial assets are worth, what condition their physical assets are in, and what their IP portfolio looks like. Ask them for a rigorous assessment of the current state of their brand — its strength, its coherence, its relevance to target customers, its competitive positioning — and most will struggle to answer with anything more than impressions and anecdotes. A brand audit changes that. It is a systematic, evidence-based assessment of a brand's current health, its external market position, and the consistency and effectiveness of all the ways it communicates with its audiences. Done well, it reveals both the genuine strengths to build on and the specific weaknesses that are limiting brand performance. It is the essential starting point for any significant brand strategy work.
How to Apply the STP Model (Segmentation, Targeting, Positioning) to a Brand Launch
Launching a brand without STP analysis is like arriving in a new city without a map and expecting to find your destination by walking in any direction that feels right. You might eventually get somewhere interesting. But you will waste enormous time, spend unnecessarily, and likely end up somewhere other than where you intended. The STP model such as Segmentation, Targeting, Positioning is the navigational system of strategic marketing. Developed and popularised largely through the work of Philip Kotler, it provides a structured approach to the three most consequential decisions a brand makes: who exists in the market, who you choose to serve, and how you want those people to think and feel about you. For a brand launch, getting these decisions right is everything.
How to Write a Digital Marketing Plan for a Small Business in 2026
Small businesses face a paradox when it comes to digital marketing. The tools available have never been more powerful or more accessible anyone with a smartphone and a decent internet connection can reach a global audience through social media, email, search, and content. At the same time, the noise level has never been higher. The same accessibility that empowers small businesses also floods every digital channel with competing voices. Standing out requires not just presence but strategy. A digital marketing plan for a small business in 2026 needs to be realistic about resources, ruthlessly focused on the channels and tactics most likely to deliver results, and grounded in a clear understanding of who you are trying to reach and what you want them to do.