Reports
Pick Lite for a quick paid diagnosis, Pro for the main working report, or Deep when you need hidden-funnel evidence before making bigger changes.
Pro is the default when the leak is already costing money. Use the free check only if you still need a lighter proof step 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
Lite is the smallest paid step, Pro is the main report for most buyers, and Deep adds hidden-funnel evidence when public pages are not enough.
1 competitor | paid proof step
Best when you want a small paid proof step before deciding whether the full Pro benchmark 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.
Pro 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 Lite or Pro when you need a clean competitor read before changing the offer, pricing, page, funnel, or acquisition angle.
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 report ends with next moves founders, paid, CRO, or product teams can use right away. Deep adds hidden-funnel proof when needed.
What it is not
Reports are the one-time product. Monitoring stays separate, Revenue Leak Validation follows only when client data is needed, and Custom Systems comes in when the workflow itself 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 category, and primary goal. Zendory confirms whether Lite is enough, Pro is the better default, or Deep is justified by hidden funnel steps.
A readable teardown with benchmark notes, scorecards, screenshots, and clearer priorities for what the team should change next.
Lite is the proof step, Pro is the money plan, and Deep only comes in when the extra evidence materially changes the recommendation.
Detailed sample
Visible bundle math, shipping reassurance, and review density are easier to trust on competitor pages, so traffic arrives warm and still leaks before the first CTA click.
Sample report snapshot
72-hour competitor improvement teardown One executive summary plus role-specific action blocks and an evidence appendix.Top pressure
Sparkwear is losing high-intent clicks to clearer bundle framing and stronger proof above the fold. Offer clarityShip this week
Move the hero from generic brand language into one concrete bundle promise with the savings math visible. Pull review volume, delivery promise, and returns reassurance into the first viewport instead of leaving them lower on the page.First owner
Founder view Treat the first conversion leak as offer packaging, not as a traffic-volume problem.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.
You 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.
Lite, Pro, and Deep give you a cleaner paid path from quick diagnosis to full teardown without vague consulting in the middle.
Plan chart
Use Lite for the smaller paid entry, Pro for the fuller working document, and Deep when you need the Pro package plus hidden-funnel capture.
Plan chart
The third tier is the full Deep package, so it includes the Pro deliverables plus the extra evidence layer.
| Feature | Lite | Pro | Deep |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Pro or an equivalent public-evidence teardown when you need to confirm which leak is actually costing money inside your own analytics and commerce 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 workflow itself becomes the bottleneck.
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 workflow itself needs to be built, automated, or run as an operating system.
See Custom SystemsDetailed sample
Sparkwear is losing high-intent clicks to clearer bundle framing and stronger proof above the fold.
Format
72-hour competitor improvement teardownOne executive summary plus role-specific action blocks and an evidence appendix.Role blocks
