Annual FP&A Market Positioning Effectiveness Assessment
•January 15, 2026
0
Why It Matters
Without distinct, problem‑focused positioning, FP&A vendors risk buyer confusion and lost market share, directly impacting demand and profitability.
Key Takeaways
- •Over half of FP&A vendors lack differentiation
- •Three vendors’ transform claims lack credibility
- •Kepion moved to generic decisions positioning
- •Common "decisions" and "insights" wording fails differentiation
- •Effective positioning must solve pressing buyer problems
Pulse Analysis
Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) software vendors operate in a crowded market where clear differentiation is a strategic imperative. Abinanti’s assessment outlines four pillars of effective positioning: uniqueness, believability, universal applicability, and relevance to a buyer’s pain point. When a vendor’s statement meets all criteria, it becomes a powerful tool across campaigns, webinars, and sales decks, guiding prospects toward a solution that feels tailor‑made. Conversely, vague or duplicated claims dilute brand equity and increase the likelihood of a "no decision" outcome during lengthy procurement cycles.
The latest findings paint a stark picture: twelve out of twenty‑one vendors share indistinguishable positioning, often clustering around generic "decisions" or "insights" themes. This overlap fuels buyer confusion, inflates sales cycles, and hampers revenue pipelines. Notably, three vendors attempt a "transform" narrative without substantiating how they radically alter finance processes, rendering the claim unconvincing. Kepion’s recent rebrand to a broad "empowering connected planning" tagline exemplifies the drift toward homogenization, abandoning a previously distinct market voice that resonated with its core audience.
To regain traction, vendors must anchor their positioning in the concrete challenges FP&A professionals face—messy data, limited forecasting agility, Excel‑centric constraints, AI adoption hurdles, and difficulty influencing business decisions. By articulating how their solution uniquely resolves these pain points, firms can craft compelling, believable messages that cut through market noise. Aligning product roadmaps with these buyer problems not only strengthens positioning but also drives higher conversion rates, shorter sales cycles, and sustainable revenue growth in an increasingly competitive FP&A landscape.
Annual FP&A Market Positioning Effectiveness Assessment
Article published by Lawson Abinanti
Effective positioning does not seem to be important to more than half of the leading Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) vendors included in my annual positioning effectiveness assessment.
To do positioning effectively your positioning statement must be unique, believable, can be used in all marketing communications and is important to the target buyer – it solves a pressing target buyer problem.
Failure to meet any of the four criteria is a positioning mistake that has a negative impact on awareness, demand and revenue. Here are the most glaring mistakes I’ve identified in my annual assessment:
-
More than half (12 out of 21) fail to differentiate. They have the same position as at least two other competitors. Lack of differentiation creates buyer confusion, long sales cycles and the dreaded “no decision.” See competitive map below to identify the vendors who are blending in rather than standing out.
-
Three vendors fail to prove a their “transform” position. It’s not a believable claim because their additional messaging doesn’t explain how finance has been changed from its existing form to a radically different one. Instead, they present the same capabilities and advantages that all competitors are making.
-
Kepion changed from a position it has owned since 2017 – “Planning your way” – to a common decisions position: “Empowering connected planning throughout your organization - unifying data, people, and decisions across finance, supply chain, and operations.”
Check out this competitive map below created December 28, 2025 to see which vendors have a unique position and which ones have the same position as many of their competitors:
Now let’s take a look at the wording nine vendors are using to attempt to claim either “decisions” or “insights” positions. While some might think that clever or different ways of writing the same claim differentiates, I say dream on. Here is the exact wording for each vendor:
While it is clear that the vendors claiming “decisions” and “insights” need to change their positions, what about those vendors that have unique positions?
A unique position isn’t effective if it fails to solve a pressing target audience problem.
You be the judge with help from The FP&A Guy (Paul Barnhurst) who created this list of target audience problems, not necessarily in order of importance.
Use the list or come up with your own list of problems to determine if any of the FP&A vendors making unique claims should change their positions:
-
FP&A professionals struggle to do more than just dump data into the laps of decision makers without any direction and an explanation of what the data means.
-
The sheer volume of data and the fact it is almost always messy – FP&A professionals struggle to understand the huge amount of messy data they need to make sense of.
-
If they only use Excel it is difficult to build robust forecast, scenarios, and sensitivities.
-
Figuring out a path forward with AI that makes the team more efficient and effective
-
Influencing the business – Most FP&A professionals really struggle at selling the ideas that they believe would help the business.
I’m interested in your findings. I’ll be creating several LinkedIn posts about the assessment. In the comments you can share which vendors you think should change their positions. Or send me an email: [email protected].
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...