One of the least questioned premises when talking about benchmarks is the idea that companies can be directly compared. It is assumed that, if they operate in the same sector or compete for the same consumer attention, so share challenges, similar contexts and possibilities. This assumption is comfortable, because it simplifies the analysis. And that's precisely why it's so deceitful.
Whenever I participate in benchmark-based discussions, I realize how much the notion of comparability is treated as something obvious. Structures are compared, business models, digital strategies, innovation cultures, as if all these elements were interchangeable parts. What rarely enters the equation are the invisible layers that make each organization unique..
Companies are not just their products or services. They are living systems, made up of stories, past decisions, power relations, accumulated skills and specific limitations. When I compare two organizations solely on apparent results, I ignore everything that supports these results. O benchmark, in this sense, operates on a shallow surface.
The fallacy of comparability begins with the choice of what is compared. These are generally the most visible elements, that which can be easily observed and replicated. Interfaces, features, campaigns, declared processes. What is left out are the less tangible factors, as culture, team maturity, ability to execute, error tolerance, internal alignment.
I've seen companies try to replicate the practices of admired organizations and fail almost predictably.. Not because the practice was bad, but because the context was different. A structure that works well in a company with a high degree of autonomy and low bureaucracy can become dysfunctional in a hierarchical and risk-averse environment. The benchmark ignores this mismatch.
There is also a tendency to compare only those things that confirm expectations.. Examples are chosen that reinforce the desired narrative, not those who defy her. Comparability becomes a rhetorical instrument, non-analytic. Instead of helping to think, helps to convince. And convince, in this case, means reducing complexity until it fits on a slide.
The problem worsens when the benchmark crosses sectoral or cultural boundaries without due care. Practices from global companies are imported into very different local realities. The speech is often inspiring, but the execution comes up against concrete limitations. Scarce resources, rigid structures, audiences with different expectations. Comparison ignores these frictions.
Another aspect that is rarely discussed is the maturity stage of organizations.. Two companies can operate in the same market, but be at completely different moments in its trajectory. One may be exploring efficiency, another seeking accelerated growth. Comparing them as if they were playing the same game leads to wrong conclusions.
The benchmark also tends to level ambitions. When I compare my company to another I admire, I may end up importing not just practices, but also limits. I accept as reasonable a level that makes sense to the other, not necessarily for me. The comparability, in this case, works as a roof, not as a stimulus.
There is also a political dimension to the choice of comparables. Who decides who the pairs are? Who decides which companies deserve to be copied? These choices are rarely neutral. They reflect preferences, fears and internal agendas. The benchmark presents itself as a technique, but carries subjective decisions from the beginning.
When I accept comparability as given, I stop asking uncomfortable questions. Questions about what makes us different, about which problems are really ours, about which advantages are not being exploited. Instead of starting from singularity, part of similarity. This impoverishes strategic reasoning.
I notice that many organizations use benchmarking to reduce anxiety about complexity. Comparing is easier than understanding in depth. It is simpler to say “we are behind the market” than to explain why certain choices were made and what trade-offs they involve.. Comparability offers cognitive shortcuts.
The risk of these shortcuts is adopting solutions that do not solve the right problems. Adjust what is visible, but what is structural is ignored. Copy to form, not logic. The process is implemented, but without the conditions that make it effective. The result is frustration and, oftentimes, cynicism towards innovation.
The fallacy of comparability also prevents the construction of specific metrics. Instead of defining indicators aligned with strategy and context, adopt what the market uses. Metrics become external references, not built-in learning tools. The company starts to measure itself by what is easy to compare, not for what really matters.
When everything is comparable, nothing is deeply understood. The benchmark creates an illusion of clarity, a feeling that the path is mapped. But this clarity is superficial. She can't handle the internal tensions, of real restrictions, of specific opportunities. The singularity, which could be a source of competitive advantage, is treated as noise.
Questioning comparability does not mean denying the existence of patterns or trends. It means recognizing that patterns are abstractions and that every abstraction loses information. Using them without awareness of this limit is a common mistake. The benchmark should be the beginning of a reflection, not the end.
Whenever I come across simplistic comparisons, I try to reverse the logic. Instead of asking who we look like, I ask why we are irreducible. What cannot be copied, what doesn't fit into other people's models, which only makes sense here. These questions rarely appear in benchmark presentations, but they are essential for more mature decisions.
The fallacy of comparability persists because it offers intellectual comfort. It transforms complexity into ranking, the checklist strategy, identity in generic positioning. Breaking away from it requires accepting that there are no perfect mirrors on the market.. That each organization needs to build its own success criteria.
As long as the benchmark continues to be used as if all companies were versions of each other, innovation will continue to encounter recurring frustrations. True differentiation begins when we stop asking ourselves who we should compare ourselves to and start asking ourselves who we want to become., even if there is no one exactly the same yet to serve as a reference.
Access the PDF with all the articles in this series at