When several markets look plausible, it is easy to compare a well-documented one with a poorly documented one and favour the first. This page describes how the same questions are asked of every candidate, so that differences reflect the markets and not the quality of the sources.
We agree a short list of criteria before looking at the first candidate, for example presence of comparable sellers, a visible distribution route, observable price levels and how procurement is described. The same source types are then applied to every candidate, and each cell of the comparison is marked as verified fact, inference or unavailable. A country where a cell is unavailable is not scored down silently; the gap is shown, since it may reflect opaque sources and not an unattractive market.
The pack lays out the evidence side by side. Which market becomes the pilot is your call, ideally taken with a decision-support service.
Criteria are agreed in the scope before any candidate is read, so a market cannot be favoured by moving the criteria.
Every candidate is asked the same questions, so a difference in the answers is not a difference in what was asked.
Where a country publishes more, the pack says so and separates a real difference in the market from a difference in disclosure.
How it appears: One country has public price lists and another has none. How the pack handles it: The gap is shown as unavailable on both the data and the reasoning.
How it appears: A category is split differently by each market's trade sources. How the pack handles it: Definitions are mapped to your product before any comparison.
How it appears: A larger count of sellers is read as a bigger opportunity. How the pack handles it: Counts are reported with role and overlap, not as a score.
The pack does not rank markets and does not combine the cells into a single score.
Markets look similar, so small differences in channel structure and price visibility become the main part of the comparison.
That customer's country is included as a candidate, with its evidence read on the same terms as the others, so familiarity does not decide it.
Research reports what can be established from public and provided sources. It is not a guarantee about a counterparty's future conduct and not legal advice.
A research pack collects and structures evidence and stops before the decision. Whether and how to enter the market is a separate assessment.
That is set in the scope. Each added market repeats the source discovery, so the number is agreed with you up front.
No. You receive comparable evidence and stated gaps. The choice stays with you.
The pack supplies evidence to choose one. Running a pilot itself is not part of it.
No obligation. We read your request and reply with a straight answer.
Tell us what you need to find out and by when. We confirm scope before any work starts.
Request research