# Peer Benchmarking > Compares a company's key financial ratios against true peer medians and quartiles, flagging which peers were excluded and why, so the read is defensible rather than a single flattering comparison. Use whenever the user wants to benchmark a company against competitors, needs a peer comparison for a board deck or investor update, or has a benchmarking claim with no stated peer set or exclusion logi… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-natan-mohart-24-finance-skills-for-claude-peer-benchmarking` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [Natan-Mohart](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/natan-mohart) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [Natan-Mohart](https://github.com/Natan-Mohart) - **Source:** https://github.com/Natan-Mohart/24-finance-skills-for-claude/tree/main/skills/peer-benchmarking ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-natan-mohart-24-finance-skills-for-claude-peer-benchmarking ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Peer Benchmarking ## When to use Use whenever a performance claim needs external context, "our margin is strong" means nothing without knowing what peers actually post, or when preparing a board or investor update that will get challenged on comparability. Also use to check a benchmarking claim someone else made, where the peer set and exclusions were never stated. ## What it does Builds a defensible peer comparison: a real peer set (not cherry-picked), calendarized to the same period, with median and quartile ranges per metric, and an explicit note on which companies were excluded and why. The output is a range with a position in it, not a single flattering number lifted from the best comparison available. ## Method 1. **Define the peer set by real comparability criteria** — similar business model, similar scale (revenue or headcount band), similar growth stage, similar geography — not just "companies in the same industry label." 2. **State exclusions explicitly.** If a company in the obvious peer group is excluded (different fiscal year, recent M&A distorting the numbers, private and unreported), name it and why. An unexplained exclusion is exactly how benchmarking gets cherry-picked. 3. **Calendarize before comparing.** Companies with different fiscal year ends are not directly comparable on a raw calendar-quarter basis — align to trailing twelve months or the nearest common period. 4. **Compute median and quartile range per metric**, not just an average — an average can be dragged by one outlier peer; the quartile range shows where the real distribution sits. 5. **Place the subject company's actual number inside that range** and state the percentile plainly: "24th percentile on gross margin" is a finding; "below average" is not. 6. **Separate metrics where the company is structurally different** (different revenue recognition, different capital intensity) — flag these instead of forcing a comparison that isn't apples-to-apples. 7. **State what the benchmark implies for action**, not just where the company sits — a bottom-quartile metric with a plausible structural explanation needs different follow-up than one with no explanation at all. ## Inputs - The company's own financials for the metrics being benchmarked - Candidate peer companies with comparability rationale - Peer financial data (public filings, industry surveys, or available comparables) - The specific metrics that matter for this comparison ## Output format Peer set with comparability rationale; explicit exclusion list with reasons; calendarized metric table; median and quartile range per metric; subject company's percentile position per metric; a plain read on what the position implies. ## Example A SaaS company claims "our gross margin beats the industry" citing one hand-picked competitor. Rebuilding the peer set with eight comparable companies (similar ARR band, similar go-to-market motion) calendarized to trailing twelve months shows the company actually sits at the 40th percentile, not top of class — the original claim relied on comparing against the one peer with unusually low margin, not a representative set. ## Common pitfalls - Comparing against whichever peer happens to look most favorable instead of a defensible, stated peer set. - Averaging instead of showing the quartile range, hiding how spread out the real comparison actually is. - Comparing raw numbers across different fiscal year ends without calendarizing first. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [Natan-Mohart](https://github.com/Natan-Mohart) - **Source:** [Natan-Mohart/24-finance-skills-for-claude](https://github.com/Natan-Mohart/24-finance-skills-for-claude) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-natan-mohart-24-finance-skills-for-claude-peer-benchmarking - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/natan-mohart - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.