Skari

Data Analysis

From statistics and modeling to finance and marketing analytics — all in one place.

StatisticsFrom hypothesis testing to time series and clustering — a wide range of statistical methods.SEMType the research topic — the model, the survey and a report in thesis order follow.Auto ModelingTrains and compares several machine-learning models automatically, and explains why they predicted what they did.

Specialized Analysis

Quality

Survey

Go beyond standard surveys with Conjoint, AHP, and Price Sensitivity — plus CSAT, NPS, and more.

Explore Survey

ConjointEstimates preference share and market share by attribute combination.AHP PriorityDerives priority ranking for each item through pairwise comparison.Price Sensitivity (PSM)Analyzes the optimal price point and resistance range from responses.

Other Methods

Gabor-Granger Kano Model Driver Analysis MaxDiff TURF Usability (SUS)NPS Brand Tracking View All Methods

Brand Tracking

Know where your brand stands.

Measure how people remember your brand, follow the path from awareness to consideration and usage, and compare the image you own against the brands customers see as alternatives.

Awareness TiersBrand FunnelEquity IndexPerceptual MapBrand PersonalityCompetitive Set

Try Free See NPS

Brands Compared

Respondents

+25

Brand NPS

Perceptual Map

Awareness without context

01You know your awareness score, but not whether it is strong for the category.

02People recognize the name, but you cannot see whether that awareness leads to consideration.

03Your intended brand image and the image customers actually hold may not match.

04The brands customers compare you with are not always the competitors you expected.

Skari connects awareness, conversion, image, and competition in one brand view.

FROM SETUP TO FIELDWORK

Add brands and attributes. See the exact tracking questions respondents get.

No separate preview step — mark your brand and the whole question set builds around it.

createsurvey · brand-awareness

Brand Tracking

BrandCustom tasks · min. 100 respondents

Brands (mark yours)

1Our Brand★×

2Competitor A★×

3Competitor B★×

+ Add brand

Image attributes

1Innovative×

2Trustworthy×

3Good value×

+ Add attribute

Apply to survey

Live

Live preview

Question 1 of 12

Which brands come to mind first? (up to 3) *

Our Brand

Competitor A

Competitor B

None of these

‹ Previous

* Required

Next ›

Left: the brand and attribute list every tracking study starts from. Right: exactly what respondents see — built from the brands you named.

FROM RESPONSES TO RESULTS

Brand awareness, equity, and positioning

Every figure below comes from one real example study — 30 respondents across 3 brands, run through the same engine your own data runs on.

Key brand metrics

Awareness alone is one number. Skari pairs it with Brand Health, Brand NPS, and the strongest perceived attribute in a single summary.

Executive Summaryn=30

Aided Awareness

66.7%

rank 3 of 3

Brand NPS

+25

n=20

Brand Health

68.4

/ 100

Strongest Attribute

Differentiation

30 respondents were surveyed on 3 brands; 20 recognized Our Brand (aided awareness 66.7%, rank 3 of 3), then routed via skip logic into a deeper personality, trust, and NPS block. On the perceptual map, Our Brand sits closest to Competitor A and furthest from Competitor B.

Three levels of brand awareness

Top-of-mind, unaided, aided recall, and 12-month usage — ranked side by side against every competitor.

Brand Awareness

Competitor A

Aided

96.7%

Unaided

80%

TOM

43.3%

Usage

60%

Competitor B

Aided

93.3%

Unaided

66.7%

TOM

36.7%

Usage

63.3%

Our Brand

Aided

66.7%

Unaided

50%

TOM

20%

Usage

26.7%

Comparable brand equity scores

The brand funnel tracks conversion stage by stage; the Equity Index rolls awareness, usage, and image into one comparable number per brand.

Brand Funnel & Equity Index

Funnel · Our Brand

Awareness66.7%

Trial / Usage26.7%

Consideration60%

90% awareness-to-consideration conversion.

Equity Index

Competitor B82.5

Competitor A82.4

Our Brand58.1

40% aided + 30% usage + 30% image.

Brands with similar positioning

A perceptual map and pairwise brand distances show which brands occupy the most similar positions.

Perceptual Map & Brand Distance

Our Brand ↔ Competitor A0.89

Our Brand ↔ Competitor B0.96

Competitor A ↔ Competitor B0.24

Attributes shaping brand perception

Six personality dimensions and a composite Brand Health score summarize both awareness and customer perception.

Brand Personality & Perception Health

Brand Personality

Complex → Simple +28.3

Traditional → Modern +20

Affordable → Premium +19.2

Cold → Warm +18.3

Generic → Distinctive +17.1

Risky → Trustworthy +3.3

Perception Health

Brand Health

68.4

Brand NPS

+25

Differentiation

Trust

73.8

Values Fit

71.3

Actions from the competitive landscape

Perceived market leader and co-recall pairs state the facts; the conclusions are generated directly from the analysis results above them.

Competitive Landscape & Conclusions

Perceived Market Leader

Competitor B

50%

Competitor A

33.3%

Our Brand

16.7%

Co-recalled pairs

Competitor A ↔ Competitor B93.3%

Competitor A ↔ Our Brand63.3%

Competitor B ↔ Our Brand60%

1Our Brand’s aided awareness is 66.7% (rank 3 of 3), vs Competitor A’s 96.7% — the category leader.

2Awareness-to-consideration conversion is 90% — the bottleneck is reach, not appeal.

3On the perceptual map, Our Brand sits closest to Competitor A (0.89) and furthest from Competitor B (0.96).

4Brand NPS among aware respondents is +25 (n=20) — net positive, a base to build advocacy on.

A COMPLETE REPORT

See the full report from summary to conclusion.

The six cards above are fragments of this. Scroll the real output end to end, right here on the page.

Brand Tracking example — 30 simulated respondents

Analysis Settings

30 responses · 3 brands · 20 aware of Our Brand.

Executive Summary

30 respondents · 20 aware of Our Brand

30 respondents were surveyed on 3 brands; 20 who recognized Our Brand (aided awareness 66.7%, rank 3 of 3) were then routed via skip logic into a deeper personality, trust and NPS block. On the perceptual map, Our Brand sits closest to Competitor A and furthest from Competitor B — its real competitive set for image. Its strongest perceived attribute is "Differentiation" (80/100), while "Values Fit" trails at 71.3/100. The word most associated with Our Brand is "Professional" (50% of aware respondents). Brand NPS stands at +25 (n=20).

Study Design & Sample

Metric	Value
Respondents	30
Design	Skip-logic gated (all → awareness, aware-only → perception)
Period	2026.06.14 – 2026.08.09
Brands compared	Our Brand · Competitor A · Competitor B
Image attributes	Innovative · Trustworthy · Premium · Affordable
Your brand	Our Brand
Aware of your brand	20 (66.7%)

The brand that came to mind first

The share of respondents who named each brand first when asked, with nothing shown to them, which brands came to mind.

Interpretation

20% of respondents named Our Brand first, which is rank 3 of 3.

0% of respondents named no brand at all. When that share is large, read awareness of the category itself before the ranking between brands. Tie the message to the situations in which you want the brand to come to mind, repeat it, and check how this figure moves in the next survey.

Unaided vs aided awareness

The share who brought the brand up themselves alongside the share who recognised it from a list. Brands that were not on the list have no second figure.

UnaidedAided

Competitor A

80%

96.7%

Competitor B

66.7%

93.3%

Our Brand (you)

50%

66.7%

Interpretation

The widest gap between the two figures is Competitor B — recognised by 93.3% from the list but brought up by only 66.7% unprompted (26.6%p apart). A brand people recognise but do not recall is not a reach problem; it is a problem of which situation brings it to mind.

Awareness and usage by brand

The results for every brand compared, gathered into one table. Items that were not surveyed are marked “no data”.

Brand	TOM	Unaided	Aided	Estimate range	Usage
Competitor A	43.3%	80%	96.7%	83.3–99.4%	60%
Competitor B	36.7%	66.7%	93.3%	78.7–98.2%	63.3%
Our Brand (you)	20%	50%	66.7%	48.8–80.8%	26.7%

• Competitor A / Competitor B, Competitor B / Our Brand — these estimate ranges overlap, so this sample cannot settle their order.• 0% named no brand at all (range 0–11.4). When that share is large, read category awareness before the ranking between brands.

Interpretation

Our Brand's aided awareness is 66.7% (rank 3 of 3), vs. Competitor A's 96.7%.

Responses by stage

Our Brand's response share at each stage. Compare the stages that were surveyed to see whether awareness or usage is the part to look at first. Stages that were not surveyed are marked “no data”.

Heard of it

66.7%

48.8–80.8%

Used it

26.7%

14.2–44.4% · 40% of previous asked stage

Would consider

60%

42.3–75.4% · 224.7% of previous asked stage

Would recommend

30%

16.7–47.9% · 50% of previous asked stage

90% awareness-to-consideration conversion.

The arrow figure is the share relative to the previous stage that was surveyed. A * marks that an unsurveyed stage sits between the two. Read the stage figures together with the questions that were asked to decide what to check next.

Equity index

A composite index across all brands (40% aided awareness + 30% usage + 30% image).

Competitor B

81.5

Competitor A

81.3

Our Brand (you)

56.5

Where they came across the brand

Where respondents who are aware of Our Brand encountered it.

Social media

70%

Have not seen it

60%

News / press

55%

Online ads

50%

Word of mouth

50%

Offline / store

45%

Image scores by brand

Only people who know the brand rated it. The darker the colour, the higher the score on that item.

Brand	Innovative	Trustworthy	Premium	Affordable
Our Brand (you)30 rated	71.7	74.2	66.7	78.3
Competitor A30 rated	84.2	78.3	84.2	81.7
Competitor B30 rated	83.3	83.3	84.2	85

Interpretation

The item on which the brands differ most is Premium (17.5 points between the highest and the lowest). Look at where the compared brands are strong on the items with wide differences, and decide which image your brand will emphasise.

Strengths and candidates for improvement

The difference from the average of the compared brands. The further to the right, the higher the item was rated relative to that average.

Affordable

78.3 (-5)

Trustworthy

74.2 (-6.7)

Innovative

71.7 (-12.1)

Premium

66.7 (-17.5)

Interpretation

The bars are the difference from the average of the compared brands. Affordable scored 78.3, -5 against that average; Premium scored 66.7, -17.5. Reflect the strengths in the message and the experience, and for the low-rated items find the concrete inconvenience behind them before improving.

Brand Distance & Position Diagnosis

Euclidean distance between brands' attribute-rating profiles — 0 = identical image, larger = more differentiated.

Brand	Our Brand	Competitor A	Competitor B
Our Brand	–	0.89	0.96
Competitor A	0.89	–	0.24
Competitor B	0.96	0.24	–

Interpretation

Our Brand is closest to Competitor A (distance 0.89) and furthest from Competitor B (distance 0.96).

Brand map from the ratings

The image ratings of 3 brands arranged on two axes. Brands that sit close together were rated in similar ways. The horizontal axis separates the characteristics of Affordable · Trustworthy from those of Innovative · Premium. The two axes carry 100% of the information in total.

Our Brand (you)

Competitor A

Competitor B

Explains 100% of variance

Right is not “good” and left is not “bad”. The direction of each axis is set arbitrarily by the calculation — flipping an axis whole gives the same data, as the second map below shows. Read a position by which attributes pull that side of the axis, in the table that follows.

Axis interpretation — correlation between each attribute's brand-level ratings and the two map dimensions, with how much of that attribute this two-dimensional picture carries. Small-n (one point per brand): read as directional.

Attribute	Dim 1	Dim 2	Carried by this map	How to read
Innovative	-0.97	-0.27	100%	Pulls the left of the horizontal axis
Premium	-0.95	-0.33	100%	Pulls the left of the horizontal axis
Trustworthy	-0.63	-0.79	100%	Pulls the bottom of the vertical axis
Affordable	-0.67	-0.75	100%	Pulls the bottom of the vertical axis

The brand map with the axis turned around

Shows the same rating results with the direction of the horizontal axis turned around. Look at the positions by the image items tied to each axis. Nothing else changed — which side counts as “right” is set arbitrarily by the calculation, so “further right, therefore ahead” is not a reading this map supports.

How much the picture moves

Respondents were resampled 300 times and the map re-solved each time (each solution aligned to this one, since axis direction is arbitrary). The map is 0.06 wide.

How far each point moved

Our Brand

0.03

Competitor A

0.03

Competitor B

0.03

95th percentile of displacement, in map units.

Distance between brands

Pair	Distance	Range
Competitor A ↔ Competitor B	0.02	0.01–0.07
Our Brand ↔ Competitor B	0.04	0.02–0.09
Our Brand ↔ Competitor A	0.06	0.03–0.11

The point that moves most is Our Brand (0.03, against a map 0.06 wide). No pair’s range reaches down to the noise level, so the relative positions hold up.

Word Associationn=20 aware-only

Words respondents most associate with Our Brand, among those aware of it.

Positive 95.2% · Negative 4.8%

Brand Personalityn=20 aware-only

Bipolar personality-adjective ratings — mean position between each pole, among respondents aware of your brand.

Complex

+28.3

Simple

Traditional

+20

Modern

Affordable

+19.2

Premium

Cold / Corporate

+18.3

Warm / Human

Generic

+17.5

Distinctive

Risky

+3.3

Trustworthy

left polegap = signed distance from midpoint (0)right pole

Perception Healthn=20 aware-only

Trust, differentiation and values-fit scores, plus a composite brand health index — all normalized 0–100.

Brand Health

68.4

/ 100

Brand NPS

+25

-100 ~ +100

Strongest

Differentiation

80/100

Weakest

Values Fit

71.3/100

Attribute Scores

Differentiation

Trust

73.8

Values Fit

71.3

vs. Competitors (self-rated)

Much better than competitors

30%

Somewhat better than competitors

45%

About the same as competitors

20%

Somewhat worse than competitors

Much worse than competitors

Brand NPSn=20 aware-only

"How likely are you to recommend Our Brand?" — asked only of respondents already aware of it, via skip logic.

Net Promoter Score

+25

Based on 20 responses

Promoters (9-10)

45%

Passives (7-8)

35%

Detractors (0-6)

20%

Competitive Landscape

Which brand respondents name as the category leader, and which brands are most often recalled together.

Perceived Market Leader

Competitor B

50%

Competitor A

33.3%

Our Brand (you)

16.7%

Competitive Set (co-recalled pairs)

Competitor A ↔ Competitor B

93.3%

Competitor A ↔ Our Brand

63.3%

Competitor B ↔ Our Brand

60%

Conclusions & next steps

The groups to review first, the direction for promotion, and the figures to check next.

Our Brand's aided awareness is 66.7% (rank 3 of 3), vs. Competitor A's 96.7% — the category leader.

Awareness-to-consideration conversion is 90% — once people know Our Brand, a reasonable share go on to consider it. The bottleneck is reach, not appeal.

Social media is the dominant discovery channel (70% of aware respondents) — concentrate media spend there before diversifying.

On the perceptual map, Our Brand sits closest to Competitor A (distance 0.89) and furthest from Competitor B (distance 0.96) — that's the real competitive set for image, not necessarily for awareness.

Among respondents aware of Our Brand, "Differentiation" is the strongest perceived attribute (80/100) and "Values Fit" the weakest (71.3/100) — a concrete target for messaging.

Brand NPS among aware respondents is +25 (n=20) — net positive, a base to build advocacy on.

3 brands × 4 image attributes · 30 responses (20 aware of Our Brand). Perceptual map: correspondence analysis on brand×attribute mean ratings. MDS: classical scaling of the same distance matrix. Distance = Euclidean on attribute-rating profiles. Equity = 0.4·aided + 0.3·usage + 0.3·image. Brand Health = average of attribute scores, semantic differential percentages and normalised NPS, over aware respondents only. Axis correlations computed across brand-level means (n = number of brands) — directional, not inferential. No cross-wave trend or "ideal point" section is shown here — both need data this template/wave doesn't have (multiple real waves via Survey Series, and a dedicated ideal-brand rating question, respectively).

Scroll to explore the full report

IN THE REPORT

A complete view of your brand

Measure recall, follow the funnel, compare competitors, and understand the image customers associate with your brand.

Three awareness tiers

Top-of-mind, unaided, and aided recall for every brand.

Brand funnel

Awareness → trial/usage → consideration conversion.

Brand Equity Index

A single 0–100 composite score per brand.

Perceptual positioning map

Correspondence analysis of brands and image attributes.

Brand distance diagnosis

Exact Euclidean distance between every brand pair's image profile.

Brand personality

Six bipolar dimensions, from Traditional/Modern to Risky/Trustworthy.

Perception health & Brand NPS

Trust, differentiation, and values-fit rolled into one health score.

Competitive landscape

Perceived market leader and co-recall pairs reveal who you really compete with.

See your brand as customers do

Turn awareness, funnel, and perception data into a clearer brand strategy.

Get Started Free

Analysis Settings

30 responses · 3 brands · 20 aware of Our Brand.

Executive Summary

30 respondents · 20 aware of Our Brand

Study Design & Sample

Metric	Value
Respondents	30
Design	Skip-logic gated (all → awareness, aware-only → perception)
Period	2026.06.14 – 2026.08.09
Brands compared	Our Brand · Competitor A · Competitor B
Image attributes	Innovative · Trustworthy · Premium · Affordable
Your brand	Our Brand
Aware of your brand	20 (66.7%)

The brand that came to mind first

The share of respondents who named each brand first when asked, with nothing shown to them, which brands came to mind.

Interpretation

20% of respondents named Our Brand first, which is rank 3 of 3.

Unaided vs aided awareness

The share who brought the brand up themselves alongside the share who recognised it from a list. Brands that were not on the list have no second figure.

UnaidedAided

Competitor A

80%

96.7%

Competitor B

66.7%

93.3%

Our Brand (you)

50%

66.7%

Interpretation

Awareness and usage by brand

The results for every brand compared, gathered into one table. Items that were not surveyed are marked “no data”.

Brand	TOM	Unaided	Aided	Estimate range	Usage
Competitor A	43.3%	80%	96.7%	83.3–99.4%	60%
Competitor B	36.7%	66.7%	93.3%	78.7–98.2%	63.3%
Our Brand (you)	20%	50%	66.7%	48.8–80.8%	26.7%

Interpretation

Our Brand's aided awareness is 66.7% (rank 3 of 3), vs. Competitor A's 96.7%.

Responses by stage

Our Brand's response share at each stage. Compare the stages that were surveyed to see whether awareness or usage is the part to look at first. Stages that were not surveyed are marked “no data”.

Heard of it

66.7%

48.8–80.8%

Used it

26.7%

14.2–44.4% · 40% of previous asked stage

Would consider

60%

42.3–75.4% · 224.7% of previous asked stage

Would recommend

30%

16.7–47.9% · 50% of previous asked stage

90% awareness-to-consideration conversion.

Equity index

A composite index across all brands (40% aided awareness + 30% usage + 30% image).

Competitor B

81.5

Competitor A

81.3

Our Brand (you)

56.5

Where they came across the brand

Where respondents who are aware of Our Brand encountered it.

Social media

70%

Have not seen it

60%

News / press

55%

Online ads

50%

Word of mouth

50%

Offline / store

45%

Image scores by brand

Only people who know the brand rated it. The darker the colour, the higher the score on that item.

Brand	Innovative	Trustworthy	Premium	Affordable
Our Brand (you)30 rated	71.7	74.2	66.7	78.3
Competitor A30 rated	84.2	78.3	84.2	81.7
Competitor B30 rated	83.3	83.3	84.2	85

Interpretation

Strengths and candidates for improvement

The difference from the average of the compared brands. The further to the right, the higher the item was rated relative to that average.

Affordable

78.3 (-5)

Trustworthy

74.2 (-6.7)

Innovative

71.7 (-12.1)

Premium

66.7 (-17.5)

Interpretation

Brand Distance & Position Diagnosis

Euclidean distance between brands' attribute-rating profiles — 0 = identical image, larger = more differentiated.

Brand	Our Brand	Competitor A	Competitor B
Our Brand	–	0.89	0.96
Competitor A	0.89	–	0.24
Competitor B	0.96	0.24	–

Interpretation

Our Brand is closest to Competitor A (distance 0.89) and furthest from Competitor B (distance 0.96).

Brand map from the ratings

Our Brand (you)

Competitor A

Competitor B

Explains 100% of variance

Attribute	Dim 1	Dim 2	Carried by this map	How to read
Innovative	-0.97	-0.27	100%	Pulls the left of the horizontal axis
Premium	-0.95	-0.33	100%	Pulls the left of the horizontal axis
Trustworthy	-0.63	-0.79	100%	Pulls the bottom of the vertical axis
Affordable	-0.67	-0.75	100%	Pulls the bottom of the vertical axis

The brand map with the axis turned around

How much the picture moves

Respondents were resampled 300 times and the map re-solved each time (each solution aligned to this one, since axis direction is arbitrary). The map is 0.06 wide.

How far each point moved

Our Brand

0.03

Competitor A

0.03

Competitor B

0.03

95th percentile of displacement, in map units.

Distance between brands

Pair	Distance	Range
Competitor A ↔ Competitor B	0.02	0.01–0.07
Our Brand ↔ Competitor B	0.04	0.02–0.09
Our Brand ↔ Competitor A	0.06	0.03–0.11

The point that moves most is Our Brand (0.03, against a map 0.06 wide). No pair’s range reaches down to the noise level, so the relative positions hold up.

Word Associationn=20 aware-only

Words respondents most associate with Our Brand, among those aware of it.

Positive 95.2% · Negative 4.8%

Brand Personalityn=20 aware-only

Bipolar personality-adjective ratings — mean position between each pole, among respondents aware of your brand.

Complex

+28.3

Simple

Traditional

+20

Modern

Affordable

+19.2

Premium

Cold / Corporate

+18.3

Warm / Human

Generic

+17.5

Distinctive

Risky

+3.3

Trustworthy

left polegap = signed distance from midpoint (0)right pole

Perception Healthn=20 aware-only

Trust, differentiation and values-fit scores, plus a composite brand health index — all normalized 0–100.

Brand Health

68.4

/ 100

Brand NPS

+25

-100 ~ +100

Strongest

Differentiation

80/100

Weakest

Values Fit

71.3/100

Attribute Scores

Differentiation

Trust

73.8

Values Fit

71.3

vs. Competitors (self-rated)

Much better than competitors

30%

Somewhat better than competitors

45%

About the same as competitors

20%

Somewhat worse than competitors

Much worse than competitors

Brand NPSn=20 aware-only

"How likely are you to recommend Our Brand?" — asked only of respondents already aware of it, via skip logic.

Net Promoter Score

+25

Based on 20 responses

Promoters (9-10)

45%

Passives (7-8)

35%

Detractors (0-6)

20%

Competitive Landscape

Which brand respondents name as the category leader, and which brands are most often recalled together.

Perceived Market Leader

Competitor B

50%

Competitor A

33.3%

Our Brand (you)

16.7%

Competitive Set (co-recalled pairs)

Competitor A ↔ Competitor B

93.3%

Competitor A ↔ Our Brand

63.3%

Competitor B ↔ Our Brand

60%

Conclusions & next steps

The groups to review first, the direction for promotion, and the figures to check next.

Our Brand's aided awareness is 66.7% (rank 3 of 3), vs. Competitor A's 96.7% — the category leader.

Awareness-to-consideration conversion is 90% — once people know Our Brand, a reasonable share go on to consider it. The bottleneck is reach, not appeal.

Social media is the dominant discovery channel (70% of aware respondents) — concentrate media spend there before diversifying.

Among respondents aware of Our Brand, "Differentiation" is the strongest perceived attribute (80/100) and "Values Fit" the weakest (71.3/100) — a concrete target for messaging.

Brand NPS among aware respondents is +25 (n=20) — net positive, a base to build advocacy on.