Energy Competition Slide Examples: How Energy Startups
How energy and cleantech pitch decks compare their technology with incumbents: comparison tables, cost and performance claims, and positioning maps.
Energy Competition Slide Examples: How Energy Startups Compare Technologies
Nine competition and competitive-advantage slides from real energy pitch decks, shown in full, compare what each deck measures itself against and how checkable its claims are.
TL;DR
In energy decks the main rival is often an existing technology rather than a named company. Bramble Energy compares its printed-circuit-board fuel cell with graphite-plate and metal-plate fuel cells on five rows, such as cost and bill of materials ("c.4x fewer components"). Besstech compares its batteries with today's on charge time ("15 minutes vs 1-2 hours"). Metafuels sets up a strong layout against "competing e-SAF production technology", but the numbers were left as placeholders ("c.AA%"). Carma names its closest rivals (Angaza, Solaris Offgrid, PAYGEE by Mobisol), while Galatica makes moat claims with no comparison at all. ThermoCube benchmarks its rivals at "> 14 € / kWh" but leaves out its own cost; 10SIX maps grid against consumer scale and casts itself as a complement; Carbon Block ticks every box against unnamed rival groups; Grivo profiles Chargemap and PlugShare in detail without comparing itself.
Energy competition slides from real pitch decks
Each example shows the exact slide above its analysis and links to the full teardown. Stage and year are given only where the deck states them. Performance and cost claims are quoted as the slide states them; we have not checked them.
Bramble Energy competition slide — slide 11
Fuel cells built on printed circuit boards (PCBFC). Stage and year not stated.
Bramble Energy deck, slide 11. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It names the incumbent technologies, uses rows a fuel cell buyer cares about, and footnotes the baseline for its one number.
Evidence and limitation: Only one row has a number. "Clear pathway to lowest cost stack" and "Robust & durable" would be stronger with a $/kW figure or lifetime hours.
What a founder can adapt: Build rows from your buyer's purchase criteria and give each cell a short, specific reason, as Bramble does.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Our Competitive Advantage": a table comparing "Traditional Fuel Cell Technologies" (graphite plate, metal plate) with Bramble's PCBFC on five rows: cost efficient ("Highest cost base ($/kW)", "Gold coatings increase cost" vs "Clear pathway to lowest cost stack"), simplified bill of materials ("c.4x fewer components", footnoted "Compared to traditional fuel cells"), adaptable solution, low capex outlay ("£0 manufacturing CAPEX spend") and robustness/longevity.
Presentation choice: It names the incumbent technologies, uses rows a fuel cell buyer cares about, and footnotes the baseline for its one number.
When it does not fit: Only one row has a number. "Clear pathway to lowest cost stack" and "Robust & durable" would be stronger with a $/kW figure or lifetime hours.
Besstech deck, slide 7. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: The charge-time claim includes its baseline ("vs 1-2 hours"), which makes it easy to compare.
Evidence and limitation: "50% more energy" and "½ the production cost" don't say compared with what, and no source or test is cited. It is framed as customer value, so the reader must infer the rival technology.
What a founder can adapt: Put the incumbent's figure next to each of yours, as the charge-time line does.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Value for Customers" in three columns: Better Performance ("Batteries with 50% more energy", "Full charge in 15 minutes vs 1-2 hours", "Long cycle life"); Cheaper, Faster Manufacturing ("½ the production cost", "1/5th CapEx for anode production", "Uses process adopted from solar cell manufacturing"); Safe and Ecofriendly (no harmful solvents, "Fully recyclable").
Presentation choice: The charge-time claim includes its baseline ("vs 1-2 hours"), which makes it easy to compare.
When it does not fit: "50% more energy" and "½ the production cost" don't say compared with what, and no source or test is cited. It is framed as customer value, so the reader must infer the rival technology.
Credit risk management for pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) off-grid energy sellers. Stage and year not stated.
Carma deck, slide 8. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Even while claiming no direct rival, it names the platforms buyers already use and says Carma works alongside them rather than replacing them.
Evidence and limitation: "No direct competition" invites doubt. The advantages are features, with no evidence such as lower default rates for a customer.
What a founder can adapt: If you sit on top of existing platforms, name them and say you complement them, as Carma does.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competition": "No direct competition for End-customer Credit Risk Management". "Potential competition: PAYGO BPM platforms – Angaza Design, Solaris Offgrid, PAYGEE by Mobisol; Lending platforms". "CARMA advantages": "Non-contradictory to existing BPM platforms", built-in call center and payment processing, focus on credit/retail/payments risk, "Uses non-proprietary data for cross-validation".
Presentation choice: Even while claiming no direct rival, it names the platforms buyers already use and says Carma works alongside them rather than replacing them.
When it does not fit: "No direct competition" invites doubt. The advantages are features, with no evidence such as lower default rates for a customer.
Sustainable aviation fuel (e-SAF) production technology called aerobrew. Stage and year not stated.
Metafuels deck, slide 5. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: The layout is the right one for a process technology: the startup and the current state of the art side by side on yield, efficiency, scalability and cost.
Evidence and limitation: The figures are placeholder letters (AA%, BB%, x USD/litre) in the published version, so the slide makes no checkable claim. Check every figure before sending a deck.
What a founder can adapt: Use this structure with real figures and a source for the state-of-the-art values.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "aerobrew techno-economics — aerobrew vs competing e-SAF production technology": e-SAF yield "c.AA%" vs "c.CC%"; energy efficiency to SAF "c.BB%" vs "c. DD%-EE%"; scalability "highly scalable" vs "limited scalability"; cost of production "c. x USD/litre" vs "c. 2x USD/litre". Side panel: "Scalability up to 2000 ton/day". Legend: "Competing (current state of the art)".
Presentation choice: The layout is the right one for a process technology: the startup and the current state of the art side by side on yield, efficiency, scalability and cost.
When it does not fit: The figures are placeholder letters (AA%, BB%, x USD/litre) in the published version, so the slide makes no checkable claim. Check every figure before sending a deck.
Energy infrastructure and software company. The energy problem guide uses a different slide from this deck.
Galatica deck, slide 12. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It states one specific combination it says only it offers (software plus direct oil-and-gas supply), which is a claim a reader could test.
Evidence and limitation: No competitor is named. "$1 Billion+" annual revenue appears with no period, source or explanation of whether it is actual or projected, and "unmatched" and "irreplaceable" are unsupported.
What a founder can adapt: Name the rivals who offer each half of your combination, and show why together is better.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitive Advantage": "The Long-Term Play" ("a high-barrier, high-value market… In a $10-12T industry"); "Unmatched Edge in Government Contracts" ("Only we combine secure, cutting-edge software with direct oil-and-gas supply"); "Strategic Embedding & Competitive Moat" ("Verinoxx, once integrated into government and telecom systems, becomes essential infrastructure"); "Steady growth"; "Annual Revenue $1 Billion+".
Presentation choice: It states one specific combination it says only it offers (software plus direct oil-and-gas supply), which is a claim a reader could test.
When it does not fit: No competitor is named. "$1 Billion+" annual revenue appears with no period, source or explanation of whether it is actual or projected, and "unmatched" and "irreplaceable" are unsupported.
Low-cost thermal energy storage, Germany (ThermoCube UG). Slide marked "Confidential".
ThermoCube deck, slide 8. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It names rivals and benchmarks them on the unit buyers use, € per kWh.
Evidence and limitation: The rivals' cost figure has no source, and ThermoCube's own € per kWh isn't on the slide.
What a founder can adapt: "Rivals: more than 14 € / kWh ([source]); us: [X] € / kWh ([basis])."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitors." "In the envisaged volume-range only a handful competitors exist: E.g. Fa. ENERSOLVE, Fa. HAAS, Fa. CITRINSOLAR" (with product photos). "All of them share the same disadvantages: High material-, assembly- and transport- costs of > 14 € / kWh; Energy losses through temperature level mixture; No profitable Thermo-Battery application possible."
Presentation choice: It names rivals and benchmarks them on the unit buyers use, € per kWh.
When it does not fit: The rivals' cost figure has no source, and ThermoCube's own € per kWh isn't on the slide.
Network for energy storage assets not connected to the grid. The energy problem and solution guides use other slides from this deck.
10SIX deck, slide 8. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It positions rivals as potential partners, which fits a business that networks other companies' hardware.
Evidence and limitation: "No other entity" without evidence; a centre position on a map doesn't show demand.
What a founder can adapt: If your rivals' products are your inputs, say so and name a partner or pilot that proves it.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitors have different focuses." Map: Service vs Product, Grid scale (MW) vs Consumer scale (kW). Enbala and Geli (service); XP and A123 Systems (grid-scale product); Stem and Tesla (consumer-scale product); 10SIX in the centre. "A business model innovation: No other entity is networking existing non-grid connected assets to allow for entry to lucrative markets." "Asset agnostic: Most other players in the space sell their hard asset. We build a network of those hard assets." "We complement the existing players and look to grow alongside."
Presentation choice: It positions rivals as potential partners, which fits a business that networks other companies' hardware.
When it does not fit: "No other entity" without evidence; a centre position on a map doesn't show demand.
Blockchain carbon accounting for energy. Other guides use slides 3, 4 and 13 from this deck.
Carbon Block deck, slide 12. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: The footnote explains why one row matters more than another, which most checkmark tables don't.
Evidence and limitation: A table where only you tick every row and no rival is named; an unsourced "30X".
What a founder can adapt: Name at least one company in each rival group and source any value multiple.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitors." Columns: Carbon Block, Accounting incumbents, Other blockchain energy companies. Rows: Carbon offsets (yes, yes, no); Automated, low-cost audits (yes, no, no); Transparent distributed ledger (yes, no, yes); Renewable energy certificates (yes, yes, yes). Footnote: "RECs represent 1 MWh of renewable energy irrespective of GHG emission reduction. Carbon Offsets are 30X more valuable than RECs."
Presentation choice: The footnote explains why one row matters more than another, which most checkmark tables don't.
When it does not fit: A table where only you tick every row and no rival is named; an unsourced "30X".
EV charging app. Two consecutive slides, each titled "Competition". The runway guide uses slide 22 from this deck.
Grivo deck, slide 14. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.Grivo deck, slide 15. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Covering how rivals earn money (fees, subscriptions, data, ads) helps an investor judge the business model space.
Evidence and limitation: Detailed rival profiles with no comparison to your own product; rival figures are undated and unsourced.
What a founder can adapt: Add a final row to each profile: "Grivo: [how we differ for drivers]."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: Slide 14, Chargemap: "Established 2009; Works with 450,000 charging points; More than 1M users; Compatible with car apps and has a route planing function; Profit from connection fees and reservation fees; Ad free if paid 15$ yearly subscription." Slide 15, PlugShare: "Established 2009; Most popular EV charger locator app globally; Allows payment with 2,400 stations in the USA; Purchased last year by EVgo, one of the largest charging networks in the USA; Profit from data sale to businesses; Profit from ads."
Presentation choice: Covering how rivals earn money (fees, subscriptions, data, ads) helps an investor judge the business model space.
When it does not fit: Detailed rival profiles with no comparison to your own product; rival figures are undated and unsourced.
What each energy competition slide compares against
Named baselines and real numbers make a comparison useful.
Example
Compared against
Format
Numbers with baseline
Main gap
Bramble Energy
Graphite and metal plate fuel cells
Table, five rows
1 ("c.4x fewer components")
Few figures
Besstech
Current batteries (implied)
Three benefit columns
1 ("15 minutes vs 1-2 hours")
Baselines missing
Carma
Angaza, Solaris Offgrid, PAYGEE
Bullet list
0
No evidence
Metafuels
State-of-the-art e-SAF
Side-by-side figures
Placeholders only
No real numbers
Galatica
No one named
Claim cards
0
Unsourced revenue claim
ThermoCube
Enersolve, Haas, Citrinsolar
Named rivals + shared drawbacks
Rivals only ("> 14 € / kWh")
Own cost missing
10SIX
Enbala, Geli, XP, A123, Stem, Tesla
2x2 map
0
Uniqueness unsupported
Carbon Block
Two unnamed rival groups
Checkmark table
0 (unsourced "30X")
No names
Grivo
Chargemap, PlugShare
One profile per slide
Rivals only
No self-comparison
Key Takeaways
If you compete with a technology rather than a company, name that technology and compare on the measures buyers use: cost per kW, lifetime, charge time, yield.
A table with rows buyers care about beats a list of adjectives.
Every number needs its baseline ("vs traditional fuel cells") and ideally a source.
Check the final deck for placeholder figures before sending it.
If there are companies in your space, name them, even if you argue they are not direct rivals.
A cost benchmark for rivals (such as € per kWh) needs your own figure beside it.
Profiling a rival is research; the slide still needs a line on how you differ.
Build your energy competition slide
Answer these before designing the slide.
Incumbent. Which technology or company does your buyer use today?
Criteria. Which three to five measures decide their purchase (cost per kW, lifetime, efficiency, capex)?
Figures. Your figure and the incumbent's figure for each measure.
Source. Where does each figure come from: your tests, a third party, published data?
Named rivals. Which companies work on the same problem, and how do you differ?
Copyable framework: [Measure]: us [figure] vs [incumbent] [figure] (source: [test or publication]).
Illustrative example 1 — written by us
Before: e-SAF yield c.AA% vs c.CC%
After: e-SAF yield: [our tested %] vs [state-of-the-art %] (source: [pilot run or publication]).
What improved: Our illustrative rewrite, not Metafuels' text. Bracketed parts are placeholders to fill with real, sourced figures before use.
How this guide relates to the other competition and energy guides
The main competition guide covers comparison tables, positioning maps and feature matrices for any company. The energy problem and solution guides and the climate guides use other slides from Besstech, Galatica and other energy decks. This guide covers what is specific to energy competition slides: comparing against an incumbent technology, and making cost and performance claims a technical investor will check.
Cost per unit: give both numbers
Energy buyers compare on cost per unit of capacity or output: € per kWh of storage, $ per kW of power, cost per litre of fuel. ThermoCube, a thermal storage company, names three rivals (Enersolve, Haas, Citrinsolar), shows their products, and says "All of them share the same disadvantages: High material-, assembly- and transport-costs of > 14 € / kWh", plus energy losses from mixing temperature levels and "No profitable Thermo-Battery application possible".
That is the right measure, but half the comparison is missing. The slide doesn't give ThermoCube's own € per kWh, or a source for the rivals' figure. A reader cannot tell whether ThermoCube is at 13 € or 3 €. Put both numbers on the same line, with the basis (materials only, or installed), and say where the rivals' figure comes from.
Maps, checkmark tables and rival profiles
10SIX uses a two-by-two map: service versus product on one axis, grid scale (MW) versus consumer scale (kW) on the other. Enbala and Geli sit at service, XP and A123 Systems at grid-scale product, Stem and Tesla at consumer-scale product, and 10SIX in the middle. Its text argues it networks other companies' assets and will "complement the existing players and look to grow alongside". The middle position fits that argument, but the claim "No other entity is networking existing non-grid connected assets" has no evidence behind it.
Carbon Block uses a checkmark table against two groups, "Accounting incumbents" and "Other blockchain energy companies", on four rows. Carbon Block ticks all four; each rival group misses at least one. Tables like this are easy to read but easy to stack: no company is named, and the footnote "Carbon Offsets are 30X more valuable than RECs" has no source.
Grivo, an EV charging app, gives each of two rivals its own slide: Chargemap (established 2009, 450,000 charging points, more than 1M users, connection and reservation fees, a $15 yearly ad-free subscription) and PlugShare (established 2009, "most popular EV charger locator app globally", payment at 2,400 US stations, bought by EVgo, revenue from data sales and ads). It is unusually thorough about how rivals make money, but neither slide says where Grivo differs. Two strong incumbents described in detail, with no answer to "why would a driver switch?", can work against the startup.
Common mistakes
No baseline. "50% more energy" needs "than what".
Placeholders left in. Check every number before a deck goes out.
"No direct competition". Name the nearest alternatives anyway.
Adjectives instead of figures. Replace "robust" with lifetime hours or cycles.
Benchmarking rivals without yourself. ThermoCube gives rivals' € per kWh but not its own.
Rival profiles without a verdict. Grivo profiles Chargemap and PlugShare but never says why a driver would switch.
Unnamed rival groups. Name at least one company per column.
Unexplained headline figures. Say whether revenue is actual or projected, and for what period.
Diagnostic checklist
The incumbent technology or company is named.
Rows match the buyer's purchase criteria.
Each figure shows the baseline it is compared with.
Figures have a source or test behind them.
No placeholder values remain.
Any cost-per-unit benchmark shows your figure next to the rivals'.
Each rival profile ends with how you differ.
Frequently asked questions
What should an energy startup compare itself against?
Usually the technology the buyer uses today, on the measures they buy on: cost per kW or kWh, lifetime, efficiency, capex. Bramble Energy compares with graphite- and metal-plate fuel cells; ThermoCube with three named thermal storage makers on € per kWh.
Is it enough to show competitors' costs?
No. ThermoCube says rivals cost more than 14 € per kWh but doesn't give its own figure, so the reader can't judge the gap. Put both numbers on one line with the basis and a source.
Should I profile competitors one slide at a time?
Only if each profile ends with how you differ. Grivo's Chargemap and PlugShare slides are thorough on scale and revenue model but never compare Grivo.
Can I say I complement my competitors?
Yes, if your business genuinely builds on theirs, as 10SIX (networking others' storage) and Carma (sitting on top of PAYGO platforms) argue. Back it with a named partner or pilot.
How we chose these examples
Corpus: published pitch deck teardowns on StartupFundraising.com. Founder-uploaded private decks are excluded.
Selection (2026-09-28): we searched extracted slide text for slides whose opening words include "competition", "competitive", "landscape", "vs" or "alternatives" and whose text mentions energy, batteries, fuel cells, solar, carbon or related terms. Excluded: Neah Power's "Fuel cells vs. batteries" slide (explains the technology rather than comparing competitors), Arrival (used by other guides), public-company overviews and slides outside energy.
Update (2026-10-01): a further search of slide text for competition, landscape or alternatives wording near solar, battery, grid, storage, hydrogen, kWh or charging terms added 10SIX p8, Carbon Block p12, Grivo p14-15 and ThermoCube p8, all private companies. Pages were rendered at 1200 pixels from the original deck files and checked against the images. Excluded: Arrival, Broadwind (B. Riley deck) and SPI Energy (listed companies), Ziyen (oil and gas), and matches where "grid" or "battery" referred to something else. 10SIX p4/p5, Carbon Block p3/p4/p13 and Grivo p22 are used in other guides; the pages here are different slides.
Images: four slide images (Bramble Energy, Carma, Galatica, Besstech) were rendered from the published deck PDFs and stored on 2026-09-28; Metafuels' was already stored.
Overlap check: no competition-slide facet for energy existed. Besstech and Galatica appear in other guides with different slides.
Review: all five original slide images were inspected on 2026-09-28 and the four added examples on 2026-10-01 and matched to company, deck and slide number (editorial model review). Performance, cost and revenue claims are quoted from the slides and were not checked. No person has yet completed an editorial review of this page.
We make no claim that any slide caused a fundraising outcome.
