Logistics Competition Slides: 8 Real Pitch Deck Examples
How logistics and delivery startups show competition in a pitch deck: quote a real shipment against named rivals, name the brokers and middlemen you replace.
Logistics Competition Slide: Compare on Price, Speed and Reliability for a Real Shipment
Logistics buyers compare on a few hard things: price, speed, reliability and tracking. That makes the competition slide easy to test, because a reader can ask "for which shipment?" This guide compares eight real logistics competition slides on whether they name who the customer uses today, and whether they compare on a job the customer actually needs done.
TL;DR
Quote one real job against named rivals. Convelio priced the same Paris-to-New York painting shipment with four art shippers (EUR 2,980 to 4,077) against its own EUR 1,796, and noted each rival's response time and tracking. OtterLogic names the alternative its buyers use, freight brokers and agents on the phone, and sizes it. Dimension's table puts franchises, brokers, a national hauler and "guy with a truck" side by side. Fastbox shows courier market shares without saying how it competes, and Jebelz lists four rival names and nothing else. Doorman groups every option a customer has, from lockers to FedEx, and gives the premium couriers' prices; Top Delivery uses two positioning maps; Mose Delivery lists advantages without naming anyone.
Logistics competition slides from real pitch decks
Each example shows the exact stored slide above its analysis and links to the full teardown. The most checkable comparisons come first; weaker ones follow for contrast. Claims are as shown on the slides; comments are ours.
Convelio competition slide — slide 6
Online shipping for art and high-value goods. The slide is headed "1. Build POC by leveraging on significant unfair advantage".
Convelio deck, slide 6. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: A real like-for-like test: one shipment, one service level, four named rivals, price plus response time and tracking.
Evidence and limitation: The four rival quotes average about EUR 3,304, and EUR 1,796 is about 46% below that average, which matches the slide's "-46%"; it is about 40% below the cheapest rival (ESI, EUR 2,980). The slide does not say the figure is against the average. We have not seen the quotes in the linked folder.
What a founder can adapt: Request quotes for one typical job from your three or four real rivals, keep the route and service level identical, and show price, turnaround and tracking.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Quote sent. From: Paris, France. To: NYC, USA. Painting value: EUR 82k. Service level: Pick-up, packing, airfreight, customs formalities, & insurance." Rivals: ARTA EUR 4,077 ("online without instant pricing", responsiveness 1/2 days, no end-to-end tracking); Andre Chenue EUR 3,160 ("Not reachable by phone - Email", 2 days, no tracking); ESI transport EUR 2,980 (emails, 5 days, no tracking); Cadogan Tate EUR 2,998 (online, 1 + 1/2 days, no tracking). "We are -46% more competitive. EUR 1,796 with Convelio." Plus: full online experience, instant quoting, end-to-end tracking. A source link to a shared folder.
Presentation choice: It is the most checkable slide here. An investor can see exactly what was quoted and could repeat the test.
When it does not fit: Say the percentage is against the rivals' average (against the cheapest it is about 40%), and note that one quote is one data point; say how typical the job is.
Software for shippers to manage trucking directly, 2017 deck. The slide combines market size with the competitive picture.
OtterLogic deck, slide 4. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It names the real alternative, the broker and the phone-based freight agent, and sizes how much money flows through it.
Evidence and limitation: A footnote marker on "3PL" points to a source not visible on the slide. The figures are not dated.
What a founder can adapt: If you replace a middleman, name it, give its count or spend, and say what your customer saves by going direct.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Imagine what happened to travel agents; OtterLogic transforms the $57B managed transport market." US 3PL spend: $57B domestic transportation management (brokers), $13B dedicated contract carriage, $47B international, $117B total. "3PL Trucking: Highly fragmented and undifferentiated. 130+ medium or larger 3PL companies in US; thousands of independent brokers. Highly manual brokerage processes. Thousands of dedicated freight agents making phone calls." OtterLogic: "Cutting out the broker - make going direct easy."
Presentation choice: For many logistics startups the competitor is a middleman or a manual process. Naming it and its scale answers "who loses if you win?"
When it does not fit: Show at least one number for the saving (fee, hours, time to book). "Minimize labor" alone is a claim.
On-demand marketplace for waste and junk removal. Five-row comparison table.
Dimension deck, slide 5. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It covers the full range a customer might call, from a national franchise to a local independent, and gives one rival full marks.
Evidence and limitation: Ratings are the company's own; no price, response time or source is given.
What a founder can adapt: List rivals by type (franchise, broker, incumbent, independent) and add a row for your own company.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitors are slow, expensive and unreliable. Archaic infrastructure + rent-seeking incumbents + layers of middlemen for small providers." Rows: 1-800-Got-Junk (franchise, pricey; consumer; on-demand yes; quality yes), Rubicon Global (waste broker, East Coast; enterprise; partial; yes), RTS (waste broker, East Coast; business; partial; partial), Waste Management (vertically integrated, slow, inflexible; government; no; no), Small providers ("guy with a truck", unreliable, fragmented; mix; no; no).
Presentation choice: Including the small local option and admitting 1-800-Got-Junk scores on both measures makes the table more credible than a clean sweep.
When it does not fit: The table has no row for Dimension, and "quality" is undefined. Add your row and one measurable column such as price or pickup time.
Evening and scheduled parcel delivery, New York. Header shows founders@doorman.it and an AngelList link.
Doorman deck, slide 9. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Alternatives grouped by type, each with its trade-off, plus incumbent prices.
Evidence and limitation: Rival prices and limits are the company's own description; no date or source. Doorman's own price and delivery window are not on this slide.
What a founder can adapt: Group alternatives by type, give each group's main limit or price, and add a line for yours on the same terms: "[us]: until [time], $[price] per delivery."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competition." "Direct Competition: Parcel (NYC)." "Same-day local delivery: Google Shopping Express, Ebay Now, Postmates, Taskrabbit, Shutl, Deliv, Amazon Fresh." "Delivery Lockers" (Amazon Locker photo): "Customer must pickup, restricted package size, limited hold time." "Premium Delivery Services": FedEx "5pm is latest window, $5 per delivery"; UPS My Choice "5pm is latest window, $40/year + $5 per scheduled delivery".
Presentation choice: It covers every option a customer actually weighs, and the courier prices give a concrete benchmark.
When it does not fit: Giving rivals' prices without your own; date the prices, since courier fees change.
E-commerce delivery service and software, Russia. Two positioning maps on one slide titled "Competition".
Top Delivery deck, slide 8. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Two maps separating delivery carriers from delivery aggregators.
Evidence and limitation: Positions are the company's own placement; no figures or sources. Top Delivery is alone in the top-right corner of both maps.
What a founder can adapt: Use axes buyers can check (coverage, couriers connected, delivery time) and add one line per map on why that measure matters to customers.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: Map 1: "full customization" vs "standard / commodity", "local coverage" vs "federal coverage" — Top Delivery top right; Axiomus local; DPD, CDEK, SPSR federal, commodity. Map 2: "federal & regional couriers integration" vs "federal couriers integration (no regional)", "on-line" vs "on-line & off-line" — Top Delivery top right; CheckOut and Sheepla online, federal only; MultiShip online and offline, federal only.
Presentation choice: Concrete axes and two separate groups of rivals (carriers and aggregators) show the company understands it competes with both.
When it does not fit: Picking axes only because they leave you alone in the best corner; say what you trade away.
Courier startup, European express market. Slide titled "Industry and Competitors".
Fastbox deck, slide 4. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It shows who holds the market, but not how Fastbox would take share from them.
Evidence and limitation: No source, date or geography for the shares; the large ctt expresso share suggests Portugal rather than Europe, which the slide does not say. "5 big players" does not match the six named.
What a founder can adapt: Keep one line on the incumbents' share, then compare on the job: price and delivery time for a typical parcel.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: Pie chart with logos: ctt expresso 35%, DHL 22%, TNT 17%, UPS 10%, GLS 9%, DPD 5%, 2% unlabelled. "Express courier's market: 42 billion Euros market (Europe); 4% - 5% constant market growth per year; 5 big players in the market; Price conscious customers; Growth potential due to e-commerce and online auction websites; Average weight of shipment decreases." Logos below: Uber, Amazon, PiggyBee.
Presentation choice: Shown for contrast: a market-share chart is useful context, but it is not a comparison.
When it does not fit: Unsourced shares, and logos (Uber, Amazon) with no explanation of why they are on the slide.
Local delivery by motorcycle and truck. Slide titled "Competitive Advantages".
Mose Delivery deck, slide 9. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Advantages stated without a comparison point.
Evidence and limitation: No competitor, price or source is named.
What a founder can adapt: "5 km delivery: [rival] [price], us [price]; 40 km: [rival] [price], us [same price]."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Lower cost: The cost based on product weight." "Multi vehicles service: Not the only motorcycle, but we're also using moving trucks at one time with many destination. this option will lower the cost." "No additional cost: Up to 40 KM using the same cost as 5 KM."
Presentation choice: Shown for contrast: the distance-pricing claim is specific, but "lower cost" can't be judged without a rival's price.
When it does not fit: Advantage lists that never name who you are better than.
Whether each slide names the alternative customers use, compares on a concrete job, and gives a basis.
Example
Real alternative named
Concrete comparison
Evidence or source
Convelio
Yes (four art shippers)
Yes (one quoted shipment)
Partly (link to quotes)
OtterLogic
Yes (brokers, freight agents)
Partly (market spend)
Partly (footnote)
Dimension
Yes (five rival types)
Partly (own ratings)
No
Fastbox
Yes (couriers)
No (market shares)
No
Jebelz
Yes (names only)
No
No
Doorman
Yes (four groups)
Partly (courier prices, not its own)
No
Top Delivery
Yes (carriers and aggregators)
Partly (two positioning maps)
No
Mose Delivery
No
No (advantages only)
No
Key Takeaways
Use one real shipment or job, with the same route and service level for every rival.
Compare on price, speed, reliability and tracking: what logistics buyers are judged on.
Name the middleman or manual process you replace, not only other startups.
Include the small local option ("guy with a truck") if customers use it.
Market-share charts describe the market; they do not show how you win.
Group alternatives by type (lockers, same-day apps, premium couriers) and give each group's limit or price.
On a positioning map, explain why the axes matter to buyers; a company alone in the best corner proves only the choice of axes.
Build your logistics competition slide
Start from one job your customer needs done.
The job. What typical shipment or task will you compare on (route, size, service level)?
Alternatives. Who would the customer call today: an incumbent carrier, a broker, a local independent, their own team?
Measures. Which two or three matter most: price, time to quote, delivery time, tracking, damage rate?
Proof. Can you get real quotes or times from each alternative for that job? When and how were they collected?
Where you lose. Where does a rival beat you (coverage, brand, capacity), and why will customers still choose you?
Copyable framework: For [job], [rival A] quoted [price/time], [rival B] [price/time]; we quoted [price/time] with [tracking/other]. Quotes collected [date].
Illustrative example 1 — written by us
Before: Competitors are slow, expensive and unreliable.
After: For a same-day 20 km pallet delivery in Leeds, two national carriers quoted GBP 95 and GBP 110 with next-day pickup; a local van quoted GBP 60 with no tracking. We quoted GBP 70, pickup within 2 hours, live tracking. Quotes collected March 2026.
What improved: Our illustrative rewrite; figures are invented for the example. It fixes one job, names the rival types, compares on price, speed and tracking, and dates the test.
What this guide adds
The general competition slide guide covers any business. Logistics is unusually easy to compare: the same shipment can be quoted by several providers, and speed and tracking are yes-or-no facts. A founder can often run the test themselves before the pitch, as Convelio did.
The logistics problem, solution, product and traction guides cover other slides from similar decks. Here we look only at how each deck handles rivals and alternatives.
Grouping alternatives by type
A customer who wants a parcel delivered rarely compares one startup with another. They choose between kinds of option: pick it up from a locker, pay a same-day app, pay a courier for a delivery window, or wait at home. Doorman's slide is built this way. It names one direct competitor (Parcel, in New York), then three groups: same-day local delivery apps, delivery lockers, and premium courier services. Each group gets its limitation in a few words: lockers mean "Customer must pickup, restricted package size, limited hold time"; FedEx and UPS My Choice both have "5pm is latest window".
The strongest part is the prices it gives for the incumbents: FedEx "$5 per delivery", UPS My Choice "$40/year + $5 per scheduled delivery". A reader immediately wants the matching line for Doorman, which the slide does not give. Grouping by type works well for logistics because buyers think in terms of the trade-off (convenience, time window, price), not brand names; finish it with your own price and window on the same terms.
Positioning maps: useful, but the axes decide the result
A two-by-two map places rivals on two measures. Top Delivery, a Russian e-commerce delivery service, uses two maps on one slide. The first sets full customization against standard/commodity service, and local against federal coverage: Axiomus is local, DPD, CDEK and SPSR are federal but commodity, and Top Delivery sits alone in the customised, federal corner. The second sets integration with federal and regional couriers against federal-only integration, and online against online-and-offline sales: CheckOut and Sheepla are online with federal couriers only, MultiShip is online and offline with federal couriers only, and Top Delivery again sits alone at top right.
Two maps say more than one, and the axes are concrete (coverage, which couriers are connected) rather than vague ("innovation"). But any company can choose axes that put it alone in the best corner. A reader will ask whether customers actually choose on these measures and what Top Delivery gives up to be there. A line under each map saying why the axes matter (for example, share of orders going to regions only regional couriers reach) makes the map evidence rather than design.
An advantage list needs a comparison point
Mose Delivery's slide, titled "Competitive Advantages", lists three: "Lower cost — The cost based on product weight", "Multi vehicles service — Not the only motorcycle, but we're also using moving trucks at one time with many destination", and "No additional cost — Up to 40 KM using the same cost as 5 KM". Each could be a real advantage, but the slide never says lower than whom, or what a rival charges for 40 km. The same three lines become checkable with one added column: a named rival's price for the same 5 km and 40 km delivery.
How we read each slide
We quote the text on the slide images. The three examples added on 2026-10-01 were rendered at 1200 pixels from the original deck files and checked against the images. We have not re-run any quote or checked the market-share figures. Only Convelio gives a source link for its comparison.
Common mistakes
Adjectives instead of a test. "Slow and expensive" is easy to replace with one real quote.
Different jobs for different rivals. Keep route, size and service level identical.
Market share as comparison. Shares describe the market; add how you win share.
Leaving yourself off the table. Every comparison needs a row for your company.
Rivals' prices without your own. Doorman quotes FedEx and UPS fees but not its own; add your line on the same terms.
Axes chosen to win. Say why buyers care about each map axis and what you give up.
Advantages with no comparison point. "Lower cost" needs a named rival's price for the same job.
Unexplained percentages. Say which rival or average a saving is measured against; Convelio's -46% matches the rivals' average, not the cheapest quote.
Diagnostic checklist
Compares on one real, described job.
Names the rivals and middlemen customers use today.
Shows price, speed or tracking, not only adjectives.
Includes your own row and any row where a rival wins.
Says when and how quotes or figures were collected.
Groups alternatives by type when customers choose between kinds of option.
Explains why each positioning-map axis matters to buyers.
Frequently asked questions
How should a logistics startup compare itself with competitors?
Pick one typical shipment, get quotes or times from the rivals customers really use, and compare on price, speed and tracking. Convelio did this for a Paris-to-New York painting shipment against four named art shippers.
Who are the competitors for a freight or delivery startup?
Often not other startups: incumbent carriers, brokers and freight agents, the customer's own team, or a local independent. OtterLogic names brokers and phone-based freight agents; Dimension includes "guy with a truck".
Is a market-share pie chart enough for the competition slide?
No. It shows who holds the market but not why a customer would switch. Fastbox's chart would be stronger with a price and delivery-time comparison beside it.
Should a delivery startup use a 2x2 positioning map?
It can, if the axes are measures buyers check, such as coverage or couriers connected, as on Top Delivery's two maps. Add a line on why each axis matters; otherwise sitting alone in the top-right corner proves only the choice of axes.
How do I show lockers, same-day apps and couriers on one slide?
Group them by type with each group's main limit or price, as Doorman does (lockers: customer must pick up; FedEx: 5pm latest window, $5 per delivery), then add your own price and window on the same terms.
How we chose these examples
Corpus: published pitch deck teardowns on StartupFundraising.com. Founder-uploaded private decks are excluded.
Selection (2026-09-27): we searched extracted slide text in decks tagged logistics for competition, competitors, competitive landscape, alternatives, incumbents, "vs" and advantage. About 30 slides matched; most were agendas, market or company-overview slides.
Kept five with stored slide images. Excluded: Smatbeba p5 (already used in another guide), Moobitaxi p7 and Mose Delivery p9 (no stored image; no new uploads requested), Market Convoy p6 (e-commerce, not logistics), and listed-company decks.
Update (2026-10-01): uploads were now allowed, so we revisited the shortlist. A further search of the slide-text index for competition and landscape wording near freight, courier, parcel, fleet and warehouse terms added Doorman p9 and Logistics Delivery SaaS (Top Delivery) p8; Mose Delivery p9, earlier excluded only for lack of a stored image, was also added. Moobitaxi p7 remains excluded: no original deck file is available. Other matches were excluded as trade finance (40seas), insurance (Lula), listed companies (Rowan, Frontier/Spirit) or already used (Smatbeba p5). Mose Delivery p2 and p5 and Logistics Delivery SaaS p2 and p13 are used in other guides; the pages here are different slides.
Jebelz is an online retailer with its own delivery, tagged as logistics in our library; we kept it as a contrast example.
Review: stored slide text and images were checked on 2026-09-27 and 2026-10-01 and matched to company, deck and slide number (editorial model review). No person has yet completed an editorial review of this page. We make no claim that any slide caused a fundraising outcome.
