Your page scores 58 out of 100 for sameness against the 4 competitors you named.

Claims only you make, that buyers weigh, and that competitors can’t easily copy.

Territory you spend prominent space on that the set also occupies. Not every line is one to delete — the question is whether it has earned the space, or whether something only you can say should be there instead.

• Commodity · 75%KeepHero

  named customers and case studies as proof

  • “Today we serve leading organizations worldwide to develop high-performing, change-ready leaders”
  • “We've been honored to work with amazing organizations (Allianz, SAP, Toyota, Cox, Capital One, Grubhub, Georgia Tech, Pepsi, Rutgers Health, Saab, Google)”

  You say this 2 different ways.

  Genos International, IHHP (Last 8%) and Potential Project say what they are and who they are for, as every page in a category must. Keep it — it is orientation, not differentiation.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Genos International“Genos Grow improves wellbeing of chefs across Ireland's premium hotels”
  • IHHP (Last 8%)“From Bottleneck to Breakthrough: How Blue Cross of Idaho Radically Transformed Its Culture”
  • Potential Project“Citi partners with Potential Project for its Human-Centered Leadership program”
• Commodity · 100%Table stakesSection

  grounded in science and evidence

  • “We're serious about science”

  Genos International, Six Seconds, IHHP (Last 8%) and Potential Project all cover this territory. Buyers may need to hear it, but in your section it spends the first impression on shared ground.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Genos International“Unrivalled Scientific Rigour.”
  • Six Seconds“Scientific, Global and Practical Solutions”
  • IHHP (Last 8%)“A Research-Backed Principle.”
  • Potential Project“Team combines cutting-edge behavioral science into all aspects of the organization's offerings”
• Commodity · 100%Table stakesSection

  improves business performance and execution

  • “When people can name, navigate, and redirect emotions, performance improves at every level”

  Common ground with Genos International, Six Seconds, IHHP (Last 8%) and Potential Project. Say it if buyers need it — lower on the page, where it is not the thing they read first.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Genos International“Develop and elevate talent at every level, from emerging leaders to the C-suite, ensuring a strong pipeline for future leadership.”
  • Six Seconds“High emotional intelligence fuels successful individuals, families, communities, and organizations”
  • IHHP (Last 8%)“The Secret to Building a High-Performing Team.”
  • Potential Project“Mindset Solutions help organizations to boost and accelerate great performance even while businesses face a time of enormous change and unanticipated…”
• Contested · 50%KeepHero

  delivers facilitated EQ programs for leaders and teams

  • “SIY Global delivers EQ-powered leadership development that builds the inner capacity of exceptional performance”
  • “Run a Program: Bring a targeted EQ-powered skills program to develop your leaders and teams”
  • “We uniquely build emotional intelligence into our leadership development programs for formal and informal leaders”

  You say this 3 different ways.

  Every page has to name its category and audience, and Genos International and IHHP (Last 8%) do too. Keep the line; just do not expect it to do any differentiating.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Genos International“Assessment-led development programs that increase emotional intelligence for individuals, teams and leaders using evidence-based methods and practical tools.”
  • IHHP (Last 8%)“Mastering Change: How to Lead and Thrive in Uncertain Times”
• Commodity · 75%Table stakesSection

  long track record and scale of people trained

  • “For nearly 20 years, we've dedicated ourselves to the mission of building EQ-powered organizations around the world”
  • “people developed (statistic)”
  • “facilitators certified (statistic)”

  You say this 3 different ways.

  Six Seconds, IHHP (Last 8%) and Potential Project make the same claim (75% of the set). It cannot set you apart, so it should not carry the section.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Six Seconds“For over 25 years, we've seen firsthand the transformational impact of this work with people and organizations all around the world”
  • IHHP (Last 8%)“Born from 25 years of applied research in organizational social psychology and behavioral neuroscience, the Last 8% began as a pivotal insight into human…”
  • Potential Project“you will witness our years of experience in organizational and leadership development, change management and consulting”
• Contested · 50%SharpenSection

  quantified satisfaction and impact scores

  • “would recommend (statistic)”

  Genos International and Potential Project are on this territory too (50% of the set). It narrows the field without winning it — make it specific enough that it cannot be said of them.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Genos International“Cargotec's EI program led to 100% participant recommendation and an 86% decrease in non-fatal injuries.”
  • Potential Project“92% would recommend our programs to a colleague”
• Contested · 25%SharpenHero

  credible origin and expert pedigree

  • “Born from the premier emotional intelligence program at Google”
  • “Created with help from world-renowned experts in neuroscience and mindfulness”

  You say this 2 different ways.

  Potential Project is on this territory too (25% of the set). It narrows the field without winning it — make it specific enough that it cannot be said of them. Nobody else uses your exact words, but everyone is on the ground. Nobody else makes this exact claim, but everyone occupies the territory — lead with the specific, not the generic.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Potential Project“Founder authored ground-breaking Harvard Business Review Press book Compassionate Leadership”
• Contested · 25%SharpenSection

  easy and fast to get started

  • “Get started fast to build EQ-powered skills across your organization”

  Shared with Potential Project. Sharpen it to the thing only you do here, or it reads as a claim any of you could make. Nobody else uses your exact words, but everyone is on the ground. Nobody else makes this exact claim, but everyone occupies the territory — lead with the specific, not the generic.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Potential Project“solutions are pragmatic and immediately applicable”
• Contested · 25%SharpenSection

  scales internally via licensing and certified facilitators

  • “Certify Facilitators: Develop high-impact facilitators to deliver EQ-powered programs at scale across your organization”
  • “License Our Content: Integrate EQ-powered skills across your organization with ready-to-use content and digital assets”

  You say this 2 different ways.

  Contested ground: Potential Project claim it as well. The version that wins names a mechanism, a number or a scope that theirs cannot match. Nobody else uses your exact words, but everyone is on the ground. Nobody else makes this exact claim, but everyone occupies the territory — lead with the specific, not the generic.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Potential Project“We are where you are - facilitators in North America, Australia, Asia or Europe”

Sameness measures how much your claims overlap with the sites compared. It does not measure message quality or whether buyers prefer you.

AI-analyzed: an AI read each page on its own and grouped the claims that say the same thing. No score here was written by a model — every number is computed from those groupings in our own code, with the weights below.

Trusted by