Put an end to subjective debates about color.

Make Branding Decisions
Based On 400,000 Real-World Examples

... and explain the rationale behind each color choice to customers and stakeholders. Analyze industries, competitors, and regions in seconds instead of engaging in endless discussions based on opinions.

Color decisions rarely fail because of the design. Rather, they fail because of discussions.

“Too close to competitor X.”

“It doesn’t feel like our brand.”

“Can we look at another option?”

Without a shared context, color choices become subjective. And subjective choices are constantly called into question.

Visualization of the use of competitor colors in the German energy and renewable energy sector. See at a glance which color spaces are crowded and which are open for positioning.

You can repeat this for different filters or industries. Each snapshot reinforces scale + insight.

With access to 400,000 brands, teams can immediately see

Which colors dominate their industry

Where real difference is possible

How to objectively evaluate a color choices

Decisions don't get any easier, but they do become clearer, faster, and more defensible.

When teams use this tool

at the of a branding project start
before client presentations
when questions exists about differentiation
for validating of final color decisions

Visualization of brand colors broken down by primary colors in a given industry. This allows you to immediately see how often your brand color appears as a base color.

Making brand decisions shouldn’t be this hard.

But for most teams, it is. Color decisions in particular become subjective, political, and hard to defend. Without clear context, decisions turn into long discussions, second-guessing, and quiet doubt.

The real cost

When decisions aren’t anchored in shared context, they don’t end—they loop. Time is lost to re-litigating choices, leaders are pulled back into avoidable debates, and teams hesitate to move forward because nothing ever feels fully decided.

What teams default to

To keep momentum, teams rely on trends, safe choices, and vague guidelines. Work ships, but decisions remain fragile—easy to question, easy to reopen, and rarely locked.

What this creates

The result isn’t bad branding, but unsettled branding. Decisions linger instead of closing, confidence erodes, and progress slows as teams revisit the same choices again and again.

Over time, this doesn’t just slow projects — it quietly shifts authority away from the design process and toward personal preference.

Why this matters: Because speed doesn’t come from moving faster—it comes from deciding once, locking decisions, and moving on without regret.

Color Decisions Carry More Weight Than They Appear To.

Brand designers invest significant time in research, positioning, and narrative.

Yet when it comes to color, the broader competitive landscape is rarely visible in one place — across industries, regions, and markets.

As a result, conversations often rely on partial sampling, individual references, or accumulated experience.

Not because the process is weak - but because comprehensive context is difficult to access at scale.

When stakeholders ask:

“What are others doing?”
“Is this too common?”
“Is this distinctive enough?”

Answering with confidence requires more than intuition. It requires visibility.

What Practitioners Consistently Report

The biggest challenge isn’t the work—it’s aligning client teams with different expectations, priorities, and aesthetics. Everyone wants change, but no one agrees on what that means.

r/Design Reddit User

When building or evolving brands, we always start by mapping competitor colors. It’s the only way to understand what space is already taken.

r/Design Reddit User

... Doing this manually is time-consuming and fragile. A structured, data-backed way to do it would remove a huge amount of guesswork.

r/graphic_design Reddit User, Top 1% Commenter, Top 10% Poster