What 10,111 SWOT Entries Tell Us About the Quality of SWOT Analysis

Analysis of 10,111 real SWOT entries found that 87.7% contained no separate supporting explanation or evidence. Only 12.3% included a description beyond the main SWOT statement.

The analysis, based on SWOT entries created in StratNav, also found that 49.5% contained more than ten words. Among these longer entries, just 4.3% included a separate description.

This is particularly interesting because StratNav doesn't simply provide users with four empty SWOT boxes. It actively encourages users to develop more complete strategic insights, including further explanation and evidence, and provides AI support to help them do so.

Despite that support, most entries still consist of the main SWOT statement alone.

These figures don't mean that 87.7% of SWOT entries are poor. Some people may include their evidence and reasoning within the main statement itself.

However, a short SWOT entry with no separate description has very little space to set out an observation, the evidence behind it and its strategic implication. It is therefore much less likely to contain all the elements of a useful analysis than a longer entry or one supported by a more detailed description.

But they raise an important question:

Does SWOT naturally encourage us to record observations rather than develop strategic insights?

What the data shows

I analysed 10,111 SWOT entries created in StratNav by the number of words in the main entry and whether the user added a separate description.

The results were:

[CHART: Percentage of SWOT entries with a separate supporting description, by number of words in the main entry. Show 1–10 words individually and ">10 words" as the final category. Highlight the peak of 27.1% at four words and the decline to 4.3% for entries over ten words.]

There is a clear pattern.

The likelihood of adding a description initially increases with the length of the SWOT entry, reaching 27.1% for four-word entries.

It then falls.

For entries of eight words, only 12.0% include a description. At ten words it is 9.0%.

For entries containing more than ten words, it falls to just 4.3%.

And that final group accounts for almost half of the entire dataset.

The table does not measure whether an entry contains a complete analysis. But it does show that many entries are short and unsupported by a separate description. In practical terms, those entries are much less likely to include the observation, evidence and strategic implication needed for a good SWOT insight than entries with enough detail in the main statement or a separate supporting description.

Longer doesn't necessarily mean better

One possible explanation is that people use the main SWOT field to capture more and more of their thinking rather than adding a separate explanation.

That isn't necessarily a problem.

A longer entry has more opportunity to include the elements of a good analysis. But length on its own does not guarantee that it does.

Consider:

Brand

versus:

Strong brand recognition in our core market

The second is clearly more useful.

"Brand" merely identifies a subject.

"Strong brand recognition in our core market" makes an observation about it.

But it still isn't a strategic insight.

It leaves two important questions unanswered:

What evidence supports the observation?

And, crucially:

So what?

Why does it matter to the strategy?

Even making the entry longer doesn't necessarily solve this.

We have a strong and well-established brand with customers in our core markets.

That's 14 words.

But it is still essentially one assertion.

Word count isn't the same thing as analytical depth.

Still, a one- or two-word entry without any supporting description is far less likely to include the necessary evidence and implication than an entry that gives the reader more detail. A short label may be a useful prompt for discussion, but it is rarely a complete SWOT insight on its own.

What makes a good SWOT insight?

I think a useful SWOT entry needs three things:

Observation → Evidence → Strategic implication

Consider how an entry might develop through these stages.

1. Topic

Brand

This tells us what we're talking about, but little else.

Without further detail, it gives us no observation to test, no evidence to assess and no indication of why the topic matters strategically.

2. Observation

Strong brand recognition in our core market

Now we know what the organisation believes to be true.

But we don't know why we should believe it or why it matters.

3. Evidence-backed observation

Strong brand recognition in our core market. Unaided brand awareness is 78%, compared with 52% for our nearest competitor.

Now we have evidence supporting the assertion.

But one question remains.

So what?

4. Strategic insight

Strong brand recognition in our core market. Unaided brand awareness is 78%, compared with 52% for our nearest competitor. This gives us an advantage when launching adjacent products to existing customer segments.

Now we have:

What we observed → why we believe it → why it matters.

That is something we can actually use when making strategic choices.

The fact that users are encouraged to do more makes this more interesting

There is another reason to pay attention to these findings.

StratNav is designed to encourage users to go beyond simply entering a few words into a SWOT matrix.

Users can provide a more detailed description alongside each insight. They are encouraged to explain and support their thinking. AI assistance is also available to help users develop and improve their analysis.

In other words, the software reduces some of the friction involved in developing a more complete SWOT insight.

Yet only 12.3% of the entries analysed contained a separate description.

That matters because the separate description provides a natural place to record the evidence and strategic implication that short main entries cannot reasonably contain. Without it, a brief entry is much more likely to remain a label or observation rather than become a fully developed insight.

That doesn't tell us what would happen if the same users completed their SWOT analysis using a spreadsheet, presentation or physical Post-it notes.

Nor does it prove that software guidance or AI support is ineffective. Users may ignore the guidance, choose not to use AI, or put their reasoning directly into the main entry.

But it does suggest that the tendency to capture a concise observation and move on may be quite strong.

If users do this even when the tool actively encourages them to go further, the issue may lie partly in how people think about SWOT itself.

What the research does — and doesn't — tell us

There is an important limitation to this analysis.

The data tells us whether someone added a separate description. It doesn't tell us whether the main entry itself contains evidence or explains the strategic implication.

Some of the 8,870 entries without descriptions may contain all three elements within their main statement.

Equally, having a description doesn't guarantee quality. A description could simply contain more unsupported opinion.

So we cannot conclude from this analysis that 87.7% of SWOT entries are poor or that 87.7% contain no evidence.

We can, however, make a reasonable distinction between short unsupported entries and entries that provide more detail. A brief entry such as Brand or Strong brand, with no separate description, is much less likely to include an evidence-backed observation and a strategic implication than a longer entry or one accompanied by a detailed description.

What we can say is:

Of 10,111 SWOT entries analysed, 87.7% had no separate supporting description. Almost half contained more than ten words, yet only 4.3% of these longer entries included a separate description — despite being created in a tool designed to encourage and support more developed SWOT insights.

That suggests a hypothesis worth exploring:

SWOT analysis may often capture observations without explicitly capturing the evidence behind them or their strategic implications.

Is the problem actually how we do SWOT?

Perhaps we shouldn't blame the people completing the analysis.

Think about how a typical SWOT workshop works.

Someone asks:

"What are our strengths?"

A participant responds:

"Our brand."

Someone writes Strong brand on a Post-it note or types it into a SWOT matrix.

Then the group moves on.

The process has worked exactly as designed.

The problem is that the question itself encourages categorisation rather than analysis.

The same applies to:

What are our weaknesses?

What opportunities can we see?

What threats do we face?

These questions are good at generating lists.

They aren't necessarily good at generating strategic insights.

Ask three questions instead

For every potential strength, weakness, opportunity or threat, ask:

1. What have we observed?

Be specific about what appears to be happening.

2. What evidence supports it?

Use data, research, customer feedback, competitor analysis or other evidence where possible.

3. So what?

Explain why the observation matters to the strategic choices the organisation faces.

The third question is particularly important.

Something can be true without being strategically important.

If an observation doesn't affect the choices you might make, the resources you might allocate, the risks you need to manage or your ability to achieve your goals, you should question whether it belongs in the SWOT at all.

For short entries, make sure that the necessary detail is captured somewhere. If the main statement is only a few words, use the description to record the evidence and explain why the entry matters. Otherwise, the entry is unlikely to be enough to support a strategic decision later.

SWOT should be an input into strategy, not the output

The purpose of SWOT isn't to fill four boxes.

It is to help an organisation make better strategic choices.

A strength matters because it gives you an advantage you may be able to exploit.

A weakness matters because it constrains your choices or makes you vulnerable.

An opportunity matters because there is something you might choose to do about it.

A threat matters because it could affect your ability to achieve what you're trying to achieve.

So perhaps the test for every SWOT entry should be:

What have we observed? What evidence supports it? So what?

If you can't answer that final question, you probably haven't finished the analysis.

About this analysis

This analysis covers 10,111 SWOT entries created in StratNav.

Entries were grouped according to the number of words in the main SWOT entry and whether the user had also provided content in the separate description field.

Of the 10,111 entries:

• 1,241 (12.3%) contained a separate description.

• 8,870 (87.7%) did not.

• 5,004 (49.5%) contained more than ten words in the main entry.

• Of those entries containing more than ten words, 216 (4.3%) contained a separate description.

StratNav encourages users to provide more complete explanations for their SWOT insights and provides AI assistance that can help users develop their analysis. The dataset does not, however, establish whether individual users saw or followed that guidance or used the available AI support.

The analysis measures the presence of a description, not the quality of its contents. It therefore cannot determine whether individual entries contain evidence or explain their strategic implications.

However, short entries without a separate description have limited capacity to contain all the elements of a good analysis. The data is best interpreted as evidence about how people structure SWOT entries, rather than a direct measure of the quality of the resulting strategy.