How to read this
- This page gives the seven things that matter most and a one-screen comparison with every peer.
- Competitor tiers sorts 28 firms into direct rivals, generalists and design benchmarks.
- Persona journeys walks a public sector buyer, a supplier buyer and a cleared candidate through nine sites, with screenshots of every step.
- Buyer voice pulls out what eight discovery calls with SCC, Made Tech, Datadog, Critical Cloud and NIHR reveal.
- Strengths and flaws puts the seven firms we studied in depth side by side.
- Design and UX review walks through eleven topics. Each shows IP's screenshots next to peers', compares IP with all six peers and suggests what to try next.
- SEO audit checks how each site is built for search, what IP ranks for and what to fix.
- Live view shows any page of any site, on its own or side by side, on desktop or phone.
- Site by site has every annotated screenshot for each website.
- All findings lists every note in one place, with filters.
A note on the design. IP's current website was designed by James Vigar, IP's brand designer for ten years. The design points in this dashboard compare the site with peers and with the brand direction James and Andrew have set out themselves. They are offered as options for the next iteration, for James to lead.
The seven things that matter most
1. The best raw material in the set
Named central government clients (DVLA, DBT, Bank of England, HM Land Registry), a real employer branding offer and the sharpest supplier headline. No peer has all three.
2. Employer brand is IP's to own
Only Morgan Hunt sells anything similar, and it is a generalist. Nobody pitches employer brand to suppliers selling into government.
3. Proof is the biggest gap
Peers publish refund guarantees, placement numbers per client and named testimonials. IP's headline stats have no source and its testimonials have no names.
4. The supplier spoke is contested
Deerfoot and Searchability already sell cleared talent to systems integrators, with named clients. IP needs one supplier case study (Six Works) to compete.
5. The site hides IP's strengths
The first screen has a headline and nothing else, sections are tall, colour is the loudest in the set and the mobile homepage has no button.
6. Search is not the battleground
No specialist peer ranks for the buyer search terms. The website's job is credibility for people who already know IP's name, not traffic.
7. Suppliers ask "do you work with firms like us?"
Eight discovery calls back the analysis: buyers want supplier proof, fear delivery failure more than slow hiring, and want help before bids, not just CVs. IP's best numbers are only ever said out loud.
IP against each peer, topic by topic
How to read it: each cell compares IP with one peer on one topic from the design and UX review. "Peer ahead" means the peer does it better. Hover a cell for the reason, or click a topic to see the screenshots.
For a firm-by-firm summary, see .
Quick fixes versus bigger changes
From the design and UX review. Quick fixes are small changes most web editors can make in a day. Bigger changes are design decisions for James to lead.
Positioning scorecard
How to read it: each dot is a point out of three. Three dots means strong, one means weak or missing. IP's row is shaded.
| Firm | Public sector tech focus | Cleared positioning | Sells to suppliers | Employer brand offer | Frameworks | Proof and content | Search visibility |
|---|
Darwin's judgement from each firm's public website, GCA pages and Ahrefs, read 6 Oct 2026.
Website, copy and case study scores
How to read it: longer bars are better. IP is joint lowest on website design and UX, but third of seven on both copy and public sector case studies. Deerfoot scores best on website and copy but has the weakest public sector case studies.
| Firm | Website design and UX (/35) | Copy and messaging (/30) | Public sector case studies (/30) |
|---|
LinkedIn and search footprint
How to read it: "reactions per 1k followers" shows how engaged each audience is, whatever its size. IP's audience is small but more engaged than most, though IP posted very little from February to August 2026.
| Firm | LinkedIn followers | Avg reactions per post | Reactions per 1k followers | What they post | UK organic visits/month | Domain rating |
|---|
LinkedIn viewed 6 Oct 2026; averages cover each page's recent own posts. Search figures from Ahrefs (whole domain, UK). Ahrefs undercounts small sites, so treat small numbers as directional.
Annotations by site
| Site | Screens | IP gap | IP edge | Level | IP fix |
|---|
Design and UX review
Eleven topics, each answering one question a buyer would ask without realising it. For each one you get a short verdict, why it matters, screenshots of IP next to peers, what we found and what to try next.
Measured at a 1440 by 900 desktop screen and a 390px phone screen, the same way for every site. Accessibility checked against WCAG 2.2 AA with automated tests (axe-core) plus manual checks. Options are for James to lead.
"Boutique", "specialist", "less is more". Buyers are "looking for stability" and "authority". James Vigar, 23 Jun call
"Use pops of Magenta selectively as accents and highlights to support the core palette of Denim with Aqua." James Vigar, 15 Sep, feedback on Darwin's social assets (from a summary of his PDF)
"Quite modern, quite fresh, but without being too wacky and off the scale." Andrew Medhurst, 23 Jun call
At a glance: IP against each peer
What to do, in order
Strengths and flaws, firm by firm
How to read it: what each firm does well and where it falls down, with IP first. A peer's strength is an idea IP could borrow; a peer's flaw is an opening IP can use.
How to use it: pick a site, then click any numbered box on a screenshot (or any note beside it) to link the two. Use the filters to show only gaps, edges or fixes.
Design verdict by site
How to use it: look at one site at a time, or put two side by side. Pick a site and page in each pane, or use quick jump to show the same kind of page on both. In compare mode the two panes scroll together. The site list is grouped into direct competitors (public sector and P2P specialists), indirect competitors (generalists with a public sector practice) and design benchmarks, which are not competitors.
Five of the seven sites, including IP's, tell browsers not to show them inside another page, so this view uses full-page snapshots taken on 6 Oct 2026. Searchability NS&D and Sanderson allow a live embed, which you can switch on in their pane. "Open live" always opens the real page in a new tab.
Every annotation in one list
Screenshots captured 6 Oct 2026 from public pages, with robots.txt respected. Copy is quoted as it appeared on the day. Scores and annotations are Darwin's judgement. Automated accessibility tests catch only part of WCAG, so the counts are a guide, not an audit. IP's homepage video did not play in the capture browser; real visitors may see it, but the page has no fallback image.