Content
Free B2B case study generator with computed derived metrics
By Charles Summers · Updated · Free, no signup
Short answer
This tool takes a client name, industry, before state, after state, one headline metric, and a timeframe, and returns a full situation-complication-intervention-result-lesson narrative plus real math: percentage change, monthly run rate, and annualised value, calculated directly from the numbers in your metric and timeframe. It also writes three pull-quote candidates of different lengths for different placements. If your metric has no usable number, it says so plainly instead of inventing a figure.
Use the b2b case study extractor
What does this tool actually do?
This tool takes a client name, industry, before state, after state, one headline metric, and a timeframe, and returns a full situation-complication-intervention-result-lesson narrative plus real math: percentage change, monthly run rate, and annualised value, calculated directly from the numbers in your metric and timeframe. It also writes three pull-quote candidates of different lengths for different placements.
It runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you type is sent to a server, no account is required, and there is no usage limit, because there is no cost per run to control.
Before, after, bridge, and which of the three does the persuading
The structure is not decoration. A case study works when a reader recognises themselves in the before state, believes the bridge is repeatable, and finds the after state plausible rather than impressive. Most published case studies invert that. They spend a paragraph on the before, four on the after, and treat the bridge as a product tour. The reader is not standing in the after. They are standing in the before, wondering whether anybody has genuinely had their problem.
A usable before state has three components: what was actually happening in numbers, what the client had already tried and why it did not work, and what it was costing them to leave it alone. The middle one carries more weight than people expect, because a reader who has tried the same failed thing stops reading as a sceptic and starts reading as somebody in the same room. Skip it and your case study describes a company that simply had not got round to solving the problem, which nobody identifies with.
The bridge is where the reader decides whether this transfers to them. It needs sequence and friction: what was done first, what had to change internally, who was involved, what went wrong on the way. A bridge with no friction reads as a brochure. Naming the awkward part (a six week data cleanup, a team that resisted the new process) makes the outcome more credible, not less, because it is the detail no vendor would invent.
An unattributed number persuades nobody, and may do damage
Increased conversions by 300 per cent is not a claim, it is a shape. There is no baseline, no period, no method and often no named company, so there is nothing for a reader to check and nothing to disagree with. Buyers have seen thousands of these. The rational response is to ignore the number entirely, which means the strongest thing in your case study contributes nothing and slightly lowers trust in everything around it.
A number needs four attributions before it does any work: whose it is, what it moved from, over what period, and how it was measured. Get all four and the claim becomes falsifiable, which is precisely why it is believable. Add the honest caveat about what else changed in the same window, because your reader is already wondering, and answering it before they ask converts a doubt into a point in your favour.
Precision matters more than magnitude. From 2.1 per cent to 3.4 per cent over four months outperforms over 60 per cent uplift with an experienced buyer, even though it is arithmetically the same and sounds smaller. Round numbers read as marketing, awkward ones read as measurement. If your client will only approve a rounded figure, put the mechanism in the sentence instead of the decimal places, and describe what was counted.
Approval decides whether you get to use any of it
The most common failure here is not writing quality, it is producing a strong case study that legal will not clear, six weeks after the champion left. Approval is a process to start early and design around, and the single biggest improvement available is asking at the moment the result lands rather than at the moment you need a new asset for the website.
It also helps to remember what you are asking for. A public case study is a favour that carries some professional risk for the person granting it, since they are attaching their name to a supplier's claim in a market where they may want a job next year. Make it easy, make it accurate, and give them a version they can point at internally, because a client who looks good to their own board approves faster than one who is doing you a kindness.
- Ask at the point of success. The week a client tells you the number is unprompted is the week they are most willing to say it publicly. Memory of the before state also fades faster than anything else in the story.
- Offer tiers of disclosure. Named with logo and metrics, named without metrics, or anonymised by industry and size. Giving a choice converts refusals into a usable version rather than a dead end.
- Write it first, then send a draft. A request for a case study is homework. A finished draft with two comments needing their input is a five minute task, and it gets returned.
- Find out who signs off in week one. In larger organisations that is usually communications or legal, not your contact, and discovering it at the final stage adds a month.
- Agree usage in writing. Website, sales deck, paid ads and conference slides are different permissions in some companies. Get the list agreed once so you are not asking again per channel.
- Have the anonymised version ready. A Series B fintech of about 200 people keeps most of the persuasive value if the shape of the story is specific enough.
One set of evidence, three lengths, three jobs
The full page case study is read by fewer people than anybody wants to admit, and mostly by people already in a live deal. That should change what goes in it. Its real job is arming a champion to make your argument in a meeting you will not attend, so it needs the implementation timeline, the objections raised internally and how they were answered, and the resourcing required. That is what gets forwarded.
The one paragraph version belongs on landing pages and in emails, placed next to the specific claim it supports rather than collected on a customers page nobody visits. The one line proof point is the metric plus its attribution, and it goes wherever the equivalent claim appears in your own words. Extract all three at once while the material is fresh, because going back to rewrite a case study into shorter forms is a job that never gets scheduled.
On quotes: take them from the person who did the work, not the executive who signed the contract. Executive quotes tend towards partnership and excited to, which say nothing and are recognised as filler. A practitioner will say something that cost them a little to admit, such as what they were doing before, and that is the sentence a reader remembers.
Numbers worth knowing
| Metric | Typical | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Gap between result and interview | 4 to 6 weeks | The before state is the first thing people forget, and they forget it in specifics first. Wait a quarter and you get a vague story plus a decent chance your champion has moved on. |
| Clients who agree to be named | expect many to decline | Varies hugely, with regulated industries and large enterprises refusing most often. Plan the anonymised version from the start rather than treating a refusal as the end. |
| Metric precision that reads as real | two significant figures | From 2.1 to 3.4 per cent beats a rounded 60 per cent uplift with sceptical readers, because precision implies somebody measured rather than estimated. |
| Case studies per target segment | 2 to 3 | One is an anecdote a buyer can dismiss as a lucky fit. Three in the same industry and size band read as a pattern, which is a different argument entirely. |
Mistakes that quietly cost you results
- Leading with a percentage that has no baseline or timeframe
- An unanchored number cannot be checked, so an experienced buyer discounts it and quietly discounts the rest of the page with it. Always state what it moved from, over what period, and how it was measured.
- Publishing before written approval of the exact wording
- A verbal yes on a call does not survive a change of contact or a nervous legal team, and a retraction costs more relationship than the case study ever earned. Get the final text and the channel list confirmed in writing.
- Writing the whole thing about what your product does
- The reader is in the before state and will decide within a paragraph whether this is their situation. Give the before real numbers, the failed previous attempt, and the cost of leaving it alone.
- Chasing the story months after the result
- Specifics decay quickly, and the person who lived through the problem may well have changed jobs. Capture the raw material when the result lands, even if you write it up later.
- Using a quote from the executive sponsor rather than the practitioner
- Sponsor quotes default to partnership language that readers skip on sight. The person who did the work will describe the before state in a way no marketer would write, and that is the line worth publishing.
What does the output look like?
This is the exact output the tool produces from the example inputs. It is generated by the same code that runs when you click the button, so what you see here is what you get.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if my headline metric doesn’t have a usable number?
The derived metrics section says plainly that no calculation was possible, instead of guessing or inventing one. Something like "significantly faster onboarding" has no number to compute from. The narrative and the three pull quotes still get built either way; only the percentage-change, run-rate and annualised-value math depends on a real figure being present.
How is monthly run rate calculated?
If your metric gives two dollar figures (a before and after), the tool takes the difference and divides it by the number of months in your timeframe, so "grew from $18,000 to $52,000" over "6 months" becomes a $34,000 gain divided by 6, or roughly $5,667 added per month. If your timeframe doesn’t parse into a number of days, weeks, months, quarters or years, this step is skipped and marked as not computable.
Which pull quote should I actually use?
Use the short one in a hero banner or an ad, where a single stat has to land in under two seconds. Use the medium one on a testimonial card or in a sales deck, where there’s room for one full sentence of context. Use the long one as a sidebar pull-quote on the full case study page, where a reader is already invested and wants the fuller story.
Are these real client quotes I can publish?
No, and don’t treat them as such. These are drafted candidates built from the inputs you gave, written in a plausible client voice, meant to be sent to the actual client for approval or used as a starting point for an interview. Publishing a quote you wrote and attributing it to a client who didn’t say it is a fast way to lose that client’s trust the first time they read your case study.
Related free tools
- Content Marketing ROI Calculator Content
- AI Lead Magnet Ideator Content
- Content Repurposing Matrix Content
- SEO Meta Tag Generator for blog posts SEO
- SEO Meta Tag Generator for comparison pages SEO
Some links on this site are affiliate links, which means Hacking Demand may earn a commission if you buy through them at no extra cost to you. This does not influence which tools are listed. The tools on this page are free and have no affiliate relationship of any kind.