The options I see are:

1. By features: We are truly differentiated relative to our peers in a few key areas (users don't have to transfer their assets to us, every investment portfolio is truly customized from the ground, and we use institutional investments to build portfolios). I get that we need to emphasize these aspects, but I don't know if they are tangible enough for users to feel compelled to go with us vs. a competitor.

2. By brand: We're aiming to brand ourselves as "the approachable friend" - someone our users (young middle-income American casual investors) were already going to for financial advice. This isn't night and day different from other brands in the space, but it's a step away from the heavily analytical tone a lot of them use. It needs to be someone reliable since people are trusting us with financial guidance, but we're more approachable than other platforms thanks to completely tailored communication and simple language.

3. By direct comparison: There is an opportunity to contrast against incumbents in the space, calling them out (without naming names) for their false claims of personalization, as they're really just slotting people in pre-built investment portfolios and giving generic advice.

What do you guys think? Combination of the three? Emphasis on one in particular? A route I'm missing?

Thanks!!