BCG Matrix

A software company sells six products. One of them, the oldest, generates most of the cash the business runs on; the newest barely breaks even but is growing fast. Leadership keeps debating whether to shut down two of the smaller, flatter products. The BCG Matrix is built for exactly this conversation, and it usually overturns the assumption that "not growing" means "not worth keeping".

The BCG Matrix, developed at the Boston Consulting Group, plots products or business units on two axes: market growth rate and relative market share. That produces four categories: Stars (high growth, high share), Cash Cows (low growth, high share), Question Marks (high growth, low share), and Dogs (low growth, low share). The word "relative" matters more than any other word in the model: it compares your share against your largest competitor, not against the whole market. The Boston Consulting Group introduced the matrix in the early 1970s as a way to allocate cash across a portfolio rather than judge each product on its own, and that original purpose (moving cash from mature products to promising ones) is still the clearest way to read what the four quadrants are for.

• Use it when a business has more than one product or business unit and needs to decide where to invest, hold or reconsider.
• Use it to check whether the loudest, fastest-growing product is actually the one funding everything else, or just the one getting the most attention.
• Use it before cutting a low-growth product, to check whether it is a Cash Cow quietly paying for the rest of the portfolio.
• Do not use it with absolute market share figures: a product with ten percent share in a market where the leader has forty percent is in a very different position from one where the leader has twelve percent.
• Do not use it as the only input into a portfolio decision; it says nothing about strategic fit, brand, or customer relationships between products.

One-page model visual

The one-page visual

Use this visual as a quick reference. The card in the deck adds the questions and the steps to run the model in your next meeting.

See all 50 models as cards →

The most common mistake is using absolute market share ("we have twelve percent of this market") instead of relative market share, which compares you specifically to the largest competitor. A product with a small absolute share can still be the clear market leader in a fragmented market, which makes it a Cash Cow or a Star, not a Dog.

The second mistake is treating "Dog" as a synonym for "sell it" or "shut it down". A low-growth, low-share product can still generate steady cash, serve a loyal customer base, or protect a company's presence in a category competitors would otherwise own outright. The matrix names the category; it does not make the call on what to do about it.

The confusion between absolute and relative share is compounded when a company only tracks its own revenue growth over time, without ever checking what competitors are doing in the same period. A product growing at a healthy rate can still be losing relative share if the market leader is growing faster, and revenue figures alone will not show that: only a direct comparison against the largest competitor will.

Illustrative example: a fictional company, not a customer case.

For the software company: the oldest product has forty percent share in a market where the next competitor has fifteen percent, but the market itself has stopped growing: a textbook Cash Cow. The newest product has eight percent share in a fast-growing market where the leader has thirty percent: a Question Mark, not yet a Star, and expensive to keep funding.

Worth adding: the four remaining products sit somewhere between these two extremes, and plotting all six on the same chart, rather than treating the conversation as a choice between just the oldest and newest, is what actually shows how much of the portfolio depends on that one ageing Cash Cow.

That single reframe changes the debate: the question is no longer why the old product isn't growing, it is how much of its cash should fund the Question Mark before deciding whether it can become a Star. The card takes you through the remaining steps to a decision.

• Front: what the BCG Matrix is for and why relative, not absolute, market share is the number that matters.
• Back: the numbered steps to apply the model, plus a short worked example of its own. The company in this guide is a separate illustration, not the example printed on the card.
• Digital: a Google Sheets calculator for relative market share and growth rate, feeding a Miro board for plotting the quadrant, with a video tutorial.

• Ansoff Matrix looks forward to new growth options, where the BCG Matrix looks at the portfolio you already have.
• Value Chain Analysis helps explain why a Cash Cow still costs money to run even without growth.
• Porter's Five Forces adds context on why a market has stopped growing in the first place.

BizDecks is the cheat sheet for business decisions: 50 models, one card each. See the toolkits.