Learn Strategy #4: Absolute advantage vs. Relative Advantage

Why its important to aspiring strategists and how to use it

Learn Strategy is a ongoing series I write to help aspiring strategists and tacticians learn fundamentals and topics, that get lost in the noise about strategy. Have topic you want me to cover? Send me a message or mention it in the comments.

---

Strategy and geopol talk gets pretty heated and argumentative about which side has the biggest stick.

Everyone talks about who has more power - more capital, more weapons, more people. Yet raw power alone rarely decides anything. What matters is structure: how power is arranged and applied over time, across space, and under pressure.

Most strategy talk ignores this. People chase strength without understanding or being able to read strategic forms. So they end up overstretched, surprised, or defeated by leaner rivals.

To gain real clarity, we start with two basic ideas: absolute advantage and relative advantage. These are critical for competition from geopolitics to business. They sound similar, but mixing them up breaks campaigns, balance sheets, and careers. Knowing the difference is important if you want to be a great strategist or tactician.

There’s several concepts I’ll walk you through to get you there:

1. Absolute advantage is about raw capacity.
   This is the advantage that we all get naturally. Its sheer greater power: resources, scale, speed, and the ability to exert greater force. It is using the resources at your disposal to alter the strategic picture in your favor. This is a rare advantage that’s built up - and few have.

2. Relative advantage is about trade-offs and timing.
   You do not need to be strongest everywhere. You only need to be stronger somewhere, at the right moment. Timing beats speed. Concentration of strength beats diffusion. That’s how smaller players keep bigger ones off balance.

3. Why does this even matter to aspiring strategists? Strategic thinking begins with knowing yourself. Then, recognizing what kind of advantage you're playing with. If you mistake relative advantage for raw dominance - like using a club to do a scalpel’s job? You’ll lose to someone who didn’t.

Let’s break it down a bit. I’ll add relevant geopol and business examples, so this doesn’t get high level.

The bottom of this article could be cut off in some email clients. Read the full article, unbroken here.

1. Absolute advantage is about raw capacity.

When you hold an absolute advantage, you outperform others in clear, measurable ways. You can make more units, cover more ground, or deliver results with fewer inputs. Your strength is visible, and most of the time undisputed.

You gain the initiative by having more at your disposal, not by not by being cleverer or more efficient:

• You can bring more raw force than your opponent

• You have the advantage in resources, time, and space.

• You bring more energy to hold that advantage.

• Most importantly: it can be sustained for longer over the opponent.

That advantage might come from superior infrastructure, greater capital reserves, faster logistics, or a larger workforce. Whatever the domain, the principle remains the same: one side can simply do more.

---

Business Example: Walmart

Walmart’s rise was powered by absolute advantage in logistics and inventory. It didn’t win by being trendier or more local. It won by first gaining smaller relative advantages in logistics, real time data, and distribution. Then by scaling those to be more efficient, cheaper, and relentlessly scalable. These gave it the power to outprice and out supply regional chains at a tempo it could set. An absolute advantage was formed by gaining smaller relative advantages, then using these to set the initiative.

---

The concept of absolute advantage often dominates new strategist’s thinking. Its often their goal, because it feels concrete to everyone. And it feels good to dominate the opponent, with ease.

Power from absolute advantage is visible, scalable, and the effects of it can be seen. When the problem is direct and the contest clear, absolute advantage often produces real, measurable success. But it can also allow you to recover from failure very quickly.

So its that kind of power feels safe. It gives you breathing room. It can intimidate rivals before the contest even starts. It lets you take initiative, define the terms, and force others to react to you.

Why It Matters in Strategy

Understanding absolute advantage matters because it teaches you when to lean into raw power. Then use it and when to watch your back.

But how do you know you have it?

1. You win direct contests.
   When the field is stable and the objective is clear, the side with more force usually wins. If you can move faster, sustain longer, or apply pressure more broadly, you collapse resistance through scale alone. Use this when time is compressed and the terrain favors direct engagement.

2. You control the environment.
   When you’re the biggest player, you set the initiative. Then shape the strategic and tactical environment. Your decisions ripple outward. Competitors have to build around your structure and react to you, not the other way around. This lets you shape the rules - but only as long as your advantage holds.

3. You deter challengers.
   Visible strength creates hesitation. One reason that nations hold military parades. Many actors will not engage if they believe the cost of resistance is too high. Absolute advantage does not always require demonstration. When its scale is understood and felt, it alters the choices of others before conflict begins. Restraint becomes a strategic asset when backed by the capacity to overwhelm. One reason that nations hold military parades.

4. You buy time to think.
   Strength offers the ability to absorb pressure without immediate response. It creates space for reflection, adaptation, and experimentation. In fluid situations, this margin is often the difference between strategic collapse and recovery. You have strategic breathing room, depth, and time to respond. That margin of error is strategic gold. I’ve seen how big Fortune 500s use this, and its

Absolute advantage is a rare - it often takes many years to build that up. You need multiple relative advantages build over time and chained together to accumulate to an absolute one.

Think of absolute advantage like a fortress. You don’t build it in a day. You construct it stone by stone. Each one a relative advantage: a better position here, a trade route there, a local alliance that tilts the balance. Over time, those fragments harden into structure. And one day, you no longer need to maneuver. You simply occupy the ground others have to react to.

But if you rely too heavily on these benefits, you’ll stop adapting. That’s when your advantage starts to rot from the inside.

So, what risks do you need to manage?

But here’s the world rarely stands still, and too much faith in absolute advantage assumes it does. When the terrain shifts (new tech, new competitors, new demands) being optimize for yesterday’s competition won’t save you. If you depend on absolute advantage alone ?You’re betting the rules of competition won’t change.

If you hold an absolute advantage, don’t get lazy. You’re playing on borrowed time unless you actively counter these four risks:

• It burns resources just to stay ahead.
  Absolute advantage runs hot. It survives not through efficiency, but through momentum. Each expansion invites new dependencies. That scale burns resources by default. If the context shifts or the returns soften, the system starts to eat itself.

  • What to do: Identify which parts of your capacity actively contribute to advantage, and which simply increase weight. Not all growth strengthens position. Design for the ability to contract without losing leverage, not just to scale without friction.

  • Example: After the 2020 e-commerce boom, Amazon scaled its logistics network based on COVID-era demand and assumptions. The structure was optimized for a world of sustained lockdowns and rapid online growth. When conditions normalized, that same network became overbuilt. When growth slowed, underused facilities and bloated operations started dragging profits instead of driving them.

• It locks you into what worked last time.
  The more you win by doing one thing using your absolute advantage? The more you commit to doing only that thing. You build processes, habits, and systems around repeating a model that used to work. Eventually, the model changes—but you don’t.

  • What to do: Build the habit of continuous study. Learn beyond your current model. Map emerging patterns, even when they don’t appear immediately relevant. A strategist’s edge depends on knowing what might matter before others do. Big reason why businesses and countries blow money on what seems like useless research and development.

  • Example: Kodak built the first digital camera in 1975 and understood its potential. But rather than lead the shift, it hesitated- afraid to undermine its dominance in film. By the time it moved, others had already redefined the space, and its advantage had fossilized.

• It blinds you to smaller threats.
  The more your power works, the more you assume it always will. Dominance will You stop looking for shifts. You ignore up and coming opponents who don’t look like you. You start defending territory instead of setting the initiative. That’s when the environment moves without you.

  • What to do: Simulate failure modes. Ask how someone with fewer resources could outplay you. Watch smaller players closely - not because they threaten you now, but because they’re solving a different problem.

  • Example: Microsoft underestimated Google in the early 2000s. It focused on protecting Windows and Office, while Google built the browser, the cloud, and the ad engine that redefined the internet economy. (Microsoft did take back its edge when it did its cloud computing play!)

• It fails fast when the game changes.
  Absolute advantage works best when the field and the factors in it stays stable. But when leverage moves—through tech, distribution, or user behavior—your scale becomes rigidity. What used to be power becomes baggage.

  • What to do: Define what would make your strength irrelevant. Track those signals before they’re obvious. Invest in directions that don’t justify themselves yet.

  • Example: Blockbuster had brand dominance and retail reach. Netflix had none of it—but it adapted to streaming early. By the time Blockbuster tried to pivot, its own infrastructure made the shift nearly impossible.

So if you’re going to use absolute advantage, use it with discipline. Don’t let strength turn into strategic blindness.

How to use it - without getting trapped

If you have an absolute advantage, treat it as a temporary lead, not a permanent shield.

• Use it to shape the map, not just win battles. Strength gives you the initiative—don’t waste it defending the status quo.

• Leverage it to build new capabilities while your rivals are still catching up.
  Invest in agility while they’re trying to match your scale.

• Question it regularly.
  Ask: Is this power still relevant? Is it helping us move faster—or slowing us down?

• Don’t assume you’ll always have it.
  Assume someone is already figuring out how to beat it with less.

But all absolute advantages are build on the slow accumulation and chaining of relative advantages. So we’ll talk about relative advantage next.

2. Relative advantage is about trade-offs and timing.

Relative advantage is not about overwhelming force. It is about using the right amount of force, in the right place, at the right moment.

It is about shaping the environment, not charging through it. The strategist using relative advantage does not seek total control. They seek control where it matters most - and just long enough to turn the situation in their favor.

In go, you don’t win by wiping your opponent off the board. You place stones where they stretch the opponent’s shape, forcing inefficient moves or cutting off territory. A single well-timed stone can undo ten of theirs—if it’s placed where the balance is already fragile.

Unlike absolute advantage, which is visible, heavy, and constant, relative advantage is fluid. It is defined by context. Its value lies in being temporary, disproportionate, and situational. It rewards those who can think several moves ahead, not just in terms of force, but in terms of consequences.

---

Military Example: The Battle of Cannae

Hannibal’s victory at Cannae sparked an obsession among later western generals who sought a battle of annihilation. Hannibal’s assessments of the field proved decisive. (Picture Source: Ad Astra by Mihachi Kagano)

Hannibal knew he couldn’t beat Rome by matching their might head on. They had more soldiers, more resources, and more confidence - an absolute advantage versus his mostly mercenary force far from home. But he also knew those strengths had limits. At Cannae, he drew the Roman legions into a narrow space, let them push forward, then collapsed on them from the sides. Their size became a trap.

This is the essence of high-level strategy: Hannibal turned Rome’s absolute advantage into a relative one - not by meeting it, but by shaping the field so it served him instead. He used timing, terrain, and psychology to channel their strength where it lost coherence and became brittle. His smaller force didn’t overpower them—it out-positioned them. Relative advantage, properly arranged, became more decisive than scale.

---

As the example explains above, relative advantage isn’t about having more. It’s about knowing where “more” doesn’t matter. It’s the art of creating value out of imbalance, of making small advantages echo across time and space.

This is why it sits at the core of strategy. Playing for relative advantage tactically is the foundation of strategy 101, with more intermediate strategists becoming skilled at building multiple relative advantages simultaneously.

Why It Matters in Strategy

Most contests (military, political, economic) are not resolved by who has more, but by who makes more out of less. I think this is a hidden skill that you must learn: efficiency. If absolute advantage lets you dominate fixed terrain, relative advantage lets you win on a shifting one. It is the logic of maneuver, not occupation.

Here’s why relative advantage defines real strategic behavior:

1. You win by shaping options
   The strategist using relative advantage doesn’t attack strength directly. They stretch it. They isolate it. They make it irrelevant. The point isn’t to break the system head-on - it’s to force your opponent to defend terrain that doesn’t matter while you quietly take what does. You shape outcomes by creating dilemmas, not solutions

   1. Example: In 1940, Germany didn’t take on France’s Maginot Line directly. They studied the map, assessed French assumptions, and struck through the Ardennes - forest terrain considered too dense for tanks. The French command was rigid, optimized for a past war. Germany’s move wasn’t superior in volume or firepower - it simply reshaped the battlefield, costs, and limited the options the French had.

2. You win by staying adaptive
   When the terrain keeps changing, rigid systems fail. Relative advantage favors flexibility. You stay light, read the field, and shift position when the opportunity emerges.

   1. Example: In the early 2000s, Apple didn’t chase market share in PCs like Dell or HP. Instead, it focused on tightly integrated design and control: building a stack where software, hardware, and services fed each other. That foundation let Apple launch the iPod, then the iPhone, without reinventing its identity. It didn’t need to dominate every category. It needed a system that could evolve without fragmenting. Over time, this adaptable core became Apple’s deepest advantage:

3. You win by playing across multiple fronts
   Relative advantage doesn’t have to succeed everywhere. You probe, test, and pressure across several axes. You don’t expect decisive success in each area—but over time, the accumulation begins to shape the field. Eventually, your opponent either fractures, stagnates, or is forced to exhaust themselves in constant reaction.

   1. Example: Amazon began as an online bookstore. It slowly expanded—retail, logistics, cloud, devices—often without short-term profit. The goal wasn’t to win each market outright. It was to steadily erode competitors' margin for error. The sum of those moves became an absolute advantage.

4. You win by converting pressure into position
   In early stages, relative advantage feels like motion: light probes, flexible shifts, deferred clashes. But at a certain point, if sustained with coherence, that movement solidifies into structure. Then you are no longer maneuvering within the field. You are the field.

   1. Example: Google’s moves into browsing, mobile, and cloud were not each decisive on their own. But over time, the sum of those placements meant others had to build around Google’s structure. Relative advantage became gravitational - and an absolute advantage the industry could no longer ignore.

If you look at the examples here, you notice that relative advantages end up building to absolute advantages. I think that strategic skill begins with getting good at spotting, mastering, and seizing relative advantages. And great skill is being able to use each advantage to strengthen the other.

The skilled strategist wins not by frontal confrontation, but by forcing the opponent to disperse strength, misallocate attention, and lose balance. The winner is not always the one who takes the most. It is the one who understands where taking matters most.

But like in absolute advantages, I need to talk about risks you’re going to run into.

And what risks do you need to manage?

I want to emphasize that the strength of relative advantage lies in playing the long game. It is not fast, clean, or self-sustaining. It is fragile, requires constant tuning, and rewards those who can track complexity over time.

In both business and operations strategy sessions, we often saw this mistake: people maneuvered well, found pockets of leverage, and then lost them by moving too quickly or never consolidating. The result? Agility without impact. Worse, precision without outcome, which is a problem with the move fast and burn things mentality.

With that in mind, here are four risks you must learn to manage if you want your relative advantage to last:

• You move too soon
  When you act before the environment is tilted, you waste leverage. Relative advantage builds under pressure. (in fact, how you pressure is important - will write another article). So it’s not always visible. Don’t rush because it feels uncomfortable to wait. A sharp move means nothing if it doesn’t tilt or collapse the physical, psychological, or emotional structure beneath your opponent’s stance.

• You confuse one success for the entire game
  A local win isn’t a systemic shift - relative advantage needs to build. Relative advantage only matters if it compounds or unlocks something broader. If you don’t build on it, it evaporates the moment pressure lifts.

• You stop scanning once something works
  Just because a move succeeded doesn’t mean the conditions haven’t shifted. Relative advantage is contextual. The board changes. You need to change with it. If you stop looking, your old edge becomes tomorrow’s vulnerability.

• You never consolidate
  This is the big one. If you don’t anchor gains, you drift. Relative advantage must turn into structure or it dissolves. Agility is useful, but it must become position, or it ends up as motion without consequence. Power compounds only when held long enough to be shaped into something lasting - and you build a structure on it.

So, relative advantage is not a posture. It is a way of perceiving the board. It avoids symmetry. It resists the intoxication of brute force. And it requires your patience with ambiguity.

The strategist working from relative advantage does not wait for perfect conditions.
They build pressure until the opponent reacts, breaks, or makes a mistake.

But you’re probably wondering why this matters to you.

3. Why does this even matter to aspiring strategists?

Sometimes, you have to play the game.

Knowing absolute and relative advantage makes the strategist. Every assessment, action, and plan you commit contain elements of both. Great strategists use this

Most people approach strategy reactively. They respond to threats, chase what looks strong, or try to overpower what stands in their way. But real strategy starts with asking different questions: Where am I strong? Where are they thin? Where can pressure be applied to shift the balance without inviting a direct contest?

Because this is where strategic thinking actually begins:

• Make your strategic thinking positional, not reactive.
  You do not need to dominate the field. You need to place yourself where dominance becomes unnecessary. That means chasing multiple relative advantages: not to win outright, but to shape the board in your favor over time. The accumulation of small asymmetries, properly updated and arranged, eventually becomes unmanageable to the opponent. You build toward absolute advantage by letting relative ones compound in the background. This is where most aspiring strategists fail: they confuse force with position, or movement with progress.

• Make your advantage coherent.
  It’s easy to collect strengths that lead nowhere. Scattered capabilities dilute each other. Power that isn’t aligned with intent becomes noise. Patience, to the untrained eye, looks like inactivity. But to the strategist, patience is the slow compression of the environment. When the moment arrives, even a small force, if aligned, can reshape the situation entirely.

• Don’t confuse one type of advantage for another. Confusing forms of
  Treating capacity as if it were leverage burns through your energy without creating movement. Treating positioning as if it were scale suffocates your ability to act. Strategic maturity is learning when to apply mass—and when to leave the ground beneath your opponent unstable, so they fall of their own weight.

This matters because every move you make in in policy, business, negotiation, or conflict? Depends on how you read your position. That takes knowing the shape and form of absolute, relative, or some advantage in between.

If you mistake the kind of advantage you’re playing with, everything downstream fractures. You’ll apply the wrong tool, at the wrong time, to the wrong terrain. Then wonder why it failed or end up justifying it.

The great strategist does not ask: What do I want to do?
They ask: What position do I need to be in so the action becomes inevitable?

If you’re learning to think strategically, this is the first discipline:
Not to act harder. But to place yourself where acting less accomplishes more.

Final Thoughts.

Not much else to say. I think the article as its stands is pretty clear. But to help you along, here’s a matrix that helps illustrate it:

That’s all for today. If you have any questions, insults, and want me to go into further detail, let me know.

Before then, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to comment and follow me:

Bluesky: pplsartofwar.bsky.social

X: @pplsartofwar