---
title: "Deciding which products we build"
source: PostHog Documentation
source_url: https://github.com/PostHog/posthog.com
licence: MIT
domain: data-and-analysis
subdomain: posthog-docs
date_added: 2026-04-25
---

Providing all the tools in one is a core part of our strategy.

Shipping them in the right order is key to a fast return on investment from every new product.

## How we pick new products

Until products are built and launched, it's hard to predict which ones will do well. Because of this, we want to be working on a mix of new products at any given time. Some we're very sure will do well, others might be more of a bet with a potentially big outcome. This guidance is therefore less prescriptive that it could otherwise be.

Products we know will work well if we ship them:
- Products engineers use at all company stages
  - Think error tracking or feature flags. The [persona doesn't change](/handbook/who-we-build-for#our-current-persona) as the company gets bigger.
  - Especially true if it works for a 2 person startup, because that means we get in first
- Products that already have a $1bn competitor in the market (e.g. a company with around $100M in revenue)
- Products that are very easy to integrate for our existing customers. 
  - For example, users can enable the product in PostHog without needing to make a code change, or products that built on top of data that people are already collecting in PostHog
- Products that _you_ are excited to build. 
  - People pursuing their interests get more done, go much further, and execute to a better standard.
- Products that our customers are asking for

Products we're less excited about building:
- Products where the ICP quickly changes to someone outside the product team, especially teams far removed from engineering
  - For example, a CRM. We'd be more excited about building a customer support tool, as support often is a task that involves engineering.

## How new products get built

Sometimes the Blitzscale team will decide a new product needs to be built. They'll find someone internally to run it, ideally someone who's been at PostHog for at least 6 months (we tried getting new people to ship new products, but they often struggled to ship quickly).

Other times you might have an idea for a great product we should build. In that case, use the <PrivateLink url="https://github.com/PostHog/requests-for-comments-internal/blob/main/_TEMPLATES/request-for-comments-new-product.md">New Product RFC template</PrivateLink>. You might choose to hack together a prototype of the product to demo and show off, which you should do! Blitzscale only needs to get involved if you want to start working on this product full time. At that point, we are choosing whether to invest a pretty serious amount of money into launching it, so we want to get that right.

For a complete walkthrough of the product lifecycle, see [releasing new products and features](/handbook/product/releasing-new-products-and-features).

## Next products on deck

From our [roadmap](/roadmap), here's what we're currently working on:

- Endpoints - `#team-data-modeling`
- Logs - `#project-logs`
- Product autonomy - `#team-array`
- Customer Analytics `#team-web-analytics`
  - Revenue analytics now included in customer analytics
- Workflows `#team-workflows`

And these are the products we think we'll focus on next:
- 100x the toolbar - likely `#team-array`
- Metrics
- APM
- BI over any database (not just those synced to our data warehouse)
- Support -> PRs
- AI answers and docs

## How to pick which feature within an existing product to build

In the early days, you'll be shipping the main few features that your category of product has as standard. In product analytics, this would be something like (1) capturing events, (2) trends, (3) funnels, (4) retention, and (5) person views.

Once this is done, you'll get a stream of feature requests and bug reports from users. You can't go too wrong if you listen to these and, by default, prioritize those that help us get in first, first. For example, with our data warehouse, we picked multi-tenant architecture because we wanted startups to be able to get started for free or very little initial cost - even though a single tenant approach would have given us an MVP faster. Sometimes, if sales are asking, you may choose to prioritize a feature for a big customer earlier, but you should never do this when you wouldn't have shipped it at some stage anyway. However, be cognizant of how often you do this, and whether now is the right time to be shifting your [persona focus](/handbook/who-we-build-for#our-current-persona). 

Later on, you can then _innovate_ several ways:

* unpeel your product - you start with the software, then offer API access, then offer better API access, then infrastructure (if you are feeling brave) - *by default, start with this* reminder: charge for API access appropriately, speak to Annika for help figuring this out. Doing this increases our luck surface area (it means your users will find new use cases).
* features more specific to our ICP (make it more engineering-y, more customization, more power)
* integrate it with our other products (either feature them _in_ the product you just built, or feature your product in _theirs_)
