How to structure a Malt case study: method + 5 examples

Many freelancers confuse the two formats. It's a mistake that costs.

Portfolio project: short format (100-250 words), one project among others, aim is volume of proof.

Case study: long format (400-800 words), one in-depth project, aim is to demonstrate method.

On Malt, you can have 5-8 short portfolio projects + 1-2 in-depth case studies. Case studies are your 'flagship projects' that prove your added value in depth.

When to use a case study: - Emblematic project with spectacular results - Complex case that shows your methodology - Project in your target specialty sector - Reassuring client with permission to communicate

When to stay with a portfolio project: - Shorter or classic missions - Projects where results are less spectacular - Confidential missions with no possible detail

Ideal ratio: 1 to 2 in-depth case studies + 5-6 short portfolio projects. The 2 case studies must be placed first in your portfolio to capture attention. They are your method demonstration. Short projects complete by showing the volume and variety of experiences.

STAR-R is a case study structuring framework that works remarkably on Malt. Adapted from classic STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) with a crucial additional R.

S — Situation (100 words max) Describe the client context: who, what size, what sector, what stage. Then the initial problem: what wasn't working, why they contacted you. Be precise and quantified. E.g.: 'EdTech scale-up, Series B, 80 people. Organic traffic drop of -35% over 6 months following a poorly calibrated technical redesign. Goal: recover lost traffic in 4 months.'

T — Task (50 words max) The mission entrusted to you. Not what you did, what was expected. E.g.: 'Audit the causes of the drop, define a recovery plan, execute critical fixes over 4 months with a goal of +50% traffic recovered.'

A — Action (200-300 words) The richest part. Your approach, your decisions, your deliverables. Structure in 3-5 numbered phases. Show your methodology. E.g.: 'Phase 1 (weeks 1-2): full technical audit, identification of 12 blocking issues. Phase 2 (weeks 3-6): Core Web Vitals correction + internal linking restructure. Phase 3 (weeks 7-12): refresh of 40 pillar pages. Phase 4 (weeks 13-16): netlinking plan, follow-up and tweaks.'

R — Result (100 words) Quantified results. Multiply KPIs: traffic, conversion, revenue, time, adoption. Compare before/after. E.g.: 'Organic traffic recovered to +12% vs pre-drop baseline in 4 months. 15 keywords in Google top 3. Revenue attributed to SEO: +€45k/month. Goal exceeded by 60%.'

R — Retrospective (100 words) The often-forgotten part, the one that differentiates. What did you learn? What would you do differently? This reflexivity proves your seniority and maturity. E.g.: 'The key was prioritizing Core Web Vitals before any other work stream. On a similar project, I'd start with a contingency audience banner plan from week 1.'

6 recurring mistakes that sink 80% of the case studies I see on Malt.

Mistake 1 — Zero narrative tension. You start with 'I built a website' instead of 'The client was losing 35% of their traffic'. Tension at the beginning hooks. Without tension, no one reads.

Mistake 2 — Too technical, not enough business. You detail 'I used React 18 with Zustand for state management' but you don't say what it delivered to the client. Malt buys business results, not stacks.

Mistake 3 — No numbers. 'Results: the client was happy' = zero impact. 'Results: conversion +32%, revenue +€45k/month, NPS +15 points' = signature.

Mistake 4 — No client context. You don't say if it's a 5-person startup or a 5,000-person group. The reader can't project themselves.

Mistake 5 — Text block format. A case study without visual structure (paragraphs, bullets, phases) fatigues. Malt allows a markdown-like format, use it: H3 headings, bullet lists, bold on key numbers.

Mistake 6 — Excessive self-glorification. 'Thanks to my unique expertise...' = burned. Stay factual, let the results speak. The client reads between the lines that you're good if the numbers are good.

Quality test: have a potential prospect (or a friend outside your field) read your case study. If they can't summarize in 2 sentences 'who, what, why, result', it's poorly structured.

B2B fintech front-end app redesign — Time-to-load divided by 3, conversion +18%

Situation. B2B FinTech scale-up (Series B, 60 people), SaaS app with 40,000 active users. Average time-to-load of 3.2 seconds, bounce rate at 34%, recurring user complaints about slowness. Legacy React 16 + Redux stack, 2 years of technical debt.

Task. Progressively refactor the front-end to a modern stack to reach a time-to-load under 1.5s in 3 months, without interrupting the internal team's product velocity.

Action. - Phase 1 (weeks 1-2): full technical audit, performance benchmark (Lighthouse, WebPageTest), identification of the 8 priority blocking points. - Phase 2 (weeks 3-4): migration to Next.js 15 App Router with React Server Components for critical pages (dashboard, transactions listing). - Phase 3 (weeks 5-8): Cache Components implementation on data-heavy views, streaming of heavy components, lazy loading images. - Phase 4 (weeks 9-10): strict TypeScript migration on critical modules, Playwright visual tests setup. - Phase 5 (weeks 11-12): WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit, keyboard navigation fixes, ARIA adjustments.

Result. - Time-to-load: 3.2s → 1.1s (-66%) - Checkout conversion rate: +18% - Lighthouse Performance score: 42 → 96 - Bounce rate: 34% → 19% - Internal product team NPS: +25 points on post-delivery survey

Retrospective. The key was starting with Cache Components before the TypeScript migration. On a similar project, I'd propose from kickoff a business measurement plan (revenue per user) rather than just technical KPIs, to align the business team on the impact of the initiative.

Industrial design system — HR SaaS scale-up, 120 components delivered in 12 weeks

Situation. HR SaaS scale-up (200 people, Series C), 3 distinct products, no unified design system. 2 years of design debt: major visual inconsistencies, product shipping time slowed by lack of reusable components. Business goal: accelerate product development cycle by 40%.

Task. Design and deliver a complete and industrialized design system (tokens, components, dev doc) in 12 weeks, adopted by all 3 product teams.

Action. - Phase 1 (weeks 1-2): UI audit of the 3 products, mapping of the 340 existing patterns, identification of the 120 priority components. - Phase 2 (weeks 3-4): definition of the tokens strategy (colors, typography, spacing, radius, shadows) aligned with the brand book. - Phase 3 (weeks 5-9): Figma design of the 120 components with variants, states, properties, integrated doc. Weekly review sessions with the 3 product design leads. - Phase 4 (weeks 10-11): Figma dev mode integration, creation of dev documentation (Storybook + Notion), handoff sessions with tech teams. - Phase 5 (week 12): cross-functional training (4 sessions), post-delivery governance plan, definition of contribution rituals.

Result. - 120 components delivered + 45 design tokens + full doc. - Product shipping cycle: 6 weeks → 3 weeks (-50%). - Dev team adoption: 100% on new features 2 months post-delivery. - Measured UI debt reduction: -70% on 6-month audit. - Product teams satisfaction (internal survey): 4.7/5.

Retrospective. The mistake I nearly made: delivering the components before locking down governance. On a similar project, I now start with a governance workshop in week 1 to clarify who contributes, who reviews, who decides. Without this framework, the design system dies 6 months post-delivery.

Post-migration SEO recovery — Organic traffic restored to +12% in 4 months

Situation. EdTech Series B scale-up (80 people). Organic traffic drop of -35% over 6 months following a poorly calibrated platform migration (Symfony to Next.js). 500,000 indexed URLs, estimated SEO revenue -€280k/year. Panic internally, SEO team resigning.

Task. Audit the causes of the drop, define a prioritized recovery plan, execute critical fixes over 4 months with a goal of +50% traffic recovered.

Action. - Phase 1 (weeks 1-2): full technical audit (Screaming Frog crawl, GSC, server logs), identification of 12 blocking issues including 4 critical (302 redirects instead of 301 on 40k URLs, broken canonicals, degraded Core Web Vitals, outdated sitemap). - Phase 2 (weeks 3-6): fixing the 4 critical issues with the internal tech team, restructuring internal linking on the 200 pillar pages, emergency recovery plan for orphan URLs. - Phase 3 (weeks 7-12): editorial redesign of 40 pillar pages (H1-H6 structure, structured data, content enrichment), targeted netlinking plan on lost pages. - Phase 4 (weeks 13-16): weekly monitoring GSC + Semrush, adjustments on the 15% of pages that hadn't recovered, content plan for 2026.

Result. - Organic traffic: -35% → +12% vs pre-drop baseline (full recovery + growth). - 15 keywords in Google top 3 (vs 4 before intervention). - Revenue attributed to SEO: +€45k/month at M+6. - Recovery goal exceeded by 60% (targeted +50%, achieved +12% vs baseline). - Core Web Vitals: 100% of pillar pages in 'Good' post-delivery.

Retrospective. The key was prioritizing Core Web Vitals before any other work stream. On a similar project, I'd start with a contingency audience banner plan from week 1 to reassure internal teams while structural fixes take effect (2-3 months of normal latency).

EXAMPLE 4 — B2B Writer

LinkedIn ghostwriting SaaS CEO — 3k to 28k followers in 12 months, 3 leads/month

Situation. CEO of a B2B SaaS startup (25 people, Series A), near-inexistent LinkedIn presence (3k followers, 1 post/month with no engagement). Goal: thought leadership on his market (HR tech), qualified inbound lead generation.

Task. Build the CEO's LinkedIn presence in 12 months with a goal of 20k qualified followers and 2 inbound leads/month attributed to posts.

Action. - Phase 1 (month 1): mapping of the HR tech market, identification of the 30 strong editorial angles, definition of tone of voice (mix of expertise + founder vulnerability). - Phase 2 (months 2-12): 2 posts/week (100 posts total) + 1 long article/month (12 articles), quarterly planning with 3 structuring thematic series. - Each post: strong hook, airy structure, 1 insight + 1 anecdote + 1 question, targeted hashtags. - Bi-monthly sessions with the CEO to capture his field insights. - Monthly KPI monitoring, format adjustments based on performance.

Result. - Followers: 3k → 28k (+833%). - Average engagement: 12 → 340 likes/post. - Attributed qualified inbound leads: 3/month (i.e., 30 leads over the year). - 3 incoming investor pitches via LinkedIn (out of the 4 approaches received for Series B).

Retrospective. Regularity of 2 posts/week was the real differentiator, more than the individual quality of posts. For a similar project, I'd start with a phase of A/B testing angles (3 series in parallel over 4 weeks) to validate what hooks before industrializing.

---

EXAMPLE 5 — Growth Consultant

B2B cold outreach — 45 qualified meetings in 3 months for a consulting firm

Situation. B2B strategy consulting firm (12 people, €4M revenue), 100% word-of-mouth acquisition. Goal: diversify acquisition without diluting the premium brand.

Task. Generate 30 qualified meetings in 3 months via LinkedIn/email cold outreach, without ever crossing the line into poorly targeted spam.

Action. - Phase 1 (weeks 1-2): ultra-precise ICP definition (COMEX executives, mid-market industrial companies 200-2000 people, Western France zone), sourcing 400 target accounts via LinkedIn Sales Navigator + Kaspr. - Phase 2 (weeks 3-4): writing of 4 multi-touch Lemlist sequences (LinkedIn + email), personalization by persona, A/B testing of hooks. - Phase 3 (weeks 5-12): launch of sequences in waves of 50 contacts/week, response rate monitoring, weekly adjustments. - Phase 4: phone qualification of warm leads, handoff to the firm's leader for closing.

Result. - 45 qualified meetings generated in 3 months (goal exceeded by 50%). - Average sequence response rate: 14% (market benchmark 3-5%). - 12 proposals sent, 4 new missions signed (total amount €320k). - Growth mission ROI: 8x over 3 months.

Retrospective. The key factor was the ultra-restricted ICP (400 accounts only, very targeted) rather than volume. On a similar project, I'd push personalization even further (1-1 writing on the 50 priority accounts), at the expense of volume.