| name | anthropic-fs-financial-analysis-competitive-analysis |
| description | Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on "who are the competitors to X", "benchmark X against peers", "build a market map", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry. |
Competitive Landscape Mapping
Build a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.
Environment check
This skill works in both the PowerPoint add-in and chat. Identify which you're in before starting — the mechanics differ, the workflow doesn't:
- Add-in — the deck is open live; build slides directly into it.
- Chat — generate a
.pptx file (or build into one the user uploaded).
Everything below applies in both.
Phase 1 — Scope the analysis
Competitive analysis means different things to different people. Before any research or slide-building, use ask_user_question to pin down what they actually want. Don't guess — a 20-slide peer benchmarking deck and a 5-slide market map are both "competitive analysis" and take completely different shapes.
Gather in one round if you can (the tool takes up to 4 questions):
- Scope — Single target company with competitors around it? Or multi-company side-by-side with no protagonist?
- Competitor set — Which companies are in scope? If the user names them, use exactly those. If they say "the usual suspects," propose a set and confirm.
- Audience and depth — Quick read for someone already in the space, or a full primer? This drives whether you need market sizing, industry economics, and history — or can skip to the comparison.
- Investment context — Do they need bull/base/bear scenarios and signposts? That's Step 9 below; skip it if this is a strategic review rather than an investment thesis.
If they've uploaded an Excel/CSV with competitor data, confirm which columns map to which metrics before you start pulling numbers. Source-file fidelity matters: use values exactly as given, don't recalculate or re-round.
Phase 2 — Outline, approve, then build
Do not create slides until the outline is approved. Propose slide titles and one-line content notes, present them to the user, get a yes. A competitive deck is 10-20 slides of interlocking content — rebuilding because slide 4 was wrong is expensive. The outline is the cheap iteration point.
When proposing the outline, ask_user_question works well for the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix / radar / tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model / segment / posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.
Standards — apply throughout
Prompt fidelity
When the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:
- Slide titles and section names — exact wording. If they say "Overview and Competitive Scope," don't swap in "FY2024 Competitive Landscape."
- Chart vs. table — not interchangeable. "Embedded chart" means a real chart object with data labels on the bars/slices, not a formatted table.
- Complete data series — if they list 7 competitors, include all 7. If they show 2015-2025, include every year.
- Exact values and ratios — "surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1" means those ratios, not "7.6x Lyft."
Source quality, when sources conflict
- 10-Ks / annual reports (audited)
- Earnings calls / investor presentations (management commentary)
- Sell-side research (analyst estimates, useful for private company sizing)
- Industry reports (McKinsey, Gartner — market sizing, trends)
- News (recent developments only; verify against primary sources)
Data comparability
- All competitor metrics from the same fiscal year; flag exceptions explicitly ("FY24" vs "H1 2024")
- Same metric definitions across competitors
- Convert to USD for international; note the exchange rate and date
- Missing data shows as "-" or "N/A" with an "[E]" flag for estimates — never blank
- Every number has a citation: "[Company] [Document] ([Date])"
Design
- Slide titles are insights, not labels. "Scale leaders pulling away from niche players" — not "Competitive Analysis."
- Signposts are quantified. "Margin below 40%" — not "margins decline."
- Ratings show the actual. "●●● $160B" — not just "●●●."
- Charts are real chart objects — not text tables dressed up to look like charts.
Typography — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:
- Slide titles: 28-32pt bold
- Section headers: 18-20pt bold
- Body text: 14-16pt (never below 14pt)
- Table text: 14pt
- Sources/footnotes: 14pt, gray
- Same element type = same size throughout the deck
Charts:
- Legend inside the chart boundary, not floating over the plot area
- Right-side legend for pies (≤6 slices), bottom legend for line/bar (≤4 series)
- More than 6 series → split into multiple charts or use a table
- Pie charts show percentages on slices, not just in the legend
Tables:
- Light gray header row, bold
- Right-align numbers, left-align text
- Enough cell padding that text doesn't touch borders
Color: 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.
What's strict vs. flexible
| Always | Case-by-case |
|---|
| Exact titles/sections when user specifies | Creative titles when they don't |
| Chart when user says chart; table when they say table | Visualization type when unspecified |
| Every competitor/data point they list | Number of competitors when unspecified |
| Exact values when specified | Rounding when precision unspecified |
| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |
| No overlapping elements | Which dimensions to compare |
Analysis workflow
Step 0 — Industry-defining metrics
Before anything else: what 3-5 metrics does this industry actually run on? Use these consistently across every competitor.
| Industry | Key metrics |
|---|
| SaaS | ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, Rule of 40 |
| Payments | GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin |
| Marketplaces | GMV, take rate, buyer/seller ratio, repeat rate |
| Retail | Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft |
| Logistics | Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization |
Industry not listed — pick the metrics investors and operators benchmark on.
Step 1 — Market context
Size, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.
Correct: "Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)"
Wrong: "The market is large and growing rapidly"
Step 2 — Industry economics
Map how value flows. Approach depends on industry structure:
- Vertically structured — value chain layers, typical margin at each
- Platform/network — ecosystem participants, value flows between them
- Fragmented — consolidation dynamics, margin differences by scale
Step 3 — Target company profile
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.96B |
| Growth | +26% YoY |
| Gross Margin | 45% |
| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |
| Customers | 134K |
| Retention | 92% |
| Market Share | ~15% |
Multi-segment companies add a breakdown:
| Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% |
| Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% |
| Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% |
| Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% |
*Note corporate costs if applicable
Step 4 — Competitor mapping
Group by whichever lens fits (this is a good ask_user_question decision if the user hasn't specified):
- By business model — platform / vertical / horizontal
- By segment — enterprise / SMB / consumer
- By posture — direct / adjacent / emerging
- By origin — incumbent / disruptor / new entrant
Step 5 — Positioning visualization
| Type | When |
|---|
| 2×2 matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |
| Radar/spider | Multi-factor comparison |
| Tier diagram | Natural clustering into strategic groups |
| Value chain map | Vertical industries |
| Ecosystem map | Platform markets |
See references/frameworks.md for 2×2 axis pairs by industry.
Step 6 — Competitor deep-dives
Two tables per competitor.
Metrics:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $X.XB |
| Growth | +XX% YoY |
| Gross Margin | XX% |
| Market Cap | $X.XB |
| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |
| Customers | XXK |
| Retention | XX% |
| Market Share | ~XX% |
Qualitative:
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |
| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |
| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |
| Strategy | Current priorities |
Step 7 — Comparative analysis
| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |
| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |
| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |
Step 8 — Strategic context
M&A transactions (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising patterns, regulatory developments. See references/schemas.md for the M&A transaction table format.
Step 9 — Synthesis
Moat assessment — rate each competitor Strong / Moderate / Weak on:
| Moat | What to assess |
|---|
| Network effects | User/supplier flywheel strength; cross-side vs same-side |
| Switching costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits |
| Scale economies | Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale |
| Intangible assets | Brand, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |
Required synthesis elements:
- Durable advantages (hard to replicate) — map to moat categories
- Structural vulnerabilities (hard to fix)
- Current state vs. trajectory
For investment contexts (skip if the Phase 1 scoping said no):
| Scenario | Probability | Key driver |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |
| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |
| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |
Quality checklist
Before finishing:
Prompt fidelity
- Slide titles match what the user specified, verbatim
- Charts where they said chart; tables where they said table
- Every competitor/year/data point they listed is present
- Exact values and formats as specified
Data consistency
- Source-file values extracted directly, not recalculated
- Same metric shows the same value on every slide it appears
- Same decimal precision as the source
Layout
- Titles fit without overflow
- No overlapping elements
- All text within containers, no clipping
Content
- Every number has a citation
- All metrics from the same fiscal period (or flagged)
- Slide titles state insights, not topics
- Charts are real chart objects
Run standard visual verification checks on every slide — this catches overlaps, overflow, and low-contrast text that don't show up when you're reading back the XML.
Native Upstream
Imported from Anthropic Financial Services: https://github.com/anthropics/financial-services/tree/main/plugins/vertical-plugins/financial-analysis/skills/competitive-analysis
