competitive-analyzer

name	competitive-analyzer
description	Competitive landscape analysis: Porter's Five Forces, competitor discovery, feature/pricing matrices, positioning maps, moat assessment via WebSearch. Triggers on: "competitive analysis", "competitor comparison", "competitive landscape", "Porter's Five Forces", "market positioning", "moat assessment", "defensibility analysis".
metadata	{"version":"1.0.1","complements":["market-analyzer","tavily","web-fetch"],"category":"business","tags":["competitive-analysis","market","porters-five-forces","positioning"],"difficulty":"advanced","phase":"define"}

Competitive Analyzer

Systematic competitive landscape analysis: discovery, force analysis, feature comparison, pricing, positioning, and defensibility assessment.

When to use this skill vs. others

Need	Skill
Analyze competitors, compare features, assess moats	competitive-analyzer (this skill)
Market sizing, TAM/SAM/SOM, demand signals	market-analyzer
General web research and data gathering	tavily / web-fetch

Workflow

Phase 1: Competitor Discovery

Identify competitors across three tiers using WebSearch.

Tier classification:

• Direct competitors — Same solution to the same customer segment. Search: "[product category] alternatives", "[product] vs", "best [category] tools 2024"
• Indirect competitors — Different solution to the same underlying problem. Search: "how to [solve problem] without [category]", adjacent category leaders
• Potential competitors — Adjacent players with capability and incentive to enter. Search: recent funding rounds, platform expansion announcements, acqui-hires

Discovery sources:

• Product Hunt: site:producthunt.com [category]
• G2: site:g2.com [category] reviews
• Capterra: site:capterra.com [category]
• Crunchbase: site:crunchbase.com [category] funding
• Industry reports and analyst coverage

Output: A competitor roster table:

Competitor	Tier	Founded	Funding	HQ	Est. Revenue	Target Segment

Include 5-15 competitors. Fewer than 5 suggests the search was too narrow; more than 15 suggests the scope needs tightening.

Phase 2: Porter's Five Forces Assessment

Score each force 1-5 with supporting evidence. Reference references/porters-five-forces.md for scoring rubric and sub-criteria.

1. Threat of New Entrants (1-5)

• Capital requirements and startup costs
• Regulatory and compliance barriers
• Technology and IP barriers
• Brand loyalty and switching costs of incumbents
• Access to distribution channels
• Economies of scale advantages

2. Supplier Power (1-5)

• Number of available suppliers
• Uniqueness of supplier inputs
• Switching costs between suppliers
• Forward integration threat
• Dependence on key vendors (cloud, APIs, data)

3. Buyer Power (1-5)

• Buyer concentration relative to sellers
• Price sensitivity and transparency
• Switching costs for buyers
• Backward integration threat
• Availability of substitute information

4. Threat of Substitutes (1-5)

• Availability of alternative solutions
• Performance-to-price ratio of substitutes
• Buyer propensity to switch
• Switching costs to substitutes

5. Competitive Rivalry (1-5)

• Number and size distribution of competitors
• Industry growth rate
• Product differentiation level
• Exit barriers
• Fixed cost structure and capacity

Synthesis: Calculate overall industry attractiveness (weighted average of forces). Higher scores mean more competitive pressure, lower attractiveness.

Phase 3: Feature & Pricing Matrix

Build a comprehensive comparison. Reference references/competitive-matrix.md for structuring methodology.

Feature comparison table:

Feature Category	Feature	Competitor A	Competitor B	Competitor C	Our Product
Core	Feature 1	Full	Partial	None	Full
Integration	API	REST	GraphQL	None	REST+GraphQL
Support	SLA	99.9%	99.5%	None	99.95%

Use: Full / Partial / None / Superior (exceeds category standard)

Feature analysis:

• Table stakes — Features every competitor offers. Missing any = disqualifier.
• Differentiators — Features only 1-2 competitors offer. Potential positioning angles.
• Gaps — Features no competitor offers. Potential innovation opportunities.
• Over-served — Features with extensive investment but low customer value signal.

Pricing comparison table:

Competitor	Model	Free Tier	Entry Price	Mid Tier	Enterprise	Billing
A	Subscription	Yes	$29/mo	$99/mo	Custom	Monthly/Annual
B	Usage-based	Trial	$0.01/unit	Volume discount	Custom	Monthly

Pricing analysis:

• Price-to-feature ratio positioning (value vs. premium)
• Pricing model trends in the category
• Customer segment alignment by price point

Phase 4: Positioning Map

Reference references/positioning-analysis.md for dimension selection and mapping methodology.

Step 1: Dimension selection Select the two dimensions most important to target customers. Common pairs:

• Price vs. Feature richness
• Ease of use vs. Power/flexibility
• SMB-focused vs. Enterprise-focused
• Vertical-specific vs. Horizontal/general

Validate dimension selection against customer research or publicly available review themes.

Step 2: Plot competitors Position each competitor on the 2D map using evidence from Phase 3.

High [Dimension Y]
    |
    |   [Comp A]        [Comp C]
    |
    |        [Comp B]
    |                    [Our Product]
    |
    |   [Comp D]
    |
Low  ────────────────────────────── High [Dimension X]

Step 3: White space identification

• Quadrants with no or few competitors = potential positioning opportunities
• Assess whether white space is genuinely underserved or intentionally avoided (no demand)
• Evaluate feasibility of occupying the white space

Phase 5: Moat & Defensibility Assessment

Evaluate each moat type. Reference references/positioning-analysis.md for the moat taxonomy.

Moat Type	Present?	Strength	Evidence
Network effects	Yes/No	Weak/Moderate/Strong	Description
Switching costs	Yes/No	Weak/Moderate/Strong	Description
IP / Technology	Yes/No	Weak/Moderate/Strong	Description
Brand	Yes/No	Weak/Moderate/Strong	Description
Data advantage	Yes/No	Weak/Moderate/Strong	Description
Cost advantage	Yes/No	Weak/Moderate/Strong	Description
Regulatory	Yes/No	Weak/Moderate/Strong	Description

Overall moat rating:

• Weak — No meaningful barriers. Competitors can replicate within 6 months.
• Moderate — 1-2 barriers provide temporary advantage. Replication takes 1-2 years.
• Strong — Multiple reinforcing barriers. Replication takes 2-5 years.
• Very Strong — Compounding barriers with flywheel effects. Extremely difficult to replicate.

Phase 6: Report Generation

Produce the final competitive analysis report with these sections:

1. Executive Summary — Competitive landscape threat level (Low / Moderate / High / Critical), top 3 competitive risks, top 3 competitive advantages
2. Competitor Roster — Discovery table from Phase 1
3. Porter's Five Forces Scorecard — Force-by-force scoring with evidence from Phase 2
4. Feature Comparison Matrix — Full feature table with gap analysis from Phase 3
5. Pricing Analysis — Pricing table and positioning from Phase 3
6. Positioning Map — 2D map with white space analysis from Phase 4
7. Moat Assessment — Defensibility table and rating from Phase 5
8. Strategic Recommendations
   • Immediate actions (0-3 months): address critical gaps or threats
   • Medium-term plays (3-12 months): build differentiators and strengthen moats
   • Long-term positioning (1-3 years): sustainable competitive advantage strategy
9. Risks & Mitigation — Top competitive risks with specific mitigation strategies

Quality Checks

Before delivering the report, verify:

• Competitor roster covers all three tiers (direct, indirect, potential)
• Every Five Forces score has supporting evidence, not just a number
• Feature matrix uses consistent scoring across competitors
• Pricing data is sourced and dated (pricing changes frequently)
• Positioning map dimensions are customer-relevant, not internal metrics
• Moat assessment distinguishes between current moats and aspirational moats
• Strategic recommendations are specific and actionable, not generic advice
• All claims about competitors are sourced via WebSearch, not assumed

Edge Cases

Situation	Adaptation
Pre-launch product with no direct competitors	Focus on indirect competitors and substitutes. Emphasize the "potential entrants" tier. The absence of direct competitors is itself a signal worth analyzing (nascent market vs. no market).
Highly fragmented market (50+ competitors)	Segment competitors into strategic groups. Analyze 2-3 representative competitors per group rather than every player.
Monopoly or duopoly market	Five Forces analysis becomes more important. Focus on substitute threats and potential entrants. Analyze the dominant player's moats in detail.
B2B enterprise with opaque pricing	Note pricing opacity as a finding. Use job postings, case studies, and review sites for indirect pricing signals.
User provides a competitor list	Skip discovery in Phase 1. Validate the list for completeness (are there missing tiers?) and proceed to Phase 2.
Rapidly changing market	Date-stamp all findings. Flag data older than 6 months as potentially stale. Emphasize monitoring recommendations.