competitive-teardown

name	competitive-teardown
description	Systematic competitor analysis covering product teardowns, 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audits, and strategic action plans with stakeholder presentation templates.
license	MIT + Commons Clause
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0","author":"borghei","category":"business-growth","updated":"2026-03-31T00:00:00.000Z","tags":["competitive-intelligence","competitor-analysis","product-strategy","battle-cards","market-analysis"]}

Competitive Teardown

Production-grade competitor analysis framework covering systematic data collection across 6 intelligence sources, a 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audit methodology, and strategic action plans. Produces battle-card-ready output and stakeholder presentation templates.

---

Table of Contents

• When to Use
• Teardown Workflow
• Data Collection Framework
• 12-Dimension Scoring Rubric
• Feature Comparison Matrix
• Pricing Analysis Framework
• SWOT Analysis Template
• UX Audit Methodology
• Positioning Map
• Action Plan Framework
• Battle Card Template
• Stakeholder Presentation
• Output Artifacts
• Related Skills

---

When to Use

Trigger	Teardown Scope
Before product strategy or roadmap session	Full teardown (2-4 competitors)
Competitor launches major feature or pricing change	Focused teardown (1 competitor, updated dimensions only)
Quarterly competitive review	Update existing teardowns + trend analysis
Before a sales pitch (battle card needed)	Single-competitor battle card
Entering a new market segment	Full teardown of segment incumbents

---

Clarify First

Before running the teardown, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

• Competitors + primary focus — the 2-4 names and which is the main threat (sets scorecard columns and depth)
• Your own product baseline — so the 12-dimension scorecard and feature matrix have a "you" column to compare against
• Decision this feeds — roadmap session, sales battle card, or new-market entry (determines full teardown vs single battle card vs segment incumbents)
• Available data sources — pricing pages, 50+ reviews, product access (the rubric needs evidence; thin data caps which dimensions are scorable)

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the teardown.

Teardown Workflow

Step-by-Step Process

1. Define competitors -- List 2-4 competitors. Confirm which is the primary focus.
2. Collect data -- Gather intelligence from at least 3 of the 6 sources per competitor.
3. Score using rubric -- Apply the 12-dimension rubric to produce a numeric scorecard.
4. Generate comparison outputs -- Feature matrix, pricing analysis, SWOT, positioning map.
5. Build action plan -- Translate findings into quick wins, medium-term, and strategic priorities.
6. Package for stakeholders -- Assemble the presentation or battle card.

Validation Checkpoints

• Before scoring: Confirm you have pricing data, 20+ user reviews, and recent product data
• Before action plan: Every dimension should have a score and supporting evidence
• Before presentation: Every recommendation should tie back to a data point

---

Data Collection Framework

Source 1: Website and Product Analysis

Data Point	Where to Find	What It Signals
Pricing tiers and price points	Pricing page	Market positioning, target segment
Feature lists per tier	Pricing + feature pages	Packaging strategy
Primary CTA and messaging	Homepage hero	Positioning and ICP
Case studies and customer logos	Case study page, homepage	Target segments, social proof
Integration partnerships	Integrations page	Ecosystem strategy
Trust signals	Footer, security page	Enterprise readiness
Job postings	Careers page, LinkedIn	Growth direction, tech stack

Source 2: User Reviews

Platforms: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, Product Hunt

Category	What to Track	Strategic Value
Praise themes	What users love (top 5 themes)	Their defensible strengths
Complaint themes	What users hate (top 5 themes)	Your opportunities
Feature requests	What users want but do not have	Product roadmap gaps
Switching mentions	Why users left competitors	Competitive migration paths
Rating trends	Quarter-over-quarter rating change	Improving or declining

Sample size target: 50+ reviews per competitor for reliable themes.

Source 3: Job Postings

Signal	What It Means
High engineering hiring	Product investment, scaling
AI/ML roles	AI features coming
Sales team expansion	Moving upmarket or expanding geographically
Customer success roles	Retention focus, enterprise motion
Compliance/legal roles	Regulatory expansion
Reduced postings	Cost cutting, potential contraction

Source 4: SEO and Content Analysis

Metric	Tool	Strategic Value
Top 20 organic keywords	Ahrefs, SEMrush, GSC	Content strategy and targeting
Domain authority	Ahrefs, Moz	Brand strength
Blog publishing cadence	Manual check	Content investment level
Ranking pages (product vs blog vs docs)	Ahrefs	Traffic composition

Source 5: Social Media and Community

Platform	What to Track
Twitter/X	Product announcements, customer praise, complaints
Reddit	Honest reviews, comparison threads
LinkedIn	Thought leadership, hiring signals, employee count
Community forums	Feature requests, workarounds, power user patterns
Discord/Slack	Community size, engagement level

Source 6: Financial and Market Data

Source	Data Available
Crunchbase	Funding, valuation, investors, employee count
LinkedIn	Employee count trend (growth proxy)
Public filings (if public)	Revenue, growth rate, churn
Industry reports	Market share estimates

---

12-Dimension Scoring Rubric

Score each competitor (and your own product) on a 1-5 scale with evidence notes.

#	Dimension	1 (Weak)	3 (Average)	5 (Best-in-class)
1	Features	Core only, many gaps	Solid coverage	Comprehensive + unique capabilities
2	Pricing	Confusing or overpriced	Market-rate, clear	Transparent, flexible, fair
3	UX / Design	Confusing, high friction	Functional, adequate	Delightful, minimal friction
4	Performance	Slow, unreliable	Acceptable	Fast, high uptime, responsive
5	Documentation	Sparse, outdated	Decent coverage	Comprehensive, searchable, with examples
6	Support	Email only, slow response	Chat + email, reasonable SLA	24/7, multiple channels, fast
7	Integrations	0-5 native integrations	6-25 integrations	26+ or deep ecosystem (API + marketplace)
8	Security	No mentions	SOC2 claimed	SOC2 Type II + ISO 27001 + GDPR
9	Scalability	No enterprise tier	Mid-market ready	Enterprise-grade (SSO, SCIM, SLA)
10	Brand	Generic, unmemorable	Decent positioning	Strong, differentiated, recognized
11	Community	None	Forum or Slack exists	Active, vibrant, user-generated content
12	Innovation	No releases in 6+ months	Quarterly releases	Frequent, meaningful, well-communicated

Scoring Output Format

Dimension	Your Product	Competitor A	Competitor B	Competitor C
Features	4	3	5	3
Pricing	3	4	3	4
...	...	...	...	...
Total (/60)	38	35	42	33

---

Feature Comparison Matrix

Matrix Structure

Feature Category	Your Product	Competitor A	Competitor B	Notes
Core Features
Feature 1	Full	Full	Partial	Comp B lacks [specific capability]
Feature 2	Full	Missing	Full	Our differentiator
Feature 3	Partial	Full	Full	Gap to close
Platform
Web app	Yes	Yes	Yes
iOS app	Yes	No	Yes	Comp A gap
API access	Full	Limited	Full
Enterprise
SSO	Yes	No	Yes
Audit logs	Yes	Yes	No
Custom SLA	Yes	Yes	Yes

Score per cell: Full = 5, Partial = 3, Basic = 2, Missing = 0

---

Pricing Analysis Framework

Pricing Model Comparison

Attribute	Your Product	Competitor A	Competitor B
Model type	Per seat	Usage-based	Flat rate
Free tier	Yes (3 users)	Yes (limited)	No
Entry price	$15/user/mo	$29/mo (up to 1K events)	$49/mo
Mid-tier price	$35/user/mo	$99/mo	$99/mo
Enterprise	Custom	Custom	$249/mo
Annual discount	20%	15%	2 months free
Trial	14-day free	7-day free	30-day money-back

Pricing Position Map

Position	Characteristic	Your Strategy
Price leader	Lowest price, may signal lower quality	Win on value, not features
Value leader	Best features-per-dollar ratio	Win on differentiation
Premium	Highest price, justified by brand/features	Win on exclusivity and support
Disruptor	Radically different model (free, usage-based)	Win on accessibility

---

SWOT Analysis Template

For each competitor, produce:

Competitor SWOT

Quadrant	Points
Strengths (Their advantages)	3-5 bullets, each anchored to a data signal
Weaknesses (Their vulnerabilities)	3-5 bullets, each tied to reviews, missing features, or complaints
Opportunities for Us	What their weaknesses create for us
Threats to Us	What their strengths mean for our position

Evidence rule: Every bullet must cite the data source (review quote, pricing page, job posting count, feature comparison, etc.).

---

UX Audit Methodology

First-Run Experience Audit

Dimension	What to Measure	How to Score
Time to first value (TTFV)	Minutes from signup to first meaningful output	< 5 min = 5, 5-15 min = 3, > 15 min = 1
Steps to activation	Number of screens/actions before core value	< 3 = 5, 3-7 = 3, > 7 = 1
Credit card required	Required at signup?	No = 5, Optional = 3, Required = 1
Onboarding quality	Wizard, tooltips, empty states	Comprehensive = 5, Basic = 3, None = 1
SSO available	Google, Microsoft, etc.	Yes = 5, No = 1

Core Workflow Audit

For the 3 most common workflows, compare:

Workflow	Steps (Yours)	Steps (Competitor)	Friction Points
[Primary workflow]	N	N	Specific UX issues
[Secondary workflow]	N	N	Specific UX issues
[Tertiary workflow]	N	N	Specific UX issues

---

Positioning Map

2x2 Positioning Map

Choose the two axes most relevant to your market:

Common Axis Pairs	When to Use
Simple / Complex x Low Price / High Price	General product comparison
SMB / Enterprise x Narrow / Broad Features	Market segment analysis
Self-Serve / Sales-Led x Point Solution / Platform	Go-to-market comparison
Technical / Non-Technical x Niche / Horizontal	Audience analysis

Map Template

                    High Price / Enterprise
                          │
                          │
          [Competitor B]  │  [Competitor C]
                          │
  Simple ─────────────────┼─────────────────── Complex
                          │
          [YOUR PRODUCT]  │  [Competitor A]
                          │
                          │
                    Low Price / SMB

---

Action Plan Framework

Three Horizons

Horizon	Timeframe	Effort	Examples
Quick wins	0-4 weeks	Low	Publish comparison pages, update pricing page, add missing trust badges
Medium-term	1-3 months	Moderate	Build top-requested integration, improve onboarding TTFV, launch free tier
Strategic	3-12 months	High	Enter new market segment, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II

Priority Scoring

For each action item, score:

Factor	Weight	Scale
Competitive impact	40%	How much does this close or widen a gap?
Customer demand	30%	How many customers/prospects request this?
Implementation effort	20%	How hard is this to build/execute?
Revenue impact	10%	Direct revenue contribution?

---

Battle Card Template

One-Page Battle Card

COMPETITOR: [Name]
LAST UPDATED: [Date]
THREAT LEVEL: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]

THEIR POSITIONING: [1 sentence]
OUR POSITIONING AGAINST THEM: [1 sentence]

WHERE THEY WIN:
- [Strength 1 with evidence]
- [Strength 2 with evidence]
- [Strength 3 with evidence]

WHERE WE WIN:
- [Advantage 1 with evidence]
- [Advantage 2 with evidence]
- [Advantage 3 with evidence]

LANDMINES (questions that expose their weaknesses):
- "How does [competitor] handle [weakness area]?"
- "Can you show me [feature they lack]?"
- "What do their customers say about [common complaint]?"

OBJECTION HANDLING:
- "They're cheaper" → [Response with value framing]
- "They have [feature]" → [Response with alternative/roadmap]
- "Everyone uses them" → [Response with differentiation]

PRICING COMPARISON:
[Quick comparison table]

CUSTOMER QUOTE:
"[Quote from a customer who switched from this competitor to you]"

---

Stakeholder Presentation

7-Slide Structure

Slide	Content
1. Executive Summary	Threat level, top strength, top opportunity, recommended action
2. Market Position	2x2 positioning map with all players
3. Feature Scorecard	12-dimension scores, total comparison
4. Pricing Analysis	Pricing comparison table + key pricing insight
5. UX Comparison	Where they win (3 bullets) vs where we win (3 bullets)
6. Voice of Customer	Top 3 competitor complaints from reviews (quoted)
7. Action Plan	Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities

---

Output Artifacts

Artifact	Format	Description
Data Collection Report	Structured notes per source	Raw intelligence organized by source type
12-Dimension Scorecard	Scored table with evidence	Numeric comparison across all dimensions
Feature Comparison Matrix	Grid table	Feature-by-feature comparison with scoring
Pricing Analysis	Comparison table + position map	Model comparison, tier mapping, positioning
SWOT Analysis	Per-competitor 4-quadrant	Anchored to data signals
UX Audit	Scored checklist	TTFV, steps, friction analysis
Positioning Map	2x2 diagram	Visual market position
Action Plan	Three-horizon table	Prioritized competitive responses
Battle Card	One-page template	Sales-ready competitive reference
Stakeholder Presentation	7-slide outline	Executive-ready competitive briefing

---

Related Skills

• competitor-alternatives -- Use for creating comparison and alternative pages for SEO/marketing. Competitive-teardown provides the intelligence; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content.
• pricing-strategy -- Use when competitive analysis reveals pricing misalignment. Feed teardown pricing data into pricing-strategy.
• page-cro -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion.
• content-creator -- Use for writing competitive content (blog posts, comparison guides) based on teardown findings.

---

Tool Reference

1. competitor_scorer.py

Purpose: Score competitors across the 12-dimension rubric and generate a numeric comparison scorecard.

python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json
python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json --json

Flag	Required	Description
competitor_data.json	Yes	JSON file with competitor dimension scores and evidence
--json	No	Output results as JSON
--weights	No	Custom dimension weights as JSON string (default: equal weights)

2. feature_matrix_builder.py

Purpose: Build a feature comparison matrix from structured feature data and calculate coverage scores.

python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json
python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json --json

Flag	Required	Description
features.json	Yes	JSON file with feature comparison data
--json	No	Output results as JSON

3. battle_card_generator.py

Purpose: Generate a one-page battle card from competitor data for sales team use.

python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json
python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json --json

Flag	Required	Description
competitor_profile.json	Yes	JSON file with competitor profile data
--json	No	Output results as JSON
--format	No	Output format: text (default) or markdown

---

Troubleshooting

Problem	Likely Cause	Solution
Scoring feels subjective across analysts	No shared rubric calibration	Use the 12-dimension rubric with explicit 1/3/5 definitions; have two analysts score independently and reconcile
Data is stale within weeks of teardown	Fast-moving competitors	Set calendar reminders for monthly pricing checks and quarterly full refreshes; use competitor_scorer.py to track score changes over time
Feature matrix has too many rows to be useful	Trying to capture every micro-feature	Group features into 8-12 categories; detail only the top differentiators
Battle cards are not used by sales	Too long, too academic, or not actionable	Keep to one page; lead with "Where We Win" and "Landmines"; validate with 3 sales reps before distributing
Review data is contradictory	Small sample size or selection bias	Target 50+ reviews per competitor across G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius; weight recent reviews more heavily
Cannot get pricing data for enterprise tiers	Custom pricing not published	Use sales intel (request a demo), G2 pricing data, or customer interviews for directional estimates
SWOT analysis has no actionable output	Analysis lacks connection to action plan	Every SWOT bullet must map to a specific quick-win, medium-term, or strategic action

---

Success Criteria

• 12-dimension scorecard completed with evidence notes for every score
• Feature matrix covers at least 80% of features that prospects evaluate
• Battle cards reviewed and approved by 3+ sales representatives
• Pricing data verified within the last 30 days
• Teardown produces at least 3 actionable quick wins and 2 strategic priorities
• Stakeholder presentation reviewed and feedback incorporated within 1 week
• Teardown data refreshed quarterly with score trend tracking

---

Scope & Limitations

• In scope: Product analysis, feature comparison, pricing deconstruction, UX audit, SWOT analysis, battle card creation, action plan generation
• Out of scope: Primary market research (customer interviews, surveys), financial modeling, legal competitive analysis, intellectual property assessment
• Data dependency: Quality depends on publicly available data, user reviews, and product access; some competitors may have limited public information
• Bias risk: Teardowns conducted by internal teams may have confirmation bias; consider external validation for high-stakes decisions
• Point-in-time: Teardowns are snapshots; competitors evolve continuously -- schedule regular refreshes

---

Integration Points

• competitor-alternatives -- Teardown provides the data; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content (comparison and alternative pages)
• pricing-strategy -- When teardown reveals pricing misalignment, feed pricing data into pricing-strategy for repositioning analysis
• page-cro -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion after teardown produces the content
• sales-engineer -- Battle cards feed directly into sales engineering competitive positioning and RFP responses
• customer-success-manager -- When exit surveys reveal COMPETITOR as a top churn reason, use teardown data to understand what competitors offer that you do not