competitor-teardown

name	competitor-teardown
description	Performs structured competitive analysis using SWOT, Porter's Five Forces, feature comparison matrices, pricing teardowns, UX audits, and technical stack identification. Trigger: "analyze this competitor", "competitor comparison", "competitive analysis", "SWOT analysis", "feature comparison", "pricing teardown", "how does X compare to Y", "what is competitor X's stack", "competitive landscape". Do NOT use for general market sizing or trend research (use market-research), for evaluating your own business idea (use business-idea-evaluation), or for property/real estate comparisons (use property-research).
license	Apache-2.0
compatibility	{"clients":["openai-codex","gemini-cli","opencode","github-copilot"]}
metadata	{"owner":"codex","domain":"competitor-teardown","maturity":"draft","risk":"low","tags":["competitive-analysis","swot","porters-five-forces","pricing","ux-audit","market-intelligence"]}

Purpose

Provides a repeatable framework for dissecting a competitor's product, business model, pricing, UX, and technology into structured, evidence-based analysis. Produces actionable intelligence that informs strategic decisions — not just a feature list, but a weighted assessment of competitive position with implications for your own strategy.

When to use this skill

• User asks to analyze, compare, or tear down one or more competitors
• Task requires a SWOT analysis with evidence for each quadrant
• User needs a feature comparison matrix with weighted scoring
• Pricing analysis is requested: plan tiers, value metrics, hidden fees
• UX teardown needed: signup flow, time-to-value, friction points
• Technical stack identification or architecture inference is requested
• User asks "how does X compare to Y" or "what are X's weaknesses"
• Strategic planning requires a competitive landscape overview
• Porter's Five Forces analysis is requested for an industry or market

Do not use this skill when

• The task is broad market sizing, TAM/SAM/SOM, or trend research — use market-research
• The user is evaluating their own business idea, not a competitor — use business-idea-evaluation
• The comparison is between real estate properties — use property-research
• The task is internal product strategy without a competitive frame — use tradeoff-analysis
• The user needs a quick factual lookup ("what does company X do?") with no analytical framework

Operating procedure

Step 1 — Define scope and competitors

1. Identify the focal company — the user's product or the product being benchmarked against.
2. Select competitors — categorize each as:
   • Direct — same product category, same target customer (e.g., Figma vs. Sketch)
   • Indirect — different product, same job-to-be-done (e.g., Figma vs. pen and paper)
   • Aspirational — market leaders to benchmark against even if not direct competitors
3. Define comparison dimensions — which aspects matter? (features, pricing, UX, technology, business model, go-to-market)
4. Confirm the decision this analysis supports — "should we build feature X?", "where should we position our pricing?", "which market segment is underserved?"

Step 2 — Competitor profiling

For each competitor, build a structured profile:

Field	What to capture
Company	Name, founded, HQ, funding stage/revenue if known
Product	Core product description in 1–2 sentences
Target customer	Primary persona, company size, industry vertical
Value proposition	How they describe their own differentiation (use their own words from marketing)
Distribution	Primary acquisition channels: PLG, sales-led, partnerships, marketplace
Key metrics (if available)	Users, revenue, growth rate, market share
Recent moves	Last 6 months: product launches, pricing changes, acquisitions, partnerships

Step 3 — SWOT analysis

For each competitor, produce a SWOT matrix. Every cell must include evidence.

Quadrant	Definition	Evidence requirement
Strengths	Internal advantages the competitor has today	Observable facts: feature, patent, team, brand, distribution, data moat
Weaknesses	Internal disadvantages or gaps	Documented: missing features, known bugs, negative reviews, churn signals
Opportunities	External trends the competitor could exploit	Market data: growing segment, regulatory change, technology shift
Threats	External risks to the competitor's position	Market data: new entrants, substitutes, regulatory risk, platform dependency

Format as a 2×2 matrix with bullet points. Each bullet = one claim + one evidence citation.

Step 4 — Feature comparison matrix

1. Define feature categories — group features into logical categories (e.g., Core, Collaboration, Integrations, Analytics, Security, Support).
2. List features — enumerate specific features within each category.
3. Score each feature per competitor on a consistent scale:
   • 0 = absent
   • 1 = basic / partial implementation
   • 2 = solid implementation, meets expectations
   • 3 = best-in-class, exceeds expectations
4. Weight categories — assign importance weights (1–5) based on target customer priorities.
5. Calculate weighted scores — (score × weight) per category, summed for an overall weighted total.
6. Highlight differentiators — features where scoring gaps are ≥ 2 points between competitors.

Present as a table with competitors as columns and features as rows.

Step 5 — Pricing teardown

Analyze each competitor's pricing structure:

Dimension	What to capture
Plan tiers	Free, Starter, Pro, Enterprise — name and price point of each
Value metric	What do they charge per? (seat, usage, feature gate, flat rate)
Per-unit economics	Cost per seat/unit at each tier; how does unit cost change with scale?
Free tier limits	What's included for free? What triggers the upgrade?
Hidden fees	Overage charges, implementation fees, support tiers, API rate limits
Annual vs. monthly	Discount for annual commitment; typical discount is 15–20%
Enterprise pricing	"Contact sales" signals; estimate from public data or reviews if possible
Value perception	Price-to-feature ratio; are they positioned as premium, mid-market, or budget?

Produce a pricing comparison table and a price-per-feature-point calculation using the weighted scores from Step 4.

Step 6 — UX teardown

Evaluate the user experience through these lenses:

1. Signup flow analysis

   • Count steps from landing page to first value-delivering action
   • Note friction points: required credit card, email verification, mandatory onboarding
   • Measure (or estimate) time-to-value: how long until a new user achieves their first "aha" moment?

2. Core workflow efficiency

   • Map the primary user workflow (the job-to-be-done)
   • Count clicks/steps to complete the core task
   • Note UX friction: confusing navigation, missing defaults, excessive configuration

3. Information architecture

   • Evaluate navigation structure: depth, discoverability, consistency
   • Check for progressive disclosure vs. overwhelming dashboards

4. Mobile / responsive experience

   • Note if mobile is native, responsive web, or absent
   • Key functionality available on mobile?

5. Documentation & support

   • Quality of docs, tutorials, in-app help
   • Support channels: chat, email, community, phone

Step 7 — Technical teardown

Infer and document the competitor's technology:

Method	What it reveals
BuiltWith / Wappalyzer	Frontend framework, analytics, CDN, hosting provider
Developer docs / API	API design (REST/GraphQL), auth method, rate limits, SDK languages
Job postings	Backend language, database, infrastructure (AWS/GCP/Azure), team structure
Open source contributions	Internal tools, libraries, architectural preferences
Network inspection	API endpoints, request patterns, WebSocket usage, third-party services
Performance	Page load time (Lighthouse), bundle size, caching strategy

Flag any technical choices that create lock-in (proprietary formats, closed APIs) or scalability concerns (architectural limitations visible from the outside).

Step 8 — Business model analysis

Map each competitor against these dimensions:

1. Revenue model — SaaS subscription, usage-based, marketplace commission, freemium + upsell, advertising, data licensing
2. Customer segments — SMB, mid-market, enterprise, consumer, developer, vertical-specific
3. Distribution channels — self-serve, inside sales, field sales, partner/channel, marketplace listing
4. Key partnerships — technology partners, integration ecosystem, reseller network
5. Cost structure — infrastructure-heavy vs. people-heavy; gross margin signals
6. Network effects — does the product get more valuable with more users? (marketplace, collaboration, data)
7. Switching costs — what locks customers in? (data, integrations, training, contracts)

Step 9 — Porter's Five Forces

Apply Porter's framework to the competitive landscape:

Force	Assessment (High/Medium/Low)	Evidence
Threat of new entrants		Barriers: capital, technology, regulation, brand, network effects
Bargaining power of buyers		Switching costs, concentration, price sensitivity, alternatives available
Bargaining power of suppliers		Dependency on platforms (AWS, Apple, Google), talent scarcity, key vendor concentration
Threat of substitutes		Alternative approaches to the same job-to-be-done; including "do nothing"
Competitive rivalry		Number of competitors, differentiation level, market growth rate, exit barriers

Conclude with an overall industry attractiveness assessment.

Step 10 — Strategic synthesis

1. Identify the top 3 competitive advantages the focal company has (or could build).
2. Identify the top 3 vulnerabilities that competitors could exploit.
3. Map white space opportunities — underserved segments or unaddressed needs.
4. Recommend strategic actions — prioritized by impact and feasibility.
5. Flag what data is missing and how it would change the analysis.

Decision rules

• Every SWOT claim must cite evidence — no unsupported assertions. "They have a great brand" requires proof (traffic data, NPS, press mentions).
• Feature scores must be justified — each score > 0 needs a one-line rationale; don't score features you haven't verified.
• Weight categories before scoring — unweighted feature counts are misleading; a security feature and a minor UI tweak should not count equally.
• Include indirect competitors — the biggest threats often come from adjacent categories; always include at least one indirect competitor.
• Pricing must include hidden costs — listed price is the floor; document overage, support, implementation, and migration costs.
• UX claims require walkthrough evidence — don't assess UX from screenshots alone; walk through the actual signup and core workflow.
• Technical claims must cite source — BuiltWith data, job postings, or API docs; don't guess the stack.
• Time-bound the analysis — state the date of research; competitive data decays quickly. Flag anything > 6 months old as potentially stale.
• State confidence levels — High (verified firsthand), Medium (inferred from public data), Low (estimated/rumored). Tag each major finding.

Output structure

Deliver these sections in order:

1. Competitor Profiles

Structured profile table for each competitor from Step 2.

2. SWOT Matrix

2×2 matrix per competitor with evidence-backed bullet points.

3. Feature Comparison Matrix

Weighted scoring table with category weights, per-feature scores, weighted totals, and highlighted differentiators.

4. Pricing Analysis

Comparison table with tier-by-tier breakdown, value metric analysis, and price-per-feature-point calculation.

5. UX Audit

Signup flow step count, time-to-value estimate, friction point inventory, and core workflow comparison per competitor.

6. Technical Landscape

Stack summary per competitor with confidence level, architectural inferences, and lock-in / scalability flags.

7. Business Model Map

Revenue model, segments, distribution, partnerships, and moat analysis per competitor.

8. Porter's Five Forces Summary

Force-by-force assessment table with overall industry attractiveness conclusion.

9. Strategic Implications

Top advantages, vulnerabilities, white space opportunities, and prioritized action recommendations.

10. Confidence and Gaps

Table of data confidence levels per section and list of missing data with suggested sources.

Anti-patterns

• Cherry-picking weaknesses — analyzing only what competitors do poorly while ignoring their strengths produces a dangerously biased picture. The SWOT must be balanced.
• Ignoring indirect competitors — Blockbuster didn't lose to another video store. Always map the job-to-be-done and identify non-obvious substitutes.
• Static point-in-time analysis — a snapshot without trajectory is misleading. Note growth rates, recent moves, and momentum direction for each competitor.
• Feature-counting without weighting — "we have 47 features and they have 32" is meaningless if their 32 include the 5 that matter most to customers. Always weight by customer priority.
• Pricing comparison without value metric alignment — comparing a per-seat price to a usage-based price is apples-to-oranges. Normalize to a common usage scenario.
• Assuming public info is complete — competitors don't advertise their best features on the pricing page. Test the product, read reviews, talk to customers of competitors.
• Confusing correlation with causation — "they grew because of feature X" needs evidence, not just temporal coincidence.
• Analyzing only current competitors — the next entrant matters too; assess barriers to entry and who might enter the market.
• No "so what" — analysis without strategic implications is an academic exercise. Every section must connect to an actionable recommendation.

Related skills

• market-research — broader market sizing and trend analysis that provides context for competitive positioning
• business-idea-evaluation — evaluating your own product/idea viability, informed by competitive intelligence
• tradeoff-analysis — making strategic decisions between options using the competitive data
• research-synthesis — combining multiple research sources into coherent findings
• spec-authoring — translating competitive insights into product specifications
• gap-analysis — identifying capability gaps between your product and competitors

Failure handling

• If no competitor is named, ask the user to identify at least the primary competitor and their own product/position.
• If the competitor is in stealth mode or has minimal public information, state this clearly, use what's available (job postings, LinkedIn, Crunchbase), and tag all findings as Low confidence.
• If the user wants a full teardown but provides no access to the competitor's product, limit the analysis to publicly observable information and recommend a hands-on trial for UX and feature sections.
• If the scope is too broad ("analyze the entire SaaS market"), narrow to 3–5 most relevant competitors and offer to expand in a follow-up.
• If data is stale (>6 months), flag specific sections that need refreshing and recommend re-running those steps with current data.