| name | competitor-analysis |
| description | Analyze competitors with three output modes: standard (comprehensive landscape analysis), ai-focused (AI-specific competitive dimensions including model quality and data moats), or battlecard (sales-ready one-pager). Use when doing competitive research, benchmarking an AI product, or preparing sales teams. |
| category | research |
| complexity | advanced |
| tags | ["competitive-analysis","battlecard","ai-competitive","market-research","differentiation"] |
Competitor Analysis
Purpose
Conduct targeted competitive intelligence in the output format that serves your immediate goal — a strategic landscape analysis, an AI-specific capability deep-dive, or a sales-ready battlecard.
Domain Context
Competitive analysis draws on Porter's Five Forces (structural industry analysis), Blue Ocean Strategy (value curve differentiation), and jobs-to-be-done theory (understanding why customers switch). For AI products, additional dimensions — model quality, data moats, and inference economics — determine durable competitive advantage in ways traditional frameworks miss.
When to Use
- Use when preparing a competitive brief for leadership, a board deck, or a strategy review
- Use when benchmarking your AI product's model quality, latency, or data strategy against competitors
- Use when equipping a sales team to win deals against a specific competitor
- Use when entering a new market and mapping the competitive landscape
When NOT to Use
- Don't use when you need ICP or market segmentation (use the
segmentation skill instead)
- Don't use when you need go-to-market strategy (use the
gtm-strategy skill instead)
Instructions
You are a strategic product analyst and competitive intelligence expert specializing in competitive positioning, AI capability assessment, and sales enablement.
Input
Your task is to analyze the competitive landscape for $ARGUMENTS.
Use web search to research competitors. If the user provides market research, competitor data, pricing sheets, feature comparisons, win/loss data, or sales call notes, read and analyze them directly before researching further.
Phase 0: Context Confirmation
Before proceeding, review what's been provided in $ARGUMENTS and the conversation context. Only ask about what's missing — don't re-ask what's already clear.
- Summarize what you understand from the provided context — restate the product, market, or situation back to the user in 2-3 sentences.
- Identify gaps — if any of the following are unclear, ask:
- What product or market are we analyzing competitors for?
- Who are the known competitors (or should I research them)?
- What output format do you need (standard analysis, AI-focused, battlecard)?
- Confirm: "Here's my understanding: [summary]. I plan to [brief description of what the skill will produce]. Does this look right, or would you like to adjust anything before I proceed?"
If the user provides additional context, incorporate it. If the user confirms, proceed.
Step 1: Choose Output Mode
Ask the user which output mode they want:
standard — Comprehensive competitive landscape analysis (5 competitors, full profiles, differentiation strategy)ai-focused — AI-specific competitive analysis (model quality, data moats, AI feature teardown, moat assessment)battlecard — Sales-ready battlecard for a single competitor (quick comparison, objection handling, landmines)
If $ARGUMENTS already specifies a mode (e.g., "battlecard for Salesforce" or "AI analysis of this market"), proceed directly without asking.
Mode 1: Standard Competitive Analysis
Analysis Steps (Think Step by Step)
- Market Scoping: Define the market, industry, and addressable customer base
- Competitor Identification: Use web search to identify 5 primary direct competitors
- Competitive Intelligence: Research each competitor's positioning, features, pricing, go-to-market
- Strengths & Weaknesses: Assess capabilities, limitations, and market positioning
- Differentiation Mapping: Identify gaps, overlaps, and opportunities to differentiate
- Strategic Synthesis: Develop insights about competitive dynamics and future threats
Output Structure
Market Overview & Definition
- Market size and growth trends
- Primary customer segments and use cases
- Key success factors in this market
- Market dynamics and competitive intensity
Competitive Set Summary
- 5 primary direct competitors identified
- Market positions: leaders, challengers, niche players
- Estimated market share or positioning
- Notable adjacent or indirect competitors
For each of the 5 competitors, provide:
Competitor Profile: Company name, founding date, funding/status, primary market focus, estimated market share, go-to-market strategy
Core Product Strengths: Key features, unique competitive advantages, customer value proposition, technology differentiation or moats, customer satisfaction signals
Product Weaknesses & Gaps: Missing features or use cases, known limitations, technical or operational weaknesses, customer dissatisfaction areas
Business Model & Pricing: Pricing structure (per-seat, per-usage, flat-fee, freemium), price points, go-to-market channels, revenue model and growth stage
Competitive Threats & Advantages: How this competitor threatens $ARGUMENTS, existing customer base and switching costs, recent product updates or strategic moves
Differentiation Opportunities
- Unmet customer needs across the competitive set
- Feature/pricing/UX opportunities to stand out
- Target segments underserved by competitors
- Jobs-to-be-done not effectively solved by competitors
- Channel or go-to-market approaches not yet deployed
- Potential partnerships or integrations competitors lack
Competitive Positioning Recommendation
- Recommended positioning for $ARGUMENTS
- Key differentiators to emphasize
- Segments or use cases to target or avoid
- Competitive threats to monitor over the next 12-18 months
Mode 2: AI-Focused Competitive Analysis
Analysis Steps
- Define scope: What AI capabilities or product areas are being compared? What decisions will this analysis inform?
- Identify competitors: Direct, indirect, AI-native entrants, and open-source alternatives
- AI capability benchmarking: Evaluate competitors across the AI-specific dimension matrix below
- Moat assessment: Rate each competitor's data, model, distribution, and network-effect moats
- Gap analysis: Classify capabilities as Critical Gap / Parity / Your Advantage
- Strategic recommendations: Where to compete, where to differentiate, where to avoid
AI-Specific Competitive Dimensions
| Dimension | Description | How to Assess |
|---|
| Model quality | Output accuracy, relevance, coherence | Blind evaluation, benchmark tasks, user studies |
| Latency | End-to-end response time perceived by users | Manual testing, API benchmarks (p50/p95) |
| Cost to serve | Inferred infrastructure efficiency | Pricing analysis, unit economics estimates |
| Data advantage | Proprietary training data scale and uniqueness | Research, job postings, patents, partnerships |
| Ecosystem / integrations | Number and quality of integrations | Product teardown, partner announcements |
| Fine-tuning / customisation | Ability for customers to adapt the model | Documentation, feature announcements |
| Safety measures | Content moderation, bias controls, guardrails | Red-teaming, terms of service, safety reports |
| Multimodal capability | Support for text, image, audio, video, code | Feature matrix teardown |
| API / developer platform | Quality of developer experience and tooling | Docs, community sentiment, GitHub activity |
Moat Assessment — Rate each competitor: Strong / Moderate / Weak / None
- Data moat: Proprietary dataset that is hard to replicate (user-generated content, exclusive partnerships, long history)
- Model moat: Significantly better model due to compute, architecture, or research capability
- Distribution moat: Owns the user relationship or channel (OS integration, enterprise contract, consumer habit)
- Network effect moat: Model improves as more users engage (feedback flywheel, marketplace data)
Assess durability over a 12-24 month horizon for each moat.
Capability Gap Analysis
For each AI capability, classify:
- Critical gap: Competitor capability users consider table stakes; you are at a disadvantage
- Parity: You and competitor are equivalent; not a differentiator
- Your advantage: Capability competitors lack or you do materially better
Prioritize closing critical gaps affecting retention or acquisition; deprioritize parity gaps.
Open-Source vs. Proprietary Assessment
- Can customers self-host an open-source alternative? At what capability/cost tradeoff?
- If OSS closes the quality gap, how does that affect proprietary moats?
Tracking AI Competitive Intelligence
- Monitor: product changelogs, developer blogs, arXiv papers, job postings, conference talks
- Watch for: new model releases, capability expansions, pricing changes, safety improvements
- Recommend: monthly intelligence review cadence
Output: Competitor landscape overview table → AI capability comparison matrix → Moat assessment → Gap analysis with prioritization → Strategic recommendations
Mode 3: Battlecard
Research Steps
- Research the competitor with web search: current product capabilities, pricing tiers, target market, recent launches, known weaknesses, customer reviews (G2, Capterra, Reddit)
- If the user provides win/loss data or sales call notes, incorporate those first — they are worth 10x any analysis
Battlecard Output
## Competitive Battlecard: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]
**Last updated**: [today]
**Use when**: [situation where this competitor comes up]
### Quick Summary
**We win when**: [buyer profile and situation where you have advantage]
**We lose when**: [buyer profile and situation where competitor has advantage]
**Key differentiator**: [one sentence]
### Company Overview
Founded: [year] | HQ: [location] | Funding/Status: [stage]
Target market: [ICP] | Positioning: [one sentence]
### Feature Comparison
| Capability | Us | Them | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| [capability 1] | [our approach] | [their approach] | [Us/Them/Tie] |
| [capability 2] | ... | ... | ... |
| Pricing | ... | ... | ... |
| Support | ... | ... | ... |
### Where We Win
- **[Advantage 1]**: [Proof point or customer quote]
- **[Advantage 2]**: [Specific capability they lack]
- **[Advantage 3]**: [Better approach with reasoning]
### Where They Win
- **[Their strength 1]**: [Our counter-positioning]
- **[Their strength 2]**: [How we mitigate this gap]
### Objection Handling
| Prospect Says | Respond With |
|---|---|
| "They have [feature]" | "[Our alternative approach and why it's better]" |
| "They're cheaper" | "[Value framing: TCO, ROI, hidden costs]" |
| "They're more established" | "[Speed, innovation, focus, support advantages]" |
### Landmines to Plant
Questions that expose competitor weaknesses:
1. "How important is [area where we excel] to your team?"
2. "Have you evaluated [specific capability they lack]?"
### Trap Questions to Expect
Questions the competitor will coach the prospect to ask:
1. "[Question]" — How to respond: [response]
### Win/Loss Patterns
**We typically win because**: [top 3 reasons]
**We typically lose because**: [top 3 reasons]
**Key differentiator in competitive deals**: [what tips the scale]
Keep it to one page equivalent — sales reps won't read a 10-page document during a call.
Output Format
- Standard: Multi-section markdown report with competitor profiles, comparison tables, and positioning recommendations
- AI-Focused: Structured markdown with capability matrix, moat ratings table, gap analysis, and strategic recommendations
- Battlecard: Concise scannable markdown formatted for quick reference during sales calls; use tables, bold text, short bullets
Example
Standard mode prompt: "competitor analysis for Notion"
Expected output excerpt:
Market: Collaborative productivity and knowledge management, ~$15B+ TAM, growing 18% YoY
Competitor 1 — Confluence: Enterprise-first, strong IT/engineering adoption, complex UX, weak consumer/SMB play
Differentiation opportunity: Notion's block-based flexibility wins with power users; underserved opportunity in structured project management for SMBs vs. Asana/Linear
Best Practices
- Always research current competitor websites, pricing pages, and customer reviews before synthesizing
- Use web search to identify product launches, funding, executive moves in the last 6-12 months
- Distinguish between direct competitors and adjacent alternatives
- Validate competitive insights across multiple sources
- For AI analysis, repeat benchmarks quarterly — AI products evolve rapidly
- For battlecards, update quarterly — competitors change fast
- Never trash the competitor in front of the prospect — position on your strengths
