| name | competitive-intel |
| description | Systematic competitor tracking that feeds CMO positioning, CRO battlecards, and CPO roadmap decisions. Covers competitor identification, 8-dimension tracking, analysis frameworks, battlecard creation, win/loss analysis, and intelligence distribution. Use when analyzing competitors, building battlecards, tracking market moves, conducting win/loss analysis, updating positioning, or when user mentions competitive intelligence, competitor analysis, battlecards, win/loss, market positioning, or competitive strategy.
|
| license | MIT + Commons Clause |
| metadata | {"version":"2.0.0","author":"borghei","category":"c-level","domain":"competitive-strategy","updated":"2026-03-09T00:00:00.000Z","frameworks":["5-layer-intelligence","battlecard-template","win-loss-analysis","positioning-map","tracking-cadence","threat-assessment"],"triggers":["competitive intelligence","competitor analysis","battlecard","win/loss analysis","competitive positioning","competitive tracking","market intelligence","competitor research","SWOT","competitive map","feature gap","competitive strategy","competitor launched","lost deal to competitor","competitive win","market positioning","sales battlecard"]} |
Competitive Intelligence
Systematic competitor tracking. Not obsession -- intelligence that drives real decisions. Know competitors well enough to win against them. Do not let them set your agenda.
Keywords
competitive intelligence, competitor analysis, battlecard, win/loss analysis, competitive positioning, competitive tracking, market intelligence, competitor research, SWOT, competitive map, feature gap analysis, competitive strategy, market share, competitive advantage, moat, switching costs
5-Layer Intelligence System
Layer 1: Competitor Identification
Threat Classification Matrix
| Same ICP | Different ICP |
|---|
| Same problem | Direct threat (Tier 1) | Adjacent watch (Tier 2) |
| Different problem | Displacement risk (Tier 2) | Monitor only (Tier 3) |
Competitor Tiers
| Tier | Definition | Tracking Intensity | Examples |
|---|
| 1: Direct | Same ICP, same problem, similar price | Monthly deep tracking | Your top 3 named competitors |
| 2: Adjacent | Same budget, different solution approach | Quarterly review | Build-in-house, adjacent products |
| 3: Future | Well-funded in adjacent space or incumbents with roadmap overlap | Semi-annual scan | Funded startups, big tech features |
Layer 2: Tracking Dimensions
| Dimension | Sources | Cadence | Priority |
|---|
| Product moves | Changelog, G2, Capterra, Twitter, LinkedIn | Monthly | High |
| Pricing changes | Pricing page, sales intel, customer feedback | Triggered | High |
| Funding | Crunchbase, TechCrunch, LinkedIn | Triggered | Medium |
| Hiring signals | LinkedIn job postings, Indeed, Glassdoor | Monthly | Medium |
| Partnerships | Press releases, co-marketing, integrations | Triggered | Medium |
| Customer wins/losses | Case studies, review sites, LinkedIn | Monthly | High |
| Customer losses (theirs) | G2 reviews, forums, your own inbound | Ongoing | High |
| Messaging shifts | Homepage, ads, conference talks | Quarterly | Medium |
Layer 3: Analysis Frameworks
SWOT Per Competitor
| Element | Key Questions |
|---|
| Strengths | Where do they consistently win? What do customers praise? |
| Weaknesses | Where do they lose? What do reviews complain about? |
| Opportunities | What could they do that would threaten you more? |
| Threats | What is their existential risk? What could make them irrelevant? |
Feature Gap Analysis Template
| Feature/Capability | You | Competitor A | Competitor B | Status |
|---|
| Core Feature 1 | [check] | [check] | [x] | Your advantage |
| Core Feature 2 | [x] | [check] | [check] | Gap -- on roadmap? |
| Feature 3 | [check] | [x] | [x] | Moat (unique to you) |
| Feature 4 | [x] | [x] | [check] | Comp B only |
| Feature 5 | [check] | [check] | [check] | Table stakes |
Competitive Positioning Map
Choose 2 axes that show YOUR differentiation:
| Common Axis Pairs | When to Use |
|---|
| Price vs. Feature Depth | When you compete on value |
| Enterprise-ready vs. SMB-ready | When you serve a different segment |
| Easy to Implement vs. Configurable | When implementation speed is your advantage |
| Vertical-specific vs. Horizontal | When you specialize |
Layer 4: Output Formats
Battlecard Template (Sales Use)
BATTLECARD: [Competitor Name]
Last Updated: [Date]
OVERVIEW
Company: [name, founded, HQ, funding, size]
Product: [1-sentence description]
ICP overlap: [High/Medium/Low]
Threat level: [High/Medium/Low]
WHY WE WIN
1. [Advantage 1 with proof point]
2. [Advantage 2 with proof point]
3. [Advantage 3 with proof point]
WHERE THEY WIN
1. [Their advantage -- be honest]
2. [Their advantage]
LANDMINES (what they say about us)
- "[Their claim]" --> Counter: "[Your response with evidence]"
- "[Their claim]" --> Counter: "[Your response with evidence]"
KILLER QUESTIONS (ask the prospect)
1. "[Question that exposes competitor weakness]"
2. "[Question that highlights your strength]"
3. "[Question that validates your differentiation]"
RECENT MOVES
- [Date]: [What they did, what it means]
CUSTOMER REFERENCES (ask for these)
- [Customer name, use case, result]
Board Competitive Summary (Monthly)
COMPETITIVE INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY -- [Month]
MARKET MOVEMENTS
[Competitor A]: [What happened, significance]
[Competitor B]: [What happened, significance]
WIN/LOSS SNAPSHOT
Win rate vs [Comp A]: [X]% (trend: [up/down/stable])
Win rate vs [Comp B]: [X]% (trend: [up/down/stable])
Top win reason: [reason]
Top loss reason: [reason]
RECOMMENDED RESPONSE
[1 specific action with owner and timeline]
RISK WATCH
[Specific risk with probability and impact]
Layer 5: Intelligence Cadence
| Cadence | Activity | Output |
|---|
| Monthly (scheduled) | Review Tier 1 competitors, update battlecards | Updated battlecards + leadership summary |
| Triggered (event) | Competitor raises funding, launches feature, changes pricing | Impact assessment within 48 hours |
| Quarterly | Full landscape review, positioning map update | Board-ready competitive slide |
| Annual | Add/remove tracked competitors, refresh threat assessment | Updated competitive strategy |
Win/Loss Analysis
When to Conduct
| Event | Interview? | Who Conducts |
|---|
| Lost deal > $50K ACV | Always | Non-AE (CS, product, or external) |
| Churn > 6 months tenure | Always | CS or product team |
| Competitive win | Selectively | Product or marketing |
| Lost to "no decision" | Sample | Marketing or product |
Interview Protocol
| Order | Question | What You Learn |
|---|
| 1 | "Walk me through your evaluation process" | How they buy, who was involved |
| 2 | "Who else were you considering?" | Competitive set from their perspective |
| 3 | "What were the top 3 criteria in your decision?" | Decision drivers (may differ from what AE reported) |
| 4 | "Where did [our product] fall short?" | Specific gaps, not vague "they were better" |
| 5 | "What was the deciding factor?" | The one thing that tipped the decision |
| 6 | "What would have changed your decision?" | The counterfactual -- most actionable intel |
Aggregate Analysis
| Metric | Cadence | Output |
|---|
| Win reasons (ranked by frequency) | Monthly | Top 5 with trend |
| Loss reasons (ranked by frequency) | Monthly | Top 5 with trend |
| Competitor win rates (by competitor, segment) | Monthly | Competitive scoreboard |
| Win rate trends over time | Quarterly | Trend lines for board |
The Balance: Intelligence vs. Obsession
Over-Tracking Signals
| Signal | Risk |
|---|
| Roadmap driven by "they shipped X" | Reactive, not strategic |
| Team morale drops when competitor fundraises | Emotional, not analytical |
| Shipping features to match checklists | Building for competitors, not customers |
| Pricing always starts with "well, they charge X" | Cost-anchored, not value-anchored |
Under-Tracking Signals
| Signal | Risk |
|---|
| AEs blindsided on calls | Losing deals from lack of preparation |
| Prospects know more than your team | Credibility gap in sales |
| Missed major competitor launch | Reactive when it could have been proactive |
| Positioning unchanged in 12+ months | Market moved, you did not |
The Right Posture
- Know competitors well enough to win against them
- Do not let them set your agenda
- Roadmap is led by customer problems, informed by competitive gaps
- Pricing is anchored to your value, not their price
Intelligence Distribution
| Audience | Format | Cadence | Owner |
|---|
| AEs + SDRs | Battlecards in CRM | Monthly + triggered | CRO |
| Product | Feature gap analysis | Quarterly | CPO |
| Marketing | Positioning brief | Quarterly | CMO |
| Leadership | 1-page competitive summary | Monthly | CEO/COO |
| Board | Competitive landscape slide | Quarterly | CEO |
One source of truth: All competitive intel in one place (Notion, Confluence, etc.). Slack-only distribution disappears.
Red Flags
| Signal | Implication | Action |
|---|
| Competitor win rate > 50% in core segment | Fundamental positioning problem | Strategy review, not more battlecards |
| Same objection from 5+ deals | Feature gap that is real, not optics | Product roadmap input |
| Competitor hired 10+ engineers in your domain | Major product investment incoming | Accelerate your roadmap or differentiate |
| Competitor raised > $20M targeting your ICP | 12-month competitive intensity increase | Strengthen moat, lock in customers |
| Prospects evaluate you to justify competitor choice | You are the "check box" | Fix perception or change segment |
| No win/loss interviews conducted | Learning nothing from outcomes | Implement win/loss program immediately |
Integration with C-Suite
| Intelligence Type | Feeds To | Action |
|---|
| Product moves | CPO (cpo-advisor) | Roadmap input, feature gap review |
| Pricing changes | CRO + CFO | Pricing response evaluation |
| Funding rounds | CEO + CFO | Strategic positioning update |
| Hiring signals | CHRO + CTO | Talent market intelligence |
| Customer wins/losses | CRO + CMO | Battlecard updates, positioning shifts |
| Marketing campaigns | CMO (cmo-advisor) | Counter-positioning, channel strategy |
| Market trends | CEO + Board Deck Builder | Board competitive slide |
Output Artifacts
| Request | Deliverable |
|---|
| "Map the competitive landscape" | Competitor identification + tier classification + positioning map |
| "Build a battlecard for [competitor]" | Sales battlecard with win themes, landmines, killer questions |
| "Analyze our win/loss data" | Aggregate analysis with patterns, trends, and recommendations |
| "Competitor just launched [feature]" | Impact assessment + recommended response + timeline |
| "Competitive section for board" | Monthly summary: movements, win/loss, recommended actions |
| "Update our positioning" | Positioning analysis against current competitive landscape |
Tool Reference
1. market_landscape_mapper.py
Maps the competitive landscape across configurable dimensions, classifying competitors by tier, plotting market positioning, and identifying whitespace opportunities.
python scripts/market_landscape_mapper.py --input competitors.json --json
python scripts/market_landscape_mapper.py --input competitors.json
| Flag | Type | Description |
|---|
--input | required | Path to JSON file with competitor data (name, tier, dimensions, scores) |
--json | optional | Output in JSON format instead of human-readable text |
2. competitor_tracker.py
Tracks competitor movements over time across 8 dimensions (product, pricing, funding, hiring, partnerships, customers, messaging, market share). Detects significant changes and generates alerts.
python scripts/competitor_tracker.py --input tracking_data.json --json
python scripts/competitor_tracker.py --input tracking_data.json
| Flag | Type | Description |
|---|
--input | required | Path to JSON file with competitor tracking entries over time |
--json | optional | Output in JSON format instead of human-readable text |
3. swot_analyzer.py
Performs structured SWOT analysis with weighted scoring, cross-impact assessment (SO/WO/ST/WT strategies), and strategic priority recommendations.
python scripts/swot_analyzer.py --input swot_data.json --json
python scripts/swot_analyzer.py --input swot_data.json
| Flag | Type | Description |
|---|
--input | required | Path to JSON file with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (each with description, impact 1-10, confidence 1-10) |
--json | optional | Output in JSON format instead of human-readable text |
Troubleshooting
| Problem | Likely Cause | Resolution |
|---|
| Battlecards outdated within weeks of creation | No triggered update process for competitor moves | Implement event-driven battlecard updates tied to monitoring alerts; assign a battlecard owner per Tier 1 competitor |
| Win/loss interviews not being conducted | AEs reluctant to participate or no clear owner | Assign non-AE interviewers (CS, product, or external); make win/loss a process requirement, not optional |
| Competitive intel stays in Slack, not reaching sales | No single source of truth or distribution cadence | Centralize intel in CRM-attached battlecards; set monthly distribution cadence with CRO ownership |
| Feature gap analysis does not influence roadmap | Product team not consuming competitive data | Include CPO in quarterly landscape review; tie gap analysis to roadmap planning cycle |
| Competitor tier classification never updated | No annual review of competitive landscape | Schedule annual tier reassessment; add/remove competitors based on ICP overlap and funding changes |
| Team over-reacts to every competitor move | No framework for assessing threat significance | Use the Threat Classification Matrix to filter signal from noise; only escalate Tier 1 changes |
| Intelligence collection is inconsistent | No assigned owners or cadence for tracking dimensions | Assign dimension owners from the Intelligence Distribution table; automate monitoring where possible |
Success Criteria
- Battlecards updated within 48 hours of significant Tier 1 competitor moves
- Win rate against top 3 competitors stable or improving quarter-over-quarter
- Win/loss interviews conducted for 90%+ of lost deals above $50K ACV
- Sales team can articulate top 3 differentiators vs each Tier 1 competitor without reference material
- Competitive intelligence influences at least 2 roadmap decisions per quarter
- Time from competitor event to internal awareness is under 72 hours
- Positioning refreshed at least once per year based on landscape analysis
Scope & Limitations
In scope: Competitor identification and tier classification, 8-dimension tracking across product/pricing/funding/hiring/partnerships/customers/messaging/market share, SWOT analysis per competitor, feature gap analysis, battlecard creation and distribution, win/loss analysis, competitive positioning maps, board-level competitive summaries, and market landscape mapping via Python tools.
Out of scope: Real-time competitor monitoring (tools analyze point-in-time data exports), pricing intelligence from competitor internal data, customer-level deal coaching (tools flag patterns but do not prescribe sales tactics), market research surveys or primary research, and competitor financial modeling beyond publicly available data.
Limitations: SWOT and landscape analysis depend on the quality and recency of input data. Competitive intelligence older than 6 months should be treated as directional only. Win/loss analysis requires a minimum of 10 interviews per quarter for statistical significance. Market positioning maps are subjective and should be validated with customer perception data.
Integration Points
- cro-advisor -- Battlecards feed directly into sales enablement; win/loss data informs pipeline strategy and quota setting
- cpo-advisor -- Feature gap analysis influences product roadmap prioritization and portfolio investment decisions
- cmo-advisor -- Competitive positioning informs messaging, content strategy, and campaign differentiation
- ceo-advisor -- Board-level competitive summaries inform strategic direction and M&A evaluation
- board-deck-builder -- Monthly competitive landscape slides feed into quarterly board presentations
- sales-success/ -- Battlecards and killer questions enable sales team competitive selling
