competitive-analysis

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Competitive Analysis

竞品分析

Analyze the decision customers make, not only companies that resemble the proposed product.

分析客户做出的决策，而不仅仅是与拟推出产品相似的公司。

Reconstruct the choice event

重构选择场景

Define:

Element	Question
Customer/segment	Who is choosing?
Trigger	What makes the choice active now?
Job/outcome	What progress is sought?
Constraints	Budget, risk, time, policy, integration, habit
Decision roles	user, buyer, payer, approver, blocker
Choice horizon	What period and geography matter?

Build the choice set:

text

direct products
indirect products
manual/internal work
service or outsourcing
combination of tools
delay or do nothing

Create a coverage record. For every category above, list the surviving alternatives or record

screened_none

out_of_scope

with reason, or

evidence_gap

. If the customer episode is unknown, label the set provisional and route the gap to customer discovery. A named-direct-competitor list alone cannot close coverage.

定义：

要素	问题
客户/细分群体	谁在做选择？
触发因素	是什么让选择在当下变得必要？
目标/成果	期望达成怎样的进展？
约束条件	预算、风险、时间、政策、集成要求、使用习惯
决策角色	用户、采购者、付款人、审批人、阻碍者
选择范围	哪些时间段和地域范围是关键？

构建选择集：

text

direct products
indirect products
manual/internal work
service or outsourcing
combination of tools
delay or do nothing

创建覆盖记录。针对上述每个类别，列出留存的替代方案，或记录

screened_none

（无筛选结果）、

out_of_scope

（超出范围）并说明原因，或

evidence_gap

（证据缺口）。如果客户决策场景未知，则标记该选择集为暂定，并将缺口转至客户调研环节。仅提供直接竞品名称列表无法完成覆盖。

Build evidence-backed alternative cards

构建基于证据的替代方案卡片

Use primary evidence first: product, pricing, terms, demos, documentation, customer behavior, procurement records, win/loss data, and current-user interviews.

Card field	Required content
Alternative	Product, service, internal process, or non-consumption
Target/context	Who it serves and when
Value mechanism	How it delivers the outcome
Offer/price	Packaging, metric, contract, switching cost
Route	Sales, channel, onboarding, implementation
Proof	Customer evidence, performance, adoption, trust
Tradeoffs	What improves and what worsens
Trajectory	Investments, expansion, retreat, or strategic direction
Confidence	Source quality and missing evidence

Separate observed facts from interpretations. A marketing claim remains a claim until corroborated.

优先使用一手证据：产品、定价、条款、演示、文档、客户行为、采购记录、赢单/丢单数据以及当前用户访谈。

卡片字段	必填内容
替代方案	产品、服务、内部流程或不消费行为
目标对象/适用场景	服务对象及适用时机
价值机制	如何交付预期成果
报价/定价	包装形式、计量方式、合同条款、转换成本
获取路径	销售渠道、渠道合作、上线流程、实施部署
证明依据	客户案例、性能表现、采用情况、信任度
权衡因素	哪些方面提升，哪些方面下降
发展轨迹	投资方向、扩张、收缩或战略方向
可信度	信息来源质量及缺失的证据

区分观察到的事实与主观解读。营销宣传在得到证实前仅视为主张。

Compare on customer decision criteria

基于客户决策标准进行对比

Derive criteria from choice episodes, procurement rules, operational constraints, and economic consequences. Avoid generic feature inventories.

Create a long-form decision matrix so every surviving alternative is represented:

Criterion	Importance evidence	Alternative	Performance/tradeoff	Supporting record	Non-compensatory?	Confidence

For every rating, show the supporting evidence and the segment/context in which it holds. Preserve non-compensatory criteria such as regulation, safety, integration, or minimum performance.

Compare total tradeoffs:

text

outcome quality + time + effort + risk + cash cost
+ switching/implementation + social/organizational consequence

从选择场景、采购规则、运营约束和经济影响中提炼决策标准。避免使用通用功能清单。

创建详细的决策矩阵，确保每个留存的替代方案都被纳入：

决策标准	重要性依据	替代方案	表现/权衡	支持记录	是否为非补偿性标准？	可信度

对于每一项评分，需展示支持证据以及其适用的细分群体/场景。保留非补偿性标准，如法规要求、安全性、集成能力或最低性能要求。

对比整体权衡因素：

text

outcome quality + time + effort + risk + cash cost
+ switching/implementation + social/organizational consequence

Explain advantage through a mechanism

通过机制解释优势

For each claimed advantage, complete:

Claim	Customer evidence	Enabling capability	Competitor response	Durability	Failure condition

Classify:

parity requirement: needed to enter consideration;
situational advantage: wins for a bounded context;
defensible advantage: supported by a capability, asset, network, cost position, switching structure, or learning loop;
unsupported claim: lacks customer or operating evidence.

Features alone rarely explain durability.

针对每一项声称的优势，完成以下表格：

主张	客户证据	支撑能力	竞品应对策略	优势持续性	失效条件

分类：

parity requirement（达标要求）：进入候选名单的必备条件；
situational advantage（场景化优势）：在特定场景中具备竞争力；
defensible advantage（可防御优势）：由能力、资产、网络、成本优势、转换结构或学习循环支撑；
unsupported claim（无依据主张）：缺乏客户或运营证据支持。

仅靠功能特性很难解释优势的持续性。

Test whitespace

验证空白市场

A whitespace hypothesis must satisfy all five:

a defined segment experiences a material unresolved tradeoff;
current alternatives fail for an evidenced reason;
the proposed mechanism improves the tradeoff;
willingness to switch or pay is plausible;
the position can be delivered economically and defended long enough to matter.

Write explicit invalidators. If the space exists only because incumbents have not entered, investigate whether demand or economics are unattractive.

空白市场假设必须满足以下全部五个条件：

特定细分群体存在未解决的重大权衡问题；
当前替代方案因已证实的原因无法满足需求；
拟推出的机制能够改善该权衡问题；
客户有切换意愿或付费意愿具备合理性；
该定位能够经济地落地，且足够长时间内可防御。

明确写出无效条件。如果空白市场仅因现有企业未进入而存在，则需调研需求或经济效益是否缺乏吸引力。

Read movement, not just position

关注动态趋势，而非仅静态定位

Map strategic groups or trajectories when evidence supports it:

Alternative	Current position	Direction of travel	Capability being built	Likely effect on our position

Identify response scenarios: copy, bundle, discount, partner, acquire, ignore, or block access. State which response would erase the proposed advantage.

当有证据支持时，绘制战略群组或发展轨迹：

替代方案	当前定位	发展方向	正在构建的能力	对我方定位的可能影响

识别竞品应对场景：模仿、捆绑销售、降价、合作、收购、忽略或限制准入。说明哪种应对会抵消我方拟推出的优势。

Deliver the Competitive Landscape

交付竞品分析成果

Deliver the choice-event definition, alternative set, evidence cards, customer decision matrix, tradeoff analysis, advantage mechanisms, trajectory map, and whitespace verdict.

Status	Controlling condition
`position_supported`	Choice-set coverage is complete enough for the decision; customer evidence supports the tradeoff; mechanism and delivery evidence support the advantage; whitespace conditions and response stress pass
`position_conditional`	A bounded segment/context advantage exists, but a named evidence gap, capability, economics, or response scenario could erase it
`no_defensible_difference`	The concept is parity, the material tradeoff does not improve, whitespace conditions fail, or a likely response erases the advantage
`evidence_insufficient`	Choice event/set is provisional, a material category is an evidence gap, or advantage claims lack customer/operating evidence

The conclusion says who would choose differently, in what circumstance, why, and which invalidator would reverse it.

Foundation: U.S. SBA market research and competitive analysis.

交付内容包括：选择场景定义、替代方案集、证据卡片、客户决策矩阵、权衡分析、优势机制、轨迹图以及空白市场结论。

状态	控制条件
`position_supported` （定位得到支持）	选择集覆盖程度足以支撑决策；客户证据支持权衡分析；机制和落地证据支持优势；空白市场条件和应对压力测试通过
`position_conditional` （定位有条件成立）	在特定细分群体/场景中存在优势，但存在明确的证据缺口、能力不足、经济效益问题或应对场景可能抵消优势
`no_defensible_difference` （无可防御差异化）	产品理念仅达行业平均水平，重大权衡问题未得到改善，空白市场条件不满足，或可能的竞品应对会抵消优势
`evidence_insufficient` （证据不足）	选择场景/选择集为暂定，关键类别存在证据缺口，或优势主张缺乏客户/运营证据

结论需说明：哪些客户会做出不同选择，在何种场景下，原因是什么，以及哪种无效条件会逆转该结论。

参考依据：美国小企业管理局市场调研与竞品分析