Competitive Analyzer
Systematic competitive landscape analysis: discovery, force analysis, feature comparison, pricing, positioning, and defensibility assessment.
When to use this skill vs. others
| Need | Skill |
|---|
| Analyze competitors, compare features, assess moats | competitive-analyzer (this skill) |
| Market sizing, TAM/SAM/SOM, demand signals | market-analyzer |
| General web research and data gathering | tavily / web-fetch |
Workflow
Phase 1: Competitor Discovery
Identify competitors across three tiers using WebSearch.
Tier classification:
- Direct competitors — Same solution to the same customer segment. Search:
"[product category] alternatives"
"best [category] tools 2024"
- Indirect competitors — Different solution to the same underlying problem. Search:
"how to [solve problem] without [category]"
- Potential competitors — Adjacent players with capability and incentive to enter. Search: recent funding rounds, platform expansion announcements, acqui-hires
Discovery sources:
- Product Hunt:
site:producthunt.com [category]
- G2:
site:g2.com [category] reviews
- Capterra:
site:capterra.com [category]
- Crunchbase:
site:crunchbase.com [category] funding
- Industry reports and analyst coverage
Output: A competitor roster table:
| Competitor | Tier | Founded | Funding | HQ | Est. Revenue | Target Segment |
|---|
Include 5-15 competitors. Fewer than 5 suggests the search was too narrow; more than 15 suggests the scope needs tightening.
Phase 2: Porter's Five Forces Assessment
Score each force 1-5 with supporting evidence. Reference
references/porters-five-forces.md
for scoring rubric and sub-criteria.
1. Threat of New Entrants (1-5)
- Capital requirements and startup costs
- Regulatory and compliance barriers
- Technology and IP barriers
- Brand loyalty and switching costs of incumbents
- Access to distribution channels
- Economies of scale advantages
2. Supplier Power (1-5)
- Number of available suppliers
- Uniqueness of supplier inputs
- Switching costs between suppliers
- Forward integration threat
- Dependence on key vendors (cloud, APIs, data)
3. Buyer Power (1-5)
- Buyer concentration relative to sellers
- Price sensitivity and transparency
- Switching costs for buyers
- Backward integration threat
- Availability of substitute information
4. Threat of Substitutes (1-5)
- Availability of alternative solutions
- Performance-to-price ratio of substitutes
- Buyer propensity to switch
- Switching costs to substitutes
5. Competitive Rivalry (1-5)
- Number and size distribution of competitors
- Industry growth rate
- Product differentiation level
- Exit barriers
- Fixed cost structure and capacity
Synthesis: Calculate overall industry attractiveness (weighted average of forces). Higher scores mean more competitive pressure, lower attractiveness.
Phase 3: Feature & Pricing Matrix
Build a comprehensive comparison. Reference
references/competitive-matrix.md
for structuring methodology.
Feature comparison table:
| Feature Category | Feature | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | Our Product |
|---|
| Core | Feature 1 | Full | Partial | None | Full |
| Integration | API | REST | GraphQL | None | REST+GraphQL |
| Support | SLA | 99.9% | 99.5% | None | 99.95% |
Use: Full / Partial / None / Superior (exceeds category standard)
Feature analysis:
- Table stakes — Features every competitor offers. Missing any = disqualifier.
- Differentiators — Features only 1-2 competitors offer. Potential positioning angles.
- Gaps — Features no competitor offers. Potential innovation opportunities.
- Over-served — Features with extensive investment but low customer value signal.
Pricing comparison table:
| Competitor | Model | Free Tier | Entry Price | Mid Tier | Enterprise | Billing |
|---|
| A | Subscription | Yes | $29/mo | $99/mo | Custom | Monthly/Annual |
| B | Usage-based | Trial | $0.01/unit | Volume discount | Custom | Monthly |
Pricing analysis:
- Price-to-feature ratio positioning (value vs. premium)
- Pricing model trends in the category
- Customer segment alignment by price point
Phase 4: Positioning Map
Reference
references/positioning-analysis.md
for dimension selection and mapping methodology.
Step 1: Dimension selection
Select the two dimensions most important to target customers. Common pairs:
- Price vs. Feature richness
- Ease of use vs. Power/flexibility
- SMB-focused vs. Enterprise-focused
- Vertical-specific vs. Horizontal/general
Validate dimension selection against customer research or publicly available review themes.
Step 2: Plot competitors
Position each competitor on the 2D map using evidence from Phase 3.
High [Dimension Y]
|
| [Comp A] [Comp C]
|
| [Comp B]
| [Our Product]
|
| [Comp D]
|
Low ────────────────────────────── High [Dimension X]
Step 3: White space identification
- Quadrants with no or few competitors = potential positioning opportunities
- Assess whether white space is genuinely underserved or intentionally avoided (no demand)
- Evaluate feasibility of occupying the white space
Phase 5: Moat & Defensibility Assessment
Evaluate each moat type. Reference
references/positioning-analysis.md
for the moat taxonomy.
| Moat Type | Present? | Strength | Evidence |
|---|
| Network effects | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Switching costs | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| IP / Technology | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Brand | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Data advantage | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Cost advantage | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
| Regulatory | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description |
Overall moat rating:
- Weak — No meaningful barriers. Competitors can replicate within 6 months.
- Moderate — 1-2 barriers provide temporary advantage. Replication takes 1-2 years.
- Strong — Multiple reinforcing barriers. Replication takes 2-5 years.
- Very Strong — Compounding barriers with flywheel effects. Extremely difficult to replicate.
Phase 6: Report Generation
Produce the final competitive analysis report with these sections:
- Executive Summary — Competitive landscape threat level (Low / Moderate / High / Critical), top 3 competitive risks, top 3 competitive advantages
- Competitor Roster — Discovery table from Phase 1
- Porter's Five Forces Scorecard — Force-by-force scoring with evidence from Phase 2
- Feature Comparison Matrix — Full feature table with gap analysis from Phase 3
- Pricing Analysis — Pricing table and positioning from Phase 3
- Positioning Map — 2D map with white space analysis from Phase 4
- Moat Assessment — Defensibility table and rating from Phase 5
- Strategic Recommendations
- Immediate actions (0-3 months): address critical gaps or threats
- Medium-term plays (3-12 months): build differentiators and strengthen moats
- Long-term positioning (1-3 years): sustainable competitive advantage strategy
- Risks & Mitigation — Top competitive risks with specific mitigation strategies
Quality Checks
Before delivering the report, verify:
Edge Cases
| Situation | Adaptation |
|---|
| Pre-launch product with no direct competitors | Focus on indirect competitors and substitutes. Emphasize the "potential entrants" tier. The absence of direct competitors is itself a signal worth analyzing (nascent market vs. no market). |
| Highly fragmented market (50+ competitors) | Segment competitors into strategic groups. Analyze 2-3 representative competitors per group rather than every player. |
| Monopoly or duopoly market | Five Forces analysis becomes more important. Focus on substitute threats and potential entrants. Analyze the dominant player's moats in detail. |
| B2B enterprise with opaque pricing | Note pricing opacity as a finding. Use job postings, case studies, and review sites for indirect pricing signals. |
| User provides a competitor list | Skip discovery in Phase 1. Validate the list for completeness (are there missing tiers?) and proceed to Phase 2. |
| Rapidly changing market | Date-stamp all findings. Flag data older than 6 months as potentially stale. Emphasize monitoring recommendations. |