competitive-analyzer · v1.0.0 · 2026-03-27 · sha256 b35466a8beeb9172
competitive-analyzer v1.0.0B
Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/b35466a8beeb9172.
---
name: competitive-analyzer
description:
'Systematic competitive landscape analysis covering Porter''s Five Forces,
competitor discovery, feature and pricing comparison matrices, market positioning
maps, and moat/defensibility assessment. Uses WebSearch to identify direct, indirect,
and potential competitors across Product Hunt, G2, Capterra, and Crunchbase. Produces
structured reports with force scorecards, feature gap analysis, pricing positioning,
white space identification, and strategic recommendations. Triggers on: "competitive
analysis", "competitor comparison", "competitive landscape", "Porter''s Five Forces",
"feature comparison matrix", "pricing analysis", "market positioning", "moat assessment",
"competitive threat", "defensibility analysis", "compare competitors", "competitive
intelligence". Use this skill when analyzing competitors, comparing features, or
evaluating market positioning and defensibility.
'
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
complements: [market-analyzer, tavily, web-fetch]
category: business
tags: [competitive-analysis, market, porters-five-forces, positioning]
difficulty: advanced
---
# 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"`, `"[product] vs"`, `"best [category] tools 2024"`
- **Indirect competitors** — Different solution to the same underlying problem. Search: `"how to [solve problem] without [category]"`, adjacent category leaders
- **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:
1. **Executive Summary** — Competitive landscape threat level (Low / Moderate / High / Critical), top 3 competitive risks, top 3 competitive advantages
2. **Competitor Roster** — Discovery table from Phase 1
3. **Porter's Five Forces Scorecard** — Force-by-force scoring with evidence from Phase 2
4. **Feature Comparison Matrix** — Full feature table with gap analysis from Phase 3
5. **Pricing Analysis** — Pricing table and positioning from Phase 3
6. **Positioning Map** — 2D map with white space analysis from Phase 4
7. **Moat Assessment** — Defensibility table and rating from Phase 5
8. **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
9. **Risks & Mitigation** — Top competitive risks with specific mitigation strategies
## Quality Checks
Before delivering the report, verify:
- [ ] Competitor roster covers all three tiers (direct, indirect, potential)
- [ ] Every Five Forces score has supporting evidence, not just a number
- [ ] Feature matrix uses consistent scoring across competitors
- [ ] Pricing data is sourced and dated (pricing changes frequently)
- [ ] Positioning map dimensions are customer-relevant, not internal metrics
- [ ] Moat assessment distinguishes between current moats and aspirational moats
- [ ] Strategic recommendations are specific and actionable, not generic advice
- [ ] All claims about competitors are sourced via WebSearch, not assumed
## 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. |