competitor-landscape · v1.0 · 2026-03-14 · sha256 3b5ab4063c6010fb
competitor-landscape v1.0A
Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/3b5ab4063c6010fb.
---
name: competitor-landscape
description: "Cross-competitor comparison — feature matrix, pricing comparison, 2x2 positioning map, aggregate SWOT, moat landscape, and strategic recommendations."
compatibility: "No special requirements. Best results when provided with detailed competitor data from prior analysis."
metadata:
author: superamped
version: "1.0"
website: "https://superamped.com"
---
# Competitor Landscape
## Usage
Use after analyzing 2+ competitors — you have individual profiles and need the comparative view. Also useful for preparing a board deck, investor update, or strategy doc that needs a market landscape section.
## Process
### Step 1: Gather Inputs
Ask the user for:
1. **Your product info** — name, key features, pricing, differentiators
2. **Competitor data** — for at least 2 competitors, provide for each:
- Name and URL
- Key features
- Pricing (model, tiers, price points)
- Target audience
- Positioning (their headline/value prop)
- Strengths and weaknesses
- Social proof signals (customer count, notable logos, review scores)
3. **Custom axes for positioning map** (optional) — default: market presence vs. product breadth
If the user has previously run competitor-site-analysis or competitor-content-analysis, they can reference those outputs.
### Step 2: Feature Comparison Matrix
Build a side-by-side feature comparison across all competitors and the user's product:
| Feature / Capability | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|---------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| [feature 1] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] |
| [feature 2] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [status] |
**Status values:** Full / Partial / Missing / Unknown
Include:
- Core features that define the category (everyone should have these)
- Differentiating features (only some competitors have)
- Your unique features (only you have — highlight these)
- Features competitors have that you don't (gaps to assess)
Sort rows by strategic importance, not alphabetically.
### Step 3: Pricing Comparison
Build a pricing comparison table:
| Dimension | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| **Model** | | | | |
| **Free tier** | | | | |
| **Entry price** | | | | |
| **Mid-tier price** | | | | |
| **Enterprise** | | | | |
| **Value metric** | | | | |
| **Annual discount** | | | | |
| **Trial** | | | | |
| **Key upgrade trigger** | | | | |
**Pricing signals to flag:**
- Where you're significantly cheaper or more expensive than the market
- Competitors using per-seat pricing where value doesn't scale with headcount (vulnerability)
- Competitors with no free tier in a PLG market (acquisition barrier)
- Mismatches between pricing model and GTM motion
### Step 4: Positioning Map
Plot all competitors + your product on a 2x2 positioning map.
**Default axes:** Market Presence (low → high) vs. Product Breadth (focused → broad)
Score each company 1-10 on both axes:
- **Market presence** — traffic volume, review count, brand recognition signals, funding stage
- **Product breadth** — number of features, integrations, use cases served
**Alternative axis options** (offer to the user):
- Customer satisfaction (from review scores) vs. Market share (from traffic)
- Price level (low → high) vs. Feature depth (basic → advanced)
- PLG friendliness (self-serve → sales-required) vs. Enterprise readiness (SMB → enterprise)
Present as a labeled quadrant:
```
High Market Presence
|
Established | Market Leaders
Niche Players |
----------------------+----------------------
|
Emerging | Growing
Focused | Contenders
|
Low Market Presence
Focused ←————— Product Breadth ——————→ Broad
```
Place each competitor and your product in the appropriate quadrant. **Identify the gap:** Where is there open space on the map? That's potential positioning territory.
### Step 5: Aggregate SWOT
Synthesize across all competitors into a landscape-level view:
**Strengths across competitors** — what does the market generally do well? These are table stakes you must match.
**Common weaknesses** — what do multiple competitors struggle with? These are opportunities.
**Industry opportunities** — macro trends, technology shifts, or market gaps that no competitor has captured yet.
**Industry threats** — forces that affect everyone in this space (regulation, new entrants, platform risk, commoditization).
### Step 6: Moat Landscape
Summarize the moat picture across all competitors:
| Moat | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | You |
|------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-----|
| Network effects | | | | |
| Switching costs | | | | |
| Scale economies | | | | |
| Brand recognition | | | | |
| Regulatory / IP | | | | |
| Distribution | | | | |
| Data advantage | | | | |
**Key insights:**
- Moats that NO competitor has built = opportunity to build first-mover defensibility
- Moats that ALL competitors have = table stakes, not differentiators
- Your unique moats = lean into these in positioning
### Step 7: Content Comparison (if data available)
If competitor data includes content strategy info, compare content approaches:
| Content Type | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | You |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | | | | |
| Comparison pages | | | | |
| Guides / pillars | | | | |
| Glossary / programmatic | | | | |
| Templates / tools | | | | |
| Gated content | | | | |
If no content analysis data exists, skip this section and note it.
### Step 8: Strategic Recommendations
Synthesize everything into actionable recommendations:
**Where you win** — your clearest competitive advantages based on feature gaps, pricing position, moat differences, and competitor weaknesses. Be specific.
**Where you're vulnerable** — honest assessment of where competitors are ahead. What would you need to invest in to close the gap?
**Market gaps** — opportunities no one is serving well, informed by:
- Empty space on the positioning map
- Features no competitor offers
- Audience segments being ignored
- Pricing models no one has tried
**Positioning recommendation** — based on the full landscape, where should you position? What's your angle? What should you NOT compete on?
**Messaging landmines** — claims competitors make that you should avoid competing on directly (because they're stronger there) or because they're becoming commoditized.
## Output Format
```
# Competitive Landscape: [Product Name]
**Date:** [current date]
**Competitors:** [list]
## Feature Comparison
[matrix from Step 2]
## Pricing Comparison
[table from Step 3]
## Positioning Map
[quadrant from Step 4]
## Aggregate SWOT
[landscape-level SWOT from Step 5]
## Moat Landscape
[moat comparison from Step 6]
## Content Comparison
[content type coverage from Step 7, if available]
## Strategic Recommendations
### Where You Win
[from Step 8]
### Where You're Vulnerable
[from Step 8]
### Market Gaps
[from Step 8]
### Positioning Recommendation
[from Step 8]
### Messaging Landmines
[from Step 8]
```
## Rules
- Need at least 2 competitors for comparison. A landscape analysis with one competitor is just a profile.
- Never invent data — if information is missing for a competitor, note "data not available."
- Never present a positioning map without explaining why you chose the axes.
- Never make strategic recommendations without citing evidence from the data.
- If competitor data has inconsistent depth (one has full pricing, another doesn't), flag that comparison will be uneven.
- If the market appears highly fragmented (5+ direct competitors with no clear leader), note this.
- Be honest if the user's product appears to be in a weak position on the map — suggest what to improve.
- The positioning map is most valuable when you customize the axes to match your strategic question.