Competitive Teardown
Production-grade competitor analysis framework covering systematic data collection across 6 intelligence sources, a 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audit methodology, and strategic action plans. Produces battle-card-ready output and stakeholder presentation templates.
Table of Contents
When to Use
| Trigger |
Teardown Scope |
| Before product strategy or roadmap session |
Full teardown (2-4 competitors) |
| Competitor launches major feature or pricing change |
Focused teardown (1 competitor, updated dimensions only) |
| Quarterly competitive review |
Update existing teardowns + trend analysis |
| Before a sales pitch (battle card needed) |
Single-competitor battle card |
| Entering a new market segment |
Full teardown of segment incumbents |
Clarify First
Before running the teardown, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the teardown.
Teardown Workflow
Step-by-Step Process
- Define competitors -- List 2-4 competitors. Confirm which is the primary focus.
- Collect data -- Gather intelligence from at least 3 of the 6 sources per competitor.
- Score using rubric -- Apply the 12-dimension rubric to produce a numeric scorecard.
- Generate comparison outputs -- Feature matrix, pricing analysis, SWOT, positioning map.
- Build action plan -- Translate findings into quick wins, medium-term, and strategic priorities.
- Package for stakeholders -- Assemble the presentation or battle card.
Validation Checkpoints
- Before scoring: Confirm you have pricing data, 20+ user reviews, and recent product data
- Before action plan: Every dimension should have a score and supporting evidence
- Before presentation: Every recommendation should tie back to a data point
Data Collection Framework
Source 1: Website and Product Analysis
| Data Point |
Where to Find |
What It Signals |
| Pricing tiers and price points |
Pricing page |
Market positioning, target segment |
| Feature lists per tier |
Pricing + feature pages |
Packaging strategy |
| Primary CTA and messaging |
Homepage hero |
Positioning and ICP |
| Case studies and customer logos |
Case study page, homepage |
Target segments, social proof |
| Integration partnerships |
Integrations page |
Ecosystem strategy |
| Trust signals |
Footer, security page |
Enterprise readiness |
| Job postings |
Careers page, LinkedIn |
Growth direction, tech stack |
Source 2: User Reviews
Platforms: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, Product Hunt
| Category |
What to Track |
Strategic Value |
| Praise themes |
What users love (top 5 themes) |
Their defensible strengths |
| Complaint themes |
What users hate (top 5 themes) |
Your opportunities |
| Feature requests |
What users want but do not have |
Product roadmap gaps |
| Switching mentions |
Why users left competitors |
Competitive migration paths |
| Rating trends |
Quarter-over-quarter rating change |
Improving or declining |
Sample size target: 50+ reviews per competitor for reliable themes.
Source 3: Job Postings
| Signal |
What It Means |
| High engineering hiring |
Product investment, scaling |
| AI/ML roles |
AI features coming |
| Sales team expansion |
Moving upmarket or expanding geographically |
| Customer success roles |
Retention focus, enterprise motion |
| Compliance/legal roles |
Regulatory expansion |
| Reduced postings |
Cost cutting, potential contraction |
Source 4: SEO and Content Analysis
| Metric |
Tool |
Strategic Value |
| Top 20 organic keywords |
Ahrefs, SEMrush, GSC |
Content strategy and targeting |
| Domain authority |
Ahrefs, Moz |
Brand strength |
| Blog publishing cadence |
Manual check |
Content investment level |
| Ranking pages (product vs blog vs docs) |
Ahrefs |
Traffic composition |
Source 5: Social Media and Community
| Platform |
What to Track |
| Twitter/X |
Product announcements, customer praise, complaints |
| Reddit |
Honest reviews, comparison threads |
| LinkedIn |
Thought leadership, hiring signals, employee count |
| Community forums |
Feature requests, workarounds, power user patterns |
| Discord/Slack |
Community size, engagement level |
Source 6: Financial and Market Data
| Source |
Data Available |
| Crunchbase |
Funding, valuation, investors, employee count |
| LinkedIn |
Employee count trend (growth proxy) |
| Public filings (if public) |
Revenue, growth rate, churn |
| Industry reports |
Market share estimates |
12-Dimension Scoring Rubric
Score each competitor (and your own product) on a 1-5 scale with evidence notes.
| # |
Dimension |
1 (Weak) |
3 (Average) |
5 (Best-in-class) |
| 1 |
Features |
Core only, many gaps |
Solid coverage |
Comprehensive + unique capabilities |
| 2 |
Pricing |
Confusing or overpriced |
Market-rate, clear |
Transparent, flexible, fair |
| 3 |
UX / Design |
Confusing, high friction |
Functional, adequate |
Delightful, minimal friction |
| 4 |
Performance |
Slow, unreliable |
Acceptable |
Fast, high uptime, responsive |
| 5 |
Documentation |
Sparse, outdated |
Decent coverage |
Comprehensive, searchable, with examples |
| 6 |
Support |
Email only, slow response |
Chat + email, reasonable SLA |
24/7, multiple channels, fast |
| 7 |
Integrations |
0-5 native integrations |
6-25 integrations |
26+ or deep ecosystem (API + marketplace) |
| 8 |
Security |
No mentions |
SOC2 claimed |
SOC2 Type II + ISO 27001 + GDPR |
| 9 |
Scalability |
No enterprise tier |
Mid-market ready |
Enterprise-grade (SSO, SCIM, SLA) |
| 10 |
Brand |
Generic, unmemorable |
Decent positioning |
Strong, differentiated, recognized |
| 11 |
Community |
None |
Forum or Slack exists |
Active, vibrant, user-generated content |
| 12 |
Innovation |
No releases in 6+ months |
Quarterly releases |
Frequent, meaningful, well-communicated |
Scoring Output Format
| Dimension |
Your Product |
Competitor A |
Competitor B |
Competitor C |
| Features |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
| Pricing |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
| ... |
... |
... |
... |
... |
| Total (/60) |
38 |
35 |
42 |
33 |
Feature Comparison Matrix
Matrix Structure
| Feature Category |
Your Product |
Competitor A |
Competitor B |
Notes |
| Core Features |
|
|
|
|
| Feature 1 |
Full |
Full |
Partial |
Comp B lacks [specific capability] |
| Feature 2 |
Full |
Missing |
Full |
Our differentiator |
| Feature 3 |
Partial |
Full |
Full |
Gap to close |
| Platform |
|
|
|
|
| Web app |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
| iOS app |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Comp A gap |
| API access |
Full |
Limited |
Full |
|
| Enterprise |
|
|
|
|
| SSO |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
|
| Audit logs |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
|
| Custom SLA |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Score per cell: Full = 5, Partial = 3, Basic = 2, Missing = 0
Pricing Analysis Framework
Pricing Model Comparison
| Attribute |
Your Product |
Competitor A |
Competitor B |
| Model type |
Per seat |
Usage-based |
Flat rate |
| Free tier |
Yes (3 users) |
Yes (limited) |
No |
| Entry price |
$15/user/mo |
$29/mo (up to 1K events) |
$49/mo |
| Mid-tier price |
$35/user/mo |
$99/mo |
$99/mo |
| Enterprise |
Custom |
Custom |
$249/mo |
| Annual discount |
20% |
15% |
2 months free |
| Trial |
14-day free |
7-day free |
30-day money-back |
Pricing Position Map
| Position |
Characteristic |
Your Strategy |
| Price leader |
Lowest price, may signal lower quality |
Win on value, not features |
| Value leader |
Best features-per-dollar ratio |
Win on differentiation |
| Premium |
Highest price, justified by brand/features |
Win on exclusivity and support |
| Disruptor |
Radically different model (free, usage-based) |
Win on accessibility |
SWOT Analysis Template
For each competitor, produce:
Competitor SWOT
| Quadrant |
Points |
| Strengths (Their advantages) |
3-5 bullets, each anchored to a data signal |
| Weaknesses (Their vulnerabilities) |
3-5 bullets, each tied to reviews, missing features, or complaints |
| Opportunities for Us |
What their weaknesses create for us |
| Threats to Us |
What their strengths mean for our position |
Evidence rule: Every bullet must cite the data source (review quote, pricing page, job posting count, feature comparison, etc.).
UX Audit Methodology
First-Run Experience Audit
| Dimension |
What to Measure |
How to Score |
| Time to first value (TTFV) |
Minutes from signup to first meaningful output |
< 5 min = 5, 5-15 min = 3, > 15 min = 1 |
| Steps to activation |
Number of screens/actions before core value |
< 3 = 5, 3-7 = 3, > 7 = 1 |
| Credit card required |
Required at signup? |
No = 5, Optional = 3, Required = 1 |
| Onboarding quality |
Wizard, tooltips, empty states |
Comprehensive = 5, Basic = 3, None = 1 |
| SSO available |
Google, Microsoft, etc. |
Yes = 5, No = 1 |
Core Workflow Audit
For the 3 most common workflows, compare:
| Workflow |
Steps (Yours) |
Steps (Competitor) |
Friction Points |
| [Primary workflow] |
N |
N |
Specific UX issues |
| [Secondary workflow] |
N |
N |
Specific UX issues |
| [Tertiary workflow] |
N |
N |
Specific UX issues |
Positioning Map
2x2 Positioning Map
Choose the two axes most relevant to your market:
| Common Axis Pairs |
When to Use |
| Simple / Complex x Low Price / High Price |
General product comparison |
| SMB / Enterprise x Narrow / Broad Features |
Market segment analysis |
| Self-Serve / Sales-Led x Point Solution / Platform |
Go-to-market comparison |
| Technical / Non-Technical x Niche / Horizontal |
Audience analysis |
Map Template
High Price / Enterprise
│
│
[Competitor B] │ [Competitor C]
│
Simple ─────────────────┼─────────────────── Complex
│
[YOUR PRODUCT] │ [Competitor A]
│
│
Low Price / SMB
Action Plan Framework
Three Horizons
| Horizon |
Timeframe |
Effort |
Examples |
| Quick wins |
0-4 weeks |
Low |
Publish comparison pages, update pricing page, add missing trust badges |
| Medium-term |
1-3 months |
Moderate |
Build top-requested integration, improve onboarding TTFV, launch free tier |
| Strategic |
3-12 months |
High |
Enter new market segment, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II |
Priority Scoring
For each action item, score:
| Factor |
Weight |
Scale |
| Competitive impact |
40% |
How much does this close or widen a gap? |
| Customer demand |
30% |
How many customers/prospects request this? |
| Implementation effort |
20% |
How hard is this to build/execute? |
| Revenue impact |
10% |
Direct revenue contribution? |
Battle Card Template
One-Page Battle Card
COMPETITOR: [Name]
LAST UPDATED: [Date]
THREAT LEVEL: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]
THEIR POSITIONING: [1 sentence]
OUR POSITIONING AGAINST THEM: [1 sentence]
WHERE THEY WIN:
- [Strength 1 with evidence]
- [Strength 2 with evidence]
- [Strength 3 with evidence]
WHERE WE WIN:
- [Advantage 1 with evidence]
- [Advantage 2 with evidence]
- [Advantage 3 with evidence]
LANDMINES (questions that expose their weaknesses):
- "How does [competitor] handle [weakness area]?"
- "Can you show me [feature they lack]?"
- "What do their customers say about [common complaint]?"
OBJECTION HANDLING:
- "They're cheaper" → [Response with value framing]
- "They have [feature]" → [Response with alternative/roadmap]
- "Everyone uses them" → [Response with differentiation]
PRICING COMPARISON:
[Quick comparison table]
CUSTOMER QUOTE:
"[Quote from a customer who switched from this competitor to you]"
Stakeholder Presentation
7-Slide Structure
| Slide |
Content |
| 1. Executive Summary |
Threat level, top strength, top opportunity, recommended action |
| 2. Market Position |
2x2 positioning map with all players |
| 3. Feature Scorecard |
12-dimension scores, total comparison |
| 4. Pricing Analysis |
Pricing comparison table + key pricing insight |
| 5. UX Comparison |
Where they win (3 bullets) vs where we win (3 bullets) |
| 6. Voice of Customer |
Top 3 competitor complaints from reviews (quoted) |
| 7. Action Plan |
Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities |
Output Artifacts
| Artifact |
Format |
Description |
| Data Collection Report |
Structured notes per source |
Raw intelligence organized by source type |
| 12-Dimension Scorecard |
Scored table with evidence |
Numeric comparison across all dimensions |
| Feature Comparison Matrix |
Grid table |
Feature-by-feature comparison with scoring |
| Pricing Analysis |
Comparison table + position map |
Model comparison, tier mapping, positioning |
| SWOT Analysis |
Per-competitor 4-quadrant |
Anchored to data signals |
| UX Audit |
Scored checklist |
TTFV, steps, friction analysis |
| Positioning Map |
2x2 diagram |
Visual market position |
| Action Plan |
Three-horizon table |
Prioritized competitive responses |
| Battle Card |
One-page template |
Sales-ready competitive reference |
| Stakeholder Presentation |
7-slide outline |
Executive-ready competitive briefing |
Related Skills
- competitor-alternatives -- Use for creating comparison and alternative pages for SEO/marketing. Competitive-teardown provides the intelligence; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content.
- pricing-strategy -- Use when competitive analysis reveals pricing misalignment. Feed teardown pricing data into pricing-strategy.
- page-cro -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion.
- content-creator -- Use for writing competitive content (blog posts, comparison guides) based on teardown findings.
Tool Reference
1. competitor_scorer.py
Purpose: Score competitors across the 12-dimension rubric and generate a numeric comparison scorecard.
python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json
python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json --json
| Flag |
Required |
Description |
competitor_data.json |
Yes |
JSON file with competitor dimension scores and evidence |
--json |
No |
Output results as JSON |
--weights |
No |
Custom dimension weights as JSON string (default: equal weights) |
2. feature_matrix_builder.py
Purpose: Build a feature comparison matrix from structured feature data and calculate coverage scores.
python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json
python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json --json
| Flag |
Required |
Description |
features.json |
Yes |
JSON file with feature comparison data |
--json |
No |
Output results as JSON |
3. battle_card_generator.py
Purpose: Generate a one-page battle card from competitor data for sales team use.
python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json
python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json --json
| Flag |
Required |
Description |
competitor_profile.json |
Yes |
JSON file with competitor profile data |
--json |
No |
Output results as JSON |
--format |
No |
Output format: text (default) or markdown |
Troubleshooting
| Problem |
Likely Cause |
Solution |
| Scoring feels subjective across analysts |
No shared rubric calibration |
Use the 12-dimension rubric with explicit 1/3/5 definitions; have two analysts score independently and reconcile |
| Data is stale within weeks of teardown |
Fast-moving competitors |
Set calendar reminders for monthly pricing checks and quarterly full refreshes; use competitor_scorer.py to track score changes over time |
| Feature matrix has too many rows to be useful |
Trying to capture every micro-feature |
Group features into 8-12 categories; detail only the top differentiators |
| Battle cards are not used by sales |
Too long, too academic, or not actionable |
Keep to one page; lead with "Where We Win" and "Landmines"; validate with 3 sales reps before distributing |
| Review data is contradictory |
Small sample size or selection bias |
Target 50+ reviews per competitor across G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius; weight recent reviews more heavily |
| Cannot get pricing data for enterprise tiers |
Custom pricing not published |
Use sales intel (request a demo), G2 pricing data, or customer interviews for directional estimates |
| SWOT analysis has no actionable output |
Analysis lacks connection to action plan |
Every SWOT bullet must map to a specific quick-win, medium-term, or strategic action |
Success Criteria
- 12-dimension scorecard completed with evidence notes for every score
- Feature matrix covers at least 80% of features that prospects evaluate
- Battle cards reviewed and approved by 3+ sales representatives
- Pricing data verified within the last 30 days
- Teardown produces at least 3 actionable quick wins and 2 strategic priorities
- Stakeholder presentation reviewed and feedback incorporated within 1 week
- Teardown data refreshed quarterly with score trend tracking
Scope & Limitations
- In scope: Product analysis, feature comparison, pricing deconstruction, UX audit, SWOT analysis, battle card creation, action plan generation
- Out of scope: Primary market research (customer interviews, surveys), financial modeling, legal competitive analysis, intellectual property assessment
- Data dependency: Quality depends on publicly available data, user reviews, and product access; some competitors may have limited public information
- Bias risk: Teardowns conducted by internal teams may have confirmation bias; consider external validation for high-stakes decisions
- Point-in-time: Teardowns are snapshots; competitors evolve continuously -- schedule regular refreshes
Integration Points
- competitor-alternatives -- Teardown provides the data; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content (comparison and alternative pages)
- pricing-strategy -- When teardown reveals pricing misalignment, feed pricing data into pricing-strategy for repositioning analysis
- page-cro -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion after teardown produces the content
- sales-engineer -- Battle cards feed directly into sales engineering competitive positioning and RFP responses
- customer-success-manager -- When exit surveys reveal COMPETITOR as a top churn reason, use teardown data to understand what competitors offer that you do not
1---
2name: competitive-teardown
3description: >
4 Systematic competitor analysis covering product teardowns, 12-dimension
5 scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model
6 deconstruction, UX audits, and strategic action plans with stakeholder
7 presentation templates.
8license: MIT + Commons Clause
9metadata:
10 version: 1.0.0
11 author: borghei
12 category: business-growth
13 updated: 2026-03-31
14 tags:
15 - competitive-intelligence
16 - competitor-analysis
17 - product-strategy
18 - battle-cards
19 - market-analysis
20---
21
22# Competitive Teardown
23
24Production-grade competitor analysis framework covering systematic data collection across 6 intelligence sources, a 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audit methodology, and strategic action plans. Produces battle-card-ready output and stakeholder presentation templates.
25
26---
27
28## Table of Contents
29
30- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
31- [Teardown Workflow](#teardown-workflow)
32- [Data Collection Framework](#data-collection-framework)
33- [12-Dimension Scoring Rubric](#12-dimension-scoring-rubric)
34- [Feature Comparison Matrix](#feature-comparison-matrix)
35- [Pricing Analysis Framework](#pricing-analysis-framework)
36- [SWOT Analysis Template](#swot-analysis-template)
37- [UX Audit Methodology](#ux-audit-methodology)
38- [Positioning Map](#positioning-map)
39- [Action Plan Framework](#action-plan-framework)
40- [Battle Card Template](#battle-card-template)
41- [Stakeholder Presentation](#stakeholder-presentation)
42- [Output Artifacts](#output-artifacts)
43- [Related Skills](#related-skills)
44
45---
46
47## When to Use
48
49| Trigger | Teardown Scope |
50|---------|---------------|
51| Before product strategy or roadmap session | Full teardown (2-4 competitors) |
52| Competitor launches major feature or pricing change | Focused teardown (1 competitor, updated dimensions only) |
53| Quarterly competitive review | Update existing teardowns + trend analysis |
54| Before a sales pitch (battle card needed) | Single-competitor battle card |
55| Entering a new market segment | Full teardown of segment incumbents |
56
57---
58
59## Clarify First
60
61Before running the teardown, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
62
63- [ ] **Competitors + primary focus** — the 2-4 names and which is the main threat (sets scorecard columns and depth)
64- [ ] **Your own product baseline** — so the 12-dimension scorecard and feature matrix have a "you" column to compare against
65- [ ] **Decision this feeds** — roadmap session, sales battle card, or new-market entry (determines full teardown vs single battle card vs segment incumbents)
66- [ ] **Available data sources** — pricing pages, 50+ reviews, product access (the rubric needs evidence; thin data caps which dimensions are scorable)
67
68Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the teardown.
69
70## Teardown Workflow
71
72### Step-by-Step Process
73
741. **Define competitors** -- List 2-4 competitors. Confirm which is the primary focus.
752. **Collect data** -- Gather intelligence from at least 3 of the 6 sources per competitor.
763. **Score using rubric** -- Apply the 12-dimension rubric to produce a numeric scorecard.
774. **Generate comparison outputs** -- Feature matrix, pricing analysis, SWOT, positioning map.
785. **Build action plan** -- Translate findings into quick wins, medium-term, and strategic priorities.
796. **Package for stakeholders** -- Assemble the presentation or battle card.
80
81### Validation Checkpoints
82
83- Before scoring: Confirm you have pricing data, 20+ user reviews, and recent product data
84- Before action plan: Every dimension should have a score and supporting evidence
85- Before presentation: Every recommendation should tie back to a data point
86
87---
88
89## Data Collection Framework
90
91### Source 1: Website and Product Analysis
92
93| Data Point | Where to Find | What It Signals |
94|-----------|--------------|-----------------|
95| Pricing tiers and price points | Pricing page | Market positioning, target segment |
96| Feature lists per tier | Pricing + feature pages | Packaging strategy |
97| Primary CTA and messaging | Homepage hero | Positioning and ICP |
98| Case studies and customer logos | Case study page, homepage | Target segments, social proof |
99| Integration partnerships | Integrations page | Ecosystem strategy |
100| Trust signals | Footer, security page | Enterprise readiness |
101| Job postings | Careers page, LinkedIn | Growth direction, tech stack |
102
103### Source 2: User Reviews
104
105**Platforms:** G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, Product Hunt
106
107| Category | What to Track | Strategic Value |
108|----------|-------------|-----------------|
109| Praise themes | What users love (top 5 themes) | Their defensible strengths |
110| Complaint themes | What users hate (top 5 themes) | Your opportunities |
111| Feature requests | What users want but do not have | Product roadmap gaps |
112| Switching mentions | Why users left competitors | Competitive migration paths |
113| Rating trends | Quarter-over-quarter rating change | Improving or declining |
114
115**Sample size target:** 50+ reviews per competitor for reliable themes.
116
117### Source 3: Job Postings
118
119| Signal | What It Means |
120|--------|--------------|
121| High engineering hiring | Product investment, scaling |
122| AI/ML roles | AI features coming |
123| Sales team expansion | Moving upmarket or expanding geographically |
124| Customer success roles | Retention focus, enterprise motion |
125| Compliance/legal roles | Regulatory expansion |
126| Reduced postings | Cost cutting, potential contraction |
127
128### Source 4: SEO and Content Analysis
129
130| Metric | Tool | Strategic Value |
131|--------|------|-----------------|
132| Top 20 organic keywords | Ahrefs, SEMrush, GSC | Content strategy and targeting |
133| Domain authority | Ahrefs, Moz | Brand strength |
134| Blog publishing cadence | Manual check | Content investment level |
135| Ranking pages (product vs blog vs docs) | Ahrefs | Traffic composition |
136
137### Source 5: Social Media and Community
138
139| Platform | What to Track |
140|----------|-------------|
141| Twitter/X | Product announcements, customer praise, complaints |
142| Reddit | Honest reviews, comparison threads |
143| LinkedIn | Thought leadership, hiring signals, employee count |
144| Community forums | Feature requests, workarounds, power user patterns |
145| Discord/Slack | Community size, engagement level |
146
147### Source 6: Financial and Market Data
148
149| Source | Data Available |
150|-------|---------------|
151| Crunchbase | Funding, valuation, investors, employee count |
152| LinkedIn | Employee count trend (growth proxy) |
153| Public filings (if public) | Revenue, growth rate, churn |
154| Industry reports | Market share estimates |
155
156---
157
158## 12-Dimension Scoring Rubric
159
160Score each competitor (and your own product) on a 1-5 scale with evidence notes.
161
162| # | Dimension | 1 (Weak) | 3 (Average) | 5 (Best-in-class) |
163|---|-----------|----------|-------------|-------------------|
164| 1 | Features | Core only, many gaps | Solid coverage | Comprehensive + unique capabilities |
165| 2 | Pricing | Confusing or overpriced | Market-rate, clear | Transparent, flexible, fair |
166| 3 | UX / Design | Confusing, high friction | Functional, adequate | Delightful, minimal friction |
167| 4 | Performance | Slow, unreliable | Acceptable | Fast, high uptime, responsive |
168| 5 | Documentation | Sparse, outdated | Decent coverage | Comprehensive, searchable, with examples |
169| 6 | Support | Email only, slow response | Chat + email, reasonable SLA | 24/7, multiple channels, fast |
170| 7 | Integrations | 0-5 native integrations | 6-25 integrations | 26+ or deep ecosystem (API + marketplace) |
171| 8 | Security | No mentions | SOC2 claimed | SOC2 Type II + ISO 27001 + GDPR |
172| 9 | Scalability | No enterprise tier | Mid-market ready | Enterprise-grade (SSO, SCIM, SLA) |
173| 10 | Brand | Generic, unmemorable | Decent positioning | Strong, differentiated, recognized |
174| 11 | Community | None | Forum or Slack exists | Active, vibrant, user-generated content |
175| 12 | Innovation | No releases in 6+ months | Quarterly releases | Frequent, meaningful, well-communicated |
176
177### Scoring Output Format
178
179| Dimension | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
180|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
181| Features | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
182| Pricing | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
183| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
184| **Total (/60)** | **38** | **35** | **42** | **33** |
185
186---
187
188## Feature Comparison Matrix
189
190### Matrix Structure
191
192| Feature Category | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Notes |
193|-----------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|
194| **Core Features** | | | | |
195| Feature 1 | Full | Full | Partial | Comp B lacks [specific capability] |
196| Feature 2 | Full | Missing | Full | Our differentiator |
197| Feature 3 | Partial | Full | Full | Gap to close |
198| **Platform** | | | | |
199| Web app | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
200| iOS app | Yes | No | Yes | Comp A gap |
201| API access | Full | Limited | Full | |
202| **Enterprise** | | | | |
203| SSO | Yes | No | Yes | |
204| Audit logs | Yes | Yes | No | |
205| Custom SLA | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
206
207**Score per cell:** Full = 5, Partial = 3, Basic = 2, Missing = 0
208
209---
210
211## Pricing Analysis Framework
212
213### Pricing Model Comparison
214
215| Attribute | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B |
216|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
217| Model type | Per seat | Usage-based | Flat rate |
218| Free tier | Yes (3 users) | Yes (limited) | No |
219| Entry price | $15/user/mo | $29/mo (up to 1K events) | $49/mo |
220| Mid-tier price | $35/user/mo | $99/mo | $99/mo |
221| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | $249/mo |
222| Annual discount | 20% | 15% | 2 months free |
223| Trial | 14-day free | 7-day free | 30-day money-back |
224
225### Pricing Position Map
226
227| Position | Characteristic | Your Strategy |
228|----------|---------------|---------------|
229| Price leader | Lowest price, may signal lower quality | Win on value, not features |
230| Value leader | Best features-per-dollar ratio | Win on differentiation |
231| Premium | Highest price, justified by brand/features | Win on exclusivity and support |
232| Disruptor | Radically different model (free, usage-based) | Win on accessibility |
233
234---
235
236## SWOT Analysis Template
237
238For each competitor, produce:
239
240### Competitor SWOT
241
242| Quadrant | Points |
243|----------|--------|
244| **Strengths** (Their advantages) | 3-5 bullets, each anchored to a data signal |
245| **Weaknesses** (Their vulnerabilities) | 3-5 bullets, each tied to reviews, missing features, or complaints |
246| **Opportunities for Us** | What their weaknesses create for us |
247| **Threats to Us** | What their strengths mean for our position |
248
249**Evidence rule:** Every bullet must cite the data source (review quote, pricing page, job posting count, feature comparison, etc.).
250
251---
252
253## UX Audit Methodology
254
255### First-Run Experience Audit
256
257| Dimension | What to Measure | How to Score |
258|-----------|----------------|--------------|
259| Time to first value (TTFV) | Minutes from signup to first meaningful output | < 5 min = 5, 5-15 min = 3, > 15 min = 1 |
260| Steps to activation | Number of screens/actions before core value | < 3 = 5, 3-7 = 3, > 7 = 1 |
261| Credit card required | Required at signup? | No = 5, Optional = 3, Required = 1 |
262| Onboarding quality | Wizard, tooltips, empty states | Comprehensive = 5, Basic = 3, None = 1 |
263| SSO available | Google, Microsoft, etc. | Yes = 5, No = 1 |
264
265### Core Workflow Audit
266
267For the 3 most common workflows, compare:
268
269| Workflow | Steps (Yours) | Steps (Competitor) | Friction Points |
270|----------|-------------|-------------------|-----------------|
271| [Primary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |
272| [Secondary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |
273| [Tertiary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |
274
275---
276
277## Positioning Map
278
279### 2x2 Positioning Map
280
281Choose the two axes most relevant to your market:
282
283| Common Axis Pairs | When to Use |
284|-------------------|-------------|
285| Simple / Complex x Low Price / High Price | General product comparison |
286| SMB / Enterprise x Narrow / Broad Features | Market segment analysis |
287| Self-Serve / Sales-Led x Point Solution / Platform | Go-to-market comparison |
288| Technical / Non-Technical x Niche / Horizontal | Audience analysis |
289
290### Map Template
291
292```
293 High Price / Enterprise
294 │
295 │
296 [Competitor B] │ [Competitor C]
297 │
298 Simple ─────────────────┼─────────────────── Complex
299 │
300 [YOUR PRODUCT] │ [Competitor A]
301 │
302 │
303 Low Price / SMB
304```
305
306---
307
308## Action Plan Framework
309
310### Three Horizons
311
312| Horizon | Timeframe | Effort | Examples |
313|---------|-----------|--------|---------|
314| Quick wins | 0-4 weeks | Low | Publish comparison pages, update pricing page, add missing trust badges |
315| Medium-term | 1-3 months | Moderate | Build top-requested integration, improve onboarding TTFV, launch free tier |
316| Strategic | 3-12 months | High | Enter new market segment, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II |
317
318### Priority Scoring
319
320For each action item, score:
321
322| Factor | Weight | Scale |
323|--------|--------|-------|
324| Competitive impact | 40% | How much does this close or widen a gap? |
325| Customer demand | 30% | How many customers/prospects request this? |
326| Implementation effort | 20% | How hard is this to build/execute? |
327| Revenue impact | 10% | Direct revenue contribution? |
328
329---
330
331## Battle Card Template
332
333### One-Page Battle Card
334
335```
336COMPETITOR: [Name]
337LAST UPDATED: [Date]
338THREAT LEVEL: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]
339
340THEIR POSITIONING: [1 sentence]
341OUR POSITIONING AGAINST THEM: [1 sentence]
342
343WHERE THEY WIN:
344- [Strength 1 with evidence]
345- [Strength 2 with evidence]
346- [Strength 3 with evidence]
347
348WHERE WE WIN:
349- [Advantage 1 with evidence]
350- [Advantage 2 with evidence]
351- [Advantage 3 with evidence]
352
353LANDMINES (questions that expose their weaknesses):
354- "How does [competitor] handle [weakness area]?"
355- "Can you show me [feature they lack]?"
356- "What do their customers say about [common complaint]?"
357
358OBJECTION HANDLING:
359- "They're cheaper" → [Response with value framing]
360- "They have [feature]" → [Response with alternative/roadmap]
361- "Everyone uses them" → [Response with differentiation]
362
363PRICING COMPARISON:
364[Quick comparison table]
365
366CUSTOMER QUOTE:
367"[Quote from a customer who switched from this competitor to you]"
368```
369
370---
371
372## Stakeholder Presentation
373
374### 7-Slide Structure
375
376| Slide | Content |
377|-------|---------|
378| 1. Executive Summary | Threat level, top strength, top opportunity, recommended action |
379| 2. Market Position | 2x2 positioning map with all players |
380| 3. Feature Scorecard | 12-dimension scores, total comparison |
381| 4. Pricing Analysis | Pricing comparison table + key pricing insight |
382| 5. UX Comparison | Where they win (3 bullets) vs where we win (3 bullets) |
383| 6. Voice of Customer | Top 3 competitor complaints from reviews (quoted) |
384| 7. Action Plan | Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities |
385
386---
387
388## Output Artifacts
389
390| Artifact | Format | Description |
391|----------|--------|-------------|
392| Data Collection Report | Structured notes per source | Raw intelligence organized by source type |
393| 12-Dimension Scorecard | Scored table with evidence | Numeric comparison across all dimensions |
394| Feature Comparison Matrix | Grid table | Feature-by-feature comparison with scoring |
395| Pricing Analysis | Comparison table + position map | Model comparison, tier mapping, positioning |
396| SWOT Analysis | Per-competitor 4-quadrant | Anchored to data signals |
397| UX Audit | Scored checklist | TTFV, steps, friction analysis |
398| Positioning Map | 2x2 diagram | Visual market position |
399| Action Plan | Three-horizon table | Prioritized competitive responses |
400| Battle Card | One-page template | Sales-ready competitive reference |
401| Stakeholder Presentation | 7-slide outline | Executive-ready competitive briefing |
402
403---
404
405## Related Skills
406
407- **competitor-alternatives** -- Use for creating comparison and alternative pages for SEO/marketing. Competitive-teardown provides the intelligence; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content.
408- **pricing-strategy** -- Use when competitive analysis reveals pricing misalignment. Feed teardown pricing data into pricing-strategy.
409- **page-cro** -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion.
410- **content-creator** -- Use for writing competitive content (blog posts, comparison guides) based on teardown findings.
411
412---
413
414## Tool Reference
415
416### 1. competitor_scorer.py
417
418**Purpose:** Score competitors across the 12-dimension rubric and generate a numeric comparison scorecard.
419
420```bash
421python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json
422python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json --json
423```
424
425| Flag | Required | Description |
426|------|----------|-------------|
427| `competitor_data.json` | Yes | JSON file with competitor dimension scores and evidence |
428| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |
429| `--weights` | No | Custom dimension weights as JSON string (default: equal weights) |
430
431### 2. feature_matrix_builder.py
432
433**Purpose:** Build a feature comparison matrix from structured feature data and calculate coverage scores.
434
435```bash
436python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json
437python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json --json
438```
439
440| Flag | Required | Description |
441|------|----------|-------------|
442| `features.json` | Yes | JSON file with feature comparison data |
443| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |
444
445### 3. battle_card_generator.py
446
447**Purpose:** Generate a one-page battle card from competitor data for sales team use.
448
449```bash
450python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json
451python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json --json
452```
453
454| Flag | Required | Description |
455|------|----------|-------------|
456| `competitor_profile.json` | Yes | JSON file with competitor profile data |
457| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |
458| `--format` | No | Output format: text (default) or markdown |
459
460---
461
462## Troubleshooting
463
464| Problem | Likely Cause | Solution |
465|---------|-------------|----------|
466| Scoring feels subjective across analysts | No shared rubric calibration | Use the 12-dimension rubric with explicit 1/3/5 definitions; have two analysts score independently and reconcile |
467| Data is stale within weeks of teardown | Fast-moving competitors | Set calendar reminders for monthly pricing checks and quarterly full refreshes; use competitor_scorer.py to track score changes over time |
468| Feature matrix has too many rows to be useful | Trying to capture every micro-feature | Group features into 8-12 categories; detail only the top differentiators |
469| Battle cards are not used by sales | Too long, too academic, or not actionable | Keep to one page; lead with "Where We Win" and "Landmines"; validate with 3 sales reps before distributing |
470| Review data is contradictory | Small sample size or selection bias | Target 50+ reviews per competitor across G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius; weight recent reviews more heavily |
471| Cannot get pricing data for enterprise tiers | Custom pricing not published | Use sales intel (request a demo), G2 pricing data, or customer interviews for directional estimates |
472| SWOT analysis has no actionable output | Analysis lacks connection to action plan | Every SWOT bullet must map to a specific quick-win, medium-term, or strategic action |
473
474---
475
476## Success Criteria
477
478- 12-dimension scorecard completed with evidence notes for every score
479- Feature matrix covers at least 80% of features that prospects evaluate
480- Battle cards reviewed and approved by 3+ sales representatives
481- Pricing data verified within the last 30 days
482- Teardown produces at least 3 actionable quick wins and 2 strategic priorities
483- Stakeholder presentation reviewed and feedback incorporated within 1 week
484- Teardown data refreshed quarterly with score trend tracking
485
486---
487
488## Scope & Limitations
489
490- **In scope:** Product analysis, feature comparison, pricing deconstruction, UX audit, SWOT analysis, battle card creation, action plan generation
491- **Out of scope:** Primary market research (customer interviews, surveys), financial modeling, legal competitive analysis, intellectual property assessment
492- **Data dependency:** Quality depends on publicly available data, user reviews, and product access; some competitors may have limited public information
493- **Bias risk:** Teardowns conducted by internal teams may have confirmation bias; consider external validation for high-stakes decisions
494- **Point-in-time:** Teardowns are snapshots; competitors evolve continuously -- schedule regular refreshes
495
496---
497
498## Integration Points
499
500- **competitor-alternatives** -- Teardown provides the data; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content (comparison and alternative pages)
501- **pricing-strategy** -- When teardown reveals pricing misalignment, feed pricing data into pricing-strategy for repositioning analysis
502- **page-cro** -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion after teardown produces the content
503- **sales-engineer** -- Battle cards feed directly into sales engineering competitive positioning and RFP responses
504- **customer-success-manager** -- When exit surveys reveal COMPETITOR as a top churn reason, use teardown data to understand what competitors offer that you do not