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-teardown3description: Systematic competitor analysis covering product teardowns, 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audits, and strategic action plans with stakeholder presentation templates.4license: MIT + Commons Clause5---6# Competitive Teardown
7
8Production-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.
9
10---
11
12## Table of Contents
13
14- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
15- [Teardown Workflow](#teardown-workflow)
16- [Data Collection Framework](#data-collection-framework)
17- [12-Dimension Scoring Rubric](#12-dimension-scoring-rubric)
18- [Feature Comparison Matrix](#feature-comparison-matrix)
19- [Pricing Analysis Framework](#pricing-analysis-framework)
20- [SWOT Analysis Template](#swot-analysis-template)
21- [UX Audit Methodology](#ux-audit-methodology)
22- [Positioning Map](#positioning-map)
23- [Action Plan Framework](#action-plan-framework)
24- [Battle Card Template](#battle-card-template)
25- [Stakeholder Presentation](#stakeholder-presentation)
26- [Output Artifacts](#output-artifacts)
27- [Related Skills](#related-skills)
28
29---
30
31## When to Use
32
33| Trigger | Teardown Scope |
34|---------|---------------|
35| Before product strategy or roadmap session | Full teardown (2-4 competitors) |
36| Competitor launches major feature or pricing change | Focused teardown (1 competitor, updated dimensions only) |
37| Quarterly competitive review | Update existing teardowns + trend analysis |
38| Before a sales pitch (battle card needed) | Single-competitor battle card |
39| Entering a new market segment | Full teardown of segment incumbents |
40
41---
42
43## Clarify First
44
45Before running the teardown, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
46
47- [ ] **Competitors + primary focus** — the 2-4 names and which is the main threat (sets scorecard columns and depth)
48- [ ] **Your own product baseline** — so the 12-dimension scorecard and feature matrix have a "you" column to compare against
49- [ ] **Decision this feeds** — roadmap session, sales battle card, or new-market entry (determines full teardown vs single battle card vs segment incumbents)
50- [ ] **Available data sources** — pricing pages, 50+ reviews, product access (the rubric needs evidence; thin data caps which dimensions are scorable)
51
52Stop 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.
53
54## Teardown Workflow
55
56### Step-by-Step Process
57
581. **Define competitors** -- List 2-4 competitors. Confirm which is the primary focus.
592. **Collect data** -- Gather intelligence from at least 3 of the 6 sources per competitor.
603. **Score using rubric** -- Apply the 12-dimension rubric to produce a numeric scorecard.
614. **Generate comparison outputs** -- Feature matrix, pricing analysis, SWOT, positioning map.
625. **Build action plan** -- Translate findings into quick wins, medium-term, and strategic priorities.
636. **Package for stakeholders** -- Assemble the presentation or battle card.
64
65### Validation Checkpoints
66
67- Before scoring: Confirm you have pricing data, 20+ user reviews, and recent product data
68- Before action plan: Every dimension should have a score and supporting evidence
69- Before presentation: Every recommendation should tie back to a data point
70
71---
72
73## Data Collection Framework
74
75### Source 1: Website and Product Analysis
76
77| Data Point | Where to Find | What It Signals |
78|-----------|--------------|-----------------|
79| Pricing tiers and price points | Pricing page | Market positioning, target segment |
80| Feature lists per tier | Pricing + feature pages | Packaging strategy |
81| Primary CTA and messaging | Homepage hero | Positioning and ICP |
82| Case studies and customer logos | Case study page, homepage | Target segments, social proof |
83| Integration partnerships | Integrations page | Ecosystem strategy |
84| Trust signals | Footer, security page | Enterprise readiness |
85| Job postings | Careers page, LinkedIn | Growth direction, tech stack |
86
87### Source 2: User Reviews
88
89**Platforms:** G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, Product Hunt
90
91| Category | What to Track | Strategic Value |
92|----------|-------------|-----------------|
93| Praise themes | What users love (top 5 themes) | Their defensible strengths |
94| Complaint themes | What users hate (top 5 themes) | Your opportunities |
95| Feature requests | What users want but do not have | Product roadmap gaps |
96| Switching mentions | Why users left competitors | Competitive migration paths |
97| Rating trends | Quarter-over-quarter rating change | Improving or declining |
98
99**Sample size target:** 50+ reviews per competitor for reliable themes.
100
101### Source 3: Job Postings
102
103| Signal | What It Means |
104|--------|--------------|
105| High engineering hiring | Product investment, scaling |
106| AI/ML roles | AI features coming |
107| Sales team expansion | Moving upmarket or expanding geographically |
108| Customer success roles | Retention focus, enterprise motion |
109| Compliance/legal roles | Regulatory expansion |
110| Reduced postings | Cost cutting, potential contraction |
111
112### Source 4: SEO and Content Analysis
113
114| Metric | Tool | Strategic Value |
115|--------|------|-----------------|
116| Top 20 organic keywords | Ahrefs, SEMrush, GSC | Content strategy and targeting |
117| Domain authority | Ahrefs, Moz | Brand strength |
118| Blog publishing cadence | Manual check | Content investment level |
119| Ranking pages (product vs blog vs docs) | Ahrefs | Traffic composition |
120
121### Source 5: Social Media and Community
122
123| Platform | What to Track |
124|----------|-------------|
125| Twitter/X | Product announcements, customer praise, complaints |
126| Reddit | Honest reviews, comparison threads |
127| LinkedIn | Thought leadership, hiring signals, employee count |
128| Community forums | Feature requests, workarounds, power user patterns |
129| Discord/Slack | Community size, engagement level |
130
131### Source 6: Financial and Market Data
132
133| Source | Data Available |
134|-------|---------------|
135| Crunchbase | Funding, valuation, investors, employee count |
136| LinkedIn | Employee count trend (growth proxy) |
137| Public filings (if public) | Revenue, growth rate, churn |
138| Industry reports | Market share estimates |
139
140---
141
142## 12-Dimension Scoring Rubric
143
144Score each competitor (and your own product) on a 1-5 scale with evidence notes.
145
146| # | Dimension | 1 (Weak) | 3 (Average) | 5 (Best-in-class) |
147|---|-----------|----------|-------------|-------------------|
148| 1 | Features | Core only, many gaps | Solid coverage | Comprehensive + unique capabilities |
149| 2 | Pricing | Confusing or overpriced | Market-rate, clear | Transparent, flexible, fair |
150| 3 | UX / Design | Confusing, high friction | Functional, adequate | Delightful, minimal friction |
151| 4 | Performance | Slow, unreliable | Acceptable | Fast, high uptime, responsive |
152| 5 | Documentation | Sparse, outdated | Decent coverage | Comprehensive, searchable, with examples |
153| 6 | Support | Email only, slow response | Chat + email, reasonable SLA | 24/7, multiple channels, fast |
154| 7 | Integrations | 0-5 native integrations | 6-25 integrations | 26+ or deep ecosystem (API + marketplace) |
155| 8 | Security | No mentions | SOC2 claimed | SOC2 Type II + ISO 27001 + GDPR |
156| 9 | Scalability | No enterprise tier | Mid-market ready | Enterprise-grade (SSO, SCIM, SLA) |
157| 10 | Brand | Generic, unmemorable | Decent positioning | Strong, differentiated, recognized |
158| 11 | Community | None | Forum or Slack exists | Active, vibrant, user-generated content |
159| 12 | Innovation | No releases in 6+ months | Quarterly releases | Frequent, meaningful, well-communicated |
160
161### Scoring Output Format
162
163| Dimension | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |
164|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
165| Features | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 |
166| Pricing | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
167| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
168| **Total (/60)** | **38** | **35** | **42** | **33** |
169
170---
171
172## Feature Comparison Matrix
173
174### Matrix Structure
175
176| Feature Category | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Notes |
177|-----------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|
178| **Core Features** | | | | |
179| Feature 1 | Full | Full | Partial | Comp B lacks [specific capability] |
180| Feature 2 | Full | Missing | Full | Our differentiator |
181| Feature 3 | Partial | Full | Full | Gap to close |
182| **Platform** | | | | |
183| Web app | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
184| iOS app | Yes | No | Yes | Comp A gap |
185| API access | Full | Limited | Full | |
186| **Enterprise** | | | | |
187| SSO | Yes | No | Yes | |
188| Audit logs | Yes | Yes | No | |
189| Custom SLA | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
190
191**Score per cell:** Full = 5, Partial = 3, Basic = 2, Missing = 0
192
193---
194
195## Pricing Analysis Framework
196
197### Pricing Model Comparison
198
199| Attribute | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B |
200|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
201| Model type | Per seat | Usage-based | Flat rate |
202| Free tier | Yes (3 users) | Yes (limited) | No |
203| Entry price | $15/user/mo | $29/mo (up to 1K events) | $49/mo |
204| Mid-tier price | $35/user/mo | $99/mo | $99/mo |
205| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | $249/mo |
206| Annual discount | 20% | 15% | 2 months free |
207| Trial | 14-day free | 7-day free | 30-day money-back |
208
209### Pricing Position Map
210
211| Position | Characteristic | Your Strategy |
212|----------|---------------|---------------|
213| Price leader | Lowest price, may signal lower quality | Win on value, not features |
214| Value leader | Best features-per-dollar ratio | Win on differentiation |
215| Premium | Highest price, justified by brand/features | Win on exclusivity and support |
216| Disruptor | Radically different model (free, usage-based) | Win on accessibility |
217
218---
219
220## SWOT Analysis Template
221
222For each competitor, produce:
223
224### Competitor SWOT
225
226| Quadrant | Points |
227|----------|--------|
228| **Strengths** (Their advantages) | 3-5 bullets, each anchored to a data signal |
229| **Weaknesses** (Their vulnerabilities) | 3-5 bullets, each tied to reviews, missing features, or complaints |
230| **Opportunities for Us** | What their weaknesses create for us |
231| **Threats to Us** | What their strengths mean for our position |
232
233**Evidence rule:** Every bullet must cite the data source (review quote, pricing page, job posting count, feature comparison, etc.).
234
235---
236
237## UX Audit Methodology
238
239### First-Run Experience Audit
240
241| Dimension | What to Measure | How to Score |
242|-----------|----------------|--------------|
243| Time to first value (TTFV) | Minutes from signup to first meaningful output | < 5 min = 5, 5-15 min = 3, > 15 min = 1 |
244| Steps to activation | Number of screens/actions before core value | < 3 = 5, 3-7 = 3, > 7 = 1 |
245| Credit card required | Required at signup? | No = 5, Optional = 3, Required = 1 |
246| Onboarding quality | Wizard, tooltips, empty states | Comprehensive = 5, Basic = 3, None = 1 |
247| SSO available | Google, Microsoft, etc. | Yes = 5, No = 1 |
248
249### Core Workflow Audit
250
251For the 3 most common workflows, compare:
252
253| Workflow | Steps (Yours) | Steps (Competitor) | Friction Points |
254|----------|-------------|-------------------|-----------------|
255| [Primary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |
256| [Secondary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |
257| [Tertiary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |
258
259---
260
261## Positioning Map
262
263### 2x2 Positioning Map
264
265Choose the two axes most relevant to your market:
266
267| Common Axis Pairs | When to Use |
268|-------------------|-------------|
269| Simple / Complex x Low Price / High Price | General product comparison |
270| SMB / Enterprise x Narrow / Broad Features | Market segment analysis |
271| Self-Serve / Sales-Led x Point Solution / Platform | Go-to-market comparison |
272| Technical / Non-Technical x Niche / Horizontal | Audience analysis |
273
274### Map Template
275
276```
277 High Price / Enterprise
278 │
279 │
280 [Competitor B] │ [Competitor C]
281 │
282 Simple ─────────────────┼─────────────────── Complex
283 │
284 [YOUR PRODUCT] │ [Competitor A]
285 │
286 │
287 Low Price / SMB
288```
289
290---
291
292## Action Plan Framework
293
294### Three Horizons
295
296| Horizon | Timeframe | Effort | Examples |
297|---------|-----------|--------|---------|
298| Quick wins | 0-4 weeks | Low | Publish comparison pages, update pricing page, add missing trust badges |
299| Medium-term | 1-3 months | Moderate | Build top-requested integration, improve onboarding TTFV, launch free tier |
300| Strategic | 3-12 months | High | Enter new market segment, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II |
301
302### Priority Scoring
303
304For each action item, score:
305
306| Factor | Weight | Scale |
307|--------|--------|-------|
308| Competitive impact | 40% | How much does this close or widen a gap? |
309| Customer demand | 30% | How many customers/prospects request this? |
310| Implementation effort | 20% | How hard is this to build/execute? |
311| Revenue impact | 10% | Direct revenue contribution? |
312
313---
314
315## Battle Card Template
316
317### One-Page Battle Card
318
319```
320COMPETITOR: [Name]
321LAST UPDATED: [Date]
322THREAT LEVEL: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]
323
324THEIR POSITIONING: [1 sentence]
325OUR POSITIONING AGAINST THEM: [1 sentence]
326
327WHERE THEY WIN:
328- [Strength 1 with evidence]
329- [Strength 2 with evidence]
330- [Strength 3 with evidence]
331
332WHERE WE WIN:
333- [Advantage 1 with evidence]
334- [Advantage 2 with evidence]
335- [Advantage 3 with evidence]
336
337LANDMINES (questions that expose their weaknesses):
338- "How does [competitor] handle [weakness area]?"
339- "Can you show me [feature they lack]?"
340- "What do their customers say about [common complaint]?"
341
342OBJECTION HANDLING:
343- "They're cheaper" → [Response with value framing]
344- "They have [feature]" → [Response with alternative/roadmap]
345- "Everyone uses them" → [Response with differentiation]
346
347PRICING COMPARISON:
348[Quick comparison table]
349
350CUSTOMER QUOTE:
351"[Quote from a customer who switched from this competitor to you]"
352```
353
354---
355
356## Stakeholder Presentation
357
358### 7-Slide Structure
359
360| Slide | Content |
361|-------|---------|
362| 1. Executive Summary | Threat level, top strength, top opportunity, recommended action |
363| 2. Market Position | 2x2 positioning map with all players |
364| 3. Feature Scorecard | 12-dimension scores, total comparison |
365| 4. Pricing Analysis | Pricing comparison table + key pricing insight |
366| 5. UX Comparison | Where they win (3 bullets) vs where we win (3 bullets) |
367| 6. Voice of Customer | Top 3 competitor complaints from reviews (quoted) |
368| 7. Action Plan | Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities |
369
370---
371
372## Output Artifacts
373
374| Artifact | Format | Description |
375|----------|--------|-------------|
376| Data Collection Report | Structured notes per source | Raw intelligence organized by source type |
377| 12-Dimension Scorecard | Scored table with evidence | Numeric comparison across all dimensions |
378| Feature Comparison Matrix | Grid table | Feature-by-feature comparison with scoring |
379| Pricing Analysis | Comparison table + position map | Model comparison, tier mapping, positioning |
380| SWOT Analysis | Per-competitor 4-quadrant | Anchored to data signals |
381| UX Audit | Scored checklist | TTFV, steps, friction analysis |
382| Positioning Map | 2x2 diagram | Visual market position |
383| Action Plan | Three-horizon table | Prioritized competitive responses |
384| Battle Card | One-page template | Sales-ready competitive reference |
385| Stakeholder Presentation | 7-slide outline | Executive-ready competitive briefing |
386
387---
388
389## Related Skills
390
391- **competitor-alternatives** -- Use for creating comparison and alternative pages for SEO/marketing. Competitive-teardown provides the intelligence; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content.
392- **pricing-strategy** -- Use when competitive analysis reveals pricing misalignment. Feed teardown pricing data into pricing-strategy.
393- **page-cro** -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion.
394- **content-creator** -- Use for writing competitive content (blog posts, comparison guides) based on teardown findings.
395
396---
397
398## Tool Reference
399
400### 1. competitor_scorer.py
401
402**Purpose:** Score competitors across the 12-dimension rubric and generate a numeric comparison scorecard.
403
404```bash
405python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json
406python scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json --json
407```
408
409| Flag | Required | Description |
410|------|----------|-------------|
411| `competitor_data.json` | Yes | JSON file with competitor dimension scores and evidence |
412| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |
413| `--weights` | No | Custom dimension weights as JSON string (default: equal weights) |
414
415### 2. feature_matrix_builder.py
416
417**Purpose:** Build a feature comparison matrix from structured feature data and calculate coverage scores.
418
419```bash
420python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json
421python scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json --json
422```
423
424| Flag | Required | Description |
425|------|----------|-------------|
426| `features.json` | Yes | JSON file with feature comparison data |
427| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |
428
429### 3. battle_card_generator.py
430
431**Purpose:** Generate a one-page battle card from competitor data for sales team use.
432
433```bash
434python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json
435python scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json --json
436```
437
438| Flag | Required | Description |
439|------|----------|-------------|
440| `competitor_profile.json` | Yes | JSON file with competitor profile data |
441| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |
442| `--format` | No | Output format: text (default) or markdown |
443
444---
445
446## Troubleshooting
447
448| Problem | Likely Cause | Solution |
449|---------|-------------|----------|
450| 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 |
451| 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 |
452| 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 |
453| 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 |
454| 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 |
455| 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 |
456| 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 |
457
458---
459
460## Success Criteria
461
462- 12-dimension scorecard completed with evidence notes for every score
463- Feature matrix covers at least 80% of features that prospects evaluate
464- Battle cards reviewed and approved by 3+ sales representatives
465- Pricing data verified within the last 30 days
466- Teardown produces at least 3 actionable quick wins and 2 strategic priorities
467- Stakeholder presentation reviewed and feedback incorporated within 1 week
468- Teardown data refreshed quarterly with score trend tracking
469
470---
471
472## Scope & Limitations
473
474- **In scope:** Product analysis, feature comparison, pricing deconstruction, UX audit, SWOT analysis, battle card creation, action plan generation
475- **Out of scope:** Primary market research (customer interviews, surveys), financial modeling, legal competitive analysis, intellectual property assessment
476- **Data dependency:** Quality depends on publicly available data, user reviews, and product access; some competitors may have limited public information
477- **Bias risk:** Teardowns conducted by internal teams may have confirmation bias; consider external validation for high-stakes decisions
478- **Point-in-time:** Teardowns are snapshots; competitors evolve continuously -- schedule regular refreshes
479
480---
481
482## Integration Points
483
484- **competitor-alternatives** -- Teardown provides the data; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content (comparison and alternative pages)
485- **pricing-strategy** -- When teardown reveals pricing misalignment, feed pricing data into pricing-strategy for repositioning analysis
486- **page-cro** -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion after teardown produces the content
487- **sales-engineer** -- Battle cards feed directly into sales engineering competitive positioning and RFP responses
488- **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