Competitive Analysis

Competitive Landscape Mapping

Build a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.

Environment check

This skill works in both the PowerPoint add-in and chat. Identify which you're in before starting — the mechanics differ, the workflow doesn't:

• Add-in — the deck is open live; build slides directly into it.
• Chat — generate a .pptx file (or build into one the user uploaded).

Everything below applies in both.

Phase 1 — Scope the analysis

Competitive analysis means different things to different people. Before any research or slide-building, use ask_user_question to pin down what they actually want. Don't guess — a 20-slide peer benchmarking deck and a 5-slide market map are both "competitive analysis" and take completely different shapes.

Gather in one round if you can (the tool takes up to 4 questions):

• Scope — Single target company with competitors around it? Or multi-company side-by-side with no protagonist?
• Competitor set — Which companies are in scope? If the user names them, use exactly those. If they say "the usual suspects," propose a set and confirm.
• Audience and depth — Quick read for someone already in the space, or a full primer? This drives whether you need market sizing, industry economics, and history — or can skip to the comparison.
• Investment context — Do they need bull/base/bear scenarios and signposts? That's Step 9 below; skip it if this is a strategic review rather than an investment thesis.

If they've uploaded an Excel/CSV with competitor data, confirm which columns map to which metrics before you start pulling numbers. Source-file fidelity matters: use values exactly as given, don't recalculate or re-round.

Phase 2 — Outline, approve, then build

Do not create slides until the outline is approved. Propose slide titles and one-line content notes, present them to the user, get a yes. A competitive deck is 10-20 slides of interlocking content — rebuilding because slide 4 was wrong is expensive. The outline is the cheap iteration point.

When proposing the outline, ask_user_question works well for the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix / radar / tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model / segment / posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.

Standards — apply throughout

Prompt fidelity

When the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:

• Slide titles and section names — exact wording. If they say "Overview and Competitive Scope," don't swap in "FY2024 Competitive Landscape."
• Chart vs. table — not interchangeable. "Embedded chart" means a real chart object with data labels on the bars/slices, not a formatted table.
• Complete data series — if they list 7 competitors, include all 7. If they show 2015-2025, include every year.
• Exact values and ratios — "surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1" means those ratios, not "7.6x Lyft."

Source quality, when sources conflict

1. 10-Ks / annual reports (audited)
2. Earnings calls / investor presentations (management commentary)
3. Sell-side research (analyst estimates, useful for private company sizing)
4. Industry reports (McKinsey, Gartner — market sizing, trends)
5. News (recent developments only; verify against primary sources)

Data comparability

• All competitor metrics from the same fiscal year; flag exceptions explicitly ("FY24" vs "H1 2024")
• Same metric definitions across competitors
• Convert to USD for international; note the exchange rate and date
• Missing data shows as "-" or "N/A" with an "[E]" flag for estimates — never blank
• Every number has a citation: "[Company] [Document] ([Date])"

Design

• Slide titles are insights, not labels. "Scale leaders pulling away from niche players" — not "Competitive Analysis."
• Signposts are quantified. "Margin below 40%" — not "margins decline."
• Ratings show the actual. "●●● $160B" — not just "●●●."
• Charts are real chart objects — not text tables dressed up to look like charts.

Typography — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:

• Slide titles: 28-32pt bold
• Section headers: 18-20pt bold
• Body text: 14-16pt (never below 14pt)
• Table text: 14pt
• Sources/footnotes: 14pt, gray
• Same element type = same size throughout the deck

Charts:

• Legend inside the chart boundary, not floating over the plot area
• Right-side legend for pies (≤6 slices), bottom legend for line/bar (≤4 series)
• More than 6 series → split into multiple charts or use a table
• Pie charts show percentages on slices, not just in the legend

Tables:

• Light gray header row, bold
• Right-align numbers, left-align text
• Enough cell padding that text doesn't touch borders

Color: 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.

What's strict vs. flexible

Analysis workflow

Step 0 — Industry-defining metrics

Before anything else: what 3-5 metrics does this industry actually run on? Use these consistently across every competitor.

Industry not listed — pick the metrics investors and operators benchmark on.

Step 1 — Market context

Size, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.

Correct: "Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)" Wrong: "The market is large and growing rapidly"

Step 2 — Industry economics

Map how value flows. Approach depends on industry structure:

• Vertically structured — value chain layers, typical margin at each
• Platform/network — ecosystem participants, value flows between them
• Fragmented — consolidation dynamics, margin differences by scale

Step 3 — Target company profile

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.96B |
| Growth | +26% YoY |
| Gross Margin | 45% |
| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |
| Customers | 134K |
| Retention | 92% |
| Market Share | ~15% |

Multi-segment companies add a breakdown:

| Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% |
| Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% |
| Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% |
| Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% |

*Note corporate costs if applicable

Step 4 — Competitor mapping

Group by whichever lens fits (this is a good ask_user_question decision if the user hasn't specified):

• By business model — platform / vertical / horizontal
• By segment — enterprise / SMB / consumer
• By posture — direct / adjacent / emerging
• By origin — incumbent / disruptor / new entrant

Step 5 — Positioning visualization

See references/frameworks.md for 2×2 axis pairs by industry.

Step 6 — Competitor deep-dives

Two tables per competitor.

Metrics:

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $X.XB |
| Growth | +XX% YoY |
| Gross Margin | XX% |
| Market Cap | $X.XB |
| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |
| Customers | XXK |
| Retention | XX% |
| Market Share | ~XX% |

Qualitative:

| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |
| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |
| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |
| Strategy | Current priorities |

Step 7 — Comparative analysis

| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |
| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |
| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |

Step 8 — Strategic context

M&A transactions (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising patterns, regulatory developments. See references/schemas.md for the M&A transaction table format.

Step 9 — Synthesis

Moat assessment — rate each competitor Strong / Moderate / Weak on:

Required synthesis elements:

• Durable advantages (hard to replicate) — map to moat categories
• Structural vulnerabilities (hard to fix)
• Current state vs. trajectory

For investment contexts (skip if the Phase 1 scoping said no):

| Scenario | Probability | Key driver |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |
| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |
| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |

Quality checklist

Before finishing:

Prompt fidelity

• Slide titles match what the user specified, verbatim
• Charts where they said chart; tables where they said table
• Every competitor/year/data point they listed is present
• Exact values and formats as specified

Data consistency

• Source-file values extracted directly, not recalculated
• Same metric shows the same value on every slide it appears
• Same decimal precision as the source

Layout

• Titles fit without overflow
• No overlapping elements
• All text within containers, no clipping

Content

• Every number has a citation
• All metrics from the same fiscal period (or flagged)
• Slide titles state insights, not topics
• Charts are real chart objects

Run standard visual verification checks on every slide — this catches overlaps, overflow, and low-contrast text that don't show up when you're reading back the XML.

Hermes Profile Notes

This skill was packaged from pi-financial-services source path plugins/vertical-plugins/financial-analysis/skills/competitive-analysis for the Hermes financial-services profile. Use institutional data connectors first when available, cite sources, and stage outputs for qualified human review.

Common Pitfalls

1. Do not present drafts as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice.
2. Do not use web search as the primary source when an institutional MCP/data connector is available.
3. Do not execute transactions, contact clients, post to a ledger, or approve onboarding. Stage outputs for review.

Verification Checklist

• Inputs, assumptions, dates, and currencies are explicit.
• Numbers tie across tables, models, decks, and memos.
• Sources are cited and institutional data is preferred where available.
• Output is labeled draft / for human review where appropriate.