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.