# Competitive Analysis > Produces a structured competitive analysis of a product or company — mapping the competitive landscape, comparing features and positioning, analyzing rivals through the jobs customers are trying to get done, and landing on a clear "where we win / where we're exposed" conclusion with recommendations. Use this whenever the user wants a competitive analysis, competitor teardown, market/ landscape scan, feature comparison, positioning map, or SWOT of competitors; is preparing a strategy, pitch, roadmap, or launch and needs to understand rivals; or asks how their product stacks up against specific competitors. Push for a decision-focused analysis grounded in evidence, not a neutral feature table that leads nowhere. - Skill: `joaomonteiro100/competitive-analysis` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add joaomonteiro100/competitive-analysis` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/joaomonteiro100/competitive-analysis/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: JoaoMonteiro100 (https://skillmd.com/u/joaomonteiro100) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/joaomonteiro100/competitive-analysis --- # Competitive Analysis This skill turns "who else does this and how do we compare?" into a structured, decision-driving analysis. The trap it exists to avoid: a competitive analysis that is just a big neutral feature grid with checkmarks. That looks thorough and changes nothing. A useful competitive analysis has a **point of view** — it exists to inform a specific decision (how to position, what to build next, where we're vulnerable, whether a market is worth entering) and ends with a clear so-what. Anchor the whole thing on that decision up front, and let it set the depth: a positioning exercise weights messaging and brand; a roadmap input weights feature gaps and capabilities; a market-entry question weights segments, moats, and economics. ## Scope: know when this applies (and when to hold back) Two ways this skill is easy to misuse — avoid both: - **This is for product / company / market competition.** If "competition" means something else — rival job candidates in an interview, sports opponents, academic or grant rivals, a debate — **don't force this framework onto it.** The full apparatus (direct/indirect/substitute typology, feature matrix, market white space, "sources & confidence") is built for products and will read as contrived when bolted onto a person's job search or a race. Help with the actual task, borrowing only the genuinely transferable idea (know your positioning, find your edge) in that domain's own language. Recognizing the mismatch and adapting is the correct move — not silently applying the template. - **Match the artifact to what was asked.** If the user asks for *one* piece — "just a feature comparison matrix," "a positioning map" — deliver *that*, focused and well-made, and **offer** to expand into the fuller analysis rather than shipping an unrequested strategy document. Ground it in the framing questions below so it's sharp, but don't balloon a matrix request into the whole report. A tight answer to the actual question beats an impressive answer to a bigger one. ## How to build it ### 1. Frame the analysis Establish before comparing anything: - **The decision it informs** — positioning, roadmap, pricing, go/no-go, sales enablement. Everything downstream serves this. - **Your product and the customer** — who you serve and the job they hire the product to do. Comparison is meaningful only relative to a customer and a job. - **The set of competitors**, chosen deliberately across three types (people under-scope this): - **Direct** — same solution, same audience. - **Indirect** — different solution to the same need. - **Substitutes / non-consumption** — the spreadsheet, the manual process, or "do nothing" that customers use today. Often the real competitor, especially for a new category. - **Evidence sources** — their site, product, pricing pages, reviews (G2/ Capterra/app stores), docs, changelogs, positioning, analyst notes. Base claims on evidence; where you're inferring or unsure, **say so** and mark it — a confidently wrong competitive claim is worse than a flagged gap. Never invent a competitor's pricing, metrics, or roadmap. ### 2. Analyze along the dimensions that matter Pick the dimensions that bear on the decision; don't compare everything. Common useful ones: - **Positioning & value proposition** — who each competitor says they're for and the core promise they lead with. Reveals how the market is segmented and where space is open. - **Target segment** — who they actually serve well (and who they underserve — often your opening). - **Key features & capabilities** — but organized around the **jobs to be done**, not a flat feature dump. "How well does each solve ?" beats "does each have ?" Rate depth, not just presence. - **Pricing & business model** — how they charge, price points, packaging, and what that implies about their target and strategy. - **Strengths & weaknesses** — what each does genuinely well and where they're soft (from reviews, gaps, complaints). - **Differentiation & moat** — why customers pick them and how defensible it is (network effects, data, switching costs, brand, integrations). - **Market presence** — traction, momentum, funding, mindshare where knowable. A **feature/capability matrix** is a good artifact *if* rows are jobs or outcomes and cells convey depth (strong / partial / none / unknown) rather than bare checkmarks — and if it's paired with narrative, not left to speak for itself. ### 3. Synthesize into a point of view This is the part that makes it worth doing. Pull the comparison up into: - **Where you win** — the jobs/segments where you're genuinely stronger, and the evidence. - **Where you're exposed** — where competitors are ahead or you're vulnerable. - **White space** — unmet needs or underserved segments no one owns well. - **Positioning implication** — the wedge you should lean into given the above. - **Honest read** — don't flatter the home team; an analysis that concludes "we win everywhere" is not credible and not useful. ### 4. Recommend Tie back to the framing decision with concrete moves: how to position, which gaps to close first, where not to compete, what to watch. Prioritize. ## Report structure ``` # Competitive Analysis: [your product] vs. [market/competitors] ## Purpose The decision this informs; your product and the customer/job ## Landscape The competitor set (direct / indirect / substitute) and why each is included ## Comparison By dimension or job-to-be-done — matrix (depth, not checkmarks) + narrative ## Competitor profiles (as needed) Short profile each: positioning, segment, strengths, weaknesses, pricing ## Where we win / where we're exposed / white space The synthesis — the heart of the document ## Recommendations Prioritized, tied to the framing decision ## Sources & confidence What's evidenced vs. inferred; what to validate ``` ## Producing the deliverable Default to Markdown (a matrix as a table plus narrative). Offer a `.xlsx` for the comparison matrix if the user wants to sort/filter, or slides if it's feeding a strategy/pitch review. Mark inferences and unknowns clearly, cite where claims come from, and keep the synthesis section the centerpiece — that's where the value is. ## Pairs well with - **persona-builder** — ground the analysis in the customer and job you're serving. - **ux-usability-study** — validate the "where we win" hypotheses with real users. ## Accuracy Base competitor claims on real, checkable evidence; explicitly flag anything inferred or uncertain, and never fabricate a competitor's pricing, features, metrics, or plans — an unverified claim presented as fact undermines the whole analysis and can mislead a real decision.