macmenes Vantage-Discover — Build the Real Competitor Set
The most common failure in competitive analysis is analyzing the wrong set — the competitors leadership names instead of the ones the buyer actually considers. This skill builds the set from market evidence, tiers it, and caps the deep-dive to a workable size.
Web-only. See ../vantage/references/data-sources.md for sourcing patterns.
Method
- Anchor on the subject brand. WebFetch its homepage; extract category, ICP, and the buyer problem it solves. The set is "who else solves this for this buyer."
- Cast the net across five lenses (each surfaces a different rival type):
- SERP rivals — run 5–10 buyer queries for the category; collect domains that repeat on page 1. These are who the buyer sees.
- "Alternatives / vs" mining —
"<brand>" alternatives,"<brand>" vs,best <category> 2026. Read the listicles and G2 "compare" tabs. - Review-site neighbors — on G2/Capterra, the "competitors" and "compare" modules name the considered set directly.
- Ad rivals — who bids on the brand term (Google Ads Transparency) and who runs ads on the same angles (Meta Ad Library keyword search).
- Emerging/funded —
<category> startup funding 2025 2026; catch entrants before they're obvious.
- De-dupe and classify each candidate into a tier (below).
- Tier and cap. Keep the top 5–7 for deep-dive by relevance to the subject's actual buyer; list the long tail so nothing's lost.
Tiering model
| Tier | Definition | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | Same buyer, same problem, substitutable | Full deep-dive |
| Adjacent | Overlapping buyer or partial-solution overlap | Deep-dive if it appears in deals/SERPs often |
| Aspirational | The category leader / who everyone benchmarks | Analyze for positioning even if "out of league" |
| Emerging | New/funded entrant changing the rules | Watch; analyze if momentum is real |
| Indirect | The status quo / DIY / "do nothing" / spreadsheets | Name it — often the real competitor for budget |
Don't forget the indirect tier. For many growth/sales motions the biggest competitor is "the buyer keeps doing it manually," and the messaging must beat that.
Relevance scoring (to pick the deep-dive set)
Score each candidate 0–3 on: buyer overlap, problem overlap, how often it co-appears (SERP/reviews/deals), and momentum. Sum → rank → take the top 5–7. Show the scores so the cut is defensible.
Output
# Competitor Set — [Subject Brand]
*Category: [category] · Buyer: [ICP] · Prepared [date]*
## Deep-dive set (top N by relevance)
| Competitor | Tier | Buyer overlap | Why in set | Relevance |
|-----------|------|---------------|-----------|-----------|
## Long tail (named, not deep-dived)
[list with one-line each]
## Notable absences / blind spots
[markets/segments we couldn't see; sources that blocked fetching]
## Recommended deep-dive set → hand to /vantage
[the 5–7 to run channel teardowns on]
Then offer: "Run the full /vantage teardown on this set?"