pm-competitive — Competitive analysis
Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents.
Run a systematic multi-dimensional competitor study. Branches by analysis purpose. Includes information-credibility tagging, time-stamping of all findings, and explicit separation of fact vs inference.
Inputs
| Field |
Required |
Notes |
| Competitor list |
yes |
2-5 names; > 5 → batch into rounds |
| Our product |
no |
Used for differentiation positioning |
| Purpose |
no |
Product design / fundraising deck / strategic planning / annual review; default product design |
| Dimensions |
no |
Features / pricing / UX / tech / business model; default features + pricing |
Step 1 — Set purpose and depth
| Purpose |
Emphasis |
Output focus |
Length |
| Product design |
Features + UX |
Feature matrix + differentiation list |
2-3 pages |
| Fundraising deck |
Market structure + moats |
Landscape map + moat analysis |
1 page |
| Strategic planning |
Full depth |
SWOT + 5-Forces + pricing + roadmap |
5-8 pages |
| Annual review |
Market share change + trends |
YoY changes + trend judgment |
2-3 pages |
Step 2 — Information collection
Use user-supplied materials first (URLs, screenshots, pricing pages). Tag everything with credibility and timestamp.
Credibility tiers:
| Tier |
Sources |
Tagging |
| High |
Official site, pricing page, official announcements |
Quote directly |
| Medium |
Media coverage, user reviews, industry reports |
Cite source |
| Low |
Rumors, speculation, outdated info |
Mark [unverified] |
Information-collection checklist:
| Dimension |
What to collect |
Typical sources |
| Fundamentals |
Founded, funding rounds, team size, user base |
Official site, business databases |
| Product |
Core feature list, recent updates, roadmap |
Official site, changelog, blog |
| Pricing |
Tiers, price ranges, free-tier limits |
Pricing page |
| Reputation |
Praise, complaints, NPS |
Review sites, app stores, social platforms |
| Strategy |
Target market, acquisition channels, partnerships |
Press, social media |
Always tag freshness — e.g. "based on Q1 2026 public information" — and prompt user to verify currency.
Step 3 — Porter's Five Forces
Evaluate from industry-structure angle.
| Force |
Dimension |
Evaluation points |
| Supplier power |
Upstream dependency |
Concentration of key tech/talent/resources; switching cost |
| Buyer power |
Downstream customer leverage |
Customer concentration; switching cost; price sensitivity |
| New-entrant threat |
Entry barriers |
Tech / capital / brand / network effects / regulation |
| Substitute threat |
Alternative solutions |
What's the user's current alternative? Substitute's value-for-money? |
| Industry rivalry |
Existing-player dynamics |
Competitor count, concentration, differentiation, exit barriers |
Output: each force = strong / medium / weak + one-sentence rationale. Overall industry attractiveness = high / medium / low.
Step 4 — Multi-dimensional comparison
Feature comparison matrix (core deliverable):
| Module |
Sub-feature |
Us |
Comp A |
Comp B |
Comp C |
| {module 1} |
{sub 1} |
✅ Mature |
✅ Mature |
⚠️ Basic |
❌ None |
|
{sub 2} |
⚠️ Basic |
✅ Mature |
✅ Mature |
⚠️ Basic |
Legend: ✅ Mature / ⚠️ Basic (exists but limited) / ❌ Missing / 🔜 Planned
Positioning deep-dive:
| Dimension |
Method |
Scoring |
| Feature score |
1-5 per module, weighted total |
5 = best-in-class, 3 = passing, 1 = barely present |
| UX comparison |
Steps in core flow, learning curve, completion efficiency |
Compare clicks + time-to-complete |
| Tech architecture |
Patterns, stack, performance, openness |
API openness, integration capability, extensibility |
SWOT per competitor:
|
Positive |
Negative |
| Internal |
Strengths (core advantages) |
Weaknesses (clear gaps) |
| External |
Opportunities (exploitable) |
Threats (must watch) |
Each quadrant: 2-3 items, each with factual support. Banned: vague claims like "strong team" or "advanced tech".
SWOT cross-strategies:
| Strategy |
Meaning |
Direction |
| SO |
Strengths × Opportunities |
Use strengths to grab market window |
| WO |
Weaknesses × Opportunities |
Fill gaps to capture new opportunities |
| ST |
Strengths × Threats |
Use moats to defend against attacks |
| WT |
Weaknesses × Threats |
Most urgent defensive priorities |
Pricing comparison (if pricing dimension included):
| Item |
Us |
A |
B |
C |
| Free-tier scope |
{} |
{} |
{} |
{} |
| Entry-tier monthly |
{} |
{} |
{} |
{} |
| Enterprise monthly |
{} |
{} |
{} |
{} |
| Billing model |
{per-seat / usage / feature-tier} |
|
|
|
| Core differentiator |
{pricing strategy reading} |
|
|
|
Pricing-strategy types:
- Penetration: low price for share (look for generous free tier)
- Skimming: high price, premium positioning (look for many gated advanced features)
- Freemium: core free, advanced paid (look at the gap between free and paid)
Step 5 — Positioning quadrant
Pick two most-discriminating dimensions (e.g. "feature depth vs ease of use", or "price vs feature breadth") and place all products into a 2×2:
| Quadrant |
Trait |
Products |
| High features + high price |
Enterprise full-stack |
{list} |
| High features + low price |
Best value |
{list} |
| Low features + high price |
Niche specialist |
{list} |
| Low features + low price |
Entry-level |
{list} |
Step 6 — Strategic projection
Predict competitor's likely next moves based on recent signals.
Method:
- Signal collection: product updates, funding moves, hiring focus, partnership announcements (last 3-6 months)
- Pattern recognition: what does the cluster of signals imply?
- Repeated feature launches in area X → betting on X
- Heavy hiring in role Y → preparing new product line
- Price cut / new free tier → market-share grab
- Projection output:
| Competitor |
Recent moves |
Inferred intent |
Impact on us |
Confidence |
Recommended response |
| {A} |
{actions} |
{hypothesis} |
{assessment} |
High/Medium/Low |
{strategy} |
Projection rules:
- Distinguish "fact" from "inferred intent" — second always tagged with confidence
- One signal can have multiple readings — list 2-3 most likely
- Time windows: short-term (1-3 months), mid-term (3-12 months)
Step 7 — Three-tier differentiation strategy
| Tier |
Definition |
Action |
| Catch-up |
Competitors have it; we don't |
List features to add + priority + estimated effort |
| Differentiate |
We're unique or clearly ahead |
List strengths to reinforce + marketing message ideas |
| Innovate |
No competitor has done it; opportunity exists |
List blue-ocean candidates + validation approach |
Quality bar
- Comparisons grounded in verifiable public info; cite source + date
- Same dimension scored on the same scale across all products
- Every SWOT item backed by a fact; no fluff
- Differentiation suggestions concrete and prioritized
- All data tagged with freshness ("as of Q1 2026")
- Pricing data tagged with collection date
- Strategic projections separate fact from inference
- Five-Forces evaluation grounded in industry data
Red lines
- No fabricated data — unverified info →
[unverified]
- No subjective trash-talk — competitor evaluation must be objective; no pejoratives
- Always tag freshness — every data point + collection date; nudge user to refresh
- Tag inference confidence — every strategic projection labeled with confidence
Market-structure judgment
| Structure |
Trait |
Strategy advice |
| One-dominant |
One player > 50% share |
Differentiate niches, avoid head-on |
| Duopoly |
Top 2 = > 70% combined |
Pick a side, or be the third option |
| Fragmented |
Top 5 each < 20% |
Speed-grab a niche #1 position |
| Emerging |
No clear leader |
Educate market first, build brand |
Monitoring cadence
| Frequency |
What to monitor |
Trigger |
| Weekly |
Product changelog, social signals |
Major updates → tracker entry |
| Monthly |
Pricing changes, new features, press |
Update feature matrix |
| Quarterly |
Full competitor report, strategy projection refresh |
Quarterly competitor brief |
| Event-driven |
Funding / M&A / major launches / exec changes |
Immediate impact assessment |
When input is incomplete
- Only competitor names → standard feature matrix + brief SWOT
- No own product → competitor-vs-competitor comparison only, no differentiation advice
- > 5 competitors → batch, or pick 3 for deep-dive + brief notes on others
Related skills
/pm-prd — differentiation gap → PRD/pm-prioritize — catch-up feature list → RICE-rank/pm-feedback — user mentions of competitors → enrich perception data/pm-brainstorm — diverge on differentiation ideas
1---2name: pm-competitive3description: Готовит многомерный разбор конкурентов — feature-матрица, SWOT с cross-strategy, 5 сил Портера, сравнение ценообразования, позиционирование, прогноз стратегических ходов и три уровня дифференциации (догнать / отстроиться / создать новое). Адаптируется под цель (продуктовый дизайн / fundraising / стратегия / годовой обзор). User-invoked only — do NOT auto-trigger. Triggers on /pm-competitive, "конкурентный анализ", "разбор конкурентов", "five forces", "SWOT", "competitive analysis", "competitor comparison", "feature matrix vs competitors".4---5
6# pm-competitive — Competitive analysis
7
8
9Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents.
10Run a systematic multi-dimensional competitor study. Branches by analysis purpose. Includes information-credibility tagging, time-stamping of all findings, and explicit separation of fact vs inference.
11
12## Inputs
13
14| Field | Required | Notes |
15|---|---|---|
16| Competitor list | yes | 2-5 names; > 5 → batch into rounds |
17| Our product | no | Used for differentiation positioning |
18| Purpose | no | Product design / fundraising deck / strategic planning / annual review; default product design |
19| Dimensions | no | Features / pricing / UX / tech / business model; default features + pricing |
20
21## Step 1 — Set purpose and depth
22
23| Purpose | Emphasis | Output focus | Length |
24|---|---|---|---|
25| **Product design** | Features + UX | Feature matrix + differentiation list | 2-3 pages |
26| **Fundraising deck** | Market structure + moats | Landscape map + moat analysis | 1 page |
27| **Strategic planning** | Full depth | SWOT + 5-Forces + pricing + roadmap | 5-8 pages |
28| **Annual review** | Market share change + trends | YoY changes + trend judgment | 2-3 pages |
29
30## Step 2 — Information collection
31
32Use user-supplied materials first (URLs, screenshots, pricing pages). Tag everything with credibility and timestamp.
33
34**Credibility tiers:**
35
36| Tier | Sources | Tagging |
37|---|---|---|
38| **High** | Official site, pricing page, official announcements | Quote directly |
39| **Medium** | Media coverage, user reviews, industry reports | Cite source |
40| **Low** | Rumors, speculation, outdated info | Mark `[unverified]` |
41
42**Information-collection checklist:**
43
44| Dimension | What to collect | Typical sources |
45|---|---|---|
46| Fundamentals | Founded, funding rounds, team size, user base | Official site, business databases |
47| Product | Core feature list, recent updates, roadmap | Official site, changelog, blog |
48| Pricing | Tiers, price ranges, free-tier limits | Pricing page |
49| Reputation | Praise, complaints, NPS | Review sites, app stores, social platforms |
50| Strategy | Target market, acquisition channels, partnerships | Press, social media |
51
52**Always tag freshness** — e.g. "based on Q1 2026 public information" — and prompt user to verify currency.
53
54## Step 3 — Porter's Five Forces
55
56Evaluate from industry-structure angle.
57
58| Force | Dimension | Evaluation points |
59|---|---|---|
60| **Supplier power** | Upstream dependency | Concentration of key tech/talent/resources; switching cost |
61| **Buyer power** | Downstream customer leverage | Customer concentration; switching cost; price sensitivity |
62| **New-entrant threat** | Entry barriers | Tech / capital / brand / network effects / regulation |
63| **Substitute threat** | Alternative solutions | What's the user's current alternative? Substitute's value-for-money? |
64| **Industry rivalry** | Existing-player dynamics | Competitor count, concentration, differentiation, exit barriers |
65
66Output: each force = strong / medium / weak + one-sentence rationale. Overall industry attractiveness = high / medium / low.
67
68## Step 4 — Multi-dimensional comparison
69
70**Feature comparison matrix (core deliverable):**
71
72| Module | Sub-feature | Us | Comp A | Comp B | Comp C |
73|---|---|---|---|---|---|
74| {module 1} | {sub 1} | ✅ Mature | ✅ Mature | ⚠️ Basic | ❌ None |
75| | {sub 2} | ⚠️ Basic | ✅ Mature | ✅ Mature | ⚠️ Basic |
76
77Legend: ✅ Mature / ⚠️ Basic (exists but limited) / ❌ Missing / 🔜 Planned
78
79**Positioning deep-dive:**
80
81| Dimension | Method | Scoring |
82|---|---|---|
83| **Feature score** | 1-5 per module, weighted total | 5 = best-in-class, 3 = passing, 1 = barely present |
84| **UX comparison** | Steps in core flow, learning curve, completion efficiency | Compare clicks + time-to-complete |
85| **Tech architecture** | Patterns, stack, performance, openness | API openness, integration capability, extensibility |
86
87**SWOT per competitor:**
88
89| | Positive | Negative |
90|---|---|---|
91| **Internal** | Strengths (core advantages) | Weaknesses (clear gaps) |
92| **External** | Opportunities (exploitable) | Threats (must watch) |
93
94Each quadrant: 2-3 items, each with factual support. Banned: vague claims like "strong team" or "advanced tech".
95
96**SWOT cross-strategies:**
97
98| Strategy | Meaning | Direction |
99|---|---|---|
100| **SO** | Strengths × Opportunities | Use strengths to grab market window |
101| **WO** | Weaknesses × Opportunities | Fill gaps to capture new opportunities |
102| **ST** | Strengths × Threats | Use moats to defend against attacks |
103| **WT** | Weaknesses × Threats | Most urgent defensive priorities |
104
105**Pricing comparison (if pricing dimension included):**
106
107| Item | Us | A | B | C |
108|---|---|---|---|---|
109| Free-tier scope | {} | {} | {} | {} |
110| Entry-tier monthly | {} | {} | {} | {} |
111| Enterprise monthly | {} | {} | {} | {} |
112| Billing model | {per-seat / usage / feature-tier} | | | |
113| Core differentiator | {pricing strategy reading} | | | |
114
115**Pricing-strategy types:**
116- **Penetration:** low price for share (look for generous free tier)
117- **Skimming:** high price, premium positioning (look for many gated advanced features)
118- **Freemium:** core free, advanced paid (look at the gap between free and paid)
119
120## Step 5 — Positioning quadrant
121
122Pick two most-discriminating dimensions (e.g. "feature depth vs ease of use", or "price vs feature breadth") and place all products into a 2×2:
123
124| Quadrant | Trait | Products |
125|---|---|---|
126| High features + high price | Enterprise full-stack | {list} |
127| High features + low price | Best value | {list} |
128| Low features + high price | Niche specialist | {list} |
129| Low features + low price | Entry-level | {list} |
130
131## Step 6 — Strategic projection
132
133Predict competitor's likely next moves based on recent signals.
134
135**Method:**
136
1371. **Signal collection:** product updates, funding moves, hiring focus, partnership announcements (last 3-6 months)
1382. **Pattern recognition:** what does the cluster of signals imply?
139 - Repeated feature launches in area X → betting on X
140 - Heavy hiring in role Y → preparing new product line
141 - Price cut / new free tier → market-share grab
1423. **Projection output:**
143
144| Competitor | Recent moves | Inferred intent | Impact on us | Confidence | Recommended response |
145|---|---|---|---|---|---|
146| {A} | {actions} | {hypothesis} | {assessment} | High/Medium/Low | {strategy} |
147
148**Projection rules:**
149- Distinguish "fact" from "inferred intent" — second always tagged with confidence
150- One signal can have multiple readings — list 2-3 most likely
151- Time windows: short-term (1-3 months), mid-term (3-12 months)
152
153## Step 7 — Three-tier differentiation strategy
154
155| Tier | Definition | Action |
156|---|---|---|
157| **Catch-up** | Competitors have it; we don't | List features to add + priority + estimated effort |
158| **Differentiate** | We're unique or clearly ahead | List strengths to reinforce + marketing message ideas |
159| **Innovate** | No competitor has done it; opportunity exists | List blue-ocean candidates + validation approach |
160
161## Quality bar
162
1631. Comparisons grounded in verifiable public info; cite source + date
1642. Same dimension scored on the same scale across all products
1653. Every SWOT item backed by a fact; no fluff
1664. Differentiation suggestions concrete and prioritized
1675. All data tagged with freshness ("as of Q1 2026")
1686. Pricing data tagged with collection date
1697. Strategic projections separate fact from inference
1708. Five-Forces evaluation grounded in industry data
171
172## Red lines
173
1741. **No fabricated data** — unverified info → `[unverified]`
1752. **No subjective trash-talk** — competitor evaluation must be objective; no pejoratives
1763. **Always tag freshness** — every data point + collection date; nudge user to refresh
1774. **Tag inference confidence** — every strategic projection labeled with confidence
178
179## Market-structure judgment
180
181| Structure | Trait | Strategy advice |
182|---|---|---|
183| **One-dominant** | One player > 50% share | Differentiate niches, avoid head-on |
184| **Duopoly** | Top 2 = > 70% combined | Pick a side, or be the third option |
185| **Fragmented** | Top 5 each < 20% | Speed-grab a niche #1 position |
186| **Emerging** | No clear leader | Educate market first, build brand |
187
188## Monitoring cadence
189
190| Frequency | What to monitor | Trigger |
191|---|---|---|
192| **Weekly** | Product changelog, social signals | Major updates → tracker entry |
193| **Monthly** | Pricing changes, new features, press | Update feature matrix |
194| **Quarterly** | Full competitor report, strategy projection refresh | Quarterly competitor brief |
195| **Event-driven** | Funding / M&A / major launches / exec changes | Immediate impact assessment |
196
197## When input is incomplete
198
199- **Only competitor names** → standard feature matrix + brief SWOT
200- **No own product** → competitor-vs-competitor comparison only, no differentiation advice
201- **> 5 competitors** → batch, or pick 3 for deep-dive + brief notes on others
202
203## Related skills
204
205- `/pm-prd` — differentiation gap → PRD
206- `/pm-prioritize` — catch-up feature list → RICE-rank
207- `/pm-feedback` — user mentions of competitors → enrich perception data
208- `/pm-brainstorm` — diverge on differentiation ideas
209
majiayu000