--- name: competitive-analyzer description: 'Competitive landscape analysis: Porter''s Five Forces, competitor discovery, feature/pricing matrices, positioning maps, moat assessment via WebSearch. Triggers on: "competitive analysis", "competitor comparison", "competitive landscape", "Porter''s Five Forces", "market positioning", "moat assessment", "defensibility analysis".' metadata: version: 1.0.1 complements: [market-analyzer, tavily, web-fetch] category: business tags: [competitive-analysis, market, porters-five-forces, positioning] difficulty: advanced phase: define --- # Competitive Analyzer Systematic competitive landscape analysis: discovery, force analysis, feature comparison, pricing, positioning, and defensibility assessment. ## When to use this skill vs. others | Need | Skill | | --------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | | Analyze competitors, compare features, assess moats | **competitive-analyzer** (this skill) | | Market sizing, TAM/SAM/SOM, demand signals | market-analyzer | | General web research and data gathering | tavily / web-fetch | ## Workflow ### Phase 1: Competitor Discovery Identify competitors across three tiers using WebSearch. **Tier classification:** - **Direct competitors** — Same solution to the same customer segment. Search: `"[product category] alternatives"`, `"[product] vs"`, `"best [category] tools 2024"` - **Indirect competitors** — Different solution to the same underlying problem. Search: `"how to [solve problem] without [category]"`, adjacent category leaders - **Potential competitors** — Adjacent players with capability and incentive to enter. Search: recent funding rounds, platform expansion announcements, acqui-hires **Discovery sources:** - Product Hunt: `site:producthunt.com [category]` - G2: `site:g2.com [category] reviews` - Capterra: `site:capterra.com [category]` - Crunchbase: `site:crunchbase.com [category] funding` - Industry reports and analyst coverage **Output:** A competitor roster table: | Competitor | Tier | Founded | Funding | HQ | Est. Revenue | Target Segment | | ---------- | ---- | ------- | ------- | --- | ------------ | -------------- | Include 5-15 competitors. Fewer than 5 suggests the search was too narrow; more than 15 suggests the scope needs tightening. ### Phase 2: Porter's Five Forces Assessment Score each force 1-5 with supporting evidence. Reference `references/porters-five-forces.md` for scoring rubric and sub-criteria. **1. Threat of New Entrants (1-5)** - Capital requirements and startup costs - Regulatory and compliance barriers - Technology and IP barriers - Brand loyalty and switching costs of incumbents - Access to distribution channels - Economies of scale advantages **2. Supplier Power (1-5)** - Number of available suppliers - Uniqueness of supplier inputs - Switching costs between suppliers - Forward integration threat - Dependence on key vendors (cloud, APIs, data) **3. Buyer Power (1-5)** - Buyer concentration relative to sellers - Price sensitivity and transparency - Switching costs for buyers - Backward integration threat - Availability of substitute information **4. Threat of Substitutes (1-5)** - Availability of alternative solutions - Performance-to-price ratio of substitutes - Buyer propensity to switch - Switching costs to substitutes **5. Competitive Rivalry (1-5)** - Number and size distribution of competitors - Industry growth rate - Product differentiation level - Exit barriers - Fixed cost structure and capacity **Synthesis:** Calculate overall industry attractiveness (weighted average of forces). Higher scores mean more competitive pressure, lower attractiveness. ### Phase 3: Feature & Pricing Matrix Build a comprehensive comparison. Reference `references/competitive-matrix.md` for structuring methodology. **Feature comparison table:** | Feature Category | Feature | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | Our Product | | ---------------- | --------- | ------------ | ------------ | ------------ | ------------ | | Core | Feature 1 | Full | Partial | None | Full | | Integration | API | REST | GraphQL | None | REST+GraphQL | | Support | SLA | 99.9% | 99.5% | None | 99.95% | Use: Full / Partial / None / Superior (exceeds category standard) **Feature analysis:** - **Table stakes** — Features every competitor offers. Missing any = disqualifier. - **Differentiators** — Features only 1-2 competitors offer. Potential positioning angles. - **Gaps** — Features no competitor offers. Potential innovation opportunities. - **Over-served** — Features with extensive investment but low customer value signal. **Pricing comparison table:** | Competitor | Model | Free Tier | Entry Price | Mid Tier | Enterprise | Billing | | ---------- | ------------ | --------- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------- | -------------- | | A | Subscription | Yes | $29/mo | $99/mo | Custom | Monthly/Annual | | B | Usage-based | Trial | $0.01/unit | Volume discount | Custom | Monthly | **Pricing analysis:** - Price-to-feature ratio positioning (value vs. premium) - Pricing model trends in the category - Customer segment alignment by price point ### Phase 4: Positioning Map Reference `references/positioning-analysis.md` for dimension selection and mapping methodology. **Step 1: Dimension selection** Select the two dimensions most important to target customers. Common pairs: - Price vs. Feature richness - Ease of use vs. Power/flexibility - SMB-focused vs. Enterprise-focused - Vertical-specific vs. Horizontal/general Validate dimension selection against customer research or publicly available review themes. **Step 2: Plot competitors** Position each competitor on the 2D map using evidence from Phase 3. ``` High [Dimension Y] | | [Comp A] [Comp C] | | [Comp B] | [Our Product] | | [Comp D] | Low ────────────────────────────── High [Dimension X] ``` **Step 3: White space identification** - Quadrants with no or few competitors = potential positioning opportunities - Assess whether white space is genuinely underserved or intentionally avoided (no demand) - Evaluate feasibility of occupying the white space ### Phase 5: Moat & Defensibility Assessment Evaluate each moat type. Reference `references/positioning-analysis.md` for the moat taxonomy. | Moat Type | Present? | Strength | Evidence | | --------------- | -------- | -------------------- | ----------- | | Network effects | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description | | Switching costs | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description | | IP / Technology | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description | | Brand | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description | | Data advantage | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description | | Cost advantage | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description | | Regulatory | Yes/No | Weak/Moderate/Strong | Description | **Overall moat rating:** - **Weak** — No meaningful barriers. Competitors can replicate within 6 months. - **Moderate** — 1-2 barriers provide temporary advantage. Replication takes 1-2 years. - **Strong** — Multiple reinforcing barriers. Replication takes 2-5 years. - **Very Strong** — Compounding barriers with flywheel effects. Extremely difficult to replicate. ### Phase 6: Report Generation Produce the final competitive analysis report with these sections: 1. **Executive Summary** — Competitive landscape threat level (Low / Moderate / High / Critical), top 3 competitive risks, top 3 competitive advantages 2. **Competitor Roster** — Discovery table from Phase 1 3. **Porter's Five Forces Scorecard** — Force-by-force scoring with evidence from Phase 2 4. **Feature Comparison Matrix** — Full feature table with gap analysis from Phase 3 5. **Pricing Analysis** — Pricing table and positioning from Phase 3 6. **Positioning Map** — 2D map with white space analysis from Phase 4 7. **Moat Assessment** — Defensibility table and rating from Phase 5 8. **Strategic Recommendations** - Immediate actions (0-3 months): address critical gaps or threats - Medium-term plays (3-12 months): build differentiators and strengthen moats - Long-term positioning (1-3 years): sustainable competitive advantage strategy 9. **Risks & Mitigation** — Top competitive risks with specific mitigation strategies ## Quality Checks Before delivering the report, verify: - [ ] Competitor roster covers all three tiers (direct, indirect, potential) - [ ] Every Five Forces score has supporting evidence, not just a number - [ ] Feature matrix uses consistent scoring across competitors - [ ] Pricing data is sourced and dated (pricing changes frequently) - [ ] Positioning map dimensions are customer-relevant, not internal metrics - [ ] Moat assessment distinguishes between current moats and aspirational moats - [ ] Strategic recommendations are specific and actionable, not generic advice - [ ] All claims about competitors are sourced via WebSearch, not assumed ## Edge Cases | Situation | Adaptation | | --------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Pre-launch product with no direct competitors | Focus on indirect competitors and substitutes. Emphasize the "potential entrants" tier. The absence of direct competitors is itself a signal worth analyzing (nascent market vs. no market). | | Highly fragmented market (50+ competitors) | Segment competitors into strategic groups. Analyze 2-3 representative competitors per group rather than every player. | | Monopoly or duopoly market | Five Forces analysis becomes more important. Focus on substitute threats and potential entrants. Analyze the dominant player's moats in detail. | | B2B enterprise with opaque pricing | Note pricing opacity as a finding. Use job postings, case studies, and review sites for indirect pricing signals. | | User provides a competitor list | Skip discovery in Phase 1. Validate the list for completeness (are there missing tiers?) and proceed to Phase 2. | | Rapidly changing market | Date-stamp all findings. Flag data older than 6 months as potentially stale. Emphasize monitoring recommendations. |