competitor-analysis

Analyze competitive landscape with feature matrices, positioning maps, and strategic gap analysis. Use when asked to analyze competitors, map the competitive landscape, find differentiation, or evaluate alternatives to a product.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "competitor-analysis" with this command: npx skills add assimovt/productskills/assimovt-productskills-competitor-analysis

Analyze competitors to find positioning gaps, not to copy features. The goal is to understand where alternatives fail your ICP so you can win on what matters to them.

Identify All Alternatives

List every alternative your ICP considers. Three categories:

  1. Direct competitors: Products that solve the same problem for the same audience.
  2. Indirect competitors: Products that solve the problem differently or serve an adjacent audience.
  3. Non-consumption: "Do nothing" and "manual workaround" (spreadsheets, email, hiring someone). ALWAYS include these — they're often the biggest competitor.

Feature Matrix

Build a comparison table focused on what YOUR ICP cares about, not every feature that exists.

CapabilityYour ProductCompetitor ACompetitor BManual Workaround
[ICP-relevant capability]How you do itHow they do itHow they do itHow people hack it

Rate each: Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing. Don't use checkmarks — they hide nuance. Include pricing model in the matrix — it constrains product decisions.

Example row: | Real-time collaboration | Strong (live cursors) | Weak (polling-based) | Missing | Google Docs + Slack — Adequate | So what: Their users are duct-taping two tools; our strength is their pain point.

Positioning Map

Plot competitors on two axes that matter to your ICP. Choose axes where you can credibly win at least one.

Common axis pairs:

  • Ease of use vs Power/flexibility
  • Speed to value vs Depth of solution
  • Price vs Completeness
  • Self-serve vs White-glove

The empty quadrant is your opportunity. If no quadrant is empty, you need a different framing.

Example (project management tools, ICP = small remote teams):

                    Powerful
                       |
            Jira ------+------ Linear
                       |
  Easy ----------------+---------------- Hard
                       |
     Trello -----------+------ Asana
                       |
                    Simple

Empty quadrant: Powerful + Easy. That's the opportunity.

Strategic Gap Analysis

For each competitor, answer:

  1. Who do they serve best? (Their ICP vs yours)
  2. Where are they overserving? (Features their users don't need — signals bloat)
  3. Where are they underserving? (Complaints, missing features, workarounds their users build)
  4. What would make their users switch? (The trigger event + unmet need)

Guidelines

  • CRITICAL: ALWAYS include "do nothing" and "manual workaround" as competitors. For most startups, inertia is the primary competitor.
  • NEVER just list features. Analyze positioning, strategic choices, and gaps.
  • ALWAYS focus on your ICP's needs, not the broadest possible comparison.
  • NEVER copy competitor features without understanding why they built them and whether your ICP needs them.
  • ALWAYS note competitor pricing and business model — these constrain their product decisions.
  • NEVER present a feature matrix without strategic implications. "So what?" is the question every row should answer.

Skills from productskills.

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Research

research-synthesis

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Research

jtbd-analysis

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

prd-writing

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

experiment-design

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review