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".
Scanned 5/27/2026
Install via CLI
Skills Directoryopenskills install Mathews-Tom/armory---
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. |
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
