competitor-matrix

Imported from okou-ai/vm0-skills (competitor-matrix/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add okou-ai/vm0-skills --skill competitor-matrix. Copyright stays with the author.

Mapping the Competitive Landscape

Defining the Competitor Set

Categorize competitors into four tiers based on proximity and threat level:

Tier 1 -- Direct rivals: Products targeting the same users with the same approach to the same problem.

• These appear in head-to-head evaluations, review site comparisons, and sales deal cycles
• Customers actively weigh your product against these alternatives

Tier 2 -- Alternative approaches: Products addressing the same underlying need through a different mechanism.

• A fundamentally different methodology for the same user problem (e.g., a spreadsheet used in place of dedicated project management software)
• Include the option of doing nothing at all -- inaction or manual workarounds are often the strongest competitor

Tier 3 -- Potential entrants: Organizations not competing today but positioned to move into your space.

• Companies with overlapping technology stacks, customer relationships, or distribution channels
• Large platforms that could absorb your functionality as a built-in feature
• Focused startups serving a niche that could expand toward your core market

Tier 4 -- Substitute solutions: Entirely different approaches to the underlying need.

• Hiring personnel instead of purchasing software
• Relying on general-purpose tools (spreadsheets, email, shared documents) instead of purpose-built products
• Outsourcing the entire process to a service provider

Constructing a Landscape Map

Plot competitors along dimensions that reveal strategic positioning:

Useful axis pairs:

• Breadth versus depth (platform suite vs. focused point solution)
• Downmarket versus upmarket (SMB-oriented vs. enterprise-focused)
• Self-service versus sales-assisted (go-to-market model)
• Simplicity versus power (ease of adoption vs. configurability)
• Horizontal versus vertical (general-purpose vs. industry-tailored)

Select axis pairs that expose the positioning differences most relevant to your market. Well-chosen dimensions make competitive dynamics immediately visible.

Ongoing Competitive Monitoring

Systematically track competitor activity over time:

• Product updates: changelog entries, blog announcements, press coverage of new capabilities
• Pricing and packaging adjustments
• Capital events: funding rounds, acquisitions, IPO filings
• Talent signals: senior hires and open roles that indicate strategic direction
• Deal outcomes: accounts won and lost, particularly those involving head-to-head competition
• Third-party coverage: analyst reports, review site rankings, media commentary
• Ecosystem moves: partnership announcements and integration launches

Building Feature Comparison Matrices

Construction Process

1. Establish capability domains: Organize features into functional groupings that reflect buyer evaluation criteria, not your internal product architecture. Mirror the language and categories that buyers use.
2. Enumerate specific capabilities: Within each domain, list the discrete features or functions to compare.
3. Apply consistent ratings: Score every competitor using a uniform scale.

Rating Scales

Four-level scale (recommended for most contexts):

• Strong: Industry-leading execution. Deep, differentiated functionality.
• Adequate: Competent implementation. Meets requirements without standing out.
• Weak: Present but limited. Meaningful gaps or rough execution.
• Absent: Capability does not exist.

Six-level scale (for granular deep-dive assessments):

• 5: Best-in-class. Sets the benchmark others pursue.
• 4: Robust. Comprehensive and well-implemented.
• 3: Sufficient. Covers core needs without differentiation.
• 2: Partial. Exists but with notable limitations.
• 1: Rudimentary. Barely functional or in early preview.
• 0: Not available.

Matrix Format

| Capability Domain  | Our Product | Rival A   | Rival B   |
|--------------------|-------------|-----------|-----------|
| [Domain 1]         |             |           |           |
|   [Capability 1a]  | Strong      | Adequate  | Absent    |
|   [Capability 1b]  | Adequate    | Strong    | Weak      |
| [Domain 2]         |             |           |           |
|   [Capability 2a]  | Strong      | Strong    | Adequate  |

Comparison Best Practices

• Base ratings on direct product evaluation, customer testimony, and independent reviews -- not vendor marketing material
• Recognize that capability exists on a spectrum. "Offers feature X" is less informative than "how effectively does it execute feature X?"
• Weight the matrix toward capabilities your target buyers prioritize, not toward raw feature volume
• Refresh comparisons regularly -- competitive feature sets evolve rapidly
• Acknowledge areas where competitors genuinely lead. A matrix that invariably favors your product lacks credibility.
• Annotate each capability domain with a "buyer relevance" note explaining why it matters in purchase decisions

Positioning Teardown

Extracting Competitor Positioning

For each rival, distill their market positioning:

Positioning template: For [intended audience] who [face this challenge], [Product] is a [market category] that [delivers this core benefit]. In contrast to [alternative], [Product] [achieves this differentiation].

Where to find positioning signals:

• Website hero section: headline and supporting copy
• Product descriptions on marketplace listings and review platforms
• Sales materials (occasionally surfaced by prospects or in public-facing decks)
• Analyst briefing content
• Public company earnings call language and investor presentations

Messaging Layer Analysis

Deconstruct how each competitor communicates value across four levels:

Layer 1 -- Category claim: Which market category do they occupy? (CRM, collaboration suite, developer platform) Layer 2 -- Differentiator: What distinguishes them within that category? (AI-native, unified workspace, API-first) Layer 3 -- Promised outcome: What result do they pledge to deliver? (Close revenue faster, ship products in half the time, eliminate missed deadlines) Layer 4 -- Evidence: What proof do they marshal? (Customer logos, published metrics, industry recognition, case studies)

Identifying Positioning Gaps

Scan for strategic openings:

• Unoccupied territory: Value propositions that no competitor claims but that buyers would find compelling
• Saturated claims: Messages repeated by every player in the space, rendering them meaningless as differentiators
• Emerging narratives: New value propositions catalyzed by market shifts (AI augmentation, distributed work, data sovereignty)
• Overpromised positions: Claims competitors make that their products cannot fully substantiate

Win/Loss Analysis

Methodology

Win/loss analysis reveals the actual reasons deals are won and lost -- the most directly actionable form of competitive intelligence.

Information sources:

• CRM deal notes from the sales organization (readily available but subject to attribution bias)
• Structured interviews with buyers shortly after their decision (highest signal, lowest bias)
• Exit surveys from departing customers
• Post-decision outreach to prospects who chose a competitor

Interview Framework

Questions for won deals:

• What problem prompted your evaluation process?
• Which alternatives did you consider? (reveals the true competitive set)
• What tipped the decision in our favor?
• What nearly caused you to choose differently?
• What would need to change for you to reconsider your choice?

Questions for lost deals:

• What problem were you trying to address?
• Which solution did you select, and what drove that decision?
• Where did our offering fall short of your requirements?
• What could we have done differently during the evaluation?
• Under what circumstances would you consider us in a future evaluation?

Synthesizing Win/Loss Patterns

• Track reasons for wins and losses over time. Watch for evolving patterns.
• Segment by deal profile: enterprise versus mid-market, new logo versus expansion, industry vertical
• Distill the three to five most frequent win drivers and loss drivers
• Separate product-driven factors (capability gaps, quality issues) from non-product factors (pricing model, brand recognition, existing relationship, timing)
• Compute head-to-head win rates: for deals where each specific competitor appeared, what percentage did you win?

Recurring Win/Loss Archetypes

• Capability gap: A competitor offers a specific function you lack that proves decisive
• Integration advantage: A competitor connects natively with tools the buyer's organization already uses
• Pricing model fit: Not always about being cheaper -- sometimes a usage-based model suits the buyer better than per-seat, or vice versa
• Switching cost barrier: The buyer stays with an incumbent because migration effort exceeds perceived improvement
• Sales process quality: Superior demonstration, faster responsiveness, more relevant reference customers
• Brand and trust: The buyer selects the recognized or perceived lower-risk option

Market Trend Assessment

Intelligence Sources

• Analyst firms: Gartner, Forrester, IDC for market sizing, category definitions, and directional forecasts
• Investment activity: Venture capital themes and deal flow signal where informed capital sees emerging opportunity
• Industry events: Conference keynote themes and session attendance patterns reveal where practitioner attention is concentrating
• Technology inflections: New platforms, protocols, or capabilities that unlock previously impossible product categories
• Regulatory developments: New mandates that create compliance requirements or open market opportunities
• Behavioral shifts: Evolving user expectations around channels, interfaces, privacy, and autonomy
• Talent migration: Where experienced professionals are moving and which skill sets command premium demand

Structured Trend Evaluation

For each identified trend, work through six dimensions:

1. Nature of the shift: Describe precisely what is changing
2. Driving forces: What enables or compels this change? (technological capability, regulation, economic pressure, behavioral evolution)
3. Affected segments: Which customer populations or market categories feel the impact?
4. Time horizon: Is this unfolding now, within one to two years, or over a three-to-five year arc?
5. Strategic implications: How should this influence product direction, investment, or positioning?
6. Competitive response: How are rivals reacting to this trend?

Distinguishing Signal from Noise

• Signal: Trends substantiated by behavioral data, accelerating investment, regulatory action, or direct customer demand
• Noise: Trends sustained only by media coverage, conference buzz, or competitor press releases without evidence of customer adoption
• Validate trends against your own customer base: are your users requesting or experiencing this shift?
• Approach annual "trend of the year" narratives with skepticism. Many dominate industry conversation for months before materially affecting real customer needs.

Strategic Response Spectrum

For each consequential trend, select a posture:

• Pioneer: Invest early to define the category or approach. Higher risk paired with potential for outsized reward and differentiation.
• Fast follower: Wait for early evidence of customer traction, then mobilize rapidly. Reduced risk but more difficult to establish a unique position.
• Watch: Track the trend without committing resources. Define specific triggers that would prompt escalation to active investment.
• Pass: Deliberately decide the trend is irrelevant to your strategy. Document the reasoning for future reference.

The appropriate response depends on competitive position, customer profile, available resources, and the velocity of the trend's adoption curve.