/competitor-scan

Help me analyze the competitive landscape for: $ARGUMENTS

Instructions

Conduct a structured competitive analysis. The goal is not a feature checklist — it's identifying where competitors are genuinely better, where we're differentiated, and what we should actually do about it.

Process

1. Map the landscape — Identify direct competitors, indirect alternatives, and "do nothing" options users have
2. Analyze positioning — How does each competitor position themselves? What do they claim vs. deliver?
3. Compare with insight — Feature comparison with "so what?" for each gap
4. Assess and recommend — Classify each competitive gap as Ignore / Monitor / Respond / Lead

Tools to Use

• Use web fetch to pull competitor websites, pricing pages, and changelogs
• Search for competitor reviews, G2/Capterra ratings, and app store feedback
• Look for competitor engineering blogs or public repos for technical insight
• Check social media and community forums for user sentiment

Output Format

# Competitive Analysis: [Market/Competitor]

## Landscape Map
| Player | Type | Positioning | Target Audience |
|--------|------|-------------|-----------------|

## Positioning Map
[Mermaid quadrant or description of how players position on key axes]

## Feature Comparison (with insight)
| Capability | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Insight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Feature] | [status] | [status] | [status] | [Why this matters or doesn't] |

## Strengths to Defend
1. **[Strength]** — Why it matters, evidence it's real

## Gaps to Evaluate
| Gap | Who Has It | Response | Reasoning |
|-----|-----------|----------|-----------|
| [Gap] | [Competitor] | Ignore/Monitor/Respond/Lead | [Why] |

## Recommendation
1. [Prioritized action with rationale]

Principles

• Objective, not defensive — If a competitor is genuinely better at something, say so
• Jobs-to-be-done framing — Competitors are whoever solves the same user need, not just the same category
• "Why haven't they?" is as important as "why have they?" — Missing features may signal constraints, not ignorance
• Feature parity is a trap — Only recommend matching features that demonstrably drive competitor advantage