pm-competitive

pm-competitive — Competitive analysis

Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents. Run a systematic multi-dimensional competitor study. Branches by analysis purpose. Includes information-credibility tagging, time-stamping of all findings, and explicit separation of fact vs inference.

Inputs

Field	Required	Notes
Competitor list	yes	2-5 names; > 5 → batch into rounds
Our product	no	Used for differentiation positioning
Purpose	no	Product design / fundraising deck / strategic planning / annual review; default product design
Dimensions	no	Features / pricing / UX / tech / business model; default features + pricing

Step 1 — Set purpose and depth

Purpose	Emphasis	Output focus	Length
Product design	Features + UX	Feature matrix + differentiation list	2-3 pages
Fundraising deck	Market structure + moats	Landscape map + moat analysis	1 page
Strategic planning	Full depth	SWOT + 5-Forces + pricing + roadmap	5-8 pages
Annual review	Market share change + trends	YoY changes + trend judgment	2-3 pages

Step 2 — Information collection

Use user-supplied materials first (URLs, screenshots, pricing pages). Tag everything with credibility and timestamp.

Credibility tiers:

Tier	Sources	Tagging
High	Official site, pricing page, official announcements	Quote directly
Medium	Media coverage, user reviews, industry reports	Cite source
Low	Rumors, speculation, outdated info	Mark [unverified]

Information-collection checklist:

Dimension	What to collect	Typical sources
Fundamentals	Founded, funding rounds, team size, user base	Official site, business databases
Product	Core feature list, recent updates, roadmap	Official site, changelog, blog
Pricing	Tiers, price ranges, free-tier limits	Pricing page
Reputation	Praise, complaints, NPS	Review sites, app stores, social platforms
Strategy	Target market, acquisition channels, partnerships	Press, social media

Always tag freshness — e.g. "based on Q1 2026 public information" — and prompt user to verify currency.

Step 3 — Porter's Five Forces

Evaluate from industry-structure angle.

Force	Dimension	Evaluation points
Supplier power	Upstream dependency	Concentration of key tech/talent/resources; switching cost
Buyer power	Downstream customer leverage	Customer concentration; switching cost; price sensitivity
New-entrant threat	Entry barriers	Tech / capital / brand / network effects / regulation
Substitute threat	Alternative solutions	What's the user's current alternative? Substitute's value-for-money?
Industry rivalry	Existing-player dynamics	Competitor count, concentration, differentiation, exit barriers

Output: each force = strong / medium / weak + one-sentence rationale. Overall industry attractiveness = high / medium / low.

Step 4 — Multi-dimensional comparison

Feature comparison matrix (core deliverable):

Module	Sub-feature	Us	Comp A	Comp B	Comp C
{module 1}	{sub 1}	✅ Mature	✅ Mature	⚠️ Basic	❌ None
	{sub 2}	⚠️ Basic	✅ Mature	✅ Mature	⚠️ Basic

Legend: ✅ Mature / ⚠️ Basic (exists but limited) / ❌ Missing / 🔜 Planned

Positioning deep-dive:

Dimension	Method	Scoring
Feature score	1-5 per module, weighted total	5 = best-in-class, 3 = passing, 1 = barely present
UX comparison	Steps in core flow, learning curve, completion efficiency	Compare clicks + time-to-complete
Tech architecture	Patterns, stack, performance, openness	API openness, integration capability, extensibility

SWOT per competitor:

	Positive	Negative
Internal	Strengths (core advantages)	Weaknesses (clear gaps)
External	Opportunities (exploitable)	Threats (must watch)

Each quadrant: 2-3 items, each with factual support. Banned: vague claims like "strong team" or "advanced tech".

SWOT cross-strategies:

Strategy	Meaning	Direction
SO	Strengths × Opportunities	Use strengths to grab market window
WO	Weaknesses × Opportunities	Fill gaps to capture new opportunities
ST	Strengths × Threats	Use moats to defend against attacks
WT	Weaknesses × Threats	Most urgent defensive priorities

Pricing comparison (if pricing dimension included):

Item	Us	A	B	C
Free-tier scope	{}	{}	{}	{}
Entry-tier monthly	{}	{}	{}	{}
Enterprise monthly	{}	{}	{}	{}
Billing model	{per-seat / usage / feature-tier}
Core differentiator	{pricing strategy reading}

Pricing-strategy types:

• Penetration: low price for share (look for generous free tier)
• Skimming: high price, premium positioning (look for many gated advanced features)
• Freemium: core free, advanced paid (look at the gap between free and paid)

Step 5 — Positioning quadrant

Pick two most-discriminating dimensions (e.g. "feature depth vs ease of use", or "price vs feature breadth") and place all products into a 2×2:

Quadrant	Trait	Products
High features + high price	Enterprise full-stack	{list}
High features + low price	Best value	{list}
Low features + high price	Niche specialist	{list}
Low features + low price	Entry-level	{list}

Step 6 — Strategic projection

Predict competitor's likely next moves based on recent signals.

Method:

1. Signal collection: product updates, funding moves, hiring focus, partnership announcements (last 3-6 months)
2. Pattern recognition: what does the cluster of signals imply?
   • Repeated feature launches in area X → betting on X
   • Heavy hiring in role Y → preparing new product line
   • Price cut / new free tier → market-share grab
3. Projection output:

Competitor	Recent moves	Inferred intent	Impact on us	Confidence	Recommended response
{A}	{actions}	{hypothesis}	{assessment}	High/Medium/Low	{strategy}

Projection rules:

• Distinguish "fact" from "inferred intent" — second always tagged with confidence
• One signal can have multiple readings — list 2-3 most likely
• Time windows: short-term (1-3 months), mid-term (3-12 months)

Step 7 — Three-tier differentiation strategy

Tier	Definition	Action
Catch-up	Competitors have it; we don't	List features to add + priority + estimated effort
Differentiate	We're unique or clearly ahead	List strengths to reinforce + marketing message ideas
Innovate	No competitor has done it; opportunity exists	List blue-ocean candidates + validation approach

Quality bar

1. Comparisons grounded in verifiable public info; cite source + date
2. Same dimension scored on the same scale across all products
3. Every SWOT item backed by a fact; no fluff
4. Differentiation suggestions concrete and prioritized
5. All data tagged with freshness ("as of Q1 2026")
6. Pricing data tagged with collection date
7. Strategic projections separate fact from inference
8. Five-Forces evaluation grounded in industry data

Red lines

1. No fabricated data — unverified info → [unverified]
2. No subjective trash-talk — competitor evaluation must be objective; no pejoratives
3. Always tag freshness — every data point + collection date; nudge user to refresh
4. Tag inference confidence — every strategic projection labeled with confidence

Market-structure judgment

Structure	Trait	Strategy advice
One-dominant	One player > 50% share	Differentiate niches, avoid head-on
Duopoly	Top 2 = > 70% combined	Pick a side, or be the third option
Fragmented	Top 5 each < 20%	Speed-grab a niche #1 position
Emerging	No clear leader	Educate market first, build brand

Monitoring cadence

Frequency	What to monitor	Trigger
Weekly	Product changelog, social signals	Major updates → tracker entry
Monthly	Pricing changes, new features, press	Update feature matrix
Quarterly	Full competitor report, strategy projection refresh	Quarterly competitor brief
Event-driven	Funding / M&A / major launches / exec changes	Immediate impact assessment

When input is incomplete

• Only competitor names → standard feature matrix + brief SWOT
• No own product → competitor-vs-competitor comparison only, no differentiation advice
• > 5 competitors → batch, or pick 3 for deep-dive + brief notes on others

Related skills

• /pm-prd — differentiation gap → PRD
• /pm-prioritize — catch-up feature list → RICE-rank
• /pm-feedback — user mentions of competitors → enrich perception data
• /pm-brainstorm — diverge on differentiation ideas