Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From financial-analysis
Generates competitive landscape analyses across industries for competitor comparisons, market positioning, investment memos, and strategic reviews.
npx claudepluginhub yuping322/financial-services-plugins-new --plugin financial-analysisHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/financial-analysis:competitive-analysisThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
---
Builds competitive landscape decks with market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, and strategic synthesis. Two-phase process: scope-then-build workflow with outline approval before slide creation.
Runs a structured multi-dimensional competitor analysis: feature matrix, SWOT, Porter's Five Forces, pricing comparison, strategic positioning, and differentiation tiers. Adapts output depth for product design, fundraising, strategic planning, or annual review.
Provides templates and frameworks for Porter's Five Forces, SWOT analysis, competitive landscape mapping, and battlecards to evaluate market position, threats, and industry dynamics.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
When source files (Excel/CSV) are provided:
When the prompt specifies exact requirements, follow them verbatim:
Slide Titles & Section Names:
"Overview and Competitive Scope" slide — use EXACTLY that title, not a paraphrasewithin the "Segment Mix" section — use EXACTLY "Segment Mix" as the section headerChart vs Table:
embedded chart — create an actual PowerPoint chart object, NOT a tabledata labels must display — these go on chart elements (bars, slices, lines), not table cellsComplete Data Series:
Exact Values & Phrasing:
Revenue: $43.98B (+18% YoY) — display exactly that formatsurpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1 — use those exact ratios, not "7.6x Lyft"When in doubt: Re-read the prompt. If it specifies something explicitly, that's not a suggestion — it's a requirement.
This skill includes reference files in the references/ folder. Use them as follows:
references/schemas.md — Table templates for M&A transactions, scenario analysis, and slide structure. Reference when building financial tables or investment scenarios.references/frameworks.md — 2x2 matrix axis pairs by industry. Reference when choosing positioning visualization dimensions.When sources conflict, prioritize in this order:
Review examples/Toast_Embedded_Payments_Competitive_Landscape_v3.pptx and match its professional quality:
Spacing & Overflow Prevention:
Slide Titles:
Chart Formatting:
include_in_layout=True so legends don't overlap chart areaTypography (set explicitly, never use defaults):
Layout:
Color:
Tables:
Rating visuals:
Adapt structure and metrics to fit your industry — but maintain this level of polish.
| STRICT (Every Time) | FLEXIBLE (Case-by-Case) |
|---|---|
| Exact titles/sections when prompt specifies | Creative titles when prompt doesn't specify |
| Chart when prompt says chart; table when prompt says table | Visualization type when prompt doesn't specify |
| All data points/competitors listed in prompt | Number of competitors when prompt doesn't specify |
| Exact values/ratios when prompt specifies them | Rounding when prompt doesn't specify precision |
| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |
| Minimum spacing between elements | Which dimensions to compare |
| Chart legends inside layout | Number of competitors profiled |
| No overlapping text/elements | Visualization type (2x2, radar, tier) |
Before starting, confirm:
Do NOT create final output until outline is reviewed.
The 10-step Analysis Workflow below (Steps 0-9) is executed during Phase 2. Complete research and outlining before creating final slides or documents.
Before diving into analysis, identify 3-5 metrics that matter most for this industry:
| Industry | Key Metrics |
|---|---|
| SaaS | ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, Rule of 40 |
| Payments | GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin |
| Marketplaces | GMV, take rate, buyer/seller ratio, repeat rate |
| Retail | Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft |
| Logistics | Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization |
For industries not listed, identify the 3-5 metrics that investors and operators use to benchmark performance.
Use these metrics consistently across all competitor comparisons.
CORRECT: "The embedded payments market is $80-100B in 2024, growing at 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)" WRONG: "The market is large and growing rapidly"
Map value flows. Approach varies by industry type:
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Revenue | $4.96B |
| Growth | +26% YoY |
| Gross Margin | 45% |
| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |
| Customers | 134K |
| Retention | 92% |
| Market Share | ~15% |
For multi-segment companies, add segment breakdown:
| Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin |
|---------|---------|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|
| Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% |
| Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% |
| Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% |
| Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% |
*Note corporate costs if applicable
Group competitors using the framework that fits:
| Visualization | Best For |
|---|---|
| 2x2 Matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |
| Radar/Spider | Multi-factor comparison |
| Tier Diagram | Natural clustering/strategic groups |
| Value Chain Map | Vertical industries |
| Ecosystem Map | Platform markets |
Table 1 — Metrics:
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Revenue | $X.XB |
| Growth | +XX% YoY |
| Gross Margin | XX% |
| Market Cap | $X.XB |
| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |
| Customers | XXK |
| Retention | XX% |
| Market Share | ~XX% |
Table 2 — Qualitative:
| Category | Assessment |
|----------|------------|
| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |
| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |
| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |
| Strategy | Current priorities |
| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |
| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |
| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |
Competitive Moat Assessment: Evaluate each competitor's durable advantages using these categories:
| Moat Type | What to Assess |
|---|---|
| Network Effects | Strength of user/supplier flywheel; cross-side vs. same-side effects |
| Switching Costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits |
| Scale Economies | Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale |
| Intangible Assets | Brand value, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |
Rate each as Strong / Moderate / Weak with supporting evidence.
Required Synthesis Elements:
For investment contexts:
| Scenario | Probability | Key Driver |
|----------|-------------|------------|
| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |
| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |
| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |
Before finalizing, verify:
Prompt Fidelity:
Source File & Data Consistency:
Layout & Spacing:
Charts:
Typography:
Data & Sources:
Presentation Format: