claude-skills-reference/product-team/competitive-teardown/references/analysis-templates.md

Competitive Analysis Templates

1. SWOT Analysis Template

Company/Product: [Competitor Name]

Date: [Analysis Date] | Analyst: [Name] | Version: [1.0]

Strengths (Internal Advantages)

#	Strength	Evidence	Impact
1	[e.g., Strong brand recognition]	[Source/data point]	High/Med/Low
2
3

Weaknesses (Internal Limitations)

#	Weakness	Evidence	Exploitability
1	[e.g., Limited API capabilities]	[Source/data point]	High/Med/Low
2
3

Opportunities (External Favorable)

#	Opportunity	Timeframe	Our Advantage
1	[e.g., Competitor slow to adopt AI]	Short/Med/Long	[How we capitalize]
2
3

Threats (External Unfavorable)

#	Threat	Likelihood	Mitigation
1	[e.g., Competitor acquired by larger company]	High/Med/Low	[Our response plan]
2
3

---

2. Porter's Five Forces (Product Application)

Market: [Your Product Category]

Force 1: Competitive Rivalry (Intensity: High/Med/Low)

• Number of direct competitors: ___
• Market growth rate: ___% annually
• Product differentiation level: High/Med/Low
• Switching costs for customers: High/Med/Low
• Exit barriers: High/Med/Low
• Assessment: [Summary of competitive rivalry intensity]

Force 2: Threat of New Entrants (Intensity: High/Med/Low)

• Capital requirements: High/Med/Low
• Technology barriers: High/Med/Low
• Network effects strength: Strong/Moderate/Weak
• Regulatory barriers: High/Med/Low
• Brand loyalty in market: Strong/Moderate/Weak
• Assessment: [Summary of new entrant threat]

Force 3: Threat of Substitutes (Intensity: High/Med/Low)

• Alternative solutions: [List substitutes]
• Price-performance of substitutes: Better/Same/Worse
• Switching costs to substitutes: High/Med/Low
• Customer propensity to switch: High/Med/Low
• Assessment: [Summary of substitute threat]

Force 4: Bargaining Power of Buyers (Power: High/Med/Low)

• Buyer concentration: Concentrated/Fragmented
• Price sensitivity: High/Med/Low
• Information availability: Full/Partial/Limited
• Switching costs: High/Med/Low
• Volume of purchases: High/Med/Low
• Assessment: [Summary of buyer power]

Force 5: Bargaining Power of Suppliers (Power: High/Med/Low)

• Key technology dependencies: [List]
• Cloud provider lock-in: High/Med/Low
• Talent market tightness: Tight/Balanced/Loose
• Data source dependencies: Critical/Important/Optional
• Assessment: [Summary of supplier power]

Overall Industry Attractiveness: [Score 1-10]

---

3. Competitive Positioning Map

Axis Definitions

• X-Axis: [e.g., Ease of Use] (Low to High)
• Y-Axis: [e.g., Feature Completeness] (Low to High)

Competitor Positions

Competitor	X Score (1-10)	Y Score (1-10)	Quadrant
Your Product	___	___	___
Competitor A	___	___	___
Competitor B	___	___	___
Competitor C	___	___	___
Competitor D	___	___	___

Quadrant Definitions

• Top-Right (Leaders): High on both axes - market leaders
• Top-Left (Feature-Rich): High features, lower ease of use - complex tools
• Bottom-Right (Simple): Easy to use, fewer features - niche players
• Bottom-Left (Laggards): Low on both axes - disruption candidates

Positioning Insights

• White space opportunities: [Areas with no competitor presence]
• Crowded areas: [Where competition is fiercest]
• Our trajectory: [Direction we're moving on the map]

---

4. Win/Loss Analysis Template

Deal: [Opportunity Name]

Date: [Close Date] | Result: Won / Lost | Competitor: [Name]

Deal Context

• Deal Size: $___
• Sales Cycle: ___ days
• Segment: SMB / Mid-Market / Enterprise
• Industry: ___
• Decision Makers: [Roles involved]
• Evaluation Criteria: [What mattered most to buyer]

Competitive Comparison (Buyer Perspective)

Factor	Us (Score 1-5)	Competitor (Score 1-5)	Decisive?
Product Fit			Yes/No
Pricing			Yes/No
Ease of Use			Yes/No
Support Quality			Yes/No
Integration			Yes/No
Brand/Trust			Yes/No
Implementation			Yes/No

Win/Loss Factors

• Primary reason for outcome: [Single most important factor]
• Secondary factors: [Supporting reasons]
• Buyer quotes: ["Direct quotes from debrief"]

Action Items

#	Action	Owner	Due Date
1	[e.g., Improve onboarding flow]	[Name]	[Date]
2

---

5. Battle Card Template

Competitor: [Name]

Last Updated: [Date] | Confidence: High/Med/Low

Quick Facts

• Founded: ___
• Funding: $___
• Employees: ___
• Customers: ___
• HQ: ___

Elevator Pitch (Their Positioning)

[How the competitor describes themselves in one sentence]

Our Positioning Against Them

[How we differentiate - our one-liner against this competitor]

Where They Win

Strength	Our Counter
[e.g., Lower price point]	[e.g., Emphasize TCO including implementation costs]
[e.g., Larger integration marketplace]	[e.g., Highlight quality over quantity, key integrations]

Where We Win

Our Strength	Evidence
[e.g., Superior onboarding experience]	[Metric or customer quote]
[e.g., Better enterprise security]	[Certification or feature]

Landmines to Set

Questions to ask prospects that expose competitor weaknesses:

1. "Have you evaluated how [specific capability] scales beyond [threshold]?"
2. "What's their approach to [area where competitor is weak]?"
3. "Can you share their uptime SLA and historical performance?"

Objection Handling

Objection	Response
"[Competitor] is cheaper"	[Value-based response]
"[Competitor] has more features"	[Quality/relevance response]
"We already use [Competitor]"	[Migration/coexistence story]

Trap Questions They Set

Questions competitors ask about us, and how to respond:

1. Q: "[Our known weakness]?" A: [Honest, redirect response]
2. Q: "[Feature gap]?" A: [Roadmap or alternative approach]

Recent Intel

• [Date]: [Notable change - pricing, feature, hire, funding]
• [Date]: [Notable change]