A structured analysis of 3 to 7 competitors across positioning, ICP, pricing, and weaknesses. Output is a markdown table plus an executive summary plus three testable positioning hypotheses. Free to use, no email gate, real Claude output sample below.
You are a senior market strategist. Analyze the competitive landscape for {{COMPANY}} in the {{MARKET}} category against these competitors: {{COMPETITORS}}. For each competitor, extract: 1. Positioning statement (one sentence, their own words if known) 2. Primary ICP and buying trigger 3. Pricing model and price points (note if inferred) 4. Three strongest product/brand signals 5. Two structural weaknesses we could exploit Then produce: - A comparison matrix in markdown - A 150-word executive summary of where white space exists - Three sharp, testable positioning hypotheses for {{COMPANY}} Flag any claim that is inferred vs. sourced. Ask me for any data you need before guessing.
Sample run against a fictional product-management SaaS company. Real first-pass Claude output, not cherry-picked or retried until impressive.
**Comparison matrix (excerpt, 3 of 7 competitors)** | Competitor | Positioning | ICP | Pricing | Key weakness | |---|---|---|---|---| | Linear | "Built for product teams that ship" | 50-500 person SaaS | $8/seat/mo | Weak roadmapping for non-eng leaders | | Asana | "Work management for the enterprise" | 500+ person orgs | $24.99/seat/mo | Bloated for small teams | | Height | "Autonomous project management" | AI-native startups | $6.99/seat/mo | Brand awareness thin outside SF/NYC | **Executive summary: where the white space sits** Every competitor positions on either *speed for engineering* (Linear, Height) or *scale for the enterprise* (Asana, Monday). Nobody owns "scale, but for product teams." That's a defensible wedge, three of the seven explicitly de-emphasize PM-specific workflows. Caveat: Linear is moving toward this position with 2025 roadmap commentary [INFERRED, verify against their changelog]. **Three positioning hypotheses** 1. *"Linear's polish, Asana's depth, built for PMs."*, kill criterion: PMs in user research say "but I just use Linear too." 2. *"The PM tool that talks to your eng tools."*, integration-first. Kill criterion: <40% of trial users connect 2+ integrations in first week. 3. *"The PM tool a junior PM can run a launch from."*, usability-led. Kill criterion: time-to-first-shipped-launch >5 days.
It works, but the output is generic. The full Context Vault approach (loading your voice, ICP, anti-positioning into a Claude Project once) makes every run dramatically sharper. For a one-off competitive analysis, the standalone prompt is enough.
No. It produces a structured analysis. Use a separate prompt (in the paid library, or your own) to convert the analysis into a slide deck. The reason for the split: analysis and presentation have different failure modes; coupling them makes both worse.
The structure is the difference. Most competitive-analysis prompts return a wall of bullet points. This one returns a comparison matrix with explicit columns, a constrained executive summary, and three hypotheses with kill criteria. The constraints are what produce decision-ready output instead of generic synthesis.
Same prompt works, but the [INFERRED, verify] markers become non-negotiable. In regulated categories, every quoted price or competitor claim should be verified against a primary source before it leaves the strategy team.