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| **Low** | Rumors, speculation, outdated info | Mark `[unverified]` |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 launc