By name: pm-competitive description: Готовит многомерный разбор конкурентов — feature-матрица, SWOT с cross-strategy, 5 сил Портера, сравнение ценообразования, позиционирование, прогноз стратегических ходов и три уровня дифференциации (догнать / отстроиться / создать новое). Адаптируется под цель (продуктовый дизайн / fundraising / стратегия / годовой обзор). User-invoked only — do NOT auto-trigger. Triggers on /pm-competitive, "конкурентный анализ", "разбор конкурентов", "five forces", "SWOT", "competitive analysis", "competitor comparison", "feature matrix vs competitors".
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| Low | Rumors, speculation, outdated info | Mark [unverified] |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:
- Signal collection: product updates, funding moves, hiring focus, partnership announcements (last 3-6 months)
- 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
- 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
- Comparisons grounded in verifiable public info; cite source + date
- Same dimension scored on the same scale across all products
- Every SWOT item backed by a fact; no fluff
- Differentiation suggestions concrete and prioritized
- All data tagged with freshness ("as of Q1 2026")
- Pricing data tagged with collection date
- Strategic projections separate fact from inference
- Five-Forces evaluation grounded in industry data
Red lines
- No fabricated data — unverified info →
[unverified] - No subjective trash-talk — competitor evaluation must be objective; no pejoratives
- Always tag freshness — every data point + collection date; nudge user to refresh
- 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