Competitor Analysis Report Template

Why this prompt works

Most competitor analysis prompts produce a list of features and call it strategy. This one avoids that by separating the analysis (per-competitor breakdown plus comparison matrix) from the recommendations (specific differentiators tied to observed gaps), and by demanding that recommendations be 'specific and actionable, not generic'. The example baked into the prompt ('faster onboarding: 2 hours vs competitor's 2 weeks') anchors the model on the kind of differentiator that's measurable, not the kind that's marketing fluff. The 'analysis supported by observable evidence' constraint is what stops the model from inventing facts about real companies (mostly).

When to reach for it

• You're scoping a new product launch and need to know where the unmet need actually is.
• You're updating positioning ahead of a sales kickoff and want a structured way to brief the team.
• You're writing the competition slide for a pitch deck and need real differentiators, not 'we're cheaper and faster'.
• You're new in a marketing or product role and need a fast structured read on the landscape.
• You suspect a competitor has shifted positioning recently and want to map where they've moved to.

How to customise it

Pick competitors honestly. Including only the easy-to-beat ones gives you a useless analysis; include at least one you'd describe as a real threat. The positioning field for your own product is the most important to get right; if you describe it as 'the leading platform for X', the recommendations will be lazy. Describe what you actually do, not what you wish you did. For categories where pricing is opaque (enterprise software), tell the model 'pricing data may be limited; mark estimates as such', otherwise it confidently invents numbers. If you're operating in a region with very different competitors than the global market, name the region; the model defaults to US-centric assumptions.

What good output looks like

Per-competitor sections (overview, features, pricing, audience, strengths, weaknesses, channels), then a feature matrix table, then three named market gaps with one-paragraph descriptions, then five strategic recommendations. The recommendations are usually the most useful output because they reason from the structure rather than recalling specific facts about real companies. The feature matrix is good for sales decks but should be sense-checked against the actual product pages of each competitor before presenting.

Watch out for

The model can confidently misstate facts about real competitors, especially around pricing, headcount, and customer counts. Treat the per-competitor breakdown as a starting point to verify, not a finished document. The recommendations section is generally more reliable than the per-competitor sections, because it's reasoning from the structure rather than recalling specific facts.