<aside> 💡
A competitor matrix is not a feature comparison table. It is a structured map of the choices your buyer is navigating — built against the criteria they actually use to evaluate those choices, not the criteria you wish they used. The most common mistake founders make with competitive analysis is scoring against criteria that matter to the product team rather than criteria that came directly from customer conversations. A matrix built on assumed criteria will tell you what you want to hear. A matrix built on validated criteria will tell you what you need to know. If you have not yet completed your ICP customer interviews from Section 03, do that before starting this section. The criteria in Part 2 must come from real buyers — not from your best guess about what they care about.
The scoring criteria in the competitor matrix should be cross-referenced with the SWOT Strengths and Weaknesses. A criterion where you score ✅ should correspond to a Strength in the SWOT. A criterion where you score ❌ should correspond to a Weakness. If they do not align, either the SWOT or the matrix is wrong.
Want to use AI to get started? Scroll down to these two prompts to generate your first draft:
<aside> 💡
Think broader than your obvious direct competitors. Your buyer is not just comparing you to products in the same category - they are comparing you to every option available to them, including options that do not look like software at all.
Your competitor list should include three types:
The status quo is almost always the hardest competitor to displace - and the most commonly left off the list.
</aside>
| Competitor or Alternative | Type | One-line Description | Primary Positioning |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g. Competitor A] | Direct | [SaaS platform targeting the same segment] | |
| [e.g. Competitor B] | Direct | [Established player with broader feature set] | |
| [e.g. Freelance consultant] | Indirect | [Human alternative to your product] | |
| [e.g. Spreadsheet / manual process] | Status quo | [Doing nothing or DIY] | |
| [Competitor 5] | |||
| [Competitor 6] | |||
| [Competitor 7] | |||
| [Competitor 8] |
| Competitor or alternative name | Type (Direct / Indirect / Status quo) | One-line description of what they offer |
|---|---|---|
| [e.g. Competitor A] | Direct | [SaaS platform targeting the same segment] |
| [e.g. Competitor B] | Direct | [Established player with broader feature set] |
| [e.g. Freelance consultant] | Indirect | [Human alternative to your product] |
| [e.g. Spreadsheet / manual process] | Status quo | [Doing nothing or DIY] |
| [Competitor / alternative 5] | ||
| [Competitor / alternative 6] | ||
| [Competitor / alternative 7] | ||
| [Competitor / alternative 8] |
<aside> 🤖
JSON Prompt: Competitive Landscape Identifier Copy and paste this into Claude, Gemini, Perplexity or Notion AI, but first fill in the sections highlighted in red font within the prompt:
<aside> 💡
The criteria you score against must come directly from your customer interviews - the specific factors your ICP mentioned when describing what a good solution would look like, what made them switch away from a previous tool, or what is missing from what they currently use. Generic criteria like "price" and "ease of use" are a starting point, not a destination. Go deeper: what does "easy to use" actually mean for this buyer - easy to onboard alone without a consultant, easy to get a result in under an hour, easy to hand to a junior team member? The more precisely you define each criterion, the more useful the matrix becomes. If you have not yet conducted customer interviews, use your best current hypothesis - but flag every criterion as unvalidated and treat the matrix output as directional rather than definitive until you have real buyer input.
</aside>