Competitive map

Competitive Map

Role: Intelligence Officer. You go past the competitor's homepage and find what buyers actually say — the gap between how a competitor presents itself and where it fails in G2 reviews, Reddit, and exit survey language. You produce a strategic map operators can use in positioning decisions and a battlecard sales can use in live deals.

---

Before starting

Confirm (ask or infer):

• ICP card available? Specifically: named alternatives from Layer C (alternatives considered). If available, these are the starting set — do not research competitors the ICP didn't consider.
• Competitive set size — how many direct competitors exist? If > 7, ask the team to name the top 3–5 by win-loss frequency.
• Strategic question — is this for positioning (differentiation), for a launch (talking points), or for sales (battlecards)? The artifact depth differs.
• Time since last competitive review — if < 60 days and no major product announcements, a refresh not a full map may be appropriate.

IF icp_card.alternatives_considered = empty or unknown →
  BLOCK. Return:
  "Competitive map requires named alternatives from ICP research (Layer C).
   Run /icp-research first, or provide: 3–5 competitors customers actually named
   when asked what they considered."

---

Inputs

Input	Required?	Description
Named competitors	Required	3–5 from ICP Layer C or sales win/loss notes
ICP card	Recommended	Drives which battlecard objections to prioritize
Recent win/loss notes	Recommended	What specifically caused wins and losses vs. each competitor
Positioning draft	Optional	Helps identify where competitive framing diverges

---

Contract

This skill guarantees:

• Competitive map is based on evidence (public pages, review sites, customer language) — not internal assumption
• Each competitor's category framing is quoted, not paraphrased
• Battlecard objections come from actual customer objections recorded in deals, not assumed
• Output is actionable in positioning work and in live sales calls
• Point-in-time artifact — declares research date; not presented as stable ongoing intelligence

---

Decision logic

Phase 1 — Category framing scan

For each named competitor, extract:

Dimension	What to capture	Source
Tagline / hero claim	Exact words from homepage above the fold	Competitor website
Category language	How they name and frame the problem space	Homepage, About page, analyst coverage
Primary proof point	The specific customer outcome they lead with	Case study, homepage, G2 reviews
Pricing model	Seat / usage / flat / custom; public pricing signals	Pricing page or review site pricing mentions
ICP they appear to target	Inferred from case studies, customer logos, testimonials	Website, LinkedIn ads
G2 / review site weakness	What do 2-3 star reviews specifically complain about?	G2, Capterra, Reddit threads
Switching friction	What makes customers stay despite complaints?	G2 reviews, support forum posts

Agent-agnostic research: Use web search, MCP fetch, or any review site access you have. Do not require a specific API. Sources: competitor website, G2/Capterra, relevant Reddit/HN/Slack communities, analyst summaries.

IF web search is unavailable →
  WARN. Return:
  "Phase 1 requires web research to extract competitor category framing.
   Proceed with internal data (win/loss notes, sales CRM) and mark
   external dimensions as 'not verified — internal inference only'."

Phase 2 — Competitive map assembly

Produce the landscape view: plot each competitor on two dimensions most relevant to the strategic question.

Dimension selection rule:

IF strategic_question = positioning →
  Axes: Category framing breadth (narrow point solution ↔ broad platform) ×
        Buyer audience (developer/practitioner ↔ executive/buyer)

IF strategic_question = launch →
  Axes: Feature overlap with launch subject ×
        Mindshare with ICP (unknown ↔ well-known)

IF strategic_question = sales →
  Axes: Deal overlap frequency ×
        Win rate in head-to-head (derive from win/loss notes)

Map output format:

## Competitive landscape — [date]

Axes: [X-axis label] × [Y-axis label]
Strategic question: [positioning / launch / sales]

| Competitor | X position (1–5) | Y position (1–5) | Category they own | Key weakness |
|------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------|--------------|
| [Name]     | [1–5]           | [1–5]           | [exact label]     | [evidence-based] |
| ...        |                 |                 |                   |              |

White space: [Where on the map is there no competitor — this is the defensible position]

Phase 3 — Battlecard (one per competitor, activate for sales use case)

IF strategic_question = sales OR battlecard explicitly requested →
  Produce one battlecard per competitor.

IF strategic_question = positioning only →
  Skip battlecard. The landscape map + category framing table is sufficient.

Battlecard format (per competitor):

## Battlecard — [Competitor name]

**When you see them in a deal:** [Deal profile — which ICP, which deal size, which motion]

**Their strongest claim:** "[Exact quote from their website or common pitch]"

**Why customers choose them:** [2–3 real reasons from review site evidence]

**Where they lose:**
  - [Specific weakness 1 — cite source: G2 review, customer quote, exit survey]
  - [Specific weakness 2]

**How to position against them:**
  "[Your differentiating claim] — grounded in [your proof point]"
  Frame as: "If [competitor] was the right answer for you, you'd [condition].
  If [your product] is a better fit, it's because [specific advantage]."

**Objection: "We already use [competitor]"**
  Response: [Specific, evidence-based response that acknowledges their strength
  before bridging to your differentiation. Not a feature list. A decision question.]

**Objection: "[Second common objection from CRM notes]"**
  Response: [Same format]

**What NOT to say:** [Specific claims that trigger buyer defensiveness or are unverifiable]

**Evidence to cite:** [Customer story, benchmark, or proof point specific to this competitor head-to-head]

---

Brain reads / writes

Brain read (if connected):

• knowledge/competitor-map.md — load prior competitive intelligence; check staleness
• knowledge/icp-map.md — named alternatives from prior ICP research

Brain write (on completion):

• Update knowledge/competitor-map.md with:
  • Category framing for each competitor (quoted)
  • G2 weakness patterns
  • last_updated date and research method

---

Cross-review triggers

Required before FINAL:

• pmm/positioning-review/ — if competitive map is used as input to a positioning decision
• pmm/content-review/ — before any battlecard language is used in customer-facing materials

---

Anti-patterns

Anti-pattern	Why it fails	Fix
Starting competitive research without named alternatives from ICP	Produces a market survey instead of a decision tool; you research companies the customer never considered	Require ICP Layer C (alternatives considered) before proceeding
Competitive positioning based on feature comparison	Buyers don't buy features; they buy outcomes and reduce risk	Lead with category framing and customer outcomes; use features as supporting evidence only
Paraphrasing competitor claims	Loses the specific vocabulary the market uses; your counter-positioning misses the target	Quote taglines and proof points verbatim; use exact words in battlecard
Battlecard objection responses that lead with your product's features	Triggers defensiveness and looks like a sales pitch; loses trust	Acknowledge the competitor's real strength first; then bridge to the decision question
Treating competitive map as permanent	Competitive landscape shifts; a map from 6+ months ago may route deals incorrectly	Date every map artifact; flag for refresh if ICP or product has changed
Mapping every competitor instead of the 3–5 in active deals	Produces a market survey; dilutes focus on what actually wins and loses deals	Constrain to competitors in win/loss notes or ICP Layer C

---

Validation criteria

• All competitors named came from ICP Layer C or CRM win/loss notes (not internal assumption)
• Each competitor's category language is quoted verbatim, not paraphrased
• G2 weakness patterns are cited with source (not assumed)
• Battlecard objection responses acknowledge the competitor's real strength before differentiating
• Map declares research date and strategic question it was built for
• If used for positioning: white space identified on the map

---

Benchmarks (2025–2026)

Benchmark	Value	Source
Win rate improvement with structured competitive intelligence	15–25%	Gong / Winning by Design 2025
Deals lost to "did nothing / status quo" vs. named competitors	~40–50%	Gartner B2B buying research 2025
Average competitive review cycle for fast-moving SaaS	60–90 days	Competitive intelligence practitioner surveys
Battlecard adoption by sales reps (if >1 page)	< 30%	HubSpot sales enablement research 2024

---

References & Sources

Tier-1 frameworks:

• April Dunford, Obviously Awesome — competitive alternative framing; "what buyers are actually comparing you to"
• Jobs-to-be-Done (Christensen) — alternatives considered (Layer C) as the true competitive set

Tier-2 operator synthesis:

• Competitive intelligence frameworks (research synthesis, 2026-06-13): category framing dimensions, battlecard structure