30 Claude Prompts That Build Competitor Analyses

You are a positioning strategist who audits how competitors talk about themselves. <context> I need a matrix comparing the core messaging of my product and competitors so I can find an unclaimed angle, delivered as a self-contained markdown table. </context> <inputs> - My product and current tagline: [NAME AND HEADLINE] - Competitors: [2-5 NAMES] - Their homepage headlines/value props: [PASTE OR "RESEARCH IT"] - Target buyer and the pain they feel: [DESCRIBE] </inputs> <task> Build a matrix with rows for category label, headline promise, primary value prop, proof used, target persona, and emotional hook, and a column per product. Then analyze: which claims are everyone-says-the-same (table stakes), which are contested, and which are unclaimed. Recommend a messaging angle for me that is true, differentiated, and uncontested, with a sample headline. </task> <constraints> - Quote or closely paraphrase real messaging; label anything inferred. - Distinguish table-stakes claims from genuine differentiators. - The recommended angle must be defensible, not just clever. </constraints> <format> Return the messaging matrix as markdown, then the claimed/contested/unclaimed analysis and a recommended headline. </format>

You are a brand strategist who builds perceptual maps. <context> I need a two-axis perceptual map of my market to find where perception is crowded and where it is open, delivered as a self-contained structured document with a coordinate table and a text-rendered map. </context> <inputs> - Products: [MINE AND 3-6 COMPETITORS] - Two axes that matter to buyers: [E.G. SIMPLE VS POWERFUL, GENERALIST VS SPECIALIST] - My intended perception: [WHERE I WANT TO BE SEEN] </inputs> <task> Score each product on both axes (-5 to +5), output a coordinate table, and render the map as an ASCII or Mermaid quadrant chart with products plotted. Describe the crowded zone, the empty zone, and where my product is currently perceived vs. where it should aim. End with the 2 messaging changes needed to move perception toward the target. </task> <constraints> - Justify each score in one line. - Choose axes buyers actually use, not internal jargon. - Keep current vs. target perception clearly separate. </constraints> <format> Return the coordinate table, a text-rendered quadrant map, the crowded/empty-zone read, then 2 messaging moves. </format>

You are a positioning expert trained in the April Dunford framework. <context> I need a rigorous positioning statement for my product built by contrasting it against the real alternatives, delivered as a self-contained structured document. </context> <inputs> - My product: [NAME AND WHAT IT DOES] - The alternatives buyers consider: [COMPETITORS AND "DO NOTHING" / SPREADSHEETS] - My unique capabilities: [WHAT ONLY I DO WELL] - Best-fit customer: [SEGMENT] </inputs> <task> Work through the positioning components: competitive alternatives, unique attributes, the value those attributes enable, the customers who care most, and the market category I should frame myself in. Then synthesize a one-paragraph positioning statement and a one-line value proposition. Include a short table mapping each unique attribute to the value it delivers and the alternative it beats. </task> <constraints> - Start from alternatives, not features; positioning is relative. - The category frame must make my strengths look obvious and my weaknesses irrelevant. - Value must be customer outcomes, not capabilities. </constraints> <format> Return the component breakdown, the attribute-to-value table, then the positioning statement and one-line value prop. </format>

You are a brand-voice analyst who dissects how competitors communicate. <context> I want to understand a competitor's brand voice and messaging patterns so I can differentiate my tone, delivered as a self-contained structured teardown. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - Sample copy: [HOMEPAGE, EMAILS, SOCIAL, ADS -- PASTE OR "RESEARCH IT"] - My current voice: [DESCRIBE OR PASTE A SAMPLE] - Audience: [WHO] </inputs> <task> Analyze their voice across dimensions: formality, energy, jargon level, humor, point of view (we vs. you), and recurring phrases. Give evidence snippets for each. Then compare to my voice in a table and identify where our tones overlap (risking sameness) and where I can own a distinct voice. Recommend 3 voice guidelines and rewrite one of my headlines in the differentiated voice. </task> <constraints> - Support each voice observation with a real snippet. - Differentiation must fit my audience, not just be different for its own sake. - The sample rewrite must be usable, not a caricature. </constraints> <format> Return the voice analysis with evidence, the voice-comparison table, 3 voice guidelines, and one rewritten headline. </format>

You are a competitive enablement lead who writes battlecards reps actually use. <context> I need a one-page sales battlecard for beating a specific competitor in deals, delivered as a self-contained structured document a rep can skim mid-call. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - My product: [NAME] - Where we win and lose: [KNOWN PATTERNS OR "RESEARCH IT"] - Common objections buyers raise about us vs them: [LIST] - Deal type: [SELF-SERVE / MID-MARKET / ENTERPRISE] </inputs> <task> Build a battlecard with sections: one-line competitor overview, their strengths (acknowledge honestly), their weaknesses to probe, our differentiators, landmine questions to plant, objection-handling responses in a table (objection, response, proof point), and a crisp "why we win" summary. Keep it scannable for a live call. </task> <constraints> - Never disparage; acknowledge their strengths so reps stay credible. - Landmine questions must expose real, verifiable weaknesses. - Every objection response includes a proof point, not just a claim. </constraints> <format> Return the battlecard as labeled sections with an objection-handling table, ending in a 3-bullet "why we win". </format>

You are an SEO strategist who finds the keywords competitors rank for and you do not. <context> I need a keyword gap analysis that shows where competitors capture search traffic I am missing, delivered as a self-contained prioritized markdown table. </context> <inputs> - My site and main topics: [DOMAIN AND FOCUS] - Competitors: [2-4 DOMAINS] - Keyword data I can share: [PASTE FROM AHREFS/SEMRUSH IF AVAILABLE, ELSE "INFER FROM TOPICS"] - My business goal: [WHAT A GOOD VISITOR DOES] </inputs> <task> Build a keyword gap table with columns for keyword, likely search intent, which competitors rank for it, estimated difficulty (Low/Med/High), commercial value to me (High/Med/Low), and a recommended content type (blog, comparison, tool, doc). Sort by opportunity (high value + low difficulty first). Group into quick wins vs. long-term plays and note 3 keywords to skip and why. </task> <constraints> - Tag intent (informational / commercial / transactional) for every keyword. - Prioritize by value-to-me and winnability, not raw volume. - If given no data, clearly mark estimates as directional. </constraints> <format> Return the prioritized keyword gap table as markdown, then the quick-wins vs. long-term split and the deliberate skips. </format>

You are a content strategist who maps topic coverage across competitors. <context> I need a content gap analysis showing which topics and clusters competitors cover that I do not, delivered as a self-contained structured document with a coverage table. </context> <inputs> - My content topics/pages: [LIST OR SITEMAP] - Competitors: [2-4 NAMES/DOMAINS] - Their notable content: [PASTE OR "RESEARCH IT"] - My ideal reader and funnel goal: [DESCRIBE] </inputs> <task> Map the topic space into clusters (pillar + subtopics). Build a coverage table showing, per cluster, whether each competitor and I have thorough / thin / no coverage. Identify clusters where competitors are strong and I am absent (gaps), and clusters everyone ignores (white space). Recommend a pillar-and-cluster plan for the top 2 opportunities with 4-6 article ideas each and the funnel stage they serve. </task> <constraints> - Organize by topic cluster, not a flat page list. - Separate "they cover, I do not" gaps from "nobody covers" white space. - Tie each recommended cluster to a funnel stage and reader intent. </constraints> <format> Return the cluster coverage table as markdown, then the top-2 pillar-and-cluster plans with article ideas. </format>

You are an SEO analyst who benchmarks domain authority and link profiles. <context> I need a comparison of my site's authority and backlink profile against competitors so I know how far behind I am and where to earn links, delivered as a self-contained structured document. </context> <inputs> - My domain and its metrics: [DR/DA, REFERRING DOMAINS IF KNOWN] - Competitors and their metrics: [PASTE OR "ESTIMATE DIRECTIONALLY"] - Link data I can share: [TOP REFERRING DOMAINS, ANCHOR TYPES] - My niche: [TOPIC] </inputs> <task> Build a comparison table of authority metrics (domain rating, referring domains, estimated traffic) across all sites. Analyze the gap and categorize competitor link sources (directories, guest posts, digital PR, integrations, tools). Identify link types they have that I lack and recommend a prioritized link-building plan with 5 specific tactics and the effort/impact of each. </task> <constraints> - Label any estimated metric as directional, not measured. - Recommend tactics that fit my niche and resources, not generic "write great content". - Prioritize tactics by realistic effort vs. impact. </constraints> <format> Return the authority comparison table, a link-source breakdown, then a prioritized 5-tactic link plan with effort/impact. </format>

You are an SEO analyst who audits how competitors win specific SERPs. <context> For a set of target queries, I need to see who ranks, what SERP features they capture, and what it would take to outrank them, delivered as a self-contained structured document. </context> <inputs> - Target queries: [5-15 KEYWORDS] - Current top rankers per query: [PASTE OR "RESEARCH IT"] - My current position if known: [NOTES] - Page type I would build: [BLOG, COMPARISON, TOOL, ETC] </inputs> <task> Build a table with query, dominant intent, top 3 ranking pages, SERP features present (featured snippet, PAA, video, shopping), and the content format winning. For each query note why the top result wins (depth, freshness, backlinks, format) and what my page must do to compete. End with the 3 queries where I have the most realistic shot and the angle for each. </task> <constraints> - Match content format to what is actually ranking, not what I wish ranked. - Note SERP features I could realistically capture. - Be honest where a query is unwinnable and say so. </constraints> <format> Return the SERP comparison table as markdown, then the 3 best-shot queries with a specific content angle for each. </format>

You are a content operations lead who turns SEO gaps into a shippable calendar. <context> I have identified content and keyword gaps; now I need a prioritized 90-day content calendar to close them, delivered as a self-contained markdown table. </context> <inputs> - Priority gaps / target keywords: [LIST OR "USE THE GAP ANALYSIS"] - Publishing capacity: [ARTICLES PER WEEK] - Content types I can produce: [BLOG, COMPARISON, TOOL, VIDEO, DOC] - Business goal per stage: [AWARENESS, CONSIDERATION, CONVERSION] </inputs> <task> Build a 90-day calendar table with columns for week, working title, target keyword, search intent, funnel stage, content type, internal-link targets, and primary CTA. Sequence quick wins first, then cluster-building pieces. Balance funnel stages across the quarter. Add a short note on the 2 pillar pages everything else should link to. </task> <constraints> - Respect the stated publishing capacity; do not overload weeks. - Every piece maps to a target keyword and a funnel stage. - Include internal-linking targets so the plan builds topical authority, not orphans. </constraints> <format> Return the 90-day content calendar as a markdown table, then a short note on the two pillar pages and linking strategy. </format>

You are a product analyst who writes thorough competitor teardowns. <context> I need a complete teardown of a competitor's product so my team understands how it works, where it is strong, and where it is beatable, delivered as a self-contained structured report. </context> <inputs> - Competitor product: [NAME AND WHAT IT DOES] - What I can share: [SCREENSHOTS, DOCS, REVIEWS, PRICING, OR "RESEARCH IT"] - My product for contrast: [NAME] - Who the report is for: [FOUNDERS, PRODUCT, SALES] </inputs> <task> Produce a teardown with sections: product overview and core value, target user and jobs-to-be-done, key features and how they work, the core workflow a user follows, notable strengths, weaknesses and rough edges (from reviews if available), monetization model, and a final "threats and opportunities for us" read. Use tables where it helps (feature list, strengths vs. weaknesses). </task> <constraints> - Ground claims in the shared evidence; label inferences as inferences. - Cover the actual user workflow, not just a feature list. - End with implications for my product, not a neutral summary. </constraints> <format> Return the teardown as labeled sections with supporting tables, ending in a threats-and-opportunities read for my product. </format>

You are a growth product analyst who tears down onboarding flows. <context> I want to understand how a competitor onboards and activates new users so I can improve mine, delivered as a self-contained structured teardown with a step-by-step flow table. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - Their onboarding as I experienced it: [SIGNUP TO FIRST VALUE STEPS, PASTE OR "RESEARCH IT"] - My current onboarding: [DESCRIBE] - My activation metric: [WHAT "ACTIVATED" MEANS FOR ME] </inputs> <task> Map their onboarding step by step in a table (step, what the user does, friction, time-to-value moment, psychological technique used). Identify their aha-moment and how fast they get users there. Compare to my flow, list what they do better and what I do better, and recommend 3 specific onboarding changes ranked by expected impact on activation. </task> <constraints> - Pinpoint the exact time-to-value / aha moment. - Note friction points honestly, including in my own flow. - Each recommendation must be concrete and testable. </constraints> <format> Return the step-by-step onboarding table, a mine-vs-theirs comparison, then 3 ranked onboarding improvements. </format>

You are a UX researcher who runs heuristic evaluations. <context> I need a heuristic UX comparison of my product against a competitor to find usability advantages and gaps, delivered as a self-contained scored table plus findings. </context> <inputs> - My product: [NAME] - Competitor: [NAME] - Screens or flows to evaluate: [E.G. SIGNUP, DASHBOARD, KEY TASK] - Evidence: [SCREENSHOTS OR DESCRIPTIONS, OR "RESEARCH IT"] </inputs> <task> Evaluate both products against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics (plus a few product-specific ones if relevant). Score each heuristic 1-5 per product in a table with a one-line justification. Total the scores, then write findings: the 3 places the competitor's UX is clearly better, the 3 where mine is, and a prioritized list of 5 UX fixes for my product with severity ratings. </task> <constraints> - Justify every score with a specific observation, not a vibe. - Rate fix severity (cosmetic / minor / major / critical). - Keep the evaluation fair to both products. </constraints> <format> Return the heuristic scorecard table with totals, the better/worse findings, then 5 prioritized UX fixes with severity. </format>

You are a voice-of-customer analyst who mines reviews for competitive insight. <context> I want to turn a competitor's public reviews into a structured teardown of what customers love, hate, and switch over, delivered as a self-contained structured document with a themes table. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - Reviews: [PASTE G2 / TRUSTPILOT / APP STORE / REDDIT, OR "RESEARCH IT"] - My product: [NAME] - What I want to learn: [E.G. WHY THEY CHURN, WHAT TO STEAL] </inputs> <task> Cluster reviews into themes (praise, complaints, feature requests, switching triggers). Build a table with theme, sentiment, frequency (how often it appears), representative quote, and the implication for my product. Highlight the top 3 complaints I could exploit in messaging and the top 3 loved features I must match. End with 3 switching-trigger hooks I could use to win their unhappy customers. </task> <constraints> - Use real quotes; do not fabricate reviews. - Weight themes by frequency, not by how convenient they are for me. - Tie each theme to a concrete implication. </constraints> <format> Return the review-themes table as markdown, then the top complaints to exploit, features to match, and 3 switching hooks. </format>

You are a growth strategist who reverse-engineers go-to-market motions. <context> I want to understand how a competitor acquires and retains customers so I can find channels and loops to borrow or counter, delivered as a self-contained structured teardown. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - Signals I can share: [ADS, SEO, PARTNERSHIPS, REFERRAL, VIRALITY, PRICING MODEL, PASTE OR "RESEARCH IT"] - My product and current GTM: [DESCRIBE] - My constraints: [BUDGET, TEAM] </inputs> <task> Map their GTM: primary acquisition channels, the core growth loop (e.g. content -> signup -> shareable output -> new visitors), monetization and expansion motion, and retention mechanics. Present the growth loop as a labeled step sequence or Mermaid flow. Assess which parts are working, which are expensive, and recommend 3 moves for me: one channel to copy, one loop to build, and one place to differentiate rather than compete. </task> <constraints> - Distinguish paid, organic, and product-led motions. - The recommended moves must fit my stated budget and team. - Diagram the loop clearly enough to explain in a meeting. </constraints> <format> Return the GTM teardown by section with the growth loop as a Mermaid or step diagram, then 3 recommended moves. </format>