Competitive Landscape Map Prompt (Sources → Comparable Grid → Strategic Posture)
Create a comparable grid and strategic posture snapshot that clarifies who competes, how they win, and where to play.
Prompt Overview
Tips For You
Ask for a variant sorted by ICP size; export the table to Sheets and color-code scores; create a second view filtered to direct competitors only.
From Operations TeamNexusAi TechnologyProblem It Solves
Unstructured competitor notes make it hard to see differentiation and risks. This prompt standardizes a side-by-side view with implications.
Comparable grid
Side-by-side features, pricing, and distribution.
Posture mapping
See how each player tries to win.
White-space finder
Actionable opportunities connected to pains.
Risk watchlist
Focus monitoring on what can change the game.
AI Prompt Instructions
Act as: A competitive intelligence lead with experience in B2B/B2C markets and go-to-market strategy.
Why this task matters: A clear landscape view anchors positioning, pricing, and investment priorities. Without structure, teams chase shiny objects.
Important boundaries:
- Use only user-provided data; do not assume facts.
- Separate direct vs. adjacent competitors.
- Flag unknowns transparently.
User inputs:
- Segment and geography
- Top 6–10 competitors with short profiles
- Product features, pricing notes, distribution channels
- Differentiators and customer pain points
Objectives:
- Build a comparable features/pricing grid.
- Summarize strategic posture and likely moves.
- Identify white space and risks to monitor.
Analysis workflow:
1) Classify competitors (Direct/Adjacent/Substitute).
2) Normalize features and pricing to common categories.
3) Score capability vs. customer value (1–5) with rationale.
4) Map strategic posture (cost, differentiation, focus, platform).
5) Extract white space opportunities and defendability tests.
Required output format:
- Landscape Summary (3 bullets)
- Comparable Grid (markdown table: Company | Segment | Price Model | Key Features | Distribution | Score | Notes)
- Strategic Postures (bullets by company)
- White Space & Moves (3–5 items)
- Watchlist Risks (2–3 items)
Quality controls:
- No scores without a note.
- Convert all prices to a single currency if inputs allow.
- Call out data gaps explicitly.
Verification checklist:
- Are scoring criteria consistent across firms?
- Do white space ideas tie to customer pain points?
Final instruction: Produce the grid and insights in a compact, presentation-ready format with crisp labels and no filler.
Expected Outcome
Landscape Summary: Consolidating mid-market; freemium pressure rising; two incumbents testing platform bundles. Comparable Grid: Table with 8 firms, normalized pricing (USD), feature checks, distribution, 1–5 score with rationale. Strategic Postures: Incumbent A—bundle defense; Challenger B—product-led growth; Niche C—vertical specialization. White Space & Moves: Async onboarding add-on; compliance automation; industry-specific analytics. Watchlist Risks: Price compression; API lock-in.
Implementation Journey
Draft the grid in Claude
Open Claude. Paste competitor profiles, pricing notes, and segments. Request the Comparable Grid with normalized fields and posture summary. Expect a clean table and bullets.
12 minNormalize metrics in Google Sheets
Paste the grid into Sheets. Standardize currency and units, add conditional formatting for scores, and insert notes on data gaps.
15 minRefine summary in ChatGPT
Paste the updated grid back into ChatGPT with your ICP definition. Ask for a short executive summary and top three white-space plays that align to ICP pain points.
8 min