SousMeow
Research & Insights Intermediate Available now Free

Compare Three Competitors

Compare three competitors and leave with a clear next move.

Competitive research gets sloppy when teams fill gaps with guesses. This Cookbook frames one positioning question, compares three named alternatives against your offer, and forces every unknown to stay visible. Enter only facts you already know or can verify from public sources. Every step is told to invent nothing about funding, revenue, feature depth, or market share. You leave with a research frame, competitor cards, comparison tables, gaps, opportunity notes, and a short decision memo.

Made for
Founders and PMs who need a fast, honest competitor read before positioning
You leave with
research frame, competitor cards, offer/audience/pricing comparison, gaps, and a short decision memo
Time
about 55 minutes
Steps
8 guided steps
Requires
any AI you already use (a free chat account is usually enough); sample answers included where available
Completed runs
198 (demo metric)
Average rating
4.6 / 5 (demo metric)

Also in Start Here Selected by SousMeow Recently Added Deep Workflows

Start free to begin

Have an account? Sign in.

Stages

3 stages in sequence
  1. 1

    Field

    Frame the question and name the three competitors.

    2 steps
  2. 2

    Compare

    Compare offers, audiences, pricing signals, and visible gaps.

    4 steps
  3. 3

    Conclude

    Turn the comparison into opportunity notes and a decision memo.

    2 steps

Workflow steps

8 steps · completed in order

Stage 1: Field

  1. 1

    Frame the competitor question

    Turn the research goal into one answerable comparison question with facts and unknowns separated.

    Competitor work fails when the team starts collecting screenshots before naming the decision. This step narrows the question, anchors your offer, and makes unknowns explicit. Common mistakes: asking for a total market map, inventing what competitors are good at, or hiding the deadline. Need help if the AI sounds too confident? Paste again and require "unknown" for unsupported facts. You are ready when the frame could guide a one-hour public research pass.

    • Question supports a real decision The question points to the entered decision and deadline, not a generic market scan.
    • Offer baseline uses only supplied facts No extra features, promises, traction, or buyer claims appear.
    • Unknowns stay visible Missing competitor facts are named instead of guessed.
  2. 2

    Name the three real competitors

    Create competitor cards and honest comparison boundaries before analysis begins.

    A useful comparison starts with real alternatives and clear limits. This step prevents made-up competitors, bloated categories, and fake certainty. Common mistakes: adding a fourth company, claiming one is the leader without evidence, or treating missing data as a weakness. Need help if the AI invents a market map? Paste again and say exactly three named alternatives only. You are ready when every competitor row ties back to the Pantry.

    • Exactly three competitors The table contains only the three named alternatives from the Pantry.
    • Boundaries prevent overclaiming The scope excludes unsupported rankings, traction, revenue, or feature claims.
    • Missing facts are explicit Unknown details are listed instead of quietly inferred.

Stage 2: Compare

  1. 3

    Compare the offers

    Put your offer and the three alternatives side by side by promise, workflow, overlap, and unknowns.

    Offer comparison shows what a buyer thinks each option does. This step keeps the view practical and public-fact based. Common mistakes: scoring quality without trying the product, adding hidden features, or turning a missing fact into a weakness. Need help if the AI guesses? Paste again and require every unsupported cell to say unknown. You are ready when the table could be checked against public pages.

    • All four offers appear Your offer and exactly three competitors have rows.
    • Difference is evidence-based The visible difference is traceable to supplied facts or marked as tentative.
    • Unsupported facts become research tasks Missing feature details are listed for verification.
  2. 4

    Compare the audiences

    Map likely audience overlap without inventing personas or buyer motives.

    Competitors may overlap on product but serve different buyers. This step separates audience facts from assumptions. Common mistakes: inventing job titles, claiming a competitor targets enterprise, or assuming all alternatives fight for the same buyer. Need help if the AI creates personas? Paste again and require "from supplied facts" in every audience row. You are ready when overlap and gaps are both clearly caveated.

    • Audience claims are sourced to supplied facts Rows do not invent buyer roles, demographics, or motives.
    • Overlap is not overstated The overlap paragraph uses cautious language where evidence is thin.
    • Gaps require verification Possible gaps are framed as possible, not proven.
  3. 5

    Compare pricing signals

    Separate known pricing facts from missing pricing research.

    Pricing is easy to fake and hard to unwind. This step refuses to claim cheap, premium, or freemium unless the Pantry supports it. Common mistakes: guessing monthly prices, assuming a free trial, or treating unknown price as expensive. Need help if the AI creates numbers? Paste again and forbid any dollar amount not in your known facts. You are ready when pricing confidence is proportional to evidence.

    • No invented prices Dollar amounts or tier names appear only if supplied.
    • Caveats block false conclusions The response says what cannot be claimed about price yet.
    • Pricing research tasks are concrete Evidence gaps name public pricing facts to collect.
  4. 6

    Map visible gaps

    Turn the comparisons into possible white spaces without pretending they are proven.

    Gaps are hypotheses until verified. This step makes opportunity visible while keeping evidence honest. Common mistakes: declaring competitors do not have features, mistaking unclear copy for absence, or framing every gap as a moat. Need help if the AI overclaims? Paste again and require "if true" language. You are ready when the gap map gives useful research targets.

    • Gaps are framed as possible The map does not treat missing evidence as proof.
    • White space is useful and cautious The opportunity is specific but not claimed as proven.
    • Risks are visible The response explains how public research could invalidate the gaps.

Stage 3: Conclude

  1. 7

    Write opportunity notes

    Translate the gap map into positioning notes and claims to avoid.

    The value of competitor work is the next message or product bet it sharpens. This step creates usable opportunity notes while protecting against false claims. Common mistakes: using superlatives, attacking competitors, or forgetting what is still unverified. Need help if the AI writes marketing hype? Paste again and ban "best," "only," and unsupported claims. You are ready when the notes could guide a landing-page test without legal or research regret.

    • Notes are actionable Each note can guide copy, research, or product focus.
    • Opening is not overclaimed The strongest opening stays evidence-based or explicitly tentative.
    • Unsupported claims are blocked The banned claims list includes traction, feature, and pricing overreach where relevant.
  2. 8

    Pack the decision memo

    Finish with a short memo, recommended next move, and evidence to collect next.

    Research should end in a decision-ready artifact, not a pile of notes. This step names the recommended move and the evidence still needed. Common mistakes: pretending uncertainty is gone, recommending a build without validation, or burying the next action. Need help if the memo is too long? Paste again and cap it at three sections. You are ready when the memo can be pasted into a team update.

    • Memo reflects approved research The summary does not add new competitor facts.
    • Next move fits the deadline The recommendation is practical before the entered decision deadline.
    • Evidence list reduces uncertainty The next evidence items target unknowns surfaced earlier.

Your information

8 details, answered once
  • What decision should this competitor read support? Name the positioning, product, pricing, or audience question. No vague "understand the market."
  • Your offer Describe what you sell or plan to sell. Stick to current facts and intended audience.
  • Competitor A Name a real alternative. Add a public URL if you have it.
  • Competitor B Name a second real alternative. Direct, indirect, or status quo is fine if real.
  • Competitor C Name a third real alternative. Do not invent a competitor to fill the slot.
  • Known competitor facts Paste only facts you have from public pages, screenshots, notes, or firsthand use. If you do not know pricing, say unknown.
  • Target audience Who you most want to win. Use your own current audience facts, not imagined competitor segments.
  • Decision deadline When this comparison must inform a choice.

Finished files

What you export when every step is approved

One Markdown file per approved step, plus kit.html (opens in any browser, offline) and a README of what you approved.

  • kit.html Offline HTML reader for every approved step
  • 01-frame-the-question.md Frame the competitor question
  • 02-name-three-competitors.md Name the three real competitors
  • 03-compare-offers.md Compare the offers
  • 04-compare-audiences.md Compare the audiences
  • 05-compare-pricing-signals.md Compare pricing signals
  • 06-map-gaps.md Map visible gaps
  • 07-write-opportunity-notes.md Write opportunity notes
  • 08-pack-decision-memo.md Pack the decision memo
  • README.md Manifest of what you approved
Nearby guided projects you can start next
Research & Insights Available Synthesize Interview Notes Turn interview notes into themes you can act on. 6 steps · 50 min · Intermediate · 4.7 ★ · Free