This competitive analysis template compares an own offer, a direct alternative, and a do-it-yourself substitute against the same customer task. Keep unknown facts and gaps in your own offer as visible as the competitors' details.
Define the task and the comparison scope
The original fictional segment is small clubs preparing event posters from supplied copy. The comparison uses three authored specimen records:
| Source card | Supplied offer facts |
|---|---|
| A: Own draft brief | Custom event-poster formatting from supplied copy, including one revision. No price or output format supplied. |
| B: Direct layout-service sheet | Two revisions and print-ready PDF. Turnaround and price not supplied. |
| C: Indirect template-pack description | Editable layouts, without bespoke editing. Actual user effort and price not supplied. |
These are fictional evidence cards, not observations of real businesses or market demand. Source dates are not supplied, so a real comparison would need current references before making public claims.
The SBA's competitive-analysis guidance recommends defining competitors by product or service and market segment, including indirect alternatives. This worked matrix applies that approach to an original small offer packet.
Apply the same factors to all three options
| Factor | A: Own offer | B: Direct alternative | C: DIY substitute |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who does the formatting? | Service provider. | Layout-service provider. | The club using editable layouts. |
| Revision scope | One revision. | Two revisions. | No bespoke editing described. |
| Output format | Not supplied. | Print-ready PDF. | Editable layouts; final output conditions not supplied. |
| Required club work | Supply the copy; other preparation unknown. | Preparation requirements not supplied. | Customize the layouts; actual effort unknown. |
| Turnaround | Unknown. | Unknown. | Depends on work not measured in this record. |
| Price and basis | Unknown. | Unknown. | Unknown. |
| Source currency | Date not supplied. | Date not supplied. | Date not supplied. |
Select a factor in the example to inspect each source card and the remaining questions. A missing fact is not a competitor weakness. It is information you still need before making that comparison.
The same principle applies to A. The own offer has no stated output format. Clarifying that gap may matter more than searching for a disadvantage in B.
Include the substitute without treating it as inferior
Choose Include indirect alternative to bring C into the view. The facts in A and B stay unchanged; the comparison's coverage expands.
A club willing and able to customize its poster may consider a template pack. Another club may want someone else to do the formatting. The source cards do not establish how much effort either club will spend or which approach it will prefer.
Ask which alternatives serve the same task, including options that distribute the work differently. A useful segment definition keeps that choice visible without claiming that every poster service competes for every customer.
Replace a ranking with a question the evidence can support
The statement “our offer is fastest and cheapest” has no basis in the supplied records. All prices are unknown, and the service turnaround times are not stated.
The worked strategic question is narrower:
Could the own offer serve clubs that want layout help from copy they already have, once its output format, preparation work, time, and price are defined?
That question identifies a possible positioning direction and the facts to investigate. It does not declare a winner or estimate market share from three source cards.
Turn the matrix into a research plan
First, clarify A's own deliverable and scope. Then obtain current, comparable information about the alternatives and ask prospective customers about the work they want to keep or hand off.
Keep factual corrections separate from interpretations. For example, adding A's confirmed output format would change a matrix entry. Deciding that the format matters to a particular club requires customer context as well.
The blank template records segment, customer task, own/direct/indirect alternatives, common factors, source references, unknowns, interpretation, and next questions. A recommendation note requires a source and a rationale.
Build a comparison for your own segment
Create one complete, self-contained HTML competitive analysis.
Customer segment and specific task: [DESCRIBE]
Own offer and source facts: [PASTE]
Direct alternatives and dated source facts: [PASTE]
Indirect substitutes and dated source facts: [PASTE]
Common comparison factors: [LIST]
Known limits, missing facts, and source dates: [PASTE]
Strategic question and next research steps: [PASTE]
Use the same factors for own, direct, and indirect options. Put each fact
beside its source and keep unknowns visible. Show gaps in the own offer
as well as the alternatives. Do not infer poor quality from missing data.
Let readers select a factor to inspect source cards and switch direct/
indirect coverage without changing the underlying facts. Compare an
unsupported ranking claim with a bounded strategic question. Do not
invent prices, effort, demand, market share, or competitor weaknesses.
Include a blank matrix and recommendation notes requiring source and
rationale. Preserve temporary notes across views, mark old review output
stale after edits, and ask before resetting. No automated winner score,
live market-data claim, or saved research record. Label specimens fictional.
Use text of at least 16px, labeled keyboard-accessible controls, and
a layout readable at 360px without horizontal scrolling. Put CSS and
JavaScript inline with no external dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Ask a teammate to challenge the comparison
Give the reviewer the matrix and source cards together. Ask which factor is not comparable, which alternative is missing, and which own-offer fact needs confirmation before writing a positioning statement.
An HTML comparison shared through NOS gives that reviewer the facts and the proposed question in one reading copy. Use their comments to refine the research list, starting with A's missing output format. Keep the conclusion open until the missing facts and customer context have been examined.