competitive-analysis
做競爭態勢簡報：市場定位、競爭者剖析、比較和策略綜合
中文翻譯
--- name: competitive-analysis description: 建立競爭態勢簡報的框架：市場定位、競爭者深入剖析、比較分析、策略綜合。使用者要求競爭態勢、競爭者分析、同業比較、市場定位評估、策略檢討或投資備忘錄簡報時使用。也會被「who are the competitors to X」、「benchmark X against peers」、「build a market map」，或任何要系統性評估整個產業競爭動態的請求觸發。 --- # 競爭態勢地圖 建立完整的競爭分析簡報。這是兩階段的流程：先蒐集需求並取得大綱的核准，再開始製作。 ## 環境確認 這個 skill 在 PowerPoint add-in 和對話中都能用。開始之前先判斷你在哪一種環境：做法的細節不同，工作流程不變： - **Add-in**：簡報是即時開啟的，直接把投影片做進去。 - **對話（Chat）**：產生一個 `.pptx` 檔（或在使用者上傳的檔案裡製作）。 以下所有內容在兩種環境都適用。 ## 階段 1：界定分析範圍 不同的人對競爭分析的理解不一樣。在做任何研究或投影片之前，先用 `ask_user_question` 確認他們真正想要什麼。不要用猜的：20 張投影片的同業標竿簡報，和 5 張投影片的市場地圖，都叫「競爭分析」，但形式完全不同。 可以的話一輪問完（這個工具一次最多接受 4 個問題）： - **範圍**：是一家標的公司，周圍有競爭者？還是多家公司並排比較，沒有主角？ - **競爭者範圍**：哪些公司在範圍內？如果使用者有點名，就完全照他們的。如果他們說「老面孔就好」，就提出一組建議並確認。 - **對象與深度**：是給已經在這個領域的人快速看一下，還是完整的入門介紹？這決定了你需要市場規模、產業經濟和歷史，還是可以直接跳到比較。 - **投資背景**：他們需要樂觀/基準/悲觀情境和指標訊號嗎？那是下面的步驟 9；如果這是策略檢討而不是投資論點，就跳過。 如果他們上傳了含競爭者資料的 Excel/CSV，在開始抓數字之前，先確認哪些欄位對應哪些指標。來源檔案的忠實度很重要：照給定的值使用，不要重新計算或重新四捨五入。 ## 階段 2：大綱、核准、再製作 **大綱沒有通過核准之前，不要建立投影片。**提出投影片標題和一行的內容說明，給使用者看，取得同意。一份競爭簡報有 10-20 張環環相扣的內容，因為第 4 張錯了就得重做，成本很高。大綱才是便宜的迭代點。 提出大綱時，結構性的決定很適合用 `ask_user_question`：用哪種定位視覺化（2×2 矩陣 / 雷達圖 / 分層圖，見下面步驟 5）、怎麼把競爭者分組（依商業模式 / 區隔 / 姿態，見步驟 4）。這些是品味上的決定，使用者很可能有自己的看法。 --- ## 標準：全程適用 ### 忠實於提示 使用者指定的東西是要求，不是建議： - **投影片標題與章節名稱**：用字完全照他們的。如果他們說「Overview and Competitive Scope」，不要換成「FY2024 Competitive Landscape」。 - **圖表 vs. 表格**：兩者不能互換。「嵌入圖表」指的是真正的圖表物件，長條/扇形上有資料標籤，不是排版過的表格。 - **完整的資料序列**：如果他們列出 7 個競爭者，就要全部 7 個都放。如果他們給 2015-2025，就要包含每一年。 - **精確的數值與比率**：「surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1」指的就是那些比率，不是「7.6x Lyft」。 ### 來源品質，在來源衝突時 1. 10-K / 年報（經查核） 2. 財報電話會議 / 投資人簡報（管理層的說法） 3. 賣方研究（分析師預估，對估算私人公司規模有用） 4. 產業報告（McKinsey、Gartner：市場規模、趨勢） 5. 新聞（只用來看最新發展；要對照第一手來源驗證） ### 資料可比性 - 所有競爭者的指標都來自同一個會計年度；例外要明確標記（「FY24」vs「H1 2024」） - 各競爭者使用相同的指標定義 - 國際公司換算成美元；註明匯率和日期 - 缺少的資料顯示為「-」或「N/A」，預估值加上「[E]」標記，絕對不能留空白 - 每個數字都要有出處：「[公司] [文件]（[日期]）」 ### 設計 - **投影片標題要是洞見，不是標籤。**「規模領先者正在拉開與利基業者的差距」，不是「競爭分析」。 - **訊號指標要量化。**「利潤率低於 40%」，不是「利潤率下滑」。 - **評等要顯示實際數字。**「●●● $160B」，不是只有「●●●」。 - **圖表是真正的圖表物件**：不是偽裝成圖表的文字表格。 **字體**：明確設定，不要依賴預設值： - 投影片標題：28-32pt 粗體 - 章節標題：18-20pt 粗體 - 內文：14-16pt（絕對不低於 14pt） - 表格文字：14pt - 來源/註腳：14pt，灰色 - 同類型的元素在整份簡報裡大小要一致 **圖表：** - 圖例放在圖表邊界內，不要漂浮在繪圖區上方 - 圓餅圖（≤6 個扇區）用右側圖例，折線/長條圖（≤4 個序列）用下方圖例 - 超過 6 個序列 → 拆成多張圖表，或改用表格 - 圓餅圖要在扇區上顯示百分比，不能只放在圖例裡 **表格：** - 淺灰色的標題列，粗體 - 數字靠右對齊，文字靠左對齊 - 儲存格內距要足夠，文字不能碰到邊框 **顏色：**最多 2-3 種顏色。低飽和：深藍、灰色、一個強調色。顏色代表的意義要前後一致。 ### 什麼是嚴格的、什麼是有彈性的 | 一律照做 | 視情況而定 | |---|---| | 使用者有指定時，標題/章節完全照做 | 使用者沒指定時，標題自己取 | | 使用者說圖表就用圖表；說表格就用表格 | 沒指定時，視覺化的類型 | | 他們列出的每個競爭者/資料點 | 沒指定時，競爭者的數量 | | 有指定時，數值完全照做 | 精度沒指定時，四捨五入的方式 | | 標題放得下、不溢出 | 競爭者分成幾個類別 | | 元素不重疊 | 要比較哪些面向 | --- ## 分析工作流程 ### 步驟 0：定義產業的關鍵指標 在做任何事之前：這個產業真正靠哪 3-5 個指標在運轉？在每個競爭者身上一致地使用這些指標。 | 產業 | 關鍵指標 | |---|---| | SaaS | ARR、NRR、CAC payback、LTV/CAC、Rule of 40 | | 支付 | GPV、take rate、attach rate、交易利潤率 | | 市集平台 | GMV、take rate、買家/賣家比、回購率 | | 零售 | 同店銷售、庫存週轉、每平方英尺銷售額 | | 物流 | 量、單位成本、準時送達率 %、產能利用率 | 沒列出來的產業，就挑投資人和營運者拿來做標竿的指標。 ### 步驟 1：市場背景 規模、成長、驅動因素、逆風。要附來源。 正確：「Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)」 錯誤：「The market is large and growing rapidly」 ### 步驟 2：產業經濟 描繪價值如何流動。做法視產業結構而定： - **垂直結構**：價值鏈各層，以及每層典型的利潤率 - **平台/網路**：生態系的參與者，以及他們之間的價值流動 - **分散型**：整併的動態，以及依規模而異的利潤率差異 ### 步驟 3：標的公司概況 ``` | Metric | Value | |---|---| | Revenue | $4.96B | | Growth | +26% YoY | | Gross Margin | 45% | | Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA | | Customers | 134K | | Retention | 92% | | Market Share | ~15% | ``` 多部門的公司要加上拆解： ``` | Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% | | Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% | | Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% | | Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% | ``` *如適用，要註明總部成本 ### 步驟 4：競爭者對應 用適合的角度來分組（如果使用者沒指定，這是很適合用 `ask_user_question` 的決定）： - 依商業模式：平台 / 垂直 / 水平 - 依區隔：企業 / 中小企業 / 消費者 - 依姿態：直接 / 相鄰 / 新興 - 依來源：既有業者 / 顛覆者 / 新進入者 ### 步驟 5：定位視覺化 | 類型 | 何時使用 | |---|---| | 2×2 矩陣 | 有兩個主導的競爭因素 | | 雷達/蜘蛛圖 | 多因素比較 | | 分層圖 | 自然聚成幾個策略群組 | | 價值鏈地圖 | 垂直型產業 | | 生態系地圖 | 平台型市場 | 各產業的 2×2 座標軸組合，請看 `references/frameworks.md`。 ### 步驟 6：競爭者深入剖析 每個競爭者兩張表。 **指標：** ``` | Metric | Value | |---|---| | Revenue | $X.XB | | Growth | +XX% YoY | | Gross Margin | XX% | | Market Cap | $X.XB | | Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA | | Customers | XXK | | Retention | XX% | | Market Share | ~XX% | ``` **質化：** ``` | Category | Assessment | |---|---| | Business | 他們做什麼（1 句話） | | Strengths | 2-3 個重點 | | Weaknesses | 2-3 個重點 | | Strategy | 目前的優先事項 | ``` ### 步驟 7：比較分析 ``` | Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C | |---|---|---|---| | Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B | | Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% | | Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% | ``` ### 步驟 8：策略背景 併購交易（倍數、理由）、合作趨勢、募資模式、監管發展。併購交易表的格式請看 `references/schemas.md`。 ### 步驟 9：綜合 **護城河評估**：針對每個競爭者，在以下項目評為 Strong / Moderate / Weak： | 護城河 | 要評估什麼 | |---|---| | 網路效應 | 使用者/供應商飛輪的強度；跨邊 vs 同邊 | | 轉換成本 | 技術整合的深度、合約鎖定、行為習慣 | | 規模經濟 | 量大時的單位成本優勢；最小有效規模 | | 無形資產 | 品牌、專有資料、監管執照、專利 | **必要的綜合要素：** - 持久的優勢（難以複製）：對應到護城河類別 - 結構性弱點（難以修正） - 目前狀態 vs. 趨勢走向 **投資情境**（如果階段 1 界定範圍時說不需要，就跳過）： ``` | Scenario | Probability | Key driver | |---|---|---| | Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion | | Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues | | Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression | ``` --- ## 品質檢查清單 完成之前： **忠實於提示** - 投影片標題跟使用者指定的一字不差 - 說圖表的地方就是圖表；說表格的地方就是表格 - 他們列出的每個競爭者/年份/資料點都在 - 數值與格式完全照指定 **資料一致性** - 來源檔案的值是直接擷取，沒有重新計算 - 同一個指標出現在每張投影片上都是同一個值 - 小數精度跟來源一致 **版面** - 標題放得下、不溢出 - 元素沒有重疊 - 所有文字都在容器內，沒有被截掉 **內容** - 每個數字都有出處 - 所有指標都來自同一個會計期間（或有標記） - 投影片標題陳述的是洞見，不是主題 - 圖表是真正的圖表物件 每張投影片都要跑標準的視覺驗證檢查：這能抓出你在讀 XML 時看不出來的重疊、溢出和低對比文字。
英文原文
---
name: competitive-analysis
description: Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on "who are the competitors to X", "benchmark X against peers", "build a market map", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry.
---
# Competitive Landscape Mapping
Build a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.
## Environment check
This skill works in both the PowerPoint add-in and chat. Identify which you're in before starting — the mechanics differ, the workflow doesn't:
- **Add-in** — the deck is open live; build slides directly into it.
- **Chat** — generate a `.pptx` file (or build into one the user uploaded).
Everything below applies in both.
## Phase 1 — Scope the analysis
Competitive analysis means different things to different people. Before any research or slide-building, use `ask_user_question` to pin down what they actually want. Don't guess — a 20-slide peer benchmarking deck and a 5-slide market map are both "competitive analysis" and take completely different shapes.
Gather in one round if you can (the tool takes up to 4 questions):
- **Scope** — Single target company with competitors around it? Or multi-company side-by-side with no protagonist?
- **Competitor set** — Which companies are in scope? If the user names them, use exactly those. If they say "the usual suspects," propose a set and confirm.
- **Audience and depth** — Quick read for someone already in the space, or a full primer? This drives whether you need market sizing, industry economics, and history — or can skip to the comparison.
- **Investment context** — Do they need bull/base/bear scenarios and signposts? That's Step 9 below; skip it if this is a strategic review rather than an investment thesis.
If they've uploaded an Excel/CSV with competitor data, confirm which columns map to which metrics before you start pulling numbers. Source-file fidelity matters: use values exactly as given, don't recalculate or re-round.
## Phase 2 — Outline, approve, then build
**Do not create slides until the outline is approved.** Propose slide titles and one-line content notes, present them to the user, get a yes. A competitive deck is 10-20 slides of interlocking content — rebuilding because slide 4 was wrong is expensive. The outline is the cheap iteration point.
When proposing the outline, `ask_user_question` works well for the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix / radar / tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model / segment / posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.
---
## Standards — apply throughout
### Prompt fidelity
When the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:
- **Slide titles and section names** — exact wording. If they say "Overview and Competitive Scope," don't swap in "FY2024 Competitive Landscape."
- **Chart vs. table** — not interchangeable. "Embedded chart" means a real chart object with data labels on the bars/slices, not a formatted table.
- **Complete data series** — if they list 7 competitors, include all 7. If they show 2015-2025, include every year.
- **Exact values and ratios** — "surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1" means those ratios, not "7.6x Lyft."
### Source quality, when sources conflict
1. 10-Ks / annual reports (audited)
2. Earnings calls / investor presentations (management commentary)
3. Sell-side research (analyst estimates, useful for private company sizing)
4. Industry reports (McKinsey, Gartner — market sizing, trends)
5. News (recent developments only; verify against primary sources)
### Data comparability
- All competitor metrics from the same fiscal year; flag exceptions explicitly ("FY24" vs "H1 2024")
- Same metric definitions across competitors
- Convert to USD for international; note the exchange rate and date
- Missing data shows as "-" or "N/A" with an "[E]" flag for estimates — never blank
- Every number has a citation: "[Company] [Document] ([Date])"
### Design
- **Slide titles are insights, not labels.** "Scale leaders pulling away from niche players" — not "Competitive Analysis."
- **Signposts are quantified.** "Margin below 40%" — not "margins decline."
- **Ratings show the actual.** "●●● $160B" — not just "●●●."
- **Charts are real chart objects** — not text tables dressed up to look like charts.
**Typography** — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:
- Slide titles: 28-32pt bold
- Section headers: 18-20pt bold
- Body text: 14-16pt (never below 14pt)
- Table text: 14pt
- Sources/footnotes: 14pt, gray
- Same element type = same size throughout the deck
**Charts:**
- Legend inside the chart boundary, not floating over the plot area
- Right-side legend for pies (≤6 slices), bottom legend for line/bar (≤4 series)
- More than 6 series → split into multiple charts or use a table
- Pie charts show percentages on slices, not just in the legend
**Tables:**
- Light gray header row, bold
- Right-align numbers, left-align text
- Enough cell padding that text doesn't touch borders
**Color:** 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.
### What's strict vs. flexible
| Always | Case-by-case |
|---|---|
| Exact titles/sections when user specifies | Creative titles when they don't |
| Chart when user says chart; table when they say table | Visualization type when unspecified |
| Every competitor/data point they list | Number of competitors when unspecified |
| Exact values when specified | Rounding when precision unspecified |
| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |
| No overlapping elements | Which dimensions to compare |
---
## Analysis workflow
### Step 0 — Industry-defining metrics
Before anything else: what 3-5 metrics does this industry actually run on? Use these consistently across every competitor.
| Industry | Key metrics |
|---|---|
| SaaS | ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, Rule of 40 |
| Payments | GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin |
| Marketplaces | GMV, take rate, buyer/seller ratio, repeat rate |
| Retail | Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft |
| Logistics | Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization |
Industry not listed — pick the metrics investors and operators benchmark on.
### Step 1 — Market context
Size, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.
Correct: "Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)"
Wrong: "The market is large and growing rapidly"
### Step 2 — Industry economics
Map how value flows. Approach depends on industry structure:
- **Vertically structured** — value chain layers, typical margin at each
- **Platform/network** — ecosystem participants, value flows between them
- **Fragmented** — consolidation dynamics, margin differences by scale
### Step 3 — Target company profile
```
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.96B |
| Growth | +26% YoY |
| Gross Margin | 45% |
| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |
| Customers | 134K |
| Retention | 92% |
| Market Share | ~15% |
```
Multi-segment companies add a breakdown:
```
| Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% |
| Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% |
| Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% |
| Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% |
```
*Note corporate costs if applicable
### Step 4 — Competitor mapping
Group by whichever lens fits (this is a good `ask_user_question` decision if the user hasn't specified):
- By business model — platform / vertical / horizontal
- By segment — enterprise / SMB / consumer
- By posture — direct / adjacent / emerging
- By origin — incumbent / disruptor / new entrant
### Step 5 — Positioning visualization
| Type | When |
|---|---|
| 2×2 matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |
| Radar/spider | Multi-factor comparison |
| Tier diagram | Natural clustering into strategic groups |
| Value chain map | Vertical industries |
| Ecosystem map | Platform markets |
See `references/frameworks.md` for 2×2 axis pairs by industry.
### Step 6 — Competitor deep-dives
Two tables per competitor.
**Metrics:**
```
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Revenue | $X.XB |
| Growth | +XX% YoY |
| Gross Margin | XX% |
| Market Cap | $X.XB |
| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |
| Customers | XXK |
| Retention | XX% |
| Market Share | ~XX% |
```
**Qualitative:**
```
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |
| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |
| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |
| Strategy | Current priorities |
```
### Step 7 — Comparative analysis
```
| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |
| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |
| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |
```
### Step 8 — Strategic context
M&A transactions (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising patterns, regulatory developments. See `references/schemas.md` for the M&A transaction table format.
### Step 9 — Synthesis
**Moat assessment** — rate each competitor Strong / Moderate / Weak on:
| Moat | What to assess |
|---|---|
| Network effects | User/supplier flywheel strength; cross-side vs same-side |
| Switching costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits |
| Scale economies | Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale |
| Intangible assets | Brand, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |
**Required synthesis elements:**
- Durable advantages (hard to replicate) — map to moat categories
- Structural vulnerabilities (hard to fix)
- Current state vs. trajectory
**For investment contexts** (skip if the Phase 1 scoping said no):
```
| Scenario | Probability | Key driver |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |
| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |
| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |
```
---
## Quality checklist
Before finishing:
**Prompt fidelity**
- Slide titles match what the user specified, verbatim
- Charts where they said chart; tables where they said table
- Every competitor/year/data point they listed is present
- Exact values and formats as specified
**Data consistency**
- Source-file values extracted directly, not recalculated
- Same metric shows the same value on every slide it appears
- Same decimal precision as the source
**Layout**
- Titles fit without overflow
- No overlapping elements
- All text within containers, no clipping
**Content**
- Every number has a citation
- All metrics from the same fiscal period (or flagged)
- Slide titles state insights, not topics
- Charts are real chart objects
Run standard visual verification checks on every slide — this catches overlaps, overflow, and low-contrast text that don't show up when you're reading back the XML.