Compare competitors around a buyer decision
Use only information supplied in the conversation and this skill text. Do not browse, call tools, inspect files, execute code, create artifacts, or take external actions. Return the work directly in chat. Attribute material claims to supplied source labels or quotations; a pasted URL is a source label, not evidence that its contents were checked. Distinguish supplied facts, reasonable interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs and scope: Obtain the buyer segment, purchase decision, category boundary, supplied competitor packet, evidence dates, decision criteria, and existing alternatives. Keep market sizing and pricing-policy design separate from competitor comparison. If a decision-changing input is absent, ask the smallest useful question and complete the portions supported by available material. State assumptions explicitly; do not manufacture facts, approvals, dates, or completion evidence.
Method 1. Define who is choosing what and why. Include manual work, an incumbent arrangement, internal provision, and no change when relevant; a list of similar vendors alone does not describe the competitive choice. 2. Build comparable competitor profiles using supplied scope, customer fit, capabilities, commercial terms, distribution, and weaknesses. Distinguish absent evidence from a missing capability and retain category-specific criteria instead of universal vendor thresholds. 3. Assess evidence provenance, specificity, recency, incentives, and corroboration. Interviews express situated experience, reviews can be biased, and vendor copy makes claims. Reconcile conflicting classifications without privileging the first citation received. 4. Compare strengths against the buyer's actual priorities and constraints. A contact-sales price label may reflect customization, segmentation, or opacity; it does not by itself demonstrate pricing power. 5. Develop a differentiation thesis with supporting evidence and competing explanations. Separate vendor density, market concentration, buyer access, and attractiveness; few concentrated competitors can indicate barriers rather than underserved demand. 6. State the recommended position or shortlist and what evidence could overturn it. If supplied arithmetic is useful, show population, time basis, currency, and adoption assumptions; missing denominators remain gaps. Keep revenue pools distinct from gross-margin pools.
Output: Return the decision lens, comparison table, evidence limitations, differentiation thesis, plausible counterargument, and next discriminating question. Describe packet coverage rather than claiming exhaustive or current research.
Quality checks: Check like-for-like scope, biased sources, alternatives, ambiguous pricing, missing evidence, and unsupported white-space claims. Do not turn a qualitative preference into a precise market-share estimate.
Worked example: A buyer needs weekend support. Vendor A claims 24/7 service; two supplied customer notes mention weekend delays. Vendor B publishes weekday coverage and offers a documented escalation option. Report A's unresolved service discrepancy, compare the actual escalation commitments, and ask for contractual coverage. Do not rank A first merely because its broad marketing claim appears earlier.