Competitive Landscape
Who you are actually competing with, on what basis, and how they will respond to your next move.
Competitive analysis fails when it is a logo slide. We map strategic groups, benchmark capabilities and economics where they can be observed, tear down pricing and packaging, and, most usefully, war-game how the competitors that matter are likely to respond to your moves.
Who this is for
Leadership teams entering contested space or defending share against a well-funded entrant.
How the work is done
Map the field
Strategic-group mapping on the dimensions customers actually choose on; perceptual maps built from customer data (multidimensional scaling) rather than internal opinion. Substitutes and adjacent entrants included deliberately.
Benchmark what is observable
Pricing and packaging teardowns, feature and capability comparisons, and, from public signals like hiring, filings, and reviews, inferred economics and strategic intent, each tagged with confidence.
War-game the response
For the 2–3 competitors that matter, a structured response analysis: their incentives, constraints, and historical behavior imply reaction functions. Your candidate moves are tested against those responses before you make them.
Build the monitoring system
A lightweight competitive-intelligence cadence: what to track (prices, hiring, releases, reviews), where, and what changes should trigger a strategy conversation rather than a Slack message.
How the Competitive Landscape engagement runs
We begin with the decision, use the evidence that can genuinely change it, and make the reasoning reviewable from first input to final handover.
What we need to begin
- The competitor set the client recognizes, plus whoever they lose to that they may not list.
- Win/loss data with the reason recorded at the deal level.
- Competitor pricing pages, proposals, and collateral the client already holds.
- Evidence of the dimensions customers actually choose on, from sales records rather than opinion.
If an input is unavailable, we state the gap, its effect on confidence, and the agreed workaround. It is never quietly ignored.
Your four-phase engagement map
-
Phase 1
Map the field
Strategic-group mapping on the dimensions customers choose on, with perceptual maps from customer data; substitutes and adjacent entrants included.
-
Phase 2
Benchmark what is observable
Pricing and packaging teardowns, capability comparisons, and economics inferred from public signals, each tagged with confidence.
-
Phase 3
War-game the response
For the two or three competitors that matter, infer reaction functions from incentives and history and test candidate moves against them.
-
Phase 4
Build the monitoring system
A lightweight intelligence cadence: what to track, where, and what changes should trigger a strategy conversation.
Methods and models we draw on
- Strategic-group mapping
- Perceptual mapping (MDS)
- Pricing & packaging teardowns
- Capability benchmarking
- Game-theoretic war-gaming
- Signal-based intelligence (hiring, filings)
- Monitoring system design
Methods are chosen for the problem, not the brochure, expect a subset of these, applied properly, plus whatever the evidence demands.
The decision this enables
Moves chosen with competitor response priced in, and an early-warning system for the moves you did not choose.