competitor-alternatives

Competitor & Alternative Pages

Use the company SSOT when present: follow ../_shared/ssot-consumption.md and the project manifest to load only relevant approved context. Preserve covered strategic meaning while keeping this skill’s existing scope and frameworks.

You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively.

Before Starting

Check for product marketing context first: If .agents/product-marketing-context.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing-context.md in older setups), read it before asking questions. Only ask for what it does not cover.

Load the shared reference: read ../_shared/evidence-gaps.md (relative to this skill's folder). Label every claim, finding, and number Sourced, Assumed, or Gap.

Scope: this skill writes public pages that prospects and searchers read. If the user wants a battle card or other internal sales material, say in one line that sales-enablement covers it and hand off. Do not ask which they want.

Useful inputs (ask only if missing and it would change the page):

1. Your product: value proposition, differentiators, best-fit customer, pricing, honest weaknesses.
2. The competitor: who they are, how they position, what switchers complain about.
3. Goal: SEO capture, converting competitor users, or supporting sales conversations.

If an accepted market-entry brief or canonical SSOT already establishes the target segment, use that segment. Do not select a different ICP inside the page workflow. Flag conflicts with canonical SSOT for review through ssot-context-loop.

Assess decision-specific readiness using ../_shared/context-establishment.md. If no accepted target exists, route market selection to market-entry-brief or context establishment to product-marketing-context. Do not score/select an ICP inside page production. An explicit exploratory audience may support a bounded page draft, preserving its assumption, risk, scope and validation trigger. Read competitor-profiling artifacts before requesting targeted verification. Hold only unsupported consequential claims/choices; continue independent page structure or supported sections. Missing evidence uses Gap placeholders with provable fallbacks, not uncited public knowledge or assumed capabilities. End with the consequential gaps/owners and separate approval dependencies.

Never invent stats, customer quotes, or competitor weaknesses. Proof you do not have is a [Gap: ...] placeholder. A page with open Gaps is labeled "Draft, not publish-ready" at the top. A page that is mostly placeholders is not a draft.

---

Core Principles

1. Honesty Builds Trust

• Acknowledge competitor strengths
• Be accurate about your limitations
• Don't misrepresent competitor features
• Readers are comparing: they'll verify claims

2. Depth Over Surface

• Go beyond feature checklists
• Explain why differences matter
• Include use cases and scenarios
• Show, don't just tell

3. Help Them Decide

• Different tools fit different needs
• Be clear about who you're best for
• Be clear about who competitor is best for
• Reduce evaluation friction

4. Modular Content Architecture

• Competitor data should be centralized
• Updates propagate to all pages
• competitor-profiling owns reusable research; page data is a derived view

---

Page Formats

Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular)

Search intent: User is actively looking to switch from a specific competitor

URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor] or /[competitor]-alternative

Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]"

Page structure:

1. Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
2. Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
3. Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
4. Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
5. Migration path
6. Social proof from switchers
7. CTA

---

Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)

Search intent: User is researching options, earlier in journey

URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives

Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]"

Page structure:

1. Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
2. What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework)
3. List of alternatives (you first, but include real options)
4. Comparison table (summary)
5. Detailed breakdown of each alternative
6. Recommendation by use case
7. CTA

Important: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.

---

Format 3: You vs [Competitor]

Search intent: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor

URL pattern: /vs/[competitor] or /compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]

Target keywords: "[You] vs [Competitor]", "[Competitor] vs [You]"

Page structure:

1. TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
2. At-a-glance comparison table
3. Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations)
4. Who [You] is best for
5. Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
6. What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
7. Migration support
8. CTA

---

Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]

Search intent: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)

URL pattern: /compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]

Page structure:

1. Overview of both products
2. Comparison by category
3. Who each is best for
4. The third option (introduce yourself)
5. Comparison table (all three)
6. CTA

Why this works: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable.

---

Essential Sections

TL;DR Summary

Start every page with a quick summary for scanners: key differences in 2-3 sentences.

Paragraph Comparisons

Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters.

Feature Comparison

For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation.

Pricing Comparison

Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size.

Who It's For

Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust.

Migration Section

Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched.

For detailed templates: See references/templates.md

---

Content Architecture

Derived competitor page data

Consume reusable profiles and source-linked findings from competitor-profiling, plus approved company context. A page-oriented data view may select fields for rendering, retaining source/finding IDs, scope, dates, confidence, approval and gaps. It cannot become another competitor authority or overwrite approved company facts. Read references/content-architecture.md.

Research dependencies

Route competitor capabilities/pricing verification to competitor-profiling, customer switching evidence to customer-research (closed outcomes to win-loss-intelligence), and migration capability facts to the internal product owner. Do not own deep profiling, recruitment or a new reusable intelligence library. Request targeted updates when a material claim is stale; do not auto-refresh all competitor research. Return new source evidence to its domain owner/PMC rather than promoting page wording into context.

---

SEO Considerations

Keyword Targeting

Internal Linking

• Link between related competitor pages
• Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons
• Create hub page linking to all competitor content

Schema Markup

Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"

---

Output Format

Competitor Data File

Optional derived page view in YAML, referencing existing profiles/findings and approved company sources. Preserve provenance/status; no new authority store.

Page Content

For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.

Page Set Plan

Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.

Inputs and assumptions

A separate note after the page copy, never inside it. See ../_shared/evidence-gaps.md.

Assumptions and open questions

At most 5 bullets combined. Key assumptions first, then 2 or 3 questions.

Evidence gaps

The ranked top five, then an appendix with the rest. The 5-bullet cap above does not apply here.

---

Output Rules

• No em dashes in output.

Related Skills

• search-discoverability: For building competitor pages at scale
• marketing-copy: For writing compelling comparison copy
• search-discoverability: For optimizing competitor pages
• search-discoverability: For FAQ and comparison schema
• sales-enablement: For battle cards, internal sales collateral, decks, and objection docs
• positioning-strategy: For the competitive position these pages should express