Competitive Market Analysis — Generation Prompt

Classification: Internal — Meta-Prompt
Date: 2026-02-13
Artifact: 76 of WO System Series
Purpose: Step-by-step prompt to generate a comprehensive competitive market analysis for any SaaS/platform product in any regulated vertical
Reusability: Replace {{VARIABLES}} with your product/market specifics

How to Use This Prompt

This prompt is designed to be executed in sequence. Each phase builds on the prior phase's outputs. If context compaction occurs between phases, the Checkpoint Artifact from each phase provides sufficient context to resume.

Estimated execution: 5–7 prompt turns across 3 phases
Required inputs: Product description, target market, known competitors (minimum 3), pricing model, regulatory frameworks

Phase 1: Market Landscape & Sizing (Turns 1–2)

Turn 1: Market Definition & TAM/SAM/SOM

You are a senior market analyst specializing in {{INDUSTRY}} technology markets.

## Context
{{PRODUCT_NAME}} is a {{PRODUCT_TYPE}} targeting {{PRIMARY_VERTICALS}}.
Core value proposition: {{VALUE_PROP_1_SENTENCE}}.
Primary regulatory frameworks: {{REGULATIONS}} (e.g., FDA 21 CFR Part 11, HIPAA, SOC2).
Pricing model: {{PRICING_MODEL}} (e.g., subscription SaaS, usage-based, per-seat).
Target ACV range: {{ACV_RANGE}} (e.g., $50K–$500K).

## Task: Market Sizing Analysis

Generate a comprehensive TAM/SAM/SOM analysis with the following structure:

### 1. Market Definition
- Define the primary market category (e.g., "Quality Management Systems for Life Sciences")
- Define 2–3 adjacent/overlapping market categories
- Identify the specific market segment {{PRODUCT_NAME}} addresses
- State the market taxonomy: which analyst frameworks (Gartner MQ, Forrester Wave, IDC) cover this space

### 2. TAM Calculation (Top-Down + Bottom-Up)
**Top-Down:**
- Start from the broadest relevant market size (cite analyst reports with year)
- Apply filters: geography, industry vertical, company size, regulatory requirement
- Show math at each filter step

**Bottom-Up:**
- Count of target organizations by segment (enterprise, mid-market, SMB)
- Average deal size per segment
- Multiply: organizations × penetration rate × ACV = TAM
- Cross-validate top-down vs. bottom-up (variance should be <30%)

### 3. SAM Calculation
- Which portion of TAM is reachable with current product capabilities?
- Geographic constraints (which countries/regions can you serve today?)
- Technical constraints (which deployment models, integrations, languages?)
- Regulatory constraints (which frameworks are you certified/validated for?)

### 4. SOM Calculation (3-Year)
- Year 1: Lighthouse customers ({{N}} accounts × ACV)
- Year 2: Vertical expansion ({{N}} accounts × ACV × NRR)
- Year 3: Market penetration ({{N}} accounts × ACV × NRR)
- Assumptions table: win rate, sales cycle, rep productivity, churn rate

### 5. Market Growth Dynamics
- Historical CAGR (5-year)
- Projected CAGR (5-year forward)
- Growth drivers (list 5+): regulatory changes, digital transformation, AI adoption, M&A, etc.
- Growth inhibitors (list 3+): budget constraints, legacy lock-in, regulatory uncertainty

### 6. Output Format
- Executive summary table (TAM/SAM/SOM with methodology)
- Segment breakdown table (by vertical, geography, company size)
- Growth projection chart data (Year 0–5)
- Assumptions register (every assumption explicitly stated with confidence level)

Cite real market data where available. Where data is unavailable, state assumptions explicitly and provide confidence ranges (low/mid/high).

Checkpoint Artifact: Save output as market-sizing.md

Turn 2: Market Segmentation & ICP Definition

## Context
Using the market sizing from the previous analysis:
TAM: {{TAM_VALUE}}, SAM: {{SAM_VALUE}}, SOM: {{SOM_VALUE}}

## Task: Customer Segmentation & ICP Profiles

### 1. Segmentation Framework
Create a multi-dimensional segmentation matrix:

| Dimension | Segments | Criteria |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| **Industry vertical** | List 4–6 verticals | SIC/NAICS codes, regulatory requirements |
| **Company size** | Enterprise / Mid-market / SMB | Revenue, employees, IT budget |
| **Regulatory maturity** | Greenfield / Manual / Partially automated / Mature | Current QMS state, compliance history |
| **Technology adoption** | Innovator / Early adopter / Early majority / Late majority | Cloud adoption, AI readiness, IT sophistication |
| **Geographic** | Regions with distinct regulatory requirements | FDA vs. EMA vs. MHRA vs. ANVISA jurisdictions |

### 2. Ideal Customer Profile (ICP) — Primary
For the BEST-FIT customer (highest LTV, fastest close, lowest churn):
- Firmographic: industry, size (revenue/employees), geography, regulatory burden
- Technographic: current tech stack, cloud maturity, existing QMS tools
- Behavioral: buying triggers, evaluation process, decision-making unit (DMU)
- Economic: budget range, ROI sensitivity, procurement cycle length
- Pain intensity: quantify current cost of the problem ($ or hours)

### 3. ICP — Secondary (2–3 additional profiles)
Same structure as primary, with explicit trade-offs vs. primary ICP.

### 4. Anti-Persona (Who NOT to sell to)
- Characteristics that predict churn, long sales cycles, or poor fit
- Why they look attractive but aren't

### 5. Customer Journey Triggers
For each ICP, list the top 5 events that trigger buying evaluation:
- Regulatory audit finding
- M&A integration
- Legacy system EOL
- New product launch requiring validation
- Leadership change (new VP Quality, CTO)

### 6. Output Format
- ICP profile cards (1 page each, printable)
- Segmentation matrix with market size per cell
- Prioritization scorecard (weight: market size, fit, urgency, competition, win rate)

Checkpoint Artifact: Save output as customer-segmentation.md

Phase 2: Competitive Intelligence (Turns 3–4)

Turn 3: Competitor Identification & Profiling

## Context
{{PRODUCT_NAME}} targets {{PRIMARY_MARKET}} with {{VALUE_PROP}}.
Known competitors: {{COMPETITOR_LIST}} (minimum 5, ideally 7–10)

## Task: Competitive Landscape Analysis

### 1. Competitor Classification
Categorize every competitor into one of these tiers:

| Tier | Definition | Threat Level | Example Count |
|------|-----------|-------------|---------------|
| **Direct** | Same problem, same buyer, same budget | HIGH | 2–4 |
| **Adjacent** | Overlapping feature set, different primary use case | MEDIUM | 3–5 |
| **Emerging** | Building toward same space, not there yet | WATCH | 2–4 |
| **Incumbent** | Legacy solution being displaced | MEDIUM-HIGH | 2–3 |
| **Platform** | Could add this capability to existing platform | HIGH (if they move) | 1–2 |

### 2. Per-Competitor Deep Profile
For EACH direct and adjacent competitor, create:

**Identity:**
- Company name, HQ, founding year, employee count
- Funding history (total raised, last round, valuation if known)
- Revenue estimate (ARR if SaaS)
- Key customers (named if public)

**Product:**
- Core product description (1 paragraph)
- Architecture type: monolith / microservices / platform / point solution
- Deployment: cloud-only / hybrid / on-premises
- AI/agent capabilities: none / basic / advanced / autonomous
- Compliance certifications held

**Market Position:**
- Primary ICP (who do they sell to best?)
- Pricing model and range
- Sales motion: PLG / inside sales / enterprise field sales / channel
- Market perception (Gartner/Forrester positioning if available)

**Strengths (3–5):** What they do better than {{PRODUCT_NAME}}
**Weaknesses (3–5):** Where {{PRODUCT_NAME}} has clear advantage
**Strategic Direction:** Where they're headed (based on product releases, hiring, funding)

### 3. Competitive Feature Matrix
Create a feature-by-feature comparison table:

| Feature Category | Feature | {{PRODUCT_NAME}} | Competitor A | Competitor B | ... |
|-----------------|---------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Core Workflow | [Feature 1] | ✅ Full | ⚠️ Partial | ❌ None | |
| Compliance | [Feature 2] | ✅ Native | ⚠️ Add-on | ✅ Native | |
| AI/Automation | [Feature 3] | ✅ Autonomous | ❌ None | ⚠️ Basic | |

Categories must include:
- Core workflow functionality
- Compliance & regulatory (per framework)
- AI/agent capabilities
- Integration ecosystem
- Deployment flexibility
- Pricing/packaging
- Support & services

### 4. Output Format
- Competitor landscape map (2×2 positioning)
- Per-competitor 1-page profiles
- Feature comparison matrix (exportable)
- Threat assessment summary (which competitor could hurt most, and when)

Checkpoint Artifact: Save output as competitive-landscape.md

Turn 4: Competitive Moat & Positioning

## Context
Using competitive landscape from previous analysis.

## Task: Moat Analysis & Strategic Positioning

### 1. Moat Classification
For {{PRODUCT_NAME}}, evaluate each moat type (1–10 strength, evidence, build time):

| Moat Type | Current Strength | Evidence | Time to Build | Time for Competitor to Replicate |
|-----------|:---:|---------|:---:|:---:|
| **Structural compliance** | — | — | — | — |
| **Technology architecture** | — | — | — | — |
| **Data network effects** | — | — | — | — |
| **Switching costs** | — | — | — | — |
| **Domain knowledge** | — | — | — | — |
| **Integration ecosystem** | — | — | — | — |
| **Brand/trust** | — | — | — | — |
| **Regulatory certification** | — | — | — | — |

### 2. Competitive Positioning Statement
Using the "We help [WHO] solve [WHAT] by [HOW], unlike [ALTERNATIVES] which [LIMITATION]" framework.

### 3. Win/Loss Analysis Framework
Design the tracking system:
- What data to capture per opportunity (competitor encountered, features evaluated, decision criteria, price comparison)
- Win themes (top 5 reasons customers choose {{PRODUCT_NAME}})
- Loss themes (top 5 reasons customers choose competitors)
- Competitive objection handling (per competitor, per objection)

### 4. Competitive Response Playbook
For each direct competitor:
- Positioning against (1 paragraph elevator pitch)
- Key differentiators to emphasize (top 3)
- Known weaknesses to probe (top 3)
- Trap questions (questions that expose competitor limitations)
- Proof points (customer stories, benchmarks, certifications)

### 5. Market Disruption Scenarios
3 scenarios that could reshape the competitive landscape:
- **Scenario A:** Large platform player enters (e.g., Salesforce, ServiceNow)
- **Scenario B:** Regulatory change (new framework, stricter enforcement)
- **Scenario C:** Technology shift (e.g., open-source QMS, AI commoditization)
For each: likelihood (%), impact (1–10), {{PRODUCT_NAME}} response, preparation timeline

### 6. Output Format
- Moat strength radar chart data
- Positioning statement (internal + external versions)
- Competitive battlecards (1 per direct competitor)
- Disruption scenario planning matrix

Checkpoint Artifact: Save output as competitive-positioning.md

Phase 3: Synthesis & Decision Artifacts (Turn 5)

Turn 5: Integrated Competitive Intelligence Package

## Context
Synthesize all prior analysis into decision-ready artifacts.

## Task: Final Competitive Intelligence Deliverables

### 1. Executive Competitive Brief (2 pages)
For CEO/CTO/Board consumption:
- Market size and growth trajectory (1 paragraph + table)
- Competitive landscape summary (who matters, who doesn't)
- {{PRODUCT_NAME}} positioning and moat strength
- Top 3 strategic risks
- Top 3 strategic opportunities
- Recommended competitive investment priorities

### 2. Competitive Monitoring Dashboard Specification
Define what to track ongoing:

| Signal | Source | Frequency | Alert Threshold |
|--------|--------|-----------|----------------|
| Competitor funding rounds | Crunchbase, press | Real-time | Any round > $10M |
| Competitor product releases | Product blogs, changelog | Weekly | New feature in our core space |
| Competitor pricing changes | Website, sales intel | Monthly | Any change |
| Competitor hiring patterns | LinkedIn, job boards | Monthly | >5 hires in engineering/sales |
| Analyst report positioning | Gartner, Forrester | Quarterly | Category change |
| Customer churn to competitor | CRM, exit surveys | Per event | Any churn |
| Patent filings | USPTO, EPO | Quarterly | Related claims |

### 3. Quarterly Competitive Review Template
- Market size update (any new analyst data?)
- Competitor activity log (what happened this quarter)
- Win/loss analysis results
- Moat strength re-assessment
- Strategic recommendation updates

### 4. Integration Points with Other Artifacts
Map competitive intelligence to:
- **60-business-model.md** → Pricing validation against competitors
- **09-go-to-market-strategy.md** → Positioning and channel strategy
- **11-product-roadmap.md** → Feature prioritization influenced by competitive gaps
- **08-competitive-moat-analysis.md** → Moat investment priorities
- **61-one-pager-investor-brief.md** → Competitive positioning for investors

### 5. Artifact Outputs
Save as separate files:
- `competitive-executive-brief.md` — 2-page board-ready summary
- `competitive-battlecards.md` — Per-competitor sales enablement
- `competitive-monitoring-spec.md` — Ongoing tracking system design
- `competitive-feature-matrix.md` — Detailed feature comparison

Variable Reference

Variable	Description	Example (CODITECT WO System)
`{{PRODUCT_NAME}}`	Your product	CODITECT Bioscience QMS
`{{PRODUCT_TYPE}}`	Product category	Autonomous AI-powered QMS platform
`{{PRIMARY_VERTICALS}}`	Target industries	Life sciences, pharma, biotech, medical devices
`{{VALUE_PROP_1_SENTENCE}}`	Core value prop	AI-native work order management with built-in FDA/HIPAA/SOC2 compliance
`{{REGULATIONS}}`	Regulatory frameworks	FDA 21 CFR Part 11, HIPAA, SOC2, ISO 13485
`{{PRICING_MODEL}}`	How you charge	Per-seat subscription + usage-based agent compute
`{{ACV_RANGE}}`	Annual contract value	$96K–$500K
`{{COMPETITOR_LIST}}`	Known competitors	Veeva Vault QMS, MasterControl, Greenlight Guru, TrackWise, ETQ Reliance
`{{PRIMARY_MARKET}}`	Market category	Quality Management Systems for Regulated Industries
`{{INDUSTRY}}`	Broad industry	Life Sciences & Healthcare Technology

Execution Checklist

#	Phase	Turn	Output Artifact	Status
1	Market Sizing	Turn 1	`market-sizing.md`	☐
2	Segmentation	Turn 2	`customer-segmentation.md`	☐
3	Competitor Profiles	Turn 3	`competitive-landscape.md`	☐
4	Moat & Positioning	Turn 4	`competitive-positioning.md`	☐
5	Synthesis	Turn 5	Executive brief, battlecards, monitoring spec	☐

Total new artifacts produced: 6–8 files
Artifacts to update after execution: 08, 09, 11, 54-competitive-comparison.jsx, 60, 61

Cross-Reference to WO System Artifacts

Existing Artifact	Relationship	Action After Analysis
05-market-opportunity.md	Superseded by Phase 1 output	Archive or merge
06-market-opportunity-deep-dive.md	Complementary — merge TAM data	Reconcile numbers
07-tam-sam-som-analysis.md	Superseded by Phase 1 output	Archive or merge
08-competitive-moat-analysis.md	Extended by Phase 2 output	Merge moat analysis
09-go-to-market-strategy.md	Fed by Phase 2 positioning	Update positioning section
10-roi-quantification.md	Validated by competitor pricing	Cross-check value claims
54-competitive-comparison.jsx	Rebuilt from Phase 2 feature matrix	Regenerate dashboard

This prompt is designed to be portable across verticals. Replace the variables, execute the turns in sequence, and the output will be a complete competitive intelligence package grounded in real market data and structured for decision-making.

How to Use This Prompt​

Phase 1: Market Landscape & Sizing (Turns 1–2)​

Turn 1: Market Definition & TAM/SAM/SOM​

Turn 2: Market Segmentation & ICP Definition​

Phase 2: Competitive Intelligence (Turns 3–4)​

Turn 3: Competitor Identification & Profiling​

Turn 4: Competitive Moat & Positioning​

Phase 3: Synthesis & Decision Artifacts (Turn 5)​

Turn 5: Integrated Competitive Intelligence Package​

Variable Reference​

Execution Checklist​

Cross-Reference to WO System Artifacts​