Build a competitor research report
A one-off research workflow: agents use a company name to find competitors and gather information about their products and reviews. It can be adapted for a B2B team.
How this works
A one-off research workflow: agents use a company name to find competitors and gather information about their products and reviews. It can be adapted for a B2B team. A competitor report should explain alternatives available to a particular buyer, including substitutes that do not look like the same product category. A long list of names is less useful than a smaller comparison with clear evidence and known gaps.
Start with the buyer's job and research a bounded set of alternatives. Separate verified product facts, vendor claims, and customer-review themes. The assistant can organize evidence and draft comparisons; the owner decides which differences matter for strategy.
Before you start
Comparison question
Define the buyer, use case, geography, and decision to support.
Research access
Use available public sources or supplied exports and record unavailable pages.
Comparison criteria
Agree feature, pricing, distribution, and customer-experience dimensions before collecting evidence.
Prepare the inputs
- reference_offer
- Required
Product description
State the job it serves.
- buyer_segment
- Required
Audience constraints
Include geography and organization size where relevant.
- candidate_alternatives
- Required
Names or descriptions
Include substitutes and manual approaches.
- criteria
- Required
Comparison fields
Define comparable units.
- research_cutoff
- Required
Date
Record publication and retrieval dates separately.
Implementation, step by step
Map alternatives
- Search by the buyer's problem as well as product terminology.
- Separate direct competitors, adjacent products, and do-it-yourself substitutes.
Checkpoint: A scoped candidate map.
Select the research set
- Choose alternatives that plausibly serve the defined buyer.
- Explain exclusions and avoid equating search prominence with market share.
Checkpoint: A justified shortlist.
Collect primary facts
- Read current product documentation, pricing conditions, and public company descriptions.
- Save passage references; mark vendor-reported claims as such.
Checkpoint: A dated fact matrix.
Analyze customer evidence
- Group review themes by use case and publication period.
- Preserve counterexamples and do not treat a few vocal reviewers as a representative survey.
Checkpoint: A qualified customer-experience summary.
Compare decision-relevant differences
- Normalize tiers, regions, and billing units before drawing comparisons.
- Ask the assistant to explain trade-offs without unsupported winner rankings.
Checkpoint: A comparison draft linked to evidence.
Prepare the report
- Summarize implications, uncertain assumptions, and follow-up questions.
- Save the report and underlying matrix in the approved knowledge store or local files.
Checkpoint: A reviewable research packet.
Decisions along the way
Pricing is not public
Record quote-only rather than estimate.
A review concerns an old version
Separate it from current product evidence.
A substitute solves only part of the job
Explain the remaining work rather than exclude it automatically.
What you will produce
competitor-matrix.csv
CSVSupports comparisons and future updates.
Include: alternative · segment · criterion · value · source_ref · date · confidence
competitor-report.md
MarkdownHelps the team decide what to investigate next.
Include: question · alternatives · tradeoffs · review_themes · gaps
Check the result
- Verify central product claims against primary pages.
- Check comparable plan and region assumptions.
- Inspect whether multiple sources repeat one underlying announcement.
- Keep missing facts distinct from negative findings.
When something goes wrong
Search results overrepresent one vendor
Use problem-based queries and another source type.
Reviews lack contextual detail
Report a tentative theme with sample limits.
Evidence changes during research
Refresh affected rows and date the revision.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Compare alternatives for a small team scheduling client visits.
Inputs
Synthetic example. Synthetic A offers self-booking; B handles staff routing; C is a shared calendar. A's route optimization is undocumented.
Expected result
Synthetic expected result. The report treats C as a manual substitute and leaves A's routing capability unknown. It recommends verifying routing needs before choosing a comparison winner.
Run a small pilot
Start small
One buyer segment and a few plausible alternatives.
Record the baseline
Record analyst time and unsupported claims in the current research process.
Agree success criteria
Agree evidence completeness and decision usefulness with the report owner.
Stop or revise
Stop conclusions that depend on unavailable or incomparable facts.
Keep the scope clear
- A research report is not a purchase recommendation or procurement authorization.
- Public company descriptions do not establish internal operating practices.
Check before using
Check that the competitors are relevant and verify key claims against primary sources.
Business activities
- Research customers and markets
- Plan products and business changes
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: A company to compare · Access to search services and a knowledge base
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow