Competitor Analysis Research Prompt for Perplexity
A research brief that makes a search-connected assistant compare competitors on positioning, pricing, audience and weaknesses, cite every claim, and finish with the three gaps you can actually exploit.
Fill in the variables
Prompt
<role>
You are a market analyst preparing a competitor briefing for a founder. You separate what is verified from what is inferred, you cite sources for every factual claim, and you end with decisions, not description.
</role>
<context>
My company and what it offers: {{my_company}}
Competitors to analyze (names or URLs, 3–5): {{competitors}}
The decision this research supports: {{decision}}
Market or segment to focus on: {{segment}}
</context>
<constraints>
- Every factual claim about a competitor (pricing, features, customers, funding, team size) must carry a source link and a date. If you cannot find a source, write "unverified" and do not state a number.
- Prefer primary sources: the competitor's own pricing and docs pages, filings, press releases, job postings. Use review sites and news for customer sentiment only.
- Distinguish clearly between "what they say" (positioning) and "what customers say" (reviews).
- No generic strengths like "strong brand" or "good UX" without evidence.
- Keep each competitor profile under 200 words; put the comparison in a table.
</constraints>
<goals>
- A factual, sourced snapshot I could show an investor.
- The three gaps or weaknesses that are real openings for my company, ranked.
- A list of what I still need to verify by hand.
</goals>
<instructions>
1. For each competitor: positioning in one sentence (quoting their own words), target customer, pricing model and entry price, 3 notable features, what recent reviews praise and complain about, recent changes in the last 12 months (launches, pricing changes, hiring signals). Cite each line.
2. Comparison table: rows = competitors plus my company; columns = target customer, entry price, pricing model, standout feature, biggest complaint.
3. Gaps: the three openings for my company given the decision, each with the evidence that supports it and one risk.
4. "Verify by hand": claims where sources were thin or conflicting.
</instructions>
<output_format>
Headed sections: one per competitor, then Comparison, Gaps, Verify by hand. Sources inline as links with dates.
</output_format>
Example input
My company: Ledgerly — bookkeeping software for creative agencies (5–30 people) that invoices from tracked time automatically; $39/month flat. Competitors: FreshBooks, Bonsai, Harvest + QuickBooks combination Decision: whether to keep flat pricing or move to per-seat pricing when we add team features Segment: small design and marketing agencies in the US and UK
Example output generated with Claude Sonnet 4.6 (structure sample; Perplexity adds live citations) from the example input above
(Abridged sample showing the structure. In Perplexity each factual line carries a live citation with a date; here the source slots are marked [source, date].)
FRESHBOOKS
Positioning (their words): "Accounting software built for owners and their clients." [pricing page, date]
Target customer: freelancers and small service businesses, not agency-specific. [homepage, date]
Pricing: per-business tiers with billable-client limits on lower tiers; team members cost extra per user. Entry price: [source, date].
Notable features: time tracking tied to invoices; client retainers; proposals. [features page, date]
Reviews praise: invoicing speed and client portal. Complain about: per-user add-on cost once a team grows, and client limits on the cheaper plans. [review site, date]
Recent changes: [check changelog and press page for the last 12 months; cite each].
BONSAI
Positioning: an all-in-one for freelancers (contracts, proposals, invoices, taxes). [homepage, date]
Target customer: solo freelancers first; "agency" plan exists but is a secondary message. [pricing page, date]
Pricing: tiered monthly plans; additional users priced per seat on the higher tier. Entry price: [source, date].
Notable features: contract templates, client CRM, time tracking. [features page, date]
Reviews praise: templates and setup speed. Complain about: accounting depth, reporting. [review site, date]
Recent changes: [verify].
HARVEST + QUICKBOOKS
Positioning: Harvest is time tracking and invoicing; QuickBooks is accounting; agencies combine them. [both homepages, date]
Pricing: Harvest per seat per month; QuickBooks per business, tiered. Combined entry price for a 10-person agency: [compute from both pricing pages, date].
Notable: deep time tracking (Harvest), accountant-friendly books (QuickBooks), integration between the two. [docs, date]
Reviews praise: reliability, accountant acceptance. Complain about: two subscriptions, two logins, sync edge cases. [review sites, date]
COMPARISON
Company | Target customer | Entry price | Pricing model | Standout feature | Biggest complaint
FreshBooks | small service businesses | [source] | per business + per user | client portal | per-user add-ons
Bonsai | solo freelancers | [source] | tiered + per seat | contract templates | shallow accounting
Harvest + QuickBooks | agencies of all sizes | [computed] | per seat + per business | accountant acceptance | two tools to run
Ledgerly | 5–30 person creative agencies | $39 flat | flat | time → invoice automation | (collect from your own reviews)
GAPS (for the flat vs per-seat decision)
1. Per-seat pricing is the most common complaint across two of three competitors as teams grow. Evidence: review themes above. Flat pricing is a stated differentiator at exactly the 5–30 size where seat costs start to hurt. Risk: flat pricing caps revenue from the 30-person end; consider a flat price with a generous seat ceiling rather than true per-seat.
2. None of the three is agency-specific in positioning; Bonsai's agency plan is secondary. Evidence: homepage messaging. Opening: own "agencies" in copy and SEO. Risk: smaller addressable market.
3. The Harvest + QuickBooks combination means two bills and two logins. Evidence: review complaints about sync. Opening: "one subscription, one login" messaging aimed at agencies currently running both. Risk: accountant acceptance; plan a QuickBooks export early.
VERIFY BY HAND
- Current entry prices and per-user fees for all three (pricing pages change; check the date on each citation).
- Whether Bonsai still offers a dedicated agency plan.
- Review themes: read the 20 most recent reviews per tool rather than relying on aggregate scores.
Why this works & how to customize
Why it works: competitor research fails in two ways, unsourced claims and description without a decision. The prompt forces a source and date on every fact (which a search-connected tool like Perplexity can supply) and ends with ranked gaps tied to the decision you named. The "verify by hand" list is the honest part: it tells you where the tool's sources were thin.
How to customize: in Perplexity, enable Pro or Deep Research mode for this prompt; the step-by-step structure benefits from more search calls. In ChatGPT or Claude without browsing, the model produces the structure but cannot cite live sources, so treat the output as a template and fill the citations yourself. Keep competitors to five; beyond that, profiles get shallow. Change the decision field to "which feature to build next" and section 3 reorients around feature gaps.
How to customize: in Perplexity, enable Pro or Deep Research mode for this prompt; the step-by-step structure benefits from more search calls. In ChatGPT or Claude without browsing, the model produces the structure but cannot cite live sources, so treat the output as a template and fill the citations yourself. Keep competitors to five; beyond that, profiles get shallow. Change the decision field to "which feature to build next" and section 3 reorients around feature gaps.
Comments (0)
Sign in to comment.
No comments yet.