Competitor analysis presentation
Prepared by
[Sender.FirstName][Sender.LastName] [Sender.Company]
Prepared for
[Client.FirstName][Client.LastName] [Client.Company]
Table of contents
1. Competitive Landscape 2. Key Competitors 3. Positioning 4. Market Share 5. Marketing Vitals Comparison 6. Feature Comparison 7. Price Comparison 8. Operational Capacity 9. Customer Segments 10. Social Media
11. Strengths 12. Weaknesses 13. Our USP 14. Us vs Them 15. Insights
Competitive landscape
01
Competitive landscape
01
Industry/niche leaders:
Industry/niche challengers:
Market players
with similar concept/product/marketing campaign:
Competitor 1 Competitor 2 Competitor 3
Competitor 1 Competitor 2 Competitor 3
Competitor 1 Competitor 2 Competitor 3
Key competitors
01
02
03
Key competitor 1
Key competitor 2
Key competitor 3
02
Positioning
03
Positioning
03
[Sender.Company] goal:
Providing versatile software development services based on disruptive technologies for an audience of tech-minded consumers and innovative startups.
Key competitor 1 goal:
Key competitor 2 goal:
Key competitor 3 goal:
Providing versatile software development services based on disruptive technologies for an audience of tech-minded consumers and innovative startups.
Providing turn-key software development services based on AI and Machine Learning for big market players.
Providing development of custom blockchain solutions for entrepreneurs and startups, as well middle to large-scale businesses.
20%
50%
40%
Market share
04
[Sender.Company] brand:
30%
Competitive brand 1:
Competitive brand 2:
Competitive brand 3:
Marketing vitals comparison
05
Marketing vitals comparison
[Sender.Company]:
Full social media coverage (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, etc.);
Professional social media coverage (LinkedIn, GitHub communities, Reddit threads);
Focus on versatile customer demographics (SMBs, B2Bs, startups, entrepreneurs);
Hands-on product demonstration;
Email marketing across a pre-arranged database of professional contacts;
Active SEO (first-page search positions by keywords software development services, experienced software developer, advanced software development).
Competitor 1:
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
Emphasis on professional networking (LinkedIn, Facebook and GitHub communities, etc.);
Focus on exclusive B2B brands;
Product demonstrations via MVP;
Regular fundraising campaigns among high-stake investors;
Active influencer marketing on YouTube and TikTok;
Passion-driven social media coverage (Reddit threads,YouTube/TikTok comments responses, Instagram stories);
Free trial product demonstration;
Regular giveaways, visual promotions (via Instagram and YouTube), and product overviews by influencers.
Promotion across blockchain communities on Reddit and GitHub;
Focus on general blockchain consumers;
Active whitepaper promotion;
Product demonstrations via PoC and stakeholder assets.
Feature comparison
06
[Sender.Company]:
Competitor 1:
Social media integration;
Smart chatbot;
Blockchain engine;
Cryptocurrency wallet;
Mobile-first performance;
Interactive demo.
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
Social media integration;
Blockchain fork;
Cryptocurrency functionality;
Dedicated app;
Live support.
Social media integration;
PWA functionality;
Email service integration;
Access to neural network;
Blog and documentation hub.
Social media integration;
Cross-platform functionality;
Customizable crypto cabinet;
Tech foundation for dApps;
Livechat support.
Price comparison
07
[Sender.Company]:
Competitor 1:
Full-cycle project ~ $5,000-$10,000;
Feature 1 – $2,000;
Feature 2 – $1,000;
Service 1 – $800;
Service 2 – $1,500;
Extra support – $1,000.
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
Full-cycle project ~ $7,000-$15,000;
Feature 1 – $2,000;
Feature 2 – $1,000;
Service 1 – $800;
Service 2 – $1,500;
Extra support – $1,000.
Full-cycle project ~ $10,000-$30,000;
Feature 1 – $2,000;
Feature 2 – $1,000;
Service 1 – $800;
Service 2 – $1,500;
Extra support – $1,000.
Full-cycle project ~ $4,000-$9,000;
Feature 1 – $2,000;
Feature 2 – $1,000;
Service 1 – $800;
Service 2 – $1,500;
Extra support – $1,000.
Operational capacity
08
Operational capacity
[Sender.Company]:
2-3 projects delivered per month;
~1 investment opportunity acquired per month;
Staff expands by 1-2 employees per month.
Competitor 1:
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
~2 projects delivered per month;
~3 investment opportunities acquired per month;
Constant staff turnover.
~5 projects delivered per month;
~1 investment opportunity acquired per month;
Staff expands by 3-4 employees per month.
2-3 projects delivered per month;
~1 investment opportunity acquired per month;
Staff is known to preserve numbers.
Customer segments
09
[Sender.Company] brand:
Competitor 1:
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
SMBs – 40%; B2Bs – 5%; Startups – 30%; Entrepreneurs – 25%
B2Bs – 90%; Entrepreneurs – 10%.
Large-scale companies – 100%.
Startups – 80%; Entrepreneurs – 20%.
Social media
10
[Sender.Company]
Competitor 1:
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
Instagram – 40% of marketing budget; Facebook – 25%; Twitter – 10%; TikTok – 10%; Reddit – 10%; LinkedIn – 5%.
LinkedIn – 50% of marketing budget; Facebook – 50%.
YouTube – 40% of marketing budget; TikTok – 30%; Reddit – 15%; Instagram – 15%.
Reddit – 50% of marketing budget; Facebook – 50%.
Strengths
11
Strengths
[Sender.Company]
Versatile target audience approach;
Growing in-house staff;
Active social media presence;
Full-cycle project coverage;
Competitive prices;
Blockchain and crypto-enabled;
Mobile-responsive.
Competitor 1:
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
Elite target audience focus;
Active professional networking;
Regular fundraising campaigns;
Blockchain and crypto-enabled;
Dedicated app.
Niche-oriented audience focus;
Active influencer marketing;
Lots of visual promotions;
Special offers;
Free trial;
In-depth blockchain involvement;
Technological edge;
Customization opportunities.
Weaknesses
12
Weaknesses
[Sender.Company]:
Lack of influencer marketing;
Scaling slowed down by intense workflows;
Wide range of services and tech complicate management.
Competitor 1:
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
Expensive services;
Limited customer audience focus;
Time-consuming delivery;
Complex tech edge for complex projects;
No signs of scaling.
Limited customer audience focus;
Varying end-quality of services delivered;
Lack of SEO;
Total sales figures gradually going down.
Focus limited to blockchain;
Stakeholders get more attention than consumers;
Blockchain complexities at the core.
Our USP
13
[Sender.Company] outruns other providers in the niche in the following aspects:
Wider target audience outreach;
Reasonable prices;
More regular workflows;
Performance over loud promises;
New products over endless investments;
Well-optimized customer communication;
Balance between scaling and performance.
Us vs them
14
[Sender.Company]
Competitor 1:
Competitor 2:
Competitor 3:
A versatile, highly available, open-minded provider of everything any type of relevant technology consumer may need.
A B2B provider of readymade solutions for elite-tier consumers focused on the “powerhouse corporation” philosophy.
A widespread marketing-focused provider of customizable products and services looking out for average niche opportunities.
A passion-driven company focused on the specifics of blockchain and crypto technologies that targets niche buffs.Facebook – 50%.
Insights
Not all competitors are equally efficient in terms of social media promotion (some prefer certain platforms over others);
15
There are competitors that work with similar tech and have similar service propositions yet target a different, narrower market segment (like B2B);
Some competitors successfully promote complex tech-based services via more entertainment-focused mediums (e.g., influencer marketing on YouTube).
