competitors

Competitor and Alternative Pages

Readers of a vs page are actively comparing and will verify your claims. Honest pages convert and rank, puff pieces do neither. Say who the competitor is best for, in print.

Workflow

1. Load context. Read any product marketing context file (.agents/product-marketing.md or .claude/product-marketing.md). Confirm: your differentiators and honest weaknesses, target competitors, and the goal mix (SEO capture, sales enablement, switcher conversion).
2. Get competitor data. If profiles exist from competitor-profiling, use them. If not, run that skill first or gather pricing, features, and review themes manually. Never write a comparison from memory, pricing and features drift.
3. Pick the format by search intent:

Section-by-section structures for all four live in references/page-formats.md.

1. Write the essential sections. Every page gets: a TL;DR (key differences in 2-3 sentences, for scanners), paragraph comparisons that explain why differences matter (tables alone are surface), tier-by-tier pricing with total cost for a sample team size, an explicit "who each option is best for", and a migration section when targeting switchers.
2. Centralize competitor data. One source-of-truth file per competitor (positioning, pricing, ratings, strengths, weaknesses, complaints, migration notes) that all pages draw from. Updates then propagate instead of rotting page by page.
3. Wire the SEO. Target keywords per format (see the table in references/page-formats.md), interlink related comparison pages, link from feature pages, build a hub page. Mark up genuine user Q&A with QAPage schema via claude-seo-schema, do not bolt on FAQ markup for SERP benefit, that rich result is retired.
4. Schedule maintenance. Quarterly pricing verification, annual full refresh, immediate update when a customer flags a competitor change.

Verification

Do the trust audit before delivering: find the sentence that says who the competitor is the better choice for, and find at least one acknowledged competitor strength per page. Expect both to exist and be specific. If either is missing, the page reads as an ad, evaluators bounce, add them. Then verify every price and feature claim against data pulled within the last quarter.

Good vs Bad

Bad: A "Top 7 CompetitorX Alternatives" page where all seven entries are thin and yours is the only one with real detail. Readers see through it, and it will not rank against genuinely useful lists.

Good: The same page with 4-7 real alternatives, honest one-paragraph assessments of each, a criteria framework up top, you listed first with proportionate detail, and a "best for" recommendation per tool including cases where a rival wins.

Footguns

• Stale pricing. The fastest way to lose an evaluator's trust is a wrong price they just saw on the competitor's site. Fix: quarterly checks, date-stamp the comparison.
• Feature-table-only pages. Checkmark grids without paragraph explanation rank poorly and persuade nobody. Fix: every dimension gets a "why it matters" paragraph and a bottom line.
• Misrepresenting the competitor. They will verify, and some competitors respond publicly. Fix: source every claim from their live site or reviews.
• Duplicated competitor facts across pages. Ten pages hand-updated means nine stale ones. Fix: centralized data file per competitor.

Completion checklist

• [ ] Format matched to search intent, URL pattern set
• [ ] Competitor data sourced and dated, not from memory
• [ ] TL;DR, paragraph comparisons, pricing, "best for", migration sections present
• [ ] Trust audit passed (competitor strength + "they're better when" present)
• [ ] Centralized data file created or updated

Any box unchecked: not done. Fix or say so.