ayrisdev/marketingskills
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Optimize skill files for AI agent use with progressive disclosure

Browse Source 
- Fix marketplace.json: add 2 missing skills (content-strategy, product-marketing-context)
- Refactor 10 skills over 500 lines to use references/ folders:
  - email-sequence: 926 → 291 lines
  - social-content: 809 → 276 lines
  - competitor-alternatives: 750 → 253 lines
  - pricing-strategy: 712 → 226 lines
  - programmatic-seo: 628 → 235 lines
  - referral-program: 604 → 239 lines
  - schema-markup: 598 → 175 lines
  - free-tool-strategy: 576 → 176 lines
  - paywall-upgrade-cro: 572 → 224 lines
  - marketing-ideas: 566 → 165 lines

Each skill now has core workflow in SKILL.md (<500 lines) with detailed
content in references/ folder for progressive disclosure.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Corey Haines
2026-01-26 16:39:45 -08:00
parent becdd54cf9
commit c29ee7e6db
28 changed files with 4381 additions and 5100 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

589
skills/competitor-alternatives/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -58,7 +58,6 @@ Before creating competitor pages, understand:
### 4. Modular Content Architecture
- Competitor data should be centralized
- Updates propagate to all pages
- Avoid duplicating research
- Single source of truth per competitor
---
@@ -71,11 +70,7 @@ Before creating competitor pages, understand:
**URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]` or `/[competitor]-alternative`
**Target keywords**:
- "[Competitor] alternative"
- "alternative to [Competitor]"
- "switch from [Competitor]"
- "[Competitor] replacement"
**Target keywords**: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]"
**Page structure**:
1. Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
@@ -86,21 +81,15 @@ Before creating competitor pages, understand:
6. Social proof from switchers
7. CTA
**Tone**: Empathetic to their frustration, helpful guide
---
### Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)
**Search intent**: User is researching options, earlier in journey
**URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives` or `/best-[competitor]-alternatives`
**URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives`
**Target keywords**:
- "[Competitor] alternatives"
- "best [Competitor] alternatives"
- "tools like [Competitor]"
- "[Competitor] competitors"
**Target keywords**: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]"
**Page structure**:
1. Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
@@ -111,8 +100,6 @@ Before creating competitor pages, understand:
6. Recommendation by use case
7. CTA
**Tone**: Objective guide, you're one option among several (but positioned well)
**Important**: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.
---
@@ -123,29 +110,18 @@ Before creating competitor pages, understand:
**URL pattern**: `/vs/[competitor]` or `/compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]`
**Target keywords**:
- "[You] vs [Competitor]"
- "[Competitor] vs [You]"
- "[You] compared to [Competitor]"
- "[You] or [Competitor]"
**Target keywords**: "[You] vs [Competitor]", "[Competitor] vs [You]"
**Page structure**:
1. TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
2. At-a-glance comparison table
3. Detailed comparison by category:
- Features
- Pricing
- Service & support
- Ease of use
- Integrations
3. Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations)
4. Who [You] is best for
5. Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
6. What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
7. Migration support
8. CTA
**Tone**: Confident but fair, acknowledge where competitor excels
---
### Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]
@@ -154,11 +130,6 @@ Before creating competitor pages, understand:
**URL pattern**: `/compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]`
**Target keywords**:
- "[Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]"
- "[Competitor A] or [Competitor B]"
- "[Competitor A] compared to [Competitor B]"
**Page structure**:
1. Overview of both products
2. Comparison by category
@@ -167,458 +138,47 @@ Before creating competitor pages, understand:
5. Comparison table (all three)
6. CTA
**Tone**: Objective analyst, earn trust through fairness, then introduce yourself
**Why this works**: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable, introduces you to qualified audience.
**Why this works**: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable.
---
## Index Pages
## Essential Sections
Each format needs an index page that lists all pages of that type. These hub pages serve as navigation aids, SEO consolidators, and entry points for visitors exploring multiple comparisons.
### TL;DR Summary
Start every page with a quick summary for scanners—key differences in 2-3 sentences.
### Alternatives Index
### Paragraph Comparisons
Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters.
**URL**: `/alternatives` or `/alternatives/index`
### Feature Comparison
For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation.
**Purpose**: Lists all "[Competitor] Alternative" pages
### Pricing Comparison
Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size.
**Page structure**:
1. Headline: "[Your Product] as an Alternative"
2. Brief intro on why people switch to you
3. List of all alternative pages with:
- Competitor name/logo
- One-line summary of key differentiator vs. that competitor
- Link to full comparison
4. Common reasons people switch (aggregated)
5. CTA
### Who It's For
Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust.
**Example**:
```markdown
## Explore [Your Product] as an Alternative
### Migration Section
Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched.
Looking to switch? See how [Your Product] compares to the tools you're evaluating:
- **[Notion Alternative](/alternatives/notion)** — Better for teams who need [X]
- **[Airtable Alternative](/alternatives/airtable)** — Better for teams who need [Y]
- **[Monday Alternative](/alternatives/monday)** — Better for teams who need [Z]
```
---
### Alternatives (Plural) Index
**URL**: `/alternatives/compare` or `/best-alternatives`
**Purpose**: Lists all "[Competitor] Alternatives" roundup pages
**Page structure**:
1. Headline: "Software Alternatives & Comparisons"
2. Brief intro on your comparison methodology
3. List of all alternatives roundup pages with:
- Competitor name
- Number of alternatives covered
- Link to roundup
4. CTA
**Example**:
```markdown
## Find the Right Tool
Comparing your options? Our guides cover the top alternatives:
- **[Best Notion Alternatives](/alternatives/notion-alternatives)** — 7 tools compared
- **[Best Airtable Alternatives](/alternatives/airtable-alternatives)** — 6 tools compared
- **[Best Monday Alternatives](/alternatives/monday-alternatives)** — 5 tools compared
```
---
### Vs Comparisons Index
**URL**: `/vs` or `/compare`
**Purpose**: Lists all "You vs [Competitor]" and "[A] vs [B]" pages
**Page structure**:
1. Headline: "Compare [Your Product]"
2. Section: "[Your Product] vs Competitors" — list of direct comparisons
3. Section: "Head-to-Head Comparisons" — list of [A] vs [B] pages
4. Brief methodology note
5. CTA
**Example**:
```markdown
## Compare [Your Product]
### [Your Product] vs. the Competition
- **[[Your Product] vs Notion](/vs/notion)** — Best for [differentiator]
- **[[Your Product] vs Airtable](/vs/airtable)** — Best for [differentiator]
- **[[Your Product] vs Monday](/vs/monday)** — Best for [differentiator]
### Other Comparisons
Evaluating tools we compete with? We've done the research:
- **[Notion vs Airtable](/compare/notion-vs-airtable)**
- **[Notion vs Monday](/compare/notion-vs-monday)**
- **[Airtable vs Monday](/compare/airtable-vs-monday)**
```
---
### Index Page Best Practices
**Keep them updated**: When you add a new comparison page, add it to the relevant index.
**Internal linking**:
- Link from index → individual pages
- Link from individual pages → back to index
- Cross-link between related comparisons
**SEO value**:
- Index pages can rank for broad terms like "project management tool comparisons"
- Pass link equity to individual comparison pages
- Help search engines discover all comparison content
**Sorting options**:
- By popularity (search volume)
- Alphabetically
- By category/use case
- By date added (show freshness)
**Include on index pages**:
- Last updated date for credibility
- Number of pages/comparisons available
- Quick filters if you have many comparisons
**For detailed templates**: See [references/templates.md](references/templates.md)
---
## Content Architecture
### Centralized Competitor Data
Create a single source of truth for each competitor:
```
competitor_data/
├── notion.md
├── airtable.md
├── monday.md
└── ...
```
**Per competitor, document**:
```yaml
name: Notion
website: notion.so
tagline: "The all-in-one workspace"
founded: 2016
headquarters: San Francisco
# Positioning
primary_use_case: "docs + light databases"
target_audience: "teams wanting flexible workspace"
market_position: "premium, feature-rich"
# Pricing
pricing_model: per-seat
free_tier: true
free_tier_limits: "limited blocks, 1 user"
starter_price: $8/user/month
business_price: $15/user/month
enterprise: custom
# Features (rate 1-5 or describe)
features:
documents: 5
databases: 4
project_management: 3
collaboration: 4
integrations: 3
mobile_app: 3
offline_mode: 2
api: 4
# Strengths (be honest)
strengths:
- Extremely flexible and customizable
- Beautiful, modern interface
- Strong template ecosystem
- Active community
# Weaknesses (be fair)
weaknesses:
- Can be slow with large databases
- Learning curve for advanced features
- Limited automations compared to dedicated tools
- Offline mode is limited
# Best for
best_for:
- Teams wanting all-in-one workspace
- Content-heavy workflows
- Documentation-first teams
- Startups and small teams
# Not ideal for
not_ideal_for:
- Complex project management needs
- Large databases (1000s of rows)
- Teams needing robust offline
- Enterprise with strict compliance
# Common complaints (from reviews)
common_complaints:
- "Gets slow with lots of content"
- "Hard to find things as workspace grows"
- "Mobile app is clunky"
# Migration notes
migration_from:
difficulty: medium
data_export: "Markdown, CSV, HTML"
what_transfers: "Pages, databases"
what_doesnt: "Automations, integrations setup"
time_estimate: "1-3 days for small team"
```
### Your Product Data
Same structure for yourself—be honest:
```yaml
name: [Your Product]
# ... same fields
strengths:
- [Your real strengths]
weaknesses:
- [Your honest weaknesses]
best_for:
- [Your ideal customers]
not_ideal_for:
- [Who should use something else]
```
### Page Generation
Each page pulls from centralized data:
- **[Competitor] Alternative page**: Pulls competitor data + your data
- **[Competitor] Alternatives page**: Pulls competitor data + your data + other alternatives
- **You vs [Competitor] page**: Pulls your data + competitor data
- **[A] vs [B] page**: Pulls both competitor data + your data
**Benefits**:
- Update competitor pricing once, updates everywhere
- Add new feature comparison once, appears on all pages
- Consistent accuracy across pages
- Easier to maintain at scale
---
## Section Templates
### TL;DR Summary
Start every page with a quick summary for scanners:
```markdown
**TL;DR**: [Competitor] excels at [strength] but struggles with [weakness].
[Your product] is built for [your focus], offering [key differentiator].
Choose [Competitor] if [their ideal use case]. Choose [You] if [your ideal use case].
```
### Paragraph Comparison (Not Just Tables)
For each major dimension, write a paragraph:
```markdown
## Features
[Competitor] offers [description of their feature approach].
Their strength is [specific strength], which works well for [use case].
However, [limitation] can be challenging for [user type].
[Your product] takes a different approach with [your approach].
This means [benefit], though [honest tradeoff].
Teams who [specific need] often find this more effective.
```
### Feature Comparison Section
Go beyond checkmarks:
```markdown
## Feature Comparison
### [Feature Category]
**[Competitor]**: [2-3 sentence description of how they handle this]
- Strengths: [specific]
- Limitations: [specific]
**[Your product]**: [2-3 sentence description]
- Strengths: [specific]
- Limitations: [specific]
**Bottom line**: Choose [Competitor] if [scenario]. Choose [You] if [scenario].
```
### Pricing Comparison Section
```markdown
## Pricing
| | [Competitor] | [Your Product] |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | [Details] | [Details] |
| Starting price | $X/user/mo | $X/user/mo |
| Business tier | $X/user/mo | $X/user/mo |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom |
**What's included**: [Competitor]'s $X plan includes [features], while
[Your product]'s $X plan includes [features].
**Total cost consideration**: Beyond per-seat pricing, consider [hidden costs,
add-ons, implementation]. [Competitor] charges extra for [X], while
[Your product] includes [Y] in base pricing.
**Value comparison**: For a 10-person team, [Competitor] costs approximately
$X/year while [Your product] costs $Y/year, with [key differences in what you get].
```
### Service & Support Comparison
```markdown
## Service & Support
| | [Competitor] | [Your Product] |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation | [Quality assessment] | [Quality assessment] |
| Response time | [SLA if known] | [Your SLA] |
| Support channels | [List] | [List] |
| Onboarding | [What they offer] | [What you offer] |
| CSM included | [At what tier] | [At what tier] |
**Support quality**: Based on [G2/Capterra reviews, your research],
[Competitor] support is described as [assessment]. Common feedback includes
[quotes or themes].
[Your product] offers [your support approach]. [Specific differentiator like
response time, dedicated CSM, implementation help].
```
### Who It's For Section
```markdown
## Who Should Choose [Competitor]
[Competitor] is the right choice if:
- [Specific use case or need]
- [Team type or size]
- [Workflow or requirement]
- [Budget or priority]
**Ideal [Competitor] customer**: [Persona description in 1-2 sentences]
## Who Should Choose [Your Product]
[Your product] is built for teams who:
- [Specific use case or need]
- [Team type or size]
- [Workflow or requirement]
- [Priority or value]
**Ideal [Your product] customer**: [Persona description in 1-2 sentences]
```
### Migration Section
```markdown
## Switching from [Competitor]
### What transfers
- [Data type]: [How easily, any caveats]
- [Data type]: [How easily, any caveats]
### What needs reconfiguration
- [Thing]: [Why and effort level]
- [Thing]: [Why and effort level]
### Migration support
We offer [migration support details]:
- [Free data import tool / white-glove migration]
- [Documentation / migration guide]
- [Timeline expectation]
- [Support during transition]
### What customers say about switching
> "[Quote from customer who switched]"
> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]
```
### Social Proof Section
Focus on switchers:
```markdown
## What Customers Say
### Switched from [Competitor]
> "[Specific quote about why they switched and outcome]"
> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]
> "[Another quote]"
> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]
### Results after switching
- [Company] saw [specific result]
- [Company] reduced [metric] by [amount]
```
---
## Comparison Table Best Practices
### Beyond Checkmarks
Instead of:
| Feature | You | Competitor |
|---------|-----|-----------|
| Feature A | ✓ | ✓ |
| Feature B | ✓ | ✗ |
Do this:
| Feature | You | Competitor |
|---------|-----|-----------|
| Feature A | Full support with [detail] | Basic support, [limitation] |
| Feature B | [Specific capability] | Not available |
### Organize by Category
Group features into meaningful categories:
- Core functionality
- Collaboration
- Integrations
- Security & compliance
- Support & service
### Include Ratings Where Useful
| Category | You | Competitor | Notes |
|----------|-----|-----------|-------|
| Ease of use | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | [Brief note] |
| Feature depth | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | [Brief note] |
Create a single source of truth for each competitor with:
- Positioning and target audience
- Pricing (all tiers)
- Feature ratings
- Strengths and weaknesses
- Best for / not ideal for
- Common complaints (from reviews)
- Migration notes
**For data structure and examples**: See [references/content-architecture.md](references/content-architecture.md)
---
@@ -628,39 +188,14 @@ Group features into meaningful categories:
For each competitor, gather:
1. **Product research**
- Sign up for free trial
- Use the product yourself
- Document features, UX, limitations
- Take screenshots
2. **Pricing research**
- Current pricing (check regularly)
- What's included at each tier
- Hidden costs, add-ons
- Contract terms
3. **Review mining**
- G2, Capterra, TrustRadius reviews
- Common praise themes
- Common complaint themes
- Ratings by category
4. **Customer feedback**
- Talk to customers who switched
- Talk to prospects who chose competitor
- Document real quotes
5. **Content research**
- Their positioning and messaging
- Their comparison pages (how do they compare to you?)
- Their documentation quality
- Their changelog (recent development)
1. **Product research**: Sign up, use it, document features/UX/limitations
2. **Pricing research**: Current pricing, what's included, hidden costs
3. **Review mining**: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for common praise/complaint themes
4. **Customer feedback**: Talk to customers who switched (both directions)
5. **Content research**: Their positioning, their comparison pages, their changelog
### Ongoing Updates
Competitor pages need maintenance:
- **Quarterly**: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes
- **When notified**: Customer mentions competitor change
- **Annually**: Full refresh of all competitor data
@@ -671,65 +206,33 @@ Competitor pages need maintenance:
### Keyword Targeting
| Format | Primary Keywords | Secondary Keywords |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------|
| Alternative (singular) | [Competitor] alternative | alternative to [Competitor], switch from [Competitor], [Competitor] replacement |
| Alternatives (plural) | [Competitor] alternatives | best [Competitor] alternatives, tools like [Competitor], [Competitor] competitors |
| You vs Competitor | [You] vs [Competitor] | [Competitor] vs [You], [You] compared to [Competitor] |
| Competitor vs Competitor | [A] vs [B] | [B] vs [A], [A] or [B], [A] compared to [B] |
| Format | Primary Keywords |
|--------|-----------------|
| Alternative (singular) | [Competitor] alternative, alternative to [Competitor] |
| Alternatives (plural) | [Competitor] alternatives, best [Competitor] alternatives |
| You vs Competitor | [You] vs [Competitor], [Competitor] vs [You] |
| Competitor vs Competitor | [A] vs [B], [B] vs [A] |
### Internal Linking
- Link between related competitor pages
- Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons
- Link from blog posts mentioning competitors
- Hub page linking to all competitor content
- Create hub page linking to all competitor content
### Schema Markup
Consider FAQ schema for common questions:
```json
{
"@type": "FAQPage",
"mainEntity": [
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "[Your answer positioning yourself]"
}
}
]
}
```
Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"
---
## Output Format
### Competitor Data File
```yaml
# [competitor].yaml
# Complete competitor profile for use across all comparison pages
```
Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages.
### Page Content
For each page:
- URL and meta tags
- Full page copy organized by section
- Comparison tables
- CTAs
For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.
### Page Set Plan
Recommended pages to create:
1. [List of alternative pages]
2. [List of vs pages]
3. Priority order based on search volume
Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.
---

208
skills/competitor-alternatives/references/content-architecture.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
# Content Architecture for Competitor Pages
How to structure and maintain competitor data for scalable comparison pages.
## Centralized Competitor Data
Create a single source of truth for each competitor:
```
competitor_data/
├── notion.md
├── airtable.md
├── monday.md
└── ...
```
---
## Competitor Data Template
Per competitor, document:
```yaml
name: Notion
website: notion.so
tagline: "The all-in-one workspace"
founded: 2016
headquarters: San Francisco
# Positioning
primary_use_case: "docs + light databases"
target_audience: "teams wanting flexible workspace"
market_position: "premium, feature-rich"
# Pricing
pricing_model: per-seat
free_tier: true
free_tier_limits: "limited blocks, 1 user"
starter_price: $8/user/month
business_price: $15/user/month
enterprise: custom
# Features (rate 1-5 or describe)
features:
documents: 5
databases: 4
project_management: 3
collaboration: 4
integrations: 3
mobile_app: 3
offline_mode: 2
api: 4
# Strengths (be honest)
strengths:
- Extremely flexible and customizable
- Beautiful, modern interface
- Strong template ecosystem
- Active community
# Weaknesses (be fair)
weaknesses:
- Can be slow with large databases
- Learning curve for advanced features
- Limited automations compared to dedicated tools
- Offline mode is limited
# Best for
best_for:
- Teams wanting all-in-one workspace
- Content-heavy workflows
- Documentation-first teams
- Startups and small teams
# Not ideal for
not_ideal_for:
- Complex project management needs
- Large databases (1000s of rows)
- Teams needing robust offline
- Enterprise with strict compliance
# Common complaints (from reviews)
common_complaints:
- "Gets slow with lots of content"
- "Hard to find things as workspace grows"
- "Mobile app is clunky"
# Migration notes
migration_from:
difficulty: medium
data_export: "Markdown, CSV, HTML"
what_transfers: "Pages, databases"
what_doesnt: "Automations, integrations setup"
time_estimate: "1-3 days for small team"
```
---
## Your Product Data
Same structure for yourself—be honest:
```yaml
name: [Your Product]
# ... same fields
strengths:
- [Your real strengths]
weaknesses:
- [Your honest weaknesses]
best_for:
- [Your ideal customers]
not_ideal_for:
- [Who should use something else]
```
---
## Page Generation
Each page pulls from centralized data:
- **[Competitor] Alternative page**: Pulls competitor data + your data
- **[Competitor] Alternatives page**: Pulls competitor data + your data + other alternatives
- **You vs [Competitor] page**: Pulls your data + competitor data
- **[A] vs [B] page**: Pulls both competitor data + your data
**Benefits**:
- Update competitor pricing once, updates everywhere
- Add new feature comparison once, appears on all pages
- Consistent accuracy across pages
- Easier to maintain at scale
---
## Index Page Structure
### Alternatives Index
**URL**: `/alternatives` or `/alternatives/index`
**Purpose**: Lists all "[Competitor] Alternative" pages
**Page structure**:
1. Headline: "[Your Product] as an Alternative"
2. Brief intro on why people switch to you
3. List of all alternative pages with:
- Competitor name/logo
- One-line summary of key differentiator vs. that competitor
- Link to full comparison
4. Common reasons people switch (aggregated)
5. CTA
**Example**:
```markdown
## Explore [Your Product] as an Alternative
Looking to switch? See how [Your Product] compares to the tools you're evaluating:
- **[Notion Alternative](/alternatives/notion)** — Better for teams who need [X]
- **[Airtable Alternative](/alternatives/airtable)** — Better for teams who need [Y]
- **[Monday Alternative](/alternatives/monday)** — Better for teams who need [Z]
```
---
### Vs Comparisons Index
**URL**: `/vs` or `/compare`
**Purpose**: Lists all "You vs [Competitor]" and "[A] vs [B]" pages
**Page structure**:
1. Headline: "Compare [Your Product]"
2. Section: "[Your Product] vs Competitors" — list of direct comparisons
3. Section: "Head-to-Head Comparisons" — list of [A] vs [B] pages
4. Brief methodology note
5. CTA
---
### Index Page Best Practices
**Keep them updated**: When you add a new comparison page, add it to the relevant index.
**Internal linking**:
- Link from index → individual pages
- Link from individual pages → back to index
- Cross-link between related comparisons
**SEO value**:
- Index pages can rank for broad terms like "project management tool comparisons"
- Pass link equity to individual comparison pages
- Help search engines discover all comparison content
**Sorting options**:
- By popularity (search volume)
- Alphabetically
- By category/use case
- By date added (show freshness)
**Include on index pages**:
- Last updated date for credibility
- Number of pages/comparisons available
- Quick filters if you have many comparisons

212
skills/competitor-alternatives/references/templates.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,212 @@
# Section Templates for Competitor Pages
Ready-to-use templates for each section of competitor comparison pages.
## TL;DR Summary
Start every page with a quick summary for scanners:
```markdown
**TL;DR**: [Competitor] excels at [strength] but struggles with [weakness].
[Your product] is built for [your focus], offering [key differentiator].
Choose [Competitor] if [their ideal use case]. Choose [You] if [your ideal use case].
```
---
## Paragraph Comparison (Not Just Tables)
For each major dimension, write a paragraph:
```markdown
## Features
[Competitor] offers [description of their feature approach].
Their strength is [specific strength], which works well for [use case].
However, [limitation] can be challenging for [user type].
[Your product] takes a different approach with [your approach].
This means [benefit], though [honest tradeoff].
Teams who [specific need] often find this more effective.
```
---
## Feature Comparison Section
Go beyond checkmarks:
```markdown
## Feature Comparison
### [Feature Category]
**[Competitor]**: [2-3 sentence description of how they handle this]
- Strengths: [specific]
- Limitations: [specific]
**[Your product]**: [2-3 sentence description]
- Strengths: [specific]
- Limitations: [specific]
**Bottom line**: Choose [Competitor] if [scenario]. Choose [You] if [scenario].
```
---
## Pricing Comparison Section
```markdown
## Pricing
| | [Competitor] | [Your Product] |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | [Details] | [Details] |
| Starting price | $X/user/mo | $X/user/mo |
| Business tier | $X/user/mo | $X/user/mo |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom |
**What's included**: [Competitor]'s $X plan includes [features], while
[Your product]'s $X plan includes [features].
**Total cost consideration**: Beyond per-seat pricing, consider [hidden costs,
add-ons, implementation]. [Competitor] charges extra for [X], while
[Your product] includes [Y] in base pricing.
**Value comparison**: For a 10-person team, [Competitor] costs approximately
$X/year while [Your product] costs $Y/year, with [key differences in what you get].
```
---
## Service & Support Comparison
```markdown
## Service & Support
| | [Competitor] | [Your Product] |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation | [Quality assessment] | [Quality assessment] |
| Response time | [SLA if known] | [Your SLA] |
| Support channels | [List] | [List] |
| Onboarding | [What they offer] | [What you offer] |
| CSM included | [At what tier] | [At what tier] |
**Support quality**: Based on [G2/Capterra reviews, your research],
[Competitor] support is described as [assessment]. Common feedback includes
[quotes or themes].
[Your product] offers [your support approach]. [Specific differentiator like
response time, dedicated CSM, implementation help].
```
---
## Who It's For Section
```markdown
## Who Should Choose [Competitor]
[Competitor] is the right choice if:
- [Specific use case or need]
- [Team type or size]
- [Workflow or requirement]
- [Budget or priority]
**Ideal [Competitor] customer**: [Persona description in 1-2 sentences]
## Who Should Choose [Your Product]
[Your product] is built for teams who:
- [Specific use case or need]
- [Team type or size]
- [Workflow or requirement]
- [Priority or value]
**Ideal [Your product] customer**: [Persona description in 1-2 sentences]
```
---
## Migration Section
```markdown
## Switching from [Competitor]
### What transfers
- [Data type]: [How easily, any caveats]
- [Data type]: [How easily, any caveats]
### What needs reconfiguration
- [Thing]: [Why and effort level]
- [Thing]: [Why and effort level]
### Migration support
We offer [migration support details]:
- [Free data import tool / white-glove migration]
- [Documentation / migration guide]
- [Timeline expectation]
- [Support during transition]
### What customers say about switching
> "[Quote from customer who switched]"
> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]
```
---
## Social Proof Section
Focus on switchers:
```markdown
## What Customers Say
### Switched from [Competitor]
> "[Specific quote about why they switched and outcome]"
> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]
> "[Another quote]"
> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]
### Results after switching
- [Company] saw [specific result]
- [Company] reduced [metric] by [amount]
```
---
## Comparison Table Best Practices
### Beyond Checkmarks
Instead of:
| Feature | You | Competitor |
|---------|-----|-----------|
| Feature A | ✓ | ✓ |
| Feature B | ✓ | ✗ |
Do this:
| Feature | You | Competitor |
|---------|-----|-----------|
| Feature A | Full support with [detail] | Basic support, [limitation] |
| Feature B | [Specific capability] | Not available |
### Organize by Category
Group features into meaningful categories:
- Core functionality
- Collaboration
- Integrations
- Security & compliance
- Support & service
### Include Ratings Where Useful
| Category | You | Competitor | Notes |
|----------|-----|-----------|-------|
| Ease of use | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | [Brief note] |
| Feature depth | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | [Brief note] |