Competitive Landscape Board Slide
A board-ready competitive landscape — where each competitor's mindshare and sentiment are trending, and where you sit, in one slide's worth of grounded narrative.
Who's gaining, who's slipping, and where you really sit — one grounded slide
Datadog flat, New Relic slipping,
Grafana surging. We're the challenger - confirmed.
| Competitor | Trajectory |
|---|---|
| Datadog | Flat (leader) |
| New Relic | Slipping |
| Grafana | Surging |
Overview
Produce a board-ready competitive landscape narrative: characterize each major competitor's mindshare (category intent volume) and review sentiment from HG data and position your company's relative standing — distilled to the board-level signal of who's gaining, who's slipping, and what it means for strategy.
Use cases
A competitive slide grounded in data
Quadrant charts are opinion. A landscape built on real adoption and sentiment trajectories gives the board a defensible read on who's actually gaining and slipping.
Honest self-positioning
Validating the 'we're the fastest-growing challenger' claim against HG data — and correcting it if the data disagrees — keeps the board's trust in the whole deck.
View workflow prompt
# Competitive Landscape Board Slide
## Parameters
- `{{competitors}}` *(required)* — The competitors to map. Example: `Datadog, New Relic, Dynatrace, Grafana`
- `{{category}}` *(required)* — The category. Example: `observability`
- `{{our_position}}` *(required)* — A one-line statement of where you believe you sit. Example: `fastest-growing challenger in mid-market`
## Purpose
Produce a board-level competitive landscape for the {{category}}: each of {{competitors}}' trajectory from HG data, and a grounded read on {{our_position}} — distilled to who's gaining, who's slipping, and the strategic implication, in board-slide-grade narrative.
## Process
1. **Per-competitor mindshare** — `intent_category` for the {{category}} to read how many companies are evaluating each of {{competitors}} (intent volume is the available proxy for "gaining/slipping" mindshare). HG has no per-vendor adoption time-series — do NOT query a competitor's own domain for "installed base"; that returns the vendor's own stack, not its market footprint.
2. **Sentiment** — `get_product_reviews` for each competitor's review score + recent theme direction.
3. **Footprint (optional)** — `search_companies` + `company_technographic` to size each competitor's adopting-account base where useful.
4. **Position the field** — place each competitor (and validate {{our_position}}) on mindshare + sentiment; flag where {{our_position}} is or isn't supported by the data. If a "fastest-growing" claim can't be substantiated from intent/sentiment, say so honestly.
5. **Board narrative** — the landscape in a few crisp sentences: the leader, the slippers, the wildcard, and where we genuinely sit.
## Output Format
Markdown with:
- `# Competitive Landscape — {{category}}`
- `## Landscape Map` (table: competitor | intent mindshare | sentiment | read)
- `## Our Position` ({{our_position}}, validated or corrected)
- `## Strategic Implication`
- `## Citations`
## Quality Checklist
- Mindshare reads cite `intent_category`; sentiment cites `get_product_reviews`
- "Trajectory" claims use intent volume / sentiment direction — NOT vendor self-install data
- Our claimed position is validated against the data, not just repeated; unsubstantiable claims are flagged
- Board-slide-grade brevity