When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'competitor teardown,' 'audit our competitor pages,' 'are our comparison pages out of date,' or 'competitive asset audit.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For auditing existing claims (not researching competitors from scratch, which is competitor-profiling; not technical SEO on these pages, which is seo-audit), use the asset audit here. For internal battle cards and sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.
Copy the skill from the publisher's repository (skills/competitors/SKILL.md). PlugMCP lists it. We do not host or rewrite the file.
README
name: competitors
description: "When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'competitor teardown,' 'audit our competitor pages,' 'are our comparison pages out of date,' or 'competitive asset audit.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For auditing existing claims (not researching competitors from scratch, which is competitor-profiling; not technical SEO on these pages, which is seo-audit), use the asset audit here. For internal battle cards and sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement."
metadata:
version: 2.3.0
Competitor & Alternative Pages
You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively.
Initial Assessment
Check for product marketing context first:
If .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
Never guess the competitor. If the request doesn't name one and the context file doesn't identify it, ask, and stop there. Don't draft a polished page around the most likely candidate.
Before creating competitor pages, understand:
Your Product
Core value proposition
Key differentiators
Ideal customer profile
Pricing model
Strengths and honest weaknesses
Competitive Landscape
Direct competitors
Indirect/adjacent competitors
Market positioning of each
Search volume for competitor terms
Goals
SEO traffic capture
Sales enablement
Conversion from competitor users
Brand positioning
Core Principles
1. Honesty Builds Trust
Acknowledge competitor strengths
Be accurate about your limitations
Don't misrepresent competitor features
Readers are comparing—they'll verify claims
2. Depth Over Surface
Go beyond feature checklists
Explain why differences matter
Include use cases and scenarios
Show, don't just tell
3. Help Them Decide
Different tools fit different needs
Be clear about who you're best for
Be clear about who competitor is best for
Reduce evaluation friction
4. Modular Content Architecture
Competitor data should be centralized
Updates propagate to all pages
Single source of truth per competitor
5. Evidence Discipline
Comparison pages are public claims about another company. Every one should survive the competitor's own team reading it.
"Not observed" is not "doesn't have." A pricing page that doesn't list SSO is evidence about the page, not the product. Write "not listed on their pricing page (as of Mar 2026)" or drop the row. Use ✗ or "not available" only when their docs or a hands-on trial confirm the absence.
Date competitor facts. Pricing and features change. Put an "as of" date on pricing tables and in the competitor data file, and re-verify before republishing.
One look is a snapshot. A single visit can't support "they haven't changed pricing in years" or "no new features since 2024." That needs dated history (changelog, archived pages).
State what changed, not why. "They moved SSO to the Enterprise tier" is a fact. "Because they're squeezing upmarket" is a guess. Leave motive out unless they've said it publicly.
Separate fact from interpretation. Keep what their site says apart from what you think it means for the buyer, and keep both apart from what you recommend.
Page Formats
Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular)
Search intent: User is actively looking to switch from a specific competitor
URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor] or /[competitor]-alternative
Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]"
Page structure:
Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
Migration path
Social proof from switchers
CTA
Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)
Search intent: User is researching options, earlier in journey
Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]"
Page structure:
Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework)
List of alternatives (you first, but include real options)
Comparison table (summary)
Detailed breakdown of each alternative
Recommendation by use case
CTA
Important: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.
AI-answer expectations by stage: these pages often earn citations in AI answers, but whether AI recommends your brand from them depends on offsite consensus (reviews, forums, analysts) — for emerging brands, a self-ranked list can surface the competitors in the AI answer while you get only the citation. Still publish for search intent and category framing, but set expectations accordingly — see ai-seo's citations-vs-recommendations reference for the data.
Format 3: You vs [Competitor]
Search intent: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor
URL pattern: /vs/[competitor] or /compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]
Target keywords: "[You] vs [Competitor]", "[Competitor] vs [You]"
Page structure:
TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
At-a-glance comparison table
Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations)
Who [You] is best for
Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
Migration support
CTA
Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]
Search intent: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)
Product research: Sign up, use it, document features/UX/limitations
Pricing research: Current pricing, what's included, hidden costs
Review mining: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for common praise/complaint themes
Customer feedback: Talk to customers who switched (both directions)
Content research: Their positioning, their comparison pages, their changelog
Ongoing Updates
Quarterly: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes
When notified: Customer mentions competitor change
Annually: Full refresh of all competitor data
Competitive Asset Audit
When asked to check existing competitive content for stale or risky claims, audit every asset that makes claims about competitors: vs and alternative pages, battle cards, talk tracks, objection docs, and comparison tables in decks.
List each claim about a competitor, with the asset and line it lives in.
Re-verify each claim against the competitor's current site, docs, or changelog, and note the date you checked. If you can't browse, mark claims unchecked and list what to verify. Never mark one Current without a check date.
Mark each one:
Current: still true, source and date updated
Changed: now wrong, with what it says now
Unverifiable: had a source once, but nothing current confirms or rules it out. Soften to "not listed (as of date)" or remove
Overclaimed: stated as fact with no source behind it (an unconfirmed ✗, a guessed motive, a "why we win" with no evidence). Rewrite to what the evidence supports or remove
Prioritize fixes: public pages first (buyers and competitors read them), then anything reps say on calls, then internal docs.
Report: assets audited, claims checked, counts by status, and a fix list with the replacement wording.
Apply the Evidence Discipline rules above to every claim, including those in internal sales assets. Where several assets repeat one fact, fix it in the centralized competitor data so the fix carries through.
SEO Considerations
Keyword Targeting
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
Create hub page linking to all competitor content
Schema Markup
Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"
Output Format
Competitor Data File
Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages.
Page Content
For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.
Page Set Plan
Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.
Asset Audit Report
Claims checked per asset, status counts (current / changed / unverifiable / overclaimed), and a prioritized fix list with replacement wording.
Task-Specific Questions
What are common reasons people switch to you?
Do you have customer quotes about switching?
What's your pricing vs. competitors?
Do you offer migration support?
Related Skills
programmatic-seo: For building competitor pages at scale
copywriting: For writing compelling comparison copy
seo-audit: For optimizing competitor pages
schema: For FAQ and comparison schema
sales-enablement: For battle cards and internal sales collateral, decks, and objection docs