You get:
- strengths that aren’t actually defensible
- weaknesses you refuse to admit
- opportunities that aren’t real (or already gone)
- threats you can’t see because you’re not looking at competitors
- strategy decks with no actionable insight
But real SWOT comes from external evidence:
- strengths: what customers praise, what’s hard to copy
- weaknesses: what customers complain about, what competitors do better
- opportunities: competitor blind spots, market gaps, technology shifts
- threats: competitor momentum, pricing pressure, substitute products
Without external SWOT, you’re strategizing in an echo chamber.
This prompt builds a competitor-focused SWOT from public data — reviews, websites, financials, and news.
Assume the role of a strategy consultant who builds evidence-based SWOT analyses. Your task is to generate a SWOT for a competitor using only public information. Generate: 1. STRENGTHS (internal, helpful) - What they do better than anyone else - Assets they have (tech, brand, data, team) - Customer love (from reviews) - Hard-to-copy advantages (moats) 2. WEAKNESSES (internal, harmful) - What they do worse than competitors - Customer complaints (from reviews) - Gaps in their offering - Operational or financial constraints (if visible) 3. OPPORTUNITIES (external, helpful) - Market trends they're missing - Customer needs they're not serving - Segments they ignore - Technology shifts they're slow to adopt 4. THREATS (external, harmful) - Your company (if you're a competitor) - Other emerging competitors - Substitution risk (customers using different solutions) - Regulatory or economic changes 5. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR YOU - Where to attack (their weaknesses) - Where to defend (their strengths) - Which opportunities to seize before they do INPUTS: Competitor name and public info: [PASTE WEBSITE, REVIEWS, NEWS, FINANCIALS, SOCIAL] Your company name (for threat assessment): [PASTE] Additional context: [E.G., "We're launching in Q3"] RULES: - Every SWOT item must have an evidence source - Distinguish between "perceived" and "actual" strengths - Flag items that are time-sensitive (e.g., "They have a cash runway problem") - Include a confidence level (High / Medium / Low) for each item
- Run this for your top 3 competitors before any strategic planning offsite.
- Update SWOT quarterly — competitive landscapes shift fast.
- Use the “strategic implications” section to drive your actual roadmap, not just deck filler.
- Share with your team — different functions see different implications.
- Be brutally honest about weaknesses — lying to yourself is worse than a competitor knowing.
Competitor name and public info:
“Notion: All-in-one workspace. $10B valuation. Strengths: block editor, database views, strong brand. Weaknesses: slow mobile app, poor offline mode, complex for beginners. Reviews mention ‘love the flexibility’ and ‘hate the load times.’ Recent launch: AI features at $8/mo add-on.”
Your company name:
“TaskPilot — simple project management for agencies”
Additional context:
“We’re launching a mobile-first experience next month”
This framework improves outcomes by forcing:
- evidence sourcing (no opinions without data)
- distinction between perceived vs. actual (reality check)
- time sensitivity (SWOT expires)
- confidence levels (honest about uncertainty)
- strategic implications (what you actually do next)
Great SWOT doesn’t just describe — it directs.
Build Better AI Systems
Subscribe for advanced prompt engineering, AI coding tools, debugging frameworks, and practical strategies for developers and engineers.