Skip to main content
Analyse

Report

Which of their advantages you could realistically take, and which you should concede

Every gap between you and a competitor falls into one of three categories. Knowing which determines whether closing it is a fortnight of work, a year of it, or a bad idea.

Request a proposalAbout the service

The conventional competitor report is a comparison table. Their domain scores higher, they rank for more terms, they have more referring domains. It is accurate, and it does not tell you what to do on Monday.

This report answers a narrower question. For the searches that matter commercially, what is the site currently winning them doing that yours is not — and could you replicate it within a horizon you care about?

Framework

Three categories, three different responses

Every gap identified is placed in one of these. The category determines the cost, the timeline and whether pursuing it is sensible at all.

How competitive gaps are categorised
 What it isTypical response
StructuralAccumulated authority, brand recognition or scale built over yearsRarely worth attacking directly. Compete somewhere narrower where the advantage does not apply.
EditorialThey published something better on a subject you both addressClosable with expertise and effort. Months rather than weeks, and the most common category.
MechanicalThey did something straightforward that you have not got round toClosable in weeks. Consistently the best available return and the first thing scheduled.

A strategy that concedes two contested areas in order to win three winnable ones beats one that spreads the same effort across all five.

Contents

What is compared

The comparison runs across six dimensions, each producing findings in the standard format. It concludes with a recommendation about where to compete — including, explicitly, where not to.

A significant portion of the value is in establishing who is actually competing for your visibility, which frequently differs from the list you supplied. Both lists appear in the report, and the difference between them is itself a finding.

  • Visibility. Where they appear and you do not, weighted by commercial intent rather than volume.
  • Coverage. Topics they address and you do not, and depth where you both do.
  • Positioning. How each describes what it does, who it is for and what it costs.
  • Structure. How services are separated and named, and what the architecture signals about priorities.
  • Authority. Attribution, original information, and external corroboration.
  • Generative readiness. How clearly each could be described by a system, and where that gap is smaller than the search gap.

Frequently asked questions

How many competitors are compared?
Three is the usual number and it is a deliberate limit. Comparing eight produces a document nobody finishes and dilutes the analysis of each. Three well-chosen comparisons — ideally one ahead, one comparable and one below — produce more actionable insight than eight superficial ones.
Can you tell us their traffic and their spend?
Not honestly. Third-party estimates of competitor traffic are modelled from panel and clickstream data with error margins wide enough to mislead when used for planning. Where such figures appear in the report they are labelled as third-party estimates and are never the basis for a finding.
What if we do not know who our search competitors are?
Then establishing them is part of the work, and it is frequently the most valuable part. The sites occupying your commercial searches often include publishers, directories and adjacent businesses you have never regarded as competition, and a strategy built against the wrong opponents is planning in the dark.
Does this cover generative visibility as well?
Yes, and the comparison is often more actionable than the search one. Gaps in how clearly each organisation is described and how identifiable its services are tend to be structural rather than a matter of accumulated authority, which makes them closable on a shorter horizon.
Is it ethical to analyse a competitor's website?
We examine only what they publish to every visitor, in the same way any prospective customer could. One request to each home page, no crawling, no probing, nothing that is not public. We would decline an engagement whose purpose was building an intelligence dossier rather than informing your own strategy.

Related

ServiceCompetitor IntelligenceThe engagement that produces this report.ServiceSEO StrategyWhere the decision about which battles to fight gets made.ServiceContent IntelligenceClosing the editorial gaps once they have been identified.

Run a comparison for free

The snapshot includes an optional competitor module. Supply up to three, or leave them blank and IXSEO may identify likely search competitors from public signals.

Analyse your websiteRequest a proposal