Digital marketing competitor analysis template
A competitor analysis template as an Excel workbook, with eleven columns chosen because each one changes a decision — ending with "what I will do", because a row without an action is research rather than analysis. It separates the three kinds of competitor most analyses confuse: direct, adjacent, and the search-only competitor who outranks you without competing for your customer at all.
- TEMPLATE
- XLSX
- EXAMPLE
- FREE
- Best for
- Anyone about to reposition, or losing ground without knowing to whom
- Includes
- Excel matrix + worked example (PDF)
- Time to use
- 2–3 hours for three competitors
Free to download and use in your own client work. No email address required.
Created by Alston Antony Ahrefs SEO Certified · 15+ years in search Updated
Most competitor analyses are research that never becomes a decision: twenty rows describing what everyone else does, and no conclusion.
This template has eleven columns and the last one is what I will do. A row without an entry there is research, not analysis.
Preview of the file
Three kinds of competitor
Confusing these is the most common analysis error, and it wastes the most effort.
| Type | What it means | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | Sells the same thing to the same buyer | Easy to obsess over. Usually the least useful for finding a gap |
| Adjacent | Solves the same problem a different way | Where substitution actually comes from, and usually ignored |
| Search-only | Outranks you but does not compete commercially — a directory, a publisher, a tool | You may not be able to beat them. Decide whether the query is worth contesting at all |
The search-only competitor changes what you should do
If a directory or a major publisher owns page one for a query, the honest options are to compete on something they structurally cannot offer — original assets, real testing, a named accountable author — or to leave the query alone. Trying to out-publish a publisher is how content budgets disappear.
What goes in each column, and where to get it
The step that stalls people is not choosing competitors, it is filling the cells. Every column in the spreadsheet, and what belongs in it:
| Column | What to put in it |
|---|---|
| Competitor | Name and URL. |
| Type | Direct, adjacent, or a search competitor who is not a business competitor. |
| Positioning claim | The promise on their homepage, in their words. |
| Price signal | Published price, "from" price, or none. Note which. |
| Primary channel | Where their traffic visibly comes from. |
| Est. organic traffic | From your SEO tool. Directional only. |
| Ranking pages that matter | The pages beating you for queries you want. |
| Content depth | Thin, comparable, or substantially better than yours. |
| Proof they use | Case studies, numbers, logos, reviews, or nothing. |
| Their weakness | The gap you could credibly occupy. |
| What I will do | One action. A row with no action is research, not analysis. |
For the five columns people get stuck on, this is where the data comes from.
| Column | Where to find it |
|---|---|
| Positioning claim | Their homepage hero. Copy it verbatim — paraphrasing hides how vague it is |
| Price signal | Pricing page, or its absence. “No published price” is itself a finding |
| Est. organic traffic | Ahrefs, Semrush or similar. Comparable within one tool only |
| Ranking pages that matter | Your own Search Console queries, then check who ranks above you |
| Proof they use | Homepage and case studies. Note whether their numbers have a baseline |
Never mix traffic estimates from different tools
Every tool models traffic differently. Two competitors measured in two tools are not comparable, and the resulting column will rank the wrong threats. Pick one tool for the whole sheet.
Worked example
Three illustrative competitors, analysed through to a decision. What the example is really demonstrating is the shape of a useful weakness — a gap you could credibly occupy, not a feature you could copy.
| Competitor | Type | Positioning | Price | Their weakness | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Established incumbent (illustrative) | Direct | "The complete platform for growing teams" | No published price, "book a demo" only | Nothing for a buyer under 20 people; every page assumes an enterprise procurement process. | Publish transparent pricing and a page written for a 5–20 person team. |
| Content publisher (illustrative) | Search-only | A media site monetised by affiliate links | n/a | Their reviews are written from documentation, not use. No original assets. | Compete on originality rather than volume: real files and tested verdicts they cannot match. |
| Cheaper alternative (illustrative) | Adjacent | "Do it yourself in an afternoon" | Published, low, self-serve | No support and no accountability, which matters the moment something breaks. | Make the cost of getting it wrong explicit, rather than arguing about price. |
Notice that none of the three actions is “do what they do”. Copying a competitor’s strength leaves you permanently second at their game.
Common mistakes
- Listing twenty competitors. Three analysed properly beats twenty in a spreadsheet nobody reads.
- Only tracking direct competitors, and missing the adjacent substitute actually taking your buyers.
- Comparing traffic estimates across different tools as if they were the same number.
- Recording what they do without deciding what you will do.
- Copying a competitor’s strength instead of finding the gap they have left.
- Doing it once. It is only useful as a repeated measurement.
Turning the analysis into a decision
The output should change something specific: a positioning line, a price, a page you write, or a query you stop contesting. If nothing in your strategy changes as a result, the analysis was reassurance rather than research — and the “what I will do” column is there to make that impossible to miss.