I think most founders are doing competitor research wrong
most competitor research feels weirdly unhelpful to me.
you spend hours looking at:
- websites
- pricing pages
- feature lists
- ads
- reviews
and still end up thinking:
“okay… but where’s the actual opportunity?”
that’s honestly part of why we started building Competitor Snap (https://www.competitorsnap.com/).
the most useful insight usually isn’t:
“who are your competitors?”
it’s:
- what are they all saying similarly?
- what audiences are they ignoring?
- what assumptions does the market keep repeating?
- where’s the positioning gap?
we tested this recently on a pet wearable category and almost every company was competing around: GPS + tracking.
barely anyone was positioning around: preventative health + early illness detection.
that immediately felt more interesting than: “better tracking.”
curious: when you do competitor research for your startup, what are you actually trying to learn from it?
you can try the tool here - would genuinely love any feedback if you do:
https://www.competitorsnap.com/
I think the biggest shift is going from “competitor research” to “market pattern research.”
Knowing who your competitors are is useful, but the more interesting questions are:
What are they all optimizing for?
What assumptions are they making?
What user problems are consistently underserved?
And what changed recently that might create a new opportunity?
I also think the time dimension matters more than people realize. A positioning gap that exists today might disappear in 3 months, while a new gap can emerge because of pricing changes, new features, or a shift in who competitors are targeting.
So for me, the ideal output of competitor research isn't a competitor list. It's a shortlist of opportunities worth investigating further.
This framing is sharper than a normal competitor research tool because you’re not selling “find competitors.” You’re selling the part founders actually need: pattern detection across a market. Same claims, ignored audiences, repeated assumptions, and the positioning gap nobody is using yet.
The pet wearable example makes that very clear. “Everyone says GPS tracking, almost nobody says preventative health” is the kind of insight that can change a landing page, ad angle, ICP, and even product roadmap. I’d lead with that outcome more directly because “competitor research” sounds like data collection, while the real value is strategic positioning clarity.
The naming layer matters here too. Competitor Snap explains the feature, but it also keeps the product boxed into screenshots/research. If this becomes a broader positioning intelligence product for founders, Beryxa .com would carry the category more seriously and give you more room than a descriptive name tied only to competitors.