Competitor Intel Report
Know what your rivals are doing and where you win, delivered as a decision-ready report. No Friday-afternoon deep dive required.
A decision-ready intel report on your rivals
A competitor intelligence report on your named rivals — what they're doing, how they position, and where you win.
For the owner-operator who knows exactly who their rivals are but never has a spare afternoon to track them properly. Name the competitors; each run researches their recent moves and writes up where they are winning, where they are exposed, and how to respond. Every claim grounded in what the research found, gaps stated as gaps.
Open it up. See how it works.
A playbook is the way you work, made runnable, built from four ingredients. Tap through each one. The one marked yours is what makes the output specifically about your business.
What every run must deliver
Deliver a decision-ready competitor intelligence report. Given your company and a list of rivals, research each rival's recent moves, compare them against your own positioning, and write up the threats, opportunities, and recommended responses.
A competitor intelligence report on your named rivals — what they're doing, how they position, and where you win.
Straight from the template's own definition.
Your inputs in, a finished output out
You never touch a prompt. YAMO orchestrates the plays in order; you provide the inputs and read the result.
The same template, on your data
Left: the illustrative example. Right: the exact same playbook run on your data.
→ An illustrative report on a sample company with made-up rivals, so it names no real business. Useful to see the shape.
→ Threats framed against your pricing and roadmap, in your voice, on your market. A report you would actually send.
See a finished example
This example shows the shape of the finished output on a labelled sample, not a live run. Your runs use your inputs, your references, and your voice.
Example output — produced by a real run of this template on sample inputs. Sample inputs: company = Lemur Labels (short-run label printing for independent food and drink brands, UK) · competitors = AA Labels, Data Label, StickerApp · focus = pricing, turnaround, small-brand pitch
Competitor Intel Report — Lemur Labels
Executive summary
- StickerApp is a total blind spot — no research data was returned at all. Treat the competitive picture as incomplete until this is closed.
- AA Labels is the sharpest immediate threat: a 24-hour express turnaround beats Lemur's 5-day headline promise, and AA Labels backs its food-sector fit with documented compliance certs and a named case study — proof points Lemur doesn't currently show.
- Data Label is a slower-moving but credible threat on scale: 25 years in business and 5,000+ in-house die-cutters signal a "grow with us" safety net for founders — relevant since Lemur admits it loses on price above ~50k units.
- Pricing is opaque industry-wide. Neither AA Labels nor Data Label publishes a price list; Lemur could be the only player offering real pricing transparency — currently unclaimed ground.
- Lemur's "no minimum order" and "hand-holding for first-timers" are uncontested claims in the research. Biggest single action: double down on these two differentiators in marketing before a rival closes the gap.
Competitor profiles
AA Labels (aalabels.com)
- What they are: UK online label printer competing for the same founder-led, first-time-labelling food/drink buyer as Lemur.
- Recent moves: Not found (no dated announcements in research) — but current site content confirms a live 24-hour express service ("24 hours from final artwork approval for collection or shipping") and published food-contact compliance documentation (FDA 21 CFR 175.105, EU food directives, EN 71-3/71-9), plus a named case study (Husk & Honey granola).
- Positioning: Value/affordability ("lowest online prices" — claimed, not evidenced with a published list), flexibility, personal service, welcoming to customers "new to labelling."
- Signals:
- Strength: Documented compliance + named case study gives concrete food-sector credibility Lemur doesn't currently show. Express tier beats Lemur on raw speed.
- Weakness: Minimum order policy is not stated anywhere found — genuinely unknown, not confirmed as an advantage or gap. Pricing claim ("lowest online") is unbacked by any published rate card.
Data Label (datalabel.co.uk)
- What they are: UK label printer emphasising longevity and tooling depth, targeting a similar value/flexibility positioning.
- Recent moves: Not found (no dated announcements) — standing capabilities found are 25-year operating history and a library of 5,000+ in-house die-cutters ("rare to lack a suitable shape").
- Positioning: Speed + value + flexibility + heritage; "small team, flexible and responsive."
- Signals:
- Strength: Demonstrated scaling from ~200 units to 10,000s+, and tooling depth reduces shape/turnaround friction for growing brands — a soft threat to Lemur's post-50k-unit weak spot.
- Weakness: No express/rush tier found (~5 working days standard, same as Lemur, no faster option). No food-sector compliance messaging found — behind AA Labels on that specific trust signal. No minimum order stated explicitly, but implied baseline of ~50–200 units.
StickerApp (stickerapp.com)
- What they are: Not found — research returned no data on this competitor.
- Recent moves: Not found.
- Positioning: Not found.
- Signals: Not found. This is a confirmed research gap, not evidence of weakness or strength. Must be re-researched before treating the competitive landscape as complete.
Threats and opportunities
Threats
- AA Labels' 24-hour express service directly undercuts Lemur's core speed claim of "5 working days." Evidence: aalabels.com / advancelabels.co.uk express-service copy.
- AA Labels shows documented food-contact compliance certs and a named food-brand case study; Lemur's food focus is currently only implied via target-customer description, with no compliance documentation surfaced in research. Evidence: FDA 21 CFR 175.105, EU food directives, EN 71-3/71-9 references; Husk & Honey case study.
- Data Label's 25-year history and 5,000+ cutter library position it as the lower-risk choice for founders anticipating growth — a direct pressure point given Lemur's own admitted weakness above ~50k units. Evidence: Data Label site copy on cutter library and small-team flexibility.
Opportunities
- No rival research surfaced an explicit "no minimum order" claim to match Lemur's — AA Labels is silent on the point, Data Label implies a ~50–200 unit floor. This is open ground for Lemur to push harder.
- Pricing transparency is a gap across the whole field — both rivals require a quote with no published figures. Lemur publishing even indicative starting prices would be a unique, concrete claim.
- Neither rival frames onboarding as active "hand-holding through your first print run" — AA Labels talks generic "personal service," Data Label mentions team flexibility, but neither owns the specific first-timer-support narrative Lemur already uses.
- No competitor research found an equivalent named, quantified "free artwork check on every job" service — only general "design advisory" language. This is a low-cost, ownable claim.
Recommended responses
- Close the StickerApp gap immediately. Commission a direct, targeted re-research pass on stickerapp.com before treating any competitive strategy as final — the current landscape map has a hole big enough to hide a real threat.
- Address the speed gap versus AA Labels. Either introduce a paid rush/express tier to match the 24-hour benchmark, or reposition the 5-day promise around reliability and hand-holding rather than raw speed, since AA Labels currently wins on the direct comparison.
- Build visible food-sector trust signals. Publish adhesive/food-contact compliance information and at least one named food/drink customer case study to close the credibility gap AA Labels currently holds alone.
- Foreground the two uncontested claims harder. Make "no minimum order" and "we hand-hold first-time founders through their first run" load-bearing headlines in marketing — no rival evidence currently contests either.
- Test publishing indicative starting prices for short runs. No competitor discloses pricing; being first to do so would be a concrete, differentiated claim rather than another "competitive pricing" assertion nobody can verify.
An illustrative example, labelled as such: it shows the shape of the output rather than a recorded run.
Common questions
No. This template runs on a fresh account: nothing to connect before your first run.
Each run asks for: your company, competitors to research, focus area. Swap the competitive-positioning.md reference for your own doc and the output adapts to your language and priorities.
The template is free to copy and no card is required to sign up. When it runs, you pay for exactly what the run used: LLM calls passed through at cost plus the platform operations, itemised on a receipt every run.
Yes. It copies into your account as an editable draft: change the plays, swap the references, set the schedule. Your data and your recipe stay private to your account, and when you publish it as your own service the price is yours to set.
Make this playbook yours.
Copy it into your account as an editable draft, plug in your data, and run it.