LOCAL

Local competitor gap analysis

Use when a competitor consistently outranks you in the map pack and you need to find out what they have that you do not.

local-competitor-gap.md

Download .md

Compare our local presence against competitors ranking above us and find the actionable gaps.

Search term and location the comparison is based on: {{SEARCH_TERM_AND_LOCATION}}
Our profile and site details: {{OUR_DETAILS}}
Competitor one, details observed: {{COMPETITOR_1}}
Competitor two, details observed: {{COMPETITOR_2}}
Competitor three, details observed: {{COMPETITOR_3}}

Build a comparison table. Rows are factors, columns are us and each competitor. Cover: primary category, number of secondary categories, review count, average rating, review recency, review response rate, photo count, services listed, posting activity, proximity to the searcher, landing page used, page depth on that service, and named local proof on the page.

Then produce a gap list, ranked by this rule: fixable this month first, then fixable this quarter, then structural factors we cannot change. Within each group, rank by likely effect on ranking.

For each gap give: what they have, what we have, the specific action, and a realistic effort estimate.

Rules:
- Use only the details I supplied. Where a cell is unknown, write "not observed" rather than guessing.
- Name proximity and address location as structural factors if that is what the data shows, and do not suggest fake addresses, virtual offices or keyword-stuffed business names as a fix under any circumstances.
- Do not estimate ranking weights as percentages. Rank order only.

Finish with the three actions I should take first and what a realistic result looks like.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{SEARCH_TERM_AND_LOCATION}}
{{OUR_DETAILS}}
{{COMPETITOR_1}}
{{COMPETITOR_2}}
{{COMPETITOR_3}}

Getting a better result

Record the observed details from an incognito search near the location you care about, not from your own logged-in view.
Review recency and response rate are the gaps most businesses can actually close within a month.
If proximity is the real gap, no amount of content work will fix it - spend the effort on conversion instead.

Questions about this prompt

When is this the right prompt?

When the same competitor sits above you in the map pack and you cannot say why. It compares profile factors such as review recency, response rate, photo count and posting activity alongside the landing page, and it separates what you can fix this month from what you cannot change at all.

What do I need to gather first?

Details observed from an incognito search near the location you care about, not from your logged in view, for yourself and three competitors. Anything you did not see goes in as not observed rather than guessed, so a thin observation set produces a thin table. Note which landing page each competitor uses.

What comes back?

A factor by factor comparison table, gaps grouped into fixable this month, fixable this quarter and structural, then three actions to start with and what a realistic result looks like. The structural group is the honest part: proximity and address location sit there and no amount of content work moves them.

What is the mistake?

Treating a proximity gap as a content problem. Where the comparison shows distance is the difference, spend the effort on conversion instead. Never act on a suggestion to change the address or stuff keywords into the business name; the prompt refuses to make one and the risk sits entirely with you.