Purpose
Produce a rigorous, scored competitive assessment of a payments player against named rivals across the dimensions that actually determine market power — so strategy leaders can see where they win, where they're exposed, and which positioning moves matter most. Replaces subjective "we're strong in X" narratives with a defensible, weighted matrix.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Benchmark a payments company (acquirer, processor, gateway, PSP, issuer, network, wallet, or BNPL player) against named competitors
- Prepare a competitive positioning section for a strategy review or board deck
- Assess where their payments product loses deals or pricing to specific rivals
- Evaluate a new market entrant, fintech disruptor, or acquisition target's competitive strength
- Build a defensible scored matrix to justify investment in a specific capability
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Subject company: The payments player being scored, and its segment (e.g., merchant acquirer, embedded payments platform, card network)
- Named competitors: 2–5 specific rivals to score against (not "the market")
- Primary battleground: The main segment, geography, or customer type where they compete (e.g., SMB acquiring in the US, cross-border B2B, enterprise orchestration)
- Strategic priority: What the assessment is for — win-rate improvement, M&A, market entry, board review
- Known strengths/weaknesses: Any internal view of where they lead or lag
- Dimension weighting preference: Whether any dimension matters more given their strategy (default: weight by battleground relevance)
If competitor detail is thin, score on best-available public knowledge of each player's known posture and flag confidence level per dimension.
Instructions
Step 1: Confirm the Scoring Frame
State the subject company, its segment, the named competitors, and the primary battleground in one sentence. Assign a weight (%) to each of the 6 dimensions summing to 100%, calibrated to the battleground. Example: in SMB acquiring, distribution and pricing weight higher; in orchestration, tech infrastructure and product breadth weight higher. Show the weights explicitly before scoring.
Step 2: Score Each Dimension (1–10) for Subject and Each Competitor
Score every player on all 6 dimensions using this rubric (1 = severely disadvantaged, 5 = at parity/table stakes, 8 = clear advantage, 10 = category-defining moat). Each score requires one-sentence evidence.
Dimension 1 — Product Breadth Range and depth of the payments stack: acceptance methods, payout capabilities, adjacent value-added services (fraud, FX, lending, reconciliation, issuing).
- Score up for: full-stack coverage, native VAS, ability to serve a customer end-to-end
- Score down for: single-product dependence, gaps forcing customers to stitch multiple vendors
Dimension 2 — Pricing Competitiveness Effective take rate and pricing flexibility relative to value delivered.
- Score up for: ability to price aggressively via cost advantage (scale, interchange optimization, on-us routing), transparent/interchange-plus models where the segment values it
- Score down for: structurally higher cost base, opaque pricing that loses trust, inability to flex on large deals
Dimension 3 — Technology Infrastructure Reliability, latency, API quality, uptime, orchestration/routing intelligence, and modernity of the core platform.
- Score up for: high uptime SLAs, developer-loved APIs, intelligent routing, low legacy debt
- Score down for: batch-era cores, integration friction, outage history, limited real-time capability
Dimension 4 — Distribution Reach How the player acquires and retains volume: direct sales, ISV/platform partnerships, embedded/PayFac distribution, bank channels, geographic footprint.
- Score up for: strong ISV/platform embedding, bank distribution, network effects, multi-market licensing
- Score down for: single-channel dependence, narrow geography, high CAC with weak retention
Dimension 5 — Data Assets Proprietary transaction data and the ability to convert it into advantage — fraud models, credit decisioning, merchant benchmarking, network intelligence.
- Score up for: large proprietary datasets, closed-loop visibility, data-driven products competitors can't replicate
- Score down for: thin data, no closed loop, data locked in silos or not productized
Dimension 6 — Regulatory Standing Licensing footprint, compliance maturity, capital position, and resilience to regulatory shifts (interchange caps, PSD-type rules, sanctions, stablecoin/digital-currency exposure).
- Score up for: broad licensing, strong compliance track record, regulatory relationships, diversified exposure
- Score down for: license gaps blocking expansion, enforcement history, concentration in a rules regime under pressure
Step 3: Build the Weighted Matrix
Compute a weighted total for each player: (dimension score × dimension weight), summed across all 6. Present the full matrix as a table with players as columns and dimensions as rows, raw scores in cells, weighted total at the bottom, and rank the players by weighted total.
Step 4: Dimension-Level Narrative
For each of the 6 dimensions, write 2–3 sentences: who leads, who trails, and the specific reason the gap exists (not just the score). Name the mechanism — e.g., "Competitor A's on-us routing gives a structural 15–25bps cost edge that the subject cannot match without volume it doesn't have."
Step 5: Competitive Gap Analysis
Identify the subject company's:
- 2 defensible advantages: dimensions where the lead is structural and hard to erode
- 2 exposed flanks: dimensions where a competitor's lead directly threatens win-rate or margin
- 1 contested dimension: where the battle is live and small moves change outcomes
Step 6: Five Prioritized Positioning Moves
Rank 5 specific moves by impact-to-effort. Each move states: the dimension it targets, the competitor it neutralizes or overtakes, the mechanism, and the leading indicator that would show it's working. Be opinionated about sequencing.
Output Format
- Structure: Scoring frame with weights → weighted scoring matrix (table) → dimension narrative → gap analysis → 5 ranked moves
- Length: 1,000–1,400 words plus the matrix table
- Format: Prose sections with one central scored table
- Sections: Scoring Frame & Weights → Scored Matrix → Dimension-Level Narrative → Competitive Gap Analysis → Five Prioritized Positioning Moves
- Tone: Strategy-director analytical — direct, evidence-backed, willing to name where the subject loses; no hedging or generic benchmarking
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Dimension weights are stated explicitly and sum to 100%
- [ ] Every player is scored 1–10 on all 6 dimensions (count the cells)
- [ ] Each score carries one-sentence evidence — no bare numbers
- [ ] Weighted totals are computed and players are ranked by them
- [ ] Gap analysis names exactly 2 advantages, 2 exposed flanks, and 1 contested dimension
- [ ] All 5 positioning moves name a specific competitor and a leading indicator
Notes
- The most common error is scoring on brand perception rather than mechanism — always tie pricing to cost structure and product breadth to actual stack coverage, not marketing claims
- Where public data is thin, score to parity (5) and flag low confidence rather than inventing a differentiated number
- Distribution and pricing tend to decide SMB battlegrounds; tech infrastructure and product breadth decide enterprise and orchestration battlegrounds — weight accordingly
- Regulatory standing is frequently underweighted until a rule change reshapes economics overnight; treat it as a latent variable, not a static one
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills