Most content plans are built by brainstorming in a room. A better plan starts with a spreadsheet of what already ranks, who ranks for it, and which questions nobody has answered properly. Competitor analysis is not about copying; it is about finding the work left undone.

You need about two hours and no paid tools to do this properly for a small site. Here is the process.

Pick five competitors, not fifty

Choose two direct competitors (same service, same buyer), two adjacent ones (a different service to the same buyer), and one large site that dominates your topic. The large site tells you what search engines consider comprehensive; the smaller ones tell you what is realistic.

For each, list the pages that appear for your target searches. Search Console's "Queries" report gives you the searches you already appear for; for the rest, search manually and note who shows up in the top five.

Build a topic map, not a page list

A page list says "they have 340 posts". A topic map says "they cover hiring, pricing and process, but nothing about client onboarding". Group every competitor URL you find under four to eight topics, using the language a customer would use.

A blank row in that map is a gap. So is a row where every competitor has a thin 400-word page — that is not coverage, it is an opportunity to write the thing properly.

Look for four kinds of gap

1. The missing topic

Nobody in your niche has written about the thing your customers ask on the phone. This is the easiest win, because demand already exists and you can hear it in your own inbox.

2. The thin answer

Everyone ranks with a listicle that never shows an example. A single page with a real worked example, a template and a screenshot will outrank six listicles — and it keeps readers on the page longer, which is the outcome you actually want.

3. The outdated answer

Pages written before a platform change are still ranking and still wrong. Rewriting one of those, with the current process and a fresh date, is usually faster than writing something new.

4. The comparison nobody makes

"X vs Y" and "is X worth it" searches sit close to a purchase and are often served only by forums. A fair comparison, including the case where the reader should not buy, earns links and trust at the same time.

Use the customers' words, not the competitors'

Competitor pages tell you what the industry thinks the questions are. Your support inbox tells you what they actually are. Before writing, collect twenty real phrasings from emails, calls and site search, then match each to a gap on the map. If a gap has no real phrasing behind it, deprioritise it — you would be writing for a search that does not happen.

Search Console's query data is useful here for a different reason: it shows the long-tail variations you already get impressions for but do not satisfy. A page that ranks eighth for "how long does an SEO audit take" is telling you exactly what to write next.

Prioritise with two scores

Give every candidate a demand score (1–3) and an effort score (1–3). Demand comes from whether you can find the question in your own inbox or in search suggestions. Effort comes from how much research the piece needs.

  • High demand, low effort: write this week.
  • High demand, high effort: schedule it, and collect material while doing other work.
  • Low demand, low effort: batch these on a slow Friday.
  • Low demand, high effort: delete it from the list and stop feeling guilty.

Do not copy the structure

Matching a competitor's headings produces a page that reads like a rewrite of theirs, which is both dull and risky. Use their coverage to understand the questions, then answer them in the order your customer meets them — usually a different order, because your process is different.

Where a competitor is strong, link to them. A page that cites the best existing answer and adds something new reads as expertise; a page that pretends nothing else exists reads as marketing.

Revisit quarterly

Gaps close. Add a line to your quarterly review to re-run the map for your five competitors and check three things: which of your target pages slipped, which competitor published something new, and which of your own pages should be refreshed rather than replaced.

Checklist

  • Five competitors chosen: two direct, two adjacent, one dominant
  • Their ranking pages grouped into four to eight customer-language topics
  • Four gap types identified: missing, thin, outdated, comparison
  • Twenty real customer phrasings collected before choosing topics
  • Each candidate scored for demand and effort, with a shortlist of five
  • Structure written from your process, not theirs
  • Map revisited every quarter

Once the gaps are chosen, the writing still has to be good: the article structure and search intent decide whether the page earns the position it was written for.