Verified against Perplexity · 2026-07-27
Find exactly what's outranking you and why, subtopic by subtopic
Compares your page against the 2-3 pages currently beating it and returns specific, evidence-backed gaps — a missing pricing table, an uncredentialed claim, a cut section — instead of a vague "add more depth" verdict.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are a content auditor running a competitive gap analysis, not issuing a generic "add more content" verdict. TARGET KEYWORD: how to price a website redesign YOUR CURRENT PAGE: [paste your page text, including headings] PAGES CURRENTLY OUTRANKING YOU (labeled by source): Competitor A (agencyworks.com): [full text] Competitor B (designhub.io): [full text] TASK 1. MISSING SUBTOPICS. List subtopics or questions the competitors cover that your page doesn't. Be specific — not "more detail," but the actual thing: "Competitor A includes a cost-by-project-size table broken into small/medium/large; your page only states 'it depends.'" 2. WHAT YOU ALREADY DO BETTER. List anything your page already covers that none of the competitors do. This step exists so closing gaps in step 1 doesn't come at the cost of cutting your page's actual differentiation — name it explicitly so it survives the edit. 3. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. Compare tables, FAQs, calculators, worked examples, downloadable templates, or original data and screenshots. State plainly which structural elements the competitors use that yours lacks, and which — if any — you already have that they don't. 4. EXPERTISE SIGNALS. Compare named authors or credentials, first-hand case studies, specific numbers versus vague claims, and citations to real sources. Give an honest verdict on whether your page currently reads as less authoritative than the competitors, and name the specific thing causing that impression rather than a general "needs more trust signals." 5. WHAT TO CUT. Identify redundant, outdated, or low-value sections in your own page that add length without adding value. Cutting these matters as much as adding what's missing — a page that grows only by addition eventually reads as padded even after every real gap is closed. 6. PRIORITIZE. Rank the 3 changes most likely to move the needle against this specific competitive set, separate from minor polish that can wait. CONSTRAINT Every gap named must point to a specific, real thing a competitor page actually does — never a generic "add more expert quotes" or "improve depth" with no source. If you can't point to the specific competitor evidence for a suggested change, don't include it. OUTPUT The six sections above as labeled headers, in order, ending with the prioritized 3.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
A page-by-page gap analysis targets the same underlying signal search engines' relevance and topical-completeness models actually reward — comprehensive coverage of a subject rather than a shorter treatment of the same ground — but it only produces something actionable if every gap is tied to concrete competitor evidence, which is why the constraint against generic suggestions is load-bearing rather than a style note: "add more expert quotes" gives a writer nothing to act on, while "Competitor B names a licensed contractor and cites a 2026 material-cost index; your page has neither" tells them exactly what to build. Protecting what your page already does better in a dedicated step, rather than trusting the model to preserve it while closing gaps, matters because a blind "match every competitor feature" pass has a predictable failure mode: it dilutes a page's real differentiation in the process of chasing parity, since nothing in a simple gap-closing instruction rewards keeping a unique angle that no competitor validates by having it too. The separate cutting step exists because most gap analyses only ever add — outdated sections, a paragraph answering a question nobody asks anymore, a section that was relevant two content updates ago — accumulate invisibly, and a page that only grows eventually reads as padded even after every genuine gap from the competitor set is closed, which actively works against the depth-without-bloat signal the whole exercise is trying to earn.
What you get back
Missing: Competitor A includes a cost-by-project-size table (small/medium/large agency); your page only says "costs vary." Competitor B names a senior designer with 8 years' experience and a dated case study; your page has no byline or named author. What you already do better: your page is the only one that addresses redesign cost for nonprofits specifically — keep this, don't cut it while adding the pricing table. Structural gap: neither competitor has a downloadable checklist; yours does — a real advantage, note it explicitly so it survives the edit. Cut: a 200-word "history of web design" section adds length with no ranking or reader value — remove it to make room for the pricing table without growing total word count. Priority: 1) add the cost-by-project-size table, 2) add a named author with credentials, 3) cut the history section.
Verified against
Perplexity Sonar Pro · 2026-07-27
Claude Claude Sonnet 5 · 2026-08-03
Changelog
- 2026-07-27 — Initial publish, verified against Perplexity Sonar Pro.
- 2026-08-03 — Re-verified against Claude Sonnet 5; added the explicit "protect what you already do better" step after a test run recommended cutting a page's only genuine differentiator to make room for competitor-matching content.
Building this for real?
This is a free starting point. If you'd rather have SEO built and running for your business, that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE SEO
