You can't change your market structure. But you can design around it — if you understand it.
One of the most common mistakes in early-stage competitive analysis is the "3x3 grid" — a chart showing 3 competitors with 3 features where the founder's product conveniently has all 3 and the competitors have none. This is not competitive analysis. It is a marketing exercise dressed as strategy. Sophisticated investors and accelerators see this immediately and it damages credibility.
What investors are actually assessing when they look at competitive intensity is whether the market structure favours the entry of a new venture. A market with many well-resourced incumbents, high customer switching costs, and powerful buyers is structurally difficult — not impossible, but difficult in ways that must be explicitly acknowledged and designed around. A market with fragmented competition, low switching costs, and a dominant manual workaround is structurally more favourable for a new entrant.
The Competitive Intensity dimension in the VRS is unique among the 8 dimensions because it assesses the market, not the venture. A high score here — indicating low competitive intensity — means the structural conditions favour your entry. A low score means the market is structurally difficult and the founder must demonstrate they have a specific strategy for navigating that difficulty. Neither outcome is fatal. Both require honesty. A founder who scores their market accurately and demonstrates a credible design around the structural challenges is more investable than one who insists the market is favourable when it manifestly is not.
"The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do."
— Michael Porter, Professor, Harvard Business School
"If you don't have a competitive advantage, don't compete."
— Jack Welch, former CEO, General Electric
The Five Forces framework, originally developed by Michael Porter, is one of the most durable tools in strategic analysis. In the VRS adaptation, we have oriented it specifically for early-stage ventures assessing their entry conditions. The key difference from standard applications: in the VRS context, a HIGH score means a FAVOURABLE condition (low competitive intensity = easier to win). A LOW score means a CHALLENGING condition (high competitive intensity = harder to win).
Each force is scored 1–5. Score 5 means the force is highly favourable for a new entrant. Score 1 means the force creates a significant structural barrier or threat. The total score (out of 25) informs the VRS D7 score and flags which forces require active mitigation strategies.
How many direct competitors exist? How large, well-funded, and active are they? Is the market growing (reducing rivalry) or static (intensifying it)? A score of 5 means few direct competitors, limited awareness of your specific niche, and a growing market. A score of 1 means numerous well-funded competitors actively competing for the same customer.
How easy is it for a new competitor to enter your market? Low barriers (simple technology, no regulatory requirements, no network effects) mean this threat is high — score it low. High barriers (complex integrations, regulatory licences, established data advantages, long sales cycles) reduce the threat — score it high. Note: the same barriers that protect you also applied when you entered. Be honest about how defensible your position actually is.
How much leverage do your customers have in pricing and contract negotiations? A market where a small number of large buyers control a significant share of potential revenue is high-buyer-power — score it low. A fragmented customer base with many small buyers is low-buyer-power — score it higher. High buyer power leads to margin compression and long sales cycles. Mitigation strategies include switching costs, multi-year contracts, and product lock-in.
What are you dependent on that you do not control? Technology platforms, payment processors, logistics networks, data providers, key personnel — all are suppliers. If a platform change or price increase by a supplier could critically damage your business, supplier power is high — score it low. If you have multiple alternatives and switching is easy, supplier power is low — score it high. For SaaS ventures, cloud infrastructure pricing is typically the primary supplier risk.
What else can your customer use instead of your product — including manual processes, workarounds, and doing nothing? If substitutes are painful, expensive, or inferior, the threat is low — score it high. If a free tool, a cheap alternative, or a manual process adequately meets the need, the threat is high — score it low. The most common substitute for early-stage B2B SaaS in developing markets is the manual process, which is "free" in perceived cost but expensive in actual staff time — a good position for a well-priced solution.
You cannot change your market structure. What you can do is design your product, pricing, contracts, partnerships, and go-to-market approach to work with the structure you have, not the one you wish you had. Every low-scoring force is a structural challenge with a specific mechanism to mitigate it. The job of this dimension is to name both honestly: the challenge AND the mitigation design.
Complete this scorecard based on evidence, not assumption. For each force, identify specific competitors, specific customers, specific suppliers, or specific substitutes. Generic statements like "the market is competitive" or "customers have some leverage" are not evidence-based scores. Spend at least 2 hours on this exercise before submitting your next programme or investor application.
Scoring: 1 = very unfavourable (high competitive pressure), 5 = very favourable (low competitive pressure). Higher total score = more favourable market structure for a new entrant.
| Force | Score (1–5) | Evidence (be specific) | What you can design around it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competitive Rivalry Who are your direct competitors? How active are they in your specific segment? |
[1–5] | [Name 2–3 competitors, their funding, their focus] | [Niche focus, speed, local advantage, etc.] |
| Threat of New Entrants How easy is your product to replicate? What barriers exist? |
[1–5] | [Integration complexity, data moat, regulation, network effects] | [Build switching costs, partnerships, data advantage] |
| Buyer Power How much pricing leverage do your customers have? |
[1–5] | [# of potential buyers, concentration of revenue in top 3 customers] | [Multi-year contracts, switching costs, annual pre-pay discounts] |
| Supplier Power What are you most dependent on that you do not control? |
[1–5] | [Primary supplier, alternatives available, switching cost] | [Multi-vendor strategy, API abstraction layer, contracts] |
| Threat of Substitutes What does your customer use instead of your product? |
[1–5] | [Manual process, free tools, competitor alternatives] | [Quantify the cost of the substitute vs. your price] |
| Total Score | [Sum ÷ 5 = average] | Interpretation: 18–25 = Favourable structure. 12–17 = Moderate. Below 12 = Structurally challenging — mitigation strategies essential. | |
Competitive intelligence used to require expensive subscriptions and analyst reports. AI tools have democratised access to the same information for early-stage founders with no research budget.
Recommended tools: Perplexity AI (real-time competitor research), Crayon or Kompyte (competitor tracking), or a structured prompt: "Analyse the competitive landscape for [your market] in [geography]. Identify the top 5 players, their positioning, pricing, strengths and weaknesses, and the most defensible gap a new entrant could occupy." Run this quarterly and compare outputs to track how the landscape is shifting.
In 2007, Nokia controlled 49% of the global mobile phone market. Apple entered with the iPhone — not competing on hardware specs or price, but redefining the competitive category entirely from "mobile phone" to "internet communicator." Nokia had superior distribution, manufacturing scale, and brand recognition in handsets. None of it mattered because the competitive dimension had shifted.
The lesson: The most dangerous competitor is not the one competing on your terms — it is the one who changes what the terms are.
Amara completes the Five Forces Scorecard for TrackFlow's Ghana market and spends 2 hours researching each force with specific evidence. Her scores: Competitive Rivalry: 4 (few direct competitors tracking last-mile delivery for SMEs specifically in Ghana — the main players, Sendy and Kobo360, focus on enterprise and freight logistics, not SME e-commerce); New Entrants: 3 (moderate barrier — the courier API integrations take 3–4 months to build and require relationships with local courier networks); Supplier Power: 4 (AWS pricing is stable, and TrackFlow uses 3 courier APIs, so no single dependency); Threat of Substitutes: 3 (WhatsApp-based manual tracking exists but is genuinely painful — 11 hours/week confirmed in beta data).
The weak score is Buyer Power: 2. Amara's analysis: the e-commerce SME market in Ghana is fragmented (high number of small buyers — good), but 3 large courier companies control 70% of deliveries in Greater Accra and could, in theory, launch their own tracking tools or heavily discount tracking features to lock in their logistics clients (bad). She also notes that her first 6 pilot customers represent 50% of TrackFlow's MRR — concentrated revenue in a tiny customer base that currently has significant renewal leverage.
Amara's mitigation design: a 6-month pilot commitment with 15% renewal discount for annual pre-payment. This reduces month-to-month cancellation risk and creates a financial incentive for customers to stay. She also begins building integrations with 2 additional minor courier networks specifically to reduce any future leverage by the 3 dominant couriers.
Six months after implementing the contract structure, projected churn drops from 40% annually to 12% annually. TrackFlow's revenue predictability improves significantly — a metric that will matter in the Series A data room.
VRS Dimension 7 score moves from 45 to 65. The score reflects: an honest, evidence-based Five Forces analysis (not a generic competitive grid), identification of the weakest structural force (Buyer Power at 2), and a specific, implemented mitigation mechanism — the 6-month commitment contract with renewal incentive. Churn projection drops from 40% to 12% annually. The structural challenge has not disappeared — but it has been designed around.
For each force, spend 20–30 minutes researching specifically: for Competitive Rivalry, search Crunchbase and LinkedIn for competitors active in your exact segment in your geography. For Buyer Power, calculate what percentage of your potential revenue is controlled by your 5 largest prospective customers. For Substitutes, ask your last 3 customer interview subjects: "What would you do if we didn't exist?" Evidence-based scores are more credible than aspirational ones — and more useful.
Once your scorecard is complete, identify the single force with the lowest score. This is your primary structural challenge. Write a short brief (1 page) describing: (1) exactly what makes this force unfavourable, (2) what would happen to your venture if this force intensified further, and (3) what mechanisms exist — in your market or in comparable markets — that ventures have used to mitigate it. This brief is the foundation of Action 3.
The mechanism should be specific, implementable, and tied to a timeline. For high Buyer Power: a multi-year contract with a renewal incentive, implemented within 30 days across all new customers. For high Threat of New Entrants: a data strategy or partnership that builds a moat (proprietary data set, exclusive integration, preferred supplier status) within 60 days. For high Competitive Rivalry: a niche focus and positioning pivot that makes direct comparison with larger competitors less relevant. Write the mechanism down as a one-sentence design decision and implement it in the next contract, product release, or partnership negotiation.
Now that you understand this dimension, see how your venture actually scores. The free Venture Readiness Assessment takes 15 minutes and gives you a score across all 8 dimensions.
Take the Free Assessment →