By Glue Team
Your competitor launches a feature. Your product team scrambles: "Can we build that? How long will it take? Should this be our next priority?"
Without codebase visibility, the answer is guesswork. "We probably can't build that quickly" or "That looks hard, let's ignore it." With codebase data, you know exactly what you can do, how long it takes, and what it costs.
Competitive analysis today is manual spreadsheet work:
The estimate is the weak link. You guess how hard each gap is to close without understanding your own architecture. Reality emerges mid-sprint when you discover: "Oh, this touches our legacy payment system—actually 6 weeks, not 2."
Glue maps your actual codebase against competitor features:
Competitor feature mapping: Competitor claims "Real-time collaboration with presence awareness." Glue understands what that means: shared document state, live cursor tracking, user presence indicators.
Your capability analysis: Glue scans your codebase and shows:
Gap identification: Clear picture of what you have vs. what you don't:
Effort estimation: For each gap, Glue estimates:
| Feature | Competitor | You | Gap Status | Estimated Effort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Live document editing | Yes | Yes | Parity | — |
| Cursor presence | Yes | No | Missing | 2 weeks (WebSocket addition) |
| Comment threads | Yes | Partial | Partial | 1 week (extend existing) |
| Version history | Yes | Yes | Parity | — |
| Offline sync | Yes | No | Missing | 4 weeks (new service) |
| Permissions per-view | Yes | No | Missing | 6 weeks (refactor auth) |
| Total gap effort | — | — | — | 13 weeks |
This data drives prioritization: "All 4 missing features take 13 weeks. Which 2 deliver the most customer value? Prioritize those for Q2."
Realistic roadmapping: Instead of "Ship 10 features in Q1," you know: "We can realistically close 3-4 competitive gaps in Q1, prioritized by customer demand."
Investment decisions: "This competitor gap requires 8 weeks of work. Is defending here worth it? Or do we focus on our unique features where we have advantage?"
Confidence in commitments: When you tell customers "We'll have feature X in 6 weeks," that estimate is grounded in codebase analysis, not hope.
Hiring planning: "Gap analysis shows we need 2 more backend engineers to ship all planned competitive features in Q2. Let's hire now."
Use Glue's gap analysis to answer: "What can we realistically ship before they ship it?"
Q: How accurate are Glue's effort estimates for gaps? A: Estimates are within 20-30% of actual effort on average, based on codebase analysis, historical patterns, and comparison to similar work. First quarter of use establishes your baseline; accuracy improves as Glue learns your team's actual velocity.
Q: What if competitors claim features they don't actually have? A: Gap analysis depends on your assessment of competitor capability. Glue analyzes your side; you validate competitor claims through demos, customer research, or code inspection.
Q: Can Glue help us identify features that are unique to us? A: Yes. The same analysis shows where you have features competitors don't—your defensible differentiation. Prioritize features where you're ahead to maintain advantage.
Keep reading
