Analysing your competitors in the local pack
Your real competitors are not the ones you name: they are the ones appearing ahead of you, and they change from one neighbourhood to the next.
Your local pack competitors are not a fixed list: they change depending on where the search is made, since distance is a central local ranking factor. Analysis therefore starts with a geolocated reading — who appears, where —, continues with a reputation benchmark grid, and ends by spotting the areas where a competitor is vulnerable.
Identifying the real competitors
The competitor list quoted in a meeting is almost always wrong. It contains businesses the owner knows — the ones they meet at trade association events — and it omits the ones actually capturing searches in neighbourhoods they never visit.
The right list is recorded. For each of your measurement locations, note the three local pack businesses and the first five to ten on Google Maps. Repeat for each keyword. A frequency table falls out naturally: who appears, how often, and where.
What the reading almost always reveals
Two categories of competitor nobody had in mind: the neighbourhood competitor, invisible elsewhere but unbeatable within their three hundred yards; and the national aggregator — a network, a marketplace, a directory — occupying a pack slot across the whole area without being a competitor in any commercial sense.
Separate these two in the report. You do not fight them the same way, and conflating them produces action plans nobody can execute.
Placing tracking points on competitor addresses
This is the most informative measurement in the setup, and it requires being able to designate the measurement location yourself. Placing a point exactly at a competitor's address asks: when someone searches my trade from their front door, who appears?
Three readings come out of it. If you are absent from the top 10 at their address, their area is closed to you — that is coverage information. If you are second or third there, you are already capturing part of their walk-in trade. And if a third business you were not watching appears ahead of both of you, it is probably the real leader in that sector.
This measurement is only possible with declared locations: an automatic grid will never land exactly on a competitor's address. The comparison of both methods is in the tracking points article.
The reputation benchmark grid
This grid takes thirty minutes to fill for five businesses, and it is reproducible as it stands. Rows: your business and its three to five real competitors. Columns: six measurements.
| Business | Review volume | Rating | Reviews, 30 d | Reviews, 90 d | Response rate | Photos |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| You | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Competitor A | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Competitor B | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Competitor C | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Population benchmark | 47.4 (med. 16) | 4.42 | — | — | — | 14.1 (med. 6) |
Population benchmarks: Visionary Marketing, 2026 statistics.
The deciding column is reviews at 90 days. Review velocity over that window is measured at 0.64 correlation with positions 1 to 3, against 0.41 for total volume — 1.6 times more predictive per Visionary Marketing. A competitor with 400 reviews and none recent is far more attackable than one with 80 receiving six a month.
Once filled in, the benchmark says in one read where the gap comes from: the stock — you have fewer reviews —, the freshness — you are receiving fewer right now — or the ability to reply. The three call for different actions, described in the review management article.
Comparing categories, age and media
Three further columns complete the table, all readable from each competitor's public profile.
What is left to record
- Primary category and number of secondary ones. A different primary category on a competitor ahead of you is the single most actionable finding in the whole exercise — see the primary category article.
- Completeness score, using the same 20-point grid as for your own profile. It is the variable most strongly associated with the top 3: a competitor beating you with a 12/20 profile is telling you the problem is elsewhere.
- Photo count and date of the most recent. The median top 3 profile carries 41 per Localo, against 6 for the population median: the gap is often the fastest workstream available.
Spotting where a competitor is vulnerable
This is what the analysis is for, and it only shows up on a multi-location measurement. For each location, cross your rank with the competitor's. Three configurations warrant action.
| Configuration | What it means | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Strong everywhere except two neighbourhoods | Their visibility area stops there — usually a distance question | Concentrate local signals on those two neighbourhoods |
| They are 3rd where you are 4th | The step is small: a place to take | Prioritise: best effort-to-effect ratio in the setup |
| They win everywhere with a less complete profile | Their advantage comes from elsewhere — recent reviews, age, proximity | Attack review velocity, not completeness |
| They are absent from an area where you are too | Nobody holds that ground | Target area: the entry cost there is the lowest |
The last row is the least exploited and the most rewarding: an area where no established player is visible opens with modest effort.
Turning analysis into an action plan
A benchmark that stays a table is worth nothing. Three questions turn it into a plan: at which location is the gap smallest? On which variable is the shortfall clearest? And what does closing it cost?
The answers naturally produce two or three workstreams, never fifteen. A conclusion you can use as it stands: "the shortfall is in review freshness, not volume — we receive two a quarter against six a month for the leader; the most accessible area is the northern district, where we sit fourth, one place off the pack". Tracking those workstreams uses the metrics in the local SEO KPIs.
See who ranks ahead of you, location by location
Every Pinperf reading records the businesses ranked ahead of your profile, at each of your locations — including the ones you place at a competitor's address. The balance of power reads directly, with no manual reconstruction.
Sources
- Visionary Marketing, 6 May 2026 — Local SEO Ranking Factors 2026: 90-day review velocity (0.64) against total volume (0.41), across 50,000 ranking businesses.
- Visionary Marketing, 2026 — Local SEO Statistics 2026: population benchmarks (47.4 reviews average, median 16, rating 4.42, 14.1 photos for a median of 6).
- Localo — Top Local SEO Ranking Factors: median of 41 photos for top 3 profiles, across 16,098 profiles.
- Google Business Profile Help — Improve your local ranking on Google.