Direct vs indirect competitors, substitutes and aspirational rivals

What separates direct, indirect, substitute and aspirational competitors, with examples from local businesses, e-commerce and SaaS, and how to analyse each group differently.

By the FindRivals teamUpdated 27 September 20267 min read

"Who are your competitors?" sounds like a simple question. The answer depends on the level at which you look. A premium gym competes with other premium gyms, with budget gyms, with yoga apps, and with the customer's decision to go running instead. Each group needs a different response.

Marketing textbooks describe these levels in several ways. The four-group version below is practical for small and mid-sized businesses.

Direct competitors

Direct competitors sell the same kind of product or service to the same customers in the same market. They are the businesses you lose deals to.

  • A dental clinic's direct competitors are other general dental clinics within a reasonable travel distance.
  • An organic skincare brand's direct competitors are other organic skincare brands selling through the same channels at similar prices.
  • A project management tool's direct competitors are other project management tools aimed at the same team size.

How to analyse them: in depth. Score them on every criterion, compare prices on the same benchmark, map features, read their reviews and build a battlecard for the strongest ones.

Indirect competitors

Indirect competitors sell a different product to meet the same underlying need, or the same product to a neighbouring segment.

  • For a specialty café: a national coffee chain, a bakery with a coffee counter.
  • For a boutique hotel: serviced apartments and homestays.
  • For accounting software: an accountant who includes bookkeeping in a monthly fee.

How to analyse them: track positioning and price. They set customers' expectations of value even when they are not your closest match.

Substitutes

Substitutes solve the need in a completely different way. They include do-it-yourself and doing nothing.

  • For a cleaning service: the customer cleaning at home.
  • For a CRM: a spreadsheet.
  • For a cinema: streaming at home.

Substitutes matter most when switching is easy and cheap. Porter's Five Forces treats them as a separate force for this reason (see our Five Forces guide).

How to analyse them: understand why customers choose them. Usually the answer is price, convenience or habit. Your marketing has to answer that directly: "cheaper than hiring", "faster than a spreadsheet".

Aspirational competitors

Aspirational competitors are leaders you do not compete with today but want to learn from, or might compete with later. A regional clothing brand might study a national brand's merchandising; a local agency might study an international agency's content.

How to analyse them: borrow practices, not strategy. Their scale, budgets and brand make their tactics hard to copy directly.

A quick classification test

Ask three questions about each business:

  1. Does it sell something that does the same job for the customer? (Yes: direct or indirect.)
  2. Does it target the same customer, in the same place, at a similar price? (Yes to all: direct.)
  3. Would a customer consider it on the same day they consider you? (No: aspirational.)

If the answer to question 1 is "no, but the customer could skip both of us and do this instead", it is a substitute.

Why the distinction changes your strategy

The FindRivals threat matrix weights direct competitors most heavily when estimating threat, because they overlap most with your customers. But the biggest long-term risks often come from indirect players and substitutes growing fast: the delivery-only kitchen, the app that makes a service unnecessary. Track them with a lighter touch, but track them.

A perceptual map that includes all four groups is a good way to see the whole market at once.

RA
FindRivals team
We build competitor analysis tools and write practical guides for business owners. Found an error? Tell us and we will fix it. About us · Methodology