Competitor ASO Teardown With Contest or Concede Calls

A teardown that ends in a keyword list is a research invoice. This one ends with every contested term marked contest, concede or monitor and the reason written next to it. That is usually three competitors and around forty terms, because below that the picture has holes and above it nobody acts on the document. You get the concede list first, since deciding what not to fight for is the part that frees budget inside the current quarter. What I read: Twelve months of rank history per term per storefront, from AppTweak or Sensor Tower, laid against release history. A rank that jumped the week of a version bump is metadata; one that climbed slowly through paid weeks was bought, and the difference decides whether it is takeable. Apple Search Ads presence on each term, checked by running the search in the storefront rather than trusting a share-of-voice estimate, because whether a competitor defends a term with money decides your cost of contesting it. Creative rotation from the Meta Ad Library and TikTok Creative Center, dated, which separates a tested creative system from a shop running whatever the agency delivered last month. Custom product page and custom store listing usage, visible when their adverts land somewhere other than the default page. Localisation coverage, including markets they have quietly stopped supporting. Category rank against keyword rank, because the two diverging tells you whether they are winning on search or on featuring and brand. What it produces: One document. Per competitor, what they are betting on and what that bet costs them. Per term, the call and the evidence behind it. For terms marked contest, what specifically has to change — title, subtitle, the Play long description, a custom store listing, or paid cover while organic rank builds. For terms marked concede, the reasoning, so the decision is not re-litigated every quarter by whoever joins next. What I will not do: Produce a keyword export. Mine competitor reviews into a slide of quotes, which reads well and decides nothing. Present a third-party spend estimate as a fact; you get a range labelled as an inference, because panel-modelled install spend is wrong often enough that quoting it straight is dishonest. Tear down a competitor whose position is bought when you have told me there is no budget to contest it. I will raise that in the scoping call and reduce the fee rather than write a section you cannot use. Who this is not for: Apps that have not yet fixed their own metadata. This compares you to somebody who has, and the output will be a list you already know. Teams who want a document to justify a decision already taken. Categories where the top three positions belong to the platform's own apps. Coverage: France, francophone markets and English-language storefronts, read in full. Germany, Spain and Italy I will read on rank and structure but I will not judge the copy, and the document marks those sections as thinner. I do not subcontract a native reader and present their opinion as mine. How it runs: A scoping call where we settle the competitor set, and I will argue with your list, because the app a team feels competitive with is often not the one taking its store traffic. Then a week of reading. Then a working session where we go through the contest list live and I am told which calls your roadmap can actually support. The document is revised once after that session and then it is final. Six weeks later I re-run rank history on the contested terms only, so you find out whether the calls held.