Topics your competitors rank for and you do not — filtered for relevance, ranked by how winnable each one is.
Find content gaps against airops.com, n8n.io, and zapier.com for our ICP of B2B growth teams.
Six winnable clusters, led by a missing integrations page type that covers 40+ queries on its own. Two more clusters are better served by expanding existing pages than by publishing new ones.
A content gap analysis template that dumps every keyword a competitor ranks for creates work, not clarity. This one intersects their coverage with your own, drops the terms your product cannot credibly serve, and ranks what remains by how beatable the ranking page actually is.
A structured comparison between what your competitors cover and what you do, ending in a list of topics worth adding. The comparison is mechanical; the value is in the filters that decide which gaps are real opportunities rather than terms you should ignore.
Pick three to five genuine competitors, collect the queries they rank for, subtract the ones you already cover, then filter by business relevance and winnability. Skipping the filters is why most gap analyses produce a spreadsheet nobody acts on.
A keyword gap is a term you do not rank for. A content gap is a topic or buying question you have not addressed at all. The second is more valuable, because it often reveals a whole cluster and sometimes a missing page type rather than one missing term.
By reading the page that currently ranks. A thin post on a strong domain is beatable; a comprehensive resource with original data on a strong domain is not, at least not first. Each gap comes with that verdict rather than a difficulty number alone.
The agent pulls competitor ranking data and live SERPs, reads your own pages to establish current coverage, and applies relevance criteria from your positioning and ICP in workspace Knowledge. Output feeds the keyword research and roadmap templates so gaps enter the same prioritized queue as everything else.
Three to five domains; the agent can also propose search competitors you may not have listed.
Criteria come from your positioning — adjust if a segment or geography matters more right now.
Each cluster shows the competitors covering it, the ranking page, and a winnability verdict.
Approved clusters flow into the SEO content roadmap or straight to briefs.
Filters by business relevance before volume, so the list stays actionable
Judges winnability by reading the ranking page, not a difficulty score
Surfaces missing clusters and page types, not just missing keywords
Flags gaps better solved by expanding an existing page
Compare competitor topic coverage against your own, then filter the difference by whether you can credibly serve the query and whether the ranking page is beatable. The subtraction is trivial; the filtering is the analysis.
Three to five. Fewer misses patterns, more produces a list too long to prioritize — and past five you mostly add terms only one competitor ranks for, which is weak evidence of demand.
Every competitor has an integrations page ranking for "X integration" queries and you have none. That is not one keyword — it is a missing page type covering dozens of queries, which is exactly the kind of gap worth finding.
No. Some gaps exist because a competitor serves a segment you do not, and chasing those dilutes topical focus. The relevance filter exists to say no on your behalf.