Competitor Analysis.xlsx

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
1	Onboarding Competitive Analysis	Feature Analysis	Competitive Advantage	Strengths	Weakness	Customer Reviews	General Notes	Questions/Notes to Team

2	DIRECT COMPETITORS
3	Texas Equal Access Fund: https://teafund.org/	Universal menu with "home", "about", "need support?", "advocate", "donate", merch and search feature. Has a socials and contact tab above the nav. Socials and copyright on footer. Large slideshow on homescreen and all posts can be viewed in spanish.	They have an "advocate" screen that shows how one can provide to the cause and what they can do in their community. They also have a monthy donate feature ("GEMS").	Large text and bold colors. Every screen from the menu has images that relate to the page. Monthly donation tool. All text is scaled correctly and cohesive design throughout the site.	Needs more resources for support. Maybe too simplistic. Header text is the same size as the body text, just bold.	Unfortuntely no reviews from the user side. Though as a user, I can see this site uses very helpful and supportive language. They also use a lot of legal language but make it digestible for any user of the site.	Clean and bold ui style. The pictures can be scaled down a little more on laptop. Might need some RWD handling but other than that the site is good and shows the focus from the homepage.	Add more pictures to our site?
4
5	INDIRECT COMPETITORS
6	Texas Alliance for Life https://www.texasallianceforlife.org	home page has mission statement at the top. learn more, donate, volunteer, and media buttons all easily accessible. a lot of information on home page.	emotive language: "protect", "innocent", "value", "dignity". emphasis on government support.	all the information is there (if you know what you're looking for)	primary navigation is jumbled, home page design looks like three different sites, too much info is overwhelming (if you don't know what you're looking for)	3.3/5 apparently not "pro-life" enough for the super conservative	me no likey, but not the most aggressive website, at least not as aggressive and polarizing as it could be	I think they could be really good at swaying people who are on the fence. They use a lot of emotional syntax and seem to be very informed, so it could be pretty convincing. Might be good to have more evidence of scientific or government support and/or emotional language solely for the people that might be unsure when they visit the website
7	Texas Right to Life https://texasrighttolife.com	A lot a lot a lot of donation buttons; Kind of a blog format where there's posts; "News"; Events; Pregnancy Assistance; Patient Advocacy; Education; Legislation; Pro Life Podcast ads on the side; a lot of weird, ill-informed propaganda.. like Biden eating a "Nothing Burger"????	Very very specific audience and I'm sure it really resonates with them/ this feels like a safe place for them	The podcast ads on the side are decently designed, but that's literally it, other than maybe they specify where donators' money is going, which I think is good practice that not everyone does	The entire UI is ugly and inconsistent; the random header about Roe v. Wade is extremely poorly done and ugly; there's so many different Donate buttons everywhere and some are worded differently--clear they are only after your money, comes off as a scam (probably is); buttons are ugly (bad colors, zero microinteractions, no consistency); all of the imagery used seems like it all comes from a place of pure rage and idiocy?? hard to believe; inconsistent Navigation UI; on the "Education" page there's a student portal header, but it doesn't work?? and there's no like link anywhere to whatever that is?? WHAT IS THAT?!; also just the main header of the website is So Boring, just simple gray type-- UGLYYYY	3.6/5 stars on Google Reviews--all reviews either 5 stars or 1--obviously a very polarizing topic and for those that align with it, it's great. Strictly UX/UI goggles and personal beliefs aside--I give it -10/5 stars. Super ugly, was hard to find literally anything good/okay about it	Hard for me not to vom bomb analyzing this site	One takeaway is that overall this website came off incredibly unfriendly and from a very negative place, which is (I think) the exact opposite feeling we want to give users when they're visiting a sensitive NPO's website. Definitely showcases the exact Opposite of what we should be going for.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100