Peer Comparison Decision Skill
Data Dependencies and Pre-execution Requirements
It is recommended to use Wind's
to obtain underlying data. Before execution, check if
is already available locally; if not, prompt the user to install it:
bash
# GitHub
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
# Gitee Mirror (Domestic)
npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
Skill Positioning
This skill is used to conduct horizontal comparisons of 2-5 candidate companies within the same industry or theme, and output executable relative rankings and selection reasons. The focus is not to rewrite each company from scratch, but to help users answer the question: "If I can only prioritize researching or holding a few of them, which ones should I choose first and why?"
Execution Process
Step 1: Confirm Comparable Scope and Comparison Objectives
First, confirm whether the comparison objects are truly comparable, focusing on:
- Whether they are in the same track
- Whether their business models are similar
- Whether they are in similar development stages or significantly misaligned
- Whether the user wants to compare short-term trading opportunities or medium-to-long-term allocation value
If the objects are not suitable for direct comparison, explain the boundaries of comparability first, then decide whether to proceed with forced side-by-side comparison.
Step 2: Establish a Unified Comparison Framework
Standardize the comparison dimensions around the user's actual decision-making. Common dimensions include:
- Business quality and competitive position
- Growth rate and growth certainty
- Profitability and cash generation capacity
- Valuation level and expectation requirements
- Recent catalysts and risk exposure
All candidate companies should be analyzed under the same framework to avoid one company being described only with narratives while another is only evaluated with numbers.
Step 3: Align Basic Data and Facts
Collect key facts of each company and place them in a comparison table after unifying the calibers. Pay special attention to:
- Consistent time caliber
- Consistent currency and unit
- Consistent valuation method caliber
- Explanation of outliers and one-time factors
The goal of this stage is to base subsequent judgments on the same coordinate system.
Step 4: Compare "Business Quality" Instead of Just "Data Levels"
In addition to key financial indicators, also compare:
- Core products and customer structure
- Market share and competitive advantages
- Anti-volatility capability of the business model
- Management execution and capital allocation style
If a company has more impressive short-term data but significantly weaker business stability, this should be clearly pointed out, and users should not be misled by superficial growth rates.
Step 5: Compare "Odds" and "Catalyst Sequence"
Real selection often does not only focus on who is better, but also on who is more worthy of buying or prioritizing tracking now. Key judgments include:
- Which company is good but already fully priced
- Which company is average but has a larger expectation gap
- Which company has short-term catalysts and which needs time to realize value
- Which company is more suitable for observation and which is more suitable for action
Step 6: Output Rankings and Decision Recommendations
After completing the horizontal comparison, provide clear rankings and explain:
- Core reasons for the top-ranked companies
- Main shortcomings of the bottom-ranked companies
- How to choose if only one can be researched, held, or traded in the short term respectively
If the conclusion depends on differences in user styles, clearly separate explanations for "growth-oriented preference", "value-oriented preference", and "trading-oriented preference".
Output Structure
{Industry/Theme} Peer Comparison ({YYYY-MM-DD})
I. Conclusion Summary
- Best Comprehensive Choice: {Company}
- Best Expectation Gap Choice: {Company}
- Most Suitable for Further Observation: {Company}
II. Unified Comparison Table
| Company | Business Positioning | Growth | Profitability | Valuation | Recent Catalysts | Main Risks |
|---|
| {Company A} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} |
| {Company B} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} | {Description} |
III. Relative Strength Analysis
Business Quality
- {Who is stronger, and where they excel}
Growth Quality
- {Who is stronger, and where they excel}
Valuation Odds
- {Who is more attractive, and why}
Catalysts and Timing
- {Who is more suitable for the current moment, and why}
IV. Final Rankings
| Rank | Company | Conclusion |
|---|
| 1 | {Company} | {Reason} |
| 2 | {Company} | {Reason} |
| 3 | {Company} | {Reason} |
V. Decision Recommendations
- If only one can be researched first: {Company}, because {Reason}
- If only one can be tracked first: {Company}, because {Reason}
- If only one needs to be avoided first: {Company}, because {Reason}
Quality Requirements
- Only compare truly comparable objects; if necessary, clarify the incomparable aspects first.
- Use the same comparison caliber uniformly to avoid inconsistent data and narratives.
- The focus of the output is "relative strengths/weaknesses and rankings", not a combination of multiple individual stock introductions.
- Must compare quality, valuation and timing simultaneously; do not rank using only a single indicator.
- If the conclusion clearly depends on investment style, clearly specify the applicable groups.