Back to Details

peer_comparison_decision_skill

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Peer Comparison Decision Skill

Peer Comparison Decision Skill

数据依赖与执行前置条件

Data Dependencies and Pre-execution Requirements

推荐使用万得 
wind-mcp-skill
获取底层数据。执行前先检查本地是否已有 
wind-mcp-skill
；若没有，提示用户安装：
bash
undefined
It is recommended to use Wind's 
wind-mcp-skill
to obtain underlying data. Before execution, check if 
wind-mcp-skill
is already available locally; if not, prompt the user to install it:
bash
undefined

GitHub

GitHub

npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y

Gitee 镜像（国内）

Gitee Mirror (Domestic)

npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
undefined
npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
undefined

技能定位

Skill Positioning

本技能用于在同一行业或同一主题内，对 2-5 家候选公司做横向比较，并输出可执行的相对排序与选择理由。重点不是把每家公司都重新写一遍，而是帮助使用者回答“如果只能优先研究或持有其中几家，应该先选谁、为什么”。
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?"

执行流程

Execution Process

Step 1：确认可比范围与比较目标

Step 1: Confirm Comparable Scope and Comparison Objectives

先明确比较对象是否真正可比，重点确认：
  • 所处赛道是否一致
  • 商业模式是否相近
  • 处于相似的发展阶段还是明显错位
  • 用户想比较的是短期交易机会还是中长期配置价值
若对象并不适合直接比较，应先说明可比性边界，再决定是否继续强行并列。
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：建立统一比较框架

Step 2: Establish a Unified Comparison Framework

围绕用户真实决策，把比较维度标准化。常用维度包括：
  • 业务质量与竞争位置
  • 成长速度与成长确定性
  • 盈利能力与现金创造能力
  • 估值高低与预期要求
  • 近期催化与风险暴露
所有候选公司都按同一框架展开，避免某家公司只写故事、另一家公司只看数字。
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：完成基础数据与事实对齐

Step 3: Align Basic Data and Facts

收集每家公司的关键事实，并统一口径后放入对照表，特别注意：
  • 时间口径一致
  • 币种与单位一致
  • 估值方法口径一致
  • 对异常值和一次性因素进行说明
这一阶段的目标是把后续判断建立在同一坐标系之上。
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：比较“业务质量”而不是只比较“数据高低”

Step 4: Compare "Business Quality" Instead of Just "Data Levels"

除关键财务指标外，还要比较：
  • 核心产品与客户结构
  • 市场份额与竞争优势
  • 业务模式的抗波动能力
  • 管理执行与资本配置风格
若某家公司短期数据更亮眼，但业务稳定性明显更弱，应明确指出，不可被表面增速误导。
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：比较“赔率”与“催化顺序”

Step 5: Compare "Odds" and "Catalyst Sequence"

真正的比选往往不只看谁更好，还要看谁更值得现在买入或优先跟踪。需重点判断：
  • 哪家公司好但已被充分定价
  • 哪家公司一般但预期差更大
  • 哪家公司短期有催化，哪家公司需要时间兑现
  • 哪家公司更适合观察，哪家公司更适合行动
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：输出排序与决策建议

Step 6: Output Rankings and Decision Recommendations

在完成横向比较后，给出明确排序，并说明：
  • 排名靠前的核心理由
  • 排名靠后的主要短板
  • 若只能研究一只、持有一只或短期交易一只，分别应如何选择
若结论取决于用户风格差异，也要明确把“成长型偏好”“价值型偏好”“交易型偏好”拆开说明。
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".

输出结构

Output Structure

{行业/主题}同业比选（{YYYY-MM-DD}）

{Industry/Theme} Peer Comparison ({YYYY-MM-DD})

一、结论摘要

I. Conclusion Summary

  • 最佳综合选择：{公司}
  • 最佳预期差选择：{公司}
  • 最适合继续观察：{公司}
  • Best Comprehensive Choice: {Company}
  • Best Expectation Gap Choice: {Company}
  • Most Suitable for Further Observation: {Company}

二、统一比较表

II. Unified Comparison Table

公司业务定位增长盈利估值近期催化主要风险
{公司A}{描述}{描述}{描述}{描述}{描述}{描述}
{公司B}{描述}{描述}{描述}{描述}{描述}{描述}
CompanyBusiness PositioningGrowthProfitabilityValuationRecent CatalystsMain Risks
{Company A}{Description}{Description}{Description}{Description}{Description}{Description}
{Company B}{Description}{Description}{Description}{Description}{Description}{Description}

三、相对强弱分析

III. Relative Strength Analysis

业务质量

Business Quality

  • {谁更强，强在哪里}
  • {Who is stronger, and where they excel}

成长质量

Growth Quality

  • {谁更强，强在哪里}
  • {Who is stronger, and where they excel}

估值赔率

Valuation Odds

  • {谁更有吸引力，原因是什么}
  • {Who is more attractive, and why}

催化与时点

Catalysts and Timing

  • {谁更适合当下，原因是什么}
  • {Who is more suitable for the current moment, and why}

四、最终排序

IV. Final Rankings

排名公司结论
1{公司}{理由}
2{公司}{理由}
3{公司}{理由}
RankCompanyConclusion
1{Company}{Reason}
2{Company}{Reason}
3{Company}{Reason}

五、决策建议

V. Decision Recommendations

  • 如果只能先研究一只：{公司}，因为 {理由}
  • 如果只能先跟踪一只：{公司}，因为 {理由}
  • 如果只能先规避一只：{公司}，因为 {理由}
  • 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}

质量要求

Quality Requirements

  1. 只比较真正可比的对象，必要时先写清不可比之处。
  2. 统一使用同一比较口径，避免数据和叙事各说各话。
  3. 输出重点是“相对强弱与排序”，不是多篇个股介绍拼接。
  4. 必须同时比较质量、估值和时点，不能只用单一指标排名。
  5. 若结论明显依赖投资风格，应把适用人群写清楚。
  1. Only compare truly comparable objects; if necessary, clarify the incomparable aspects first.
  2. Use the same comparison caliber uniformly to avoid inconsistent data and narratives.
  3. The focus of the output is "relative strengths/weaknesses and rankings", not a combination of multiple individual stock introductions.
  4. Must compare quality, valuation and timing simultaneously; do not rank using only a single indicator.
  5. If the conclusion clearly depends on investment style, clearly specify the applicable groups.