Manus compares five agencies for a client report
Ejaz Ahmed used Manus for a real client competitor analysis: three supplied sites plus two agent-selected competitors became an 11-page report, with estimated pricing and positioning nuance needing review.
aimarketingfoundry.com
Suggested prompt
Suggested prompt written by Agents In Use, not the source author. Replace bracketed inputs and review tool permissions first.
Compare five competitors for [UK agency niche] across positioning, services, public pricing, audience and differentiation. Start with these three URLs and identify two more. Mark inferred prices clearly, cite website evidence and prepare a comparison table for my strategic review.
Reach people exploring AI agents
See placements →Evidence at a glance
Sourced account- Source author
- Ejaz Ahmed
- Original account
- Read the source ↗
- Published
- Source link checked
- Reported result
- Ejaz Ahmed used Manus for a real client competitor analysis: three supplied sites plus two agent-selected competitors became an 11-page report, with estimated pricing and positioning nuance needing review.
- Human involvement
- Ahmed checks inferred prices, adds strategic interpretation and edits the prose. No measured sales outcome or independent accuracy benchmark is reported.
A linked account supports attribution. It does not mean we independently reproduced its result.
Report an issue with this case
Open correction emailOpens your email app with the case link included. Nothing is sent automatically.
How the agent did it
- Define the client’s UK agency market and five comparison dimensions.
- Supply three competitor URLs and request two additional competitors.
- Have Manus research the sites and produce sections and a comparison table.
A client asked Ejaz Ahmed for a competitor analysis of a UK AI marketing automation agency serving small and medium businesses. Ahmed supplied three competitor URLs and asked Manus to find two more, compare five dimensions and prepare a structured report with a final comparison table.
The agent returned an eleven-page document after about eighteen minutes. Ahmed describes website-derived positioning statements, publicly available pricing, individual competitor sections and a consistent comparison table. A separate gap analysis identified that the reviewed agencies did not explicitly serve founders who wanted to understand AI before committing to purchase.
The draft still needed his judgment. Missing public prices were replaced with explicitly flagged estimates, which Ahmed warns against quoting directly. He added explanations of why the positioning worked and edited a corporate, repetitive writing style before using the deliverable. The article gives inconsistent precise editing durations, so this entry preserves the human editing requirement without choosing one number.
This was one real June client task, not a systematic evaluation. The public account does not reveal the five companies or reproduce the complete report, and it offers no measured campaign or sales outcome. The reusable workflow is to seed a bounded competitor set, let the agent extend it, compare the same dimensions and separate observed website facts from inferred pricing and human strategic interpretation.
Prompt
Suggested prompt (written by Agents In Use, not the author's)
Source: Blog · Ejaz Ahmed
Frequently asked questions
How was the competitor set chosen?
Ahmed supplied three URLs and asked Manus to find two more for the five-company comparison.
Can the inferred prices be quoted as facts?
No. Ahmed says unavailable prices were flagged as estimates and should not be quoted directly.
What did the human add?
Ahmed added why the positioning worked and edited the repetitive corporate tone; the reported deliverable remained a reviewed first draft.
More details
Remaining steps
- Inspect pricing estimates and add strategic positioning analysis.
- Edit the report’s tone before using it for the client deliverable.
About this account
Manus finds two additional competitors, researches the five-site set and assembles a multi-section comparison report and gap analysis.
Firsthand account by Ejaz Ahmed; original publication date verified against Article visible Jun 18, 2026 and author line Published 18 June 2026; later review dates excluded. Outcomes are the author’s reports, not independently reproduced. Suggested prompt written by Agents In Use; not the author’s original prompt.
Credit: Ejaz Ahmed
Source published
Added to Agents In Use
Source checked
Tools and topics
Manus · Competitor websites · Comparison table · Client report
Agency positioning · Five-competitor analysis · Pricing estimates
Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.