Why Your App's Biggest Competitor Isn't Who You Think

When we run competitor analysis workshops with new clients, most arrive with a list of apps that look similar to theirs... but after a decade of building apps across healthcare, fintech and retail, I can tell you that the apps stealing your users aren't always the ones you've mapped out on your competitive matrix. The real competition often comes from places that won't show up in any app store search, and missing this can mean spending six months building features that solve the wrong problem entirely.

Most app projects fail not because competitors built something better, but because they couldn't convince users to change their existing behaviour

We launched an app for a private healthcare provider a few years back, spent about £120k on development and had everything polished beautifully... only to discover their main competitor wasn't the NHS app or other private providers, it was people just keeping paper appointment cards in their wallet and ringing the reception desk. That realisation changed everything about how we approached the problem.

The Direct Competition Trap

The apps that appear when you search your category in the app store feel like your obvious rivals, and yes they matter... but they're usually fighting for the same small group of people who've already decided to download something. The bigger battle is with all the potential users who haven't downloaded anything at all yet.

We built a personal finance app that had better features than the three main competitors in the UK market, faster performance, nicer design... and it struggled to get traction for eight months. The problem was we were obsessing over feature parity with other finance apps whilst the real competition was people using a mixture of their banking app, a spreadsheet they'd built years ago, and just rough mental arithmetic.

Direct competitors give you useful information about what features users expect and how to price your offering, but they create blind spots. When you focus too heavily on matching feature lists, you end up building for the converted market rather than the much larger group who haven't adopted any solution yet.

• Apps that look like yours in the store (5-10% of potential market)
• People doing nothing or using basic tools (60-70% of potential market)
• Platform features like Apple Wallet or Google Calendar (15-20% of potential market)
• Free alternatives and workarounds (10-15% of potential market)

The percentages vary by category, but the pattern holds true... the majority of your addressable market isn't choosing between similar apps, they're choosing whether to change their current approach at all.

User Habits Are Your Real Competition

People are creatures of habit, and every new app asks users to break existing patterns and learn new ones. A fitness tracking app isn't just competing with other fitness apps... it's competing with someone's habit of just going for a run without tracking it, or their routine of writing workout notes in their phone's default notes app.

We worked on an app for a restaurant booking service that had real-time availability, instant confirmation, and a much better user interface than the incumbent market leader. Six months in, user acquisition costs were sitting at about £14 per install and retention was poor. The research showed us that most people were still just calling restaurants directly or using Google search to find a phone number, because that's what they'd always done and it worked well enough.

Before building features to compete with other apps, spend time understanding the non-app behaviours your target users currently rely on... those habits are what you're really trying to replace

The solution wasn't better features, it was making the app solve problems that calling couldn't solve... like booking multiple restaurants when you haven't decided which one yet, or getting notified when a fully-booked restaurant has a cancellation. Those features competed with the actual behaviour rather than with other apps.

The Habit Formation Challenge

Getting someone to form a new habit around your app takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent use depending on the complexity... and during that window, the pull of old habits is strong. This is why onboarding and early retention metrics matter so much more than download numbers.

Fighting The Status Quo Problem

The status quo is incredibly powerful because it requires zero effort to maintain. Every app represents change, friction, learning time, and risk that the new way might not work... whilst what people do currently is known, comfortable, and already integrated into their daily routine.

We've seen this play out across dozens of projects. An e-commerce client wanted to build an app because their competitors had apps, but when we dug into the data, their mobile web experience was getting five times more traffic than competitor apps got in total usage. The status quo of just using Safari or Chrome was winning because it didn't require a download, didn't take up storage space, and was one less thing to remember.

The question isn't just "is our app better than the competition"... it's "is our app enough better than doing nothing that people will overcome their inertia and change". That's a much higher bar to clear, and it means your value proposition needs to be significantly stronger than just matching what others offer.

Quantifying The Switching Cost

Users mentally calculate whether the benefit of switching outweighs the hassle... and they're usually conservative in this calculation. If your app saves someone five minutes per week but takes 10 minutes to set up, you need to convince them they'll stick with it for at least three weeks before they break even. Most people won't make that bet unless the benefit is obvious and immediate.

A fintech app we developed learned this the hard way when they built a bill-splitting feature that required all parties to have the app installed... the switching cost for a group of friends was too high when they could just use bank transfers and one person doing mental maths. We rebuilt it so only one person needed the app, which lowered the barrier enough to get adoption.

When Free Alternatives Win

The free option isn't always another app... sometimes it's pen and paper, sometimes it's just remembering things, sometimes it's using tools they already have in new ways. These alternatives don't show up in competitor analysis but they're often the biggest barrier to adoption.

Users will tolerate significant inefficiency if the inefficient method is free, familiar, and doesn't require them to trust a new service with their data or money

We built a medication reminder app for a healthcare client that had smart scheduling, family sharing, and integration with pharmacy systems. The feedback from non-adopters was revealing... they were using iPhone alarms, had been for years, and whilst it was clunky and required manual setup, it worked and they trusted it. Our app needed to be maybe five times better than alarms to justify the switch, not just marginally better.

The pricing question becomes complex when free alternatives exist. We've seen apps try to charge £2.99 upfront and get almost no downloads, then switch to free with optional premium features and suddenly get traction... not because the premium features sold well (they often didn't), but because removing the upfront cost eliminated one more barrier versus the free alternative of doing nothing.

The Trust Deficit

Free alternatives have another advantage... they don't require users to trust a new company with their data, payment information, or private details. A notes app asking for £4.99 isn't just competing on features and price, it's competing with the Apple Notes app that's already trusted and integrated into their device.

Platform Features That Replace Apps

Apple, Google, and other platform owners keep adding features that used to require third-party apps... and when they do, entire app categories can become unviable overnight. Apple Wallet replaced dozens of loyalty card apps, Screen Time replaced parental control apps, and native password managers have made standalone password apps much harder to justify.

The challenge is that platform features get preferential treatment in the operating system... they're faster, more integrated, use less battery, and don't require downloads. We had a client who wanted to build a document scanner app, and we had to be honest that competing with the built-in scanning feature in Apple Notes would be difficult unless they offered something substantially different.

The lesson from working through these shifts with clients is that you need to build things the platform can't or won't do... usually because it's too niche, requires deep vertical knowledge, or needs business models that don't align with platform incentives. A generic utility app is always at risk, but a specialised tool for a specific profession or use case has more defensibility.

Building Around What People Already Do

The most successful apps we've built have worked with existing user behaviour rather than against it... they slot into current routines and make what people already do slightly easier, rather than asking them to adopt entirely new workflows. This sounds obvious, but it's surprisingly rare in practice.

A retail client wanted an app that would encourage customers to browse their full catalogue and make purchases... but customers were already browsing on Instagram and the website. We built the app around quick reordering of previous purchases and store collection bookings instead, which matched actual behaviour patterns. Adoption jumped from about 8% of customers to nearly 40% within six months because we weren't fighting existing habits.

Map out your users' current behaviour step by step, including the non-digital parts... then look for where your app can reduce friction in that existing flow rather than replacing the entire flow

The Integration Advantage

Apps that connect to tools people already use daily have a much easier path to adoption than apps that try to be standalone solutions. Calendar apps that don't integrate with existing calendars face an uphill battle... but a specialised scheduling app that adds functionality on top of Apple Calendar or Google Calendar can work with existing habits.

We developed a project management app for creative teams that initially tried to be a complete solution... adoption was slow because it meant moving everything out of email, Slack, and shared drives. The second version focused on being a lightweight layer that pulled information from those existing tools and added structure without requiring people to change where they actually worked. That version got traction, particularly when we addressed team management challenges that existing tools couldn't handle.

Industry-Specific Competition Challenges

Different industries face unique competitive landscapes that don't always follow the general patterns. In real estate, for example, apps compete not just with other property apps, but with estate agents' personal relationships and established viewing processes. In healthcare, the competition often comes from regulatory requirements and established clinical workflows rather than other apps.

When we work with event organisers, the biggest competitor isn't usually other event management platforms... it's the combination of Excel spreadsheets, WhatsApp groups, and personal phone calls that organisers have been using for years. These tools may be inefficient, but they're trusted, understood, and don't require budget approval.

The key is understanding that each industry has its own version of "doing nothing" or "free alternatives". For farming operations, the competition might be paper logs and experience-based decisions rather than other agricultural technology platforms.

This industry-specific context matters because it affects everything from how you present your app plan to executives to which features you prioritise in development. Understanding the real competitive landscape in your specific sector is crucial for building something that actually gets adopted.

The Technology Complexity Factor

More advanced technologies often face even steeper competition from simple alternatives. We've seen this with AR apps, where the main competitor is often just looking at things with your normal vision. The technology might be impressive, but unless it solves a problem that simple methods can't address, adoption remains limited.

Similarly, 5G-enabled applications don't just compete with other 5G apps... they compete with existing solutions that work adequately on current network speeds. The improved performance needs to unlock genuinely new capabilities, not just faster versions of existing features.

Even basic connectivity assumptions can be wrong. We learned that offline functionality was crucial for several clients because their users' "competition" was pen and paper methods that worked regardless of internet connection. The high-tech solution needed to match the reliability of low-tech alternatives.

Conclusion

After working on apps across industries for over a decade, the pattern is clear... the competition that matters most isn't listed in the app store category rankings. It's the current behaviour patterns your potential users have, the free alternatives they're comfortable with, the platform features that keep expanding, and the simple fact that doing nothing is always the easiest option.

Understanding this changes how you build and market an app. Feature parity with direct competitors becomes less important than solving a problem compelling enough to overcome inertia. Design becomes less about looking modern and more about reducing friction in existing workflows. Marketing becomes less about comparing yourself to other apps and more about demonstrating why change is worth the effort.

The apps that succeed aren't always the ones with the most features or the biggest marketing budgets... they're the ones that understand what they're really competing against and build accordingly. That might mean your app needs to be 10 times better than doing nothing, not just 10% better than the closest competitor app. It's a higher bar, but it's the honest assessment of what the market demands.

If you're working on an app and need help figuring out what you're really competing against, get in touch and we can walk through it together.

Frequently Asked Questions