Research
Loom is targeted by all ten. Colossyan is targeted by one.
We counted how many rival vendors publish a comparison page against each tool in this market. The distribution is extremely lopsided, and the crowded end is the worthless end.
Every vendor in this market publishes comparison pages. We extracted the target from every comparison URL across all ten sites and counted how many separate rivals go after each tool.
The result is not a gentle curve. It is a cliff.
The contested end
| Tool | Rivals targeting it | Pages across the market |
|---|---|---|
| Loom | 8 of 10 | 48 |
| Camtasia | 7 | 151 |
| Vidyard | 6 | 134 |
| Scribe | 5 | 150 |
| Descript | 5 | 18 |
| Synthesia | 5 | 20 |
Loom is the most striking. Eight of the ten companies whose sites we read publish something positioned against Loom. Not one of them is going to own that query, and a new domain entering it is competing with eight incumbents for a term where the incumbent brand itself takes most of the clicks.
Camtasia’s 151 pages are more interesting than they look: 127 of them come from a single competitor, which is the 552-page comparison cluster grinding through its tool list. Volume there reflects one company’s generation strategy rather than market-wide interest.
The uncontested end
Thirty-three tools are targeted by exactly one vendor. Some of that is a single company having claimed a whole category:
One competitor alone publishes against Animoto, Fliki, Lumen5, Pictory, Visla, Colossyan, DeepBrain, Elai, Vidnoz and Yepic. That is the AI-video-generator space, and nobody else in this corpus has written a word about it. Another holds StoryXpress, employee handbooks and security training on its own.
The trap in reading this
The obvious conclusion is “go where it is uncontested”. That conclusion is available to everyone reading the same keyword tool, and it is wrong in a specific way.
Uncontested does not mean undervalued. It usually means untested. There is no traffic data in any of this. A tool that only one vendor targets might be an overlooked opportunity, or it might be a tool nobody’s customers are actually evaluating, which is the much more common explanation. The single vendor covering it may simply have been less selective.
What the data genuinely supports is narrower, and it is a negative:
We should not write a Loom comparison. Eight companies got there first, several with far more domain authority than a site that launched this month. Whatever that page would earn, it will not earn it for us.
Everything past that is a hypothesis we cannot settle from sitemaps. The way to settle it is to talk to people evaluating these tools and find out what they actually compared us against, which is one of the reasons we are onboarding early teams by hand rather than putting up a signup form.