Data dependencies and execution prerequisites
It is recommended to use Wind wind-mcp-skill to obtain underlying data. Before execution, first check whether there is already wind-mcp-skilllocally; if not, prompt the user to install:
# GitHub
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
# Gitee 镜像（国内）
npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
Skill positioning
This skill is used to horizontally compare 2-5 candidate companies within the same industry or same theme, and output an actionable relative ranking and reasons for selection. The focus is not to rewrite each company, but to help users answer "if only a few of them can be prioritized for research or holding, who should be chosen first, and why."
Execution Process
Step 1: Confirm the comparable scope and comparison objectives
First clarify whether the comparison targets are truly comparable, focusing on confirming:
- Whether the tracks they are in are consistent
- Whether the business models are similar
- Whether they are at a similar stage of development or clearly misaligned
- Whether the user wants to compare short-term trading opportunities or medium- to long-term allocation value
If the targets are not suitable for direct comparison, the boundaries of comparability should first be explained, and then it should be decided whether to continue forcing a 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 speed and certainty of growth
- Profitability and cash generation capability
- Valuation level and expectation requirements
- Near-term catalysts and risk exposure
All candidate companies should be analyzed under the same framework, avoiding writing only stories for one company while looking only at numbers for another.
Step 3: Complete alignment of basic data and facts
Collect key facts for each company and place them into a comparison table after unifying the standards, with particular attention to:
- Consistent time standards
- Consistent currency and units
- Consistent valuation method standards
- Explain outliers and one-off factors
The goal of this stage is to base subsequent judgments on the same coordinate system.
Step 4: Compare "business quality" rather than only comparing "whether the data is high or low"
In addition to key financial indicators, also compare:
- Core products and customer structure
- Market share and competitive advantages
- The business model’s resilience to volatility
- Management execution and capital allocation style
If a company’s short-term data is more impressive but its business stability is clearly weaker, this should be pointed out explicitly, and one must not be misled by superficial growth rates.
Step 5: Compare "odds" and the "sequence of catalysts"
A true comparison often looks not only at who is better, but also at who is more worth buying now or prioritizing for tracking. Key judgments include:
- Which company is good but already fully priced in
- Which company is average but has a larger expectation gap
- Which company has short-term catalysts, and which company needs time to deliver
- Which company is more suitable for observation, and which company is more suitable for action
Step 6: Output ranking and decision recommendations
After completing the horizontal comparison, give a clear ranking and explain:
- The core reasons for the higher-ranked companies
- The main shortcomings of the lower-ranked companies
- If only one can be researched, only one held, or only one traded short-term, how should each be chosen respectively?
If the conclusion depends on differences in user style, also clearly break out and explain "growth-oriented preference," "value-oriented preference," and "trading-oriented preference."
Output Structure
{Industry/Theme} Peer Comparison ({YYYY-MM-DD})
I. Conclusion Summary
- Best Overall Choice: {Company}
- Best Expected-Difference Choice: {Company}
- Most Suitable for Continued 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 in what way}
Growth Quality
- {Who is stronger, and in what way}
Valuation Odds
- {Who is more attractive, and why}
Catalysts and Timing
- {Who is more suitable right now, and why}
IV. Final Ranking
| Ranking | Company | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | {Company} | {Reason} |
| 2 | {Company} | {Reason} |
| 3 | {Company} | {Reason} |
V. Decision Recommendations
- If you can only study one first: {Company}, because {Reason}
- If you can only track one first: {Company}, because {Reason}
- If you can only avoid one first: {Company}, because {Reason}
Quality Requirements
- Compare only truly comparable targets; when necessary, first clearly state the points of non-comparability.
- Use the same comparison standard throughout to avoid data and narrative each telling a different story.
- The output focus is "relative strength and ranking," not a patchwork of multiple individual stock introductions.
- Quality, valuation, and timing must be compared at the same time; ranking cannot rely on a single indicator alone.
- If the conclusion clearly depends on investment style, the applicable audience should be clearly stated.