Three authorities competing for law enforcement of Anti-monopoly law is the outcome of existing bureaucratic structure. Given the concerns of conflict and slack of enforcement, both academy and practice societies suggest establishing an unified anti-monopoly law enforcement institute. The competition of anti-monopoly authorities changed the key factors of achieving a goal in a bureaucratic organization. The competition among authorities generates more comparable information and distinguishes the monopoly authority from passive supervision and active enforcement. Based on the analysis of anti-monopoly law enforcement, the competition of law enforcement solves the certain issues of current law enforcement, e. g. low level in the bureaucratic system and limited resources. It performs well in terms of explicit and implicit indicators. Different from theoretic hypothesis, the impacts of competition in law enforcement are mainly caused by rigid authoritativeness. Competition in law enforcement under relatively loose system constraints and press caused by changing conclusion by a court, it may lead to recession of enforcement or compelling enforcement. In order to deal with it, it is important to promote the transparency of law enforcement and enhance civil procedure law of anti-monopoly.