Comparison pages

Why comparison pages matter

When a buyer is deciding between two products, they ask AI engines "X vs Y" — and the engine looks for a balanced comparison page to cite. If you've published a fair comparison, you become the source of truth for that matchup, even when one of the brands is a competitor.

Safety first

Comparison pages naturally name competitors. We've engineered the comparison engine to keep you out of trademark and disparagement trouble:

• No superlative claims about your product without backing data.
• No negative-only framing of the competitor — every section gives them credit where credit is due.
• No claims about pricing that aren't pulled from public sources, dated, and linked.
• No claims about features without a verifiable source (homepage, docs, changelog).

Compliance blocks any draft that violates these. See Compliance scanner.

Anatomy of a generated comparison

1. Verdict at the top. A one-paragraph "which is best for which buyer" summary. Hedged, sourced, fair.
2. Quick comparison table. Six rows: best for, pricing model, setup time, integrations, support, free tier.
3. Feature-by-feature breakdown. 4–6 sections, one per feature area, each with both products credited.
4. Pricing section. Public list pricing, dated. We do NOT scrape current prices on the fly — we use what's in your competitor profile.
5. When to choose X / when to choose Y. Two short sections.
6. FAQ. 3–5 buyer questions, schema-marked.

Starting a comparison

Content → New → Comparison page.

• Your product — pre-filled from workspace.
• Competitor product — choose from your tracked competitor list or paste a URL.
• Audience. "Bootstrapped founders" produces different copy than "enterprise teams."
• Outcome bias (optional). You can request a slight lean toward your product, within the safety rails. The output stays defensibly fair — the comparison won't read as a hit piece — but the framing acknowledges your strengths first.

What we will NOT do

We will not:

• Make claims your competitor disputes without acknowledging the dispute.
• Imply illegality, incompetence, or bad faith.
• Use "scam," "fraud," "worst," or similar inflammatory language.
• Cite review-site numbers without dating them.

These are compile-time refusals. The engine simply will not produce that text.

Updating comparisons

Comparison pages age fast — pricing changes, features ship. Pin them with a quarterly review reminder at Settings → Content → Review schedule. The engine surfaces stale comparisons in your dashboard with an age indicator.

Owning matchups you don't yet have

A typical workflow: open Competitors → [competitor] → Prompts won. For each "X vs Y" prompt the competitor wins, generate a comparison and publish. Three months later, re-audit — you'll usually own a meaningful share of the matchups you decided to engage.

Updating an existing page

When market conditions change (the competitor launches a new feature, raises prices, gets acquired), open the existing comparison page and click Refresh from sources. The engine re-reads the competitor's public pages and proposes diffs.

Multi-way comparisons

The engine supports two-way comparisons by default. Three-way and four-way comparisons exist on Domination — they're harder to keep balanced but useful for "alternatives to" pages.