'Alternatives' pages: comparison content that ranks and stays accurate
Competitor alternatives and X vs Y pages that hold up: every claim sourced and dated, one table with the same fields, who each suits, checked quarterly.
LLaunchScaler·Published ·8 min read
A competitor alternatives page ranks and stays trustworthy when every claim about another product comes from that product's own pages and is dated, every product is compared on the same fields in one table, and the page says plainly who each competitor is better for. Re-check prices and plan limits every quarter, because a stale price is an easy way to lose a reader's trust.
This guide covers both common formats, <competitor> alternatives and <your product> vs <competitor>, with the sourcing rules, a table template, and the review routine that keeps them accurate.
Why write alternatives and "vs" pages at all?
People searching for <competitor> alternatives or <your product> vs <competitor> are close to a decision and want the options side by side. A fair comparison on your site answers that question with your product in it. Without one, the comparison they read is written by the competitor or by a third party that may not know your product well.
These searches also feed AI answers. Google says its AI features use query fan-out, "a set of concurrent, related queries generated by the model," to gather more results; its own example turns one how-to question into sub-searches such as "best herbicides for lawns." A question like "what should I use for X?" can fan out into the same comparison searches your page targets, so a clear, sourced comparison is the kind of page those systems retrieve.
The format only works if the page is honest. A comparison that is visibly one-sided fails the reader, and readers who notice it discount everything else on your site.
How do you source every claim about another product?
Take every fact about a competitor from the competitor's own current pages: pricing from its pricing page, limits from its plan table, features from its documentation. Link the source next to the claim, note the month you checked it, and keep a screenshot for your records. Never copy a competitor's price from a review site or another comparison.
Rules that keep sourcing clean:
Questions, answered
What people ask about this
01
What is a competitor alternatives page?
It is a page aimed at people who search for alternatives to a competitor, or for your product versus a competitor, comparing your product with one or more others. It works when it is fair: sourced facts, the same comparison fields for every product, and an honest note on who each option suits.
One source per fact, and the source is the vendor. For prices, that means the live pricing page, not an old announcement.
Use the vendor's own names for tiers and features, so readers can find them on the vendor's site.
Write the month you checked it ("checked in September 2026") next to prices and limits.
When the vendor doesn't publish something, write "Not published" in the table. Don't estimate.
Quote exact wording for anything a reader might dispute, such as a refund policy.
Store dated screenshots of each source page. If a vendor challenges a claim, you can show what the page said.
The legal backdrop in the United States is permissive but conditional. The FTC's policy statement on comparative advertising says the Commission "encourages the naming of, or reference to competitors, but requires clarity," and supports brand comparisons "where the bases of comparison are clearly identified." It says comparative advertising, "when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers." The conditions are the point: truthful, non-deceptive, and clear about what is being compared. Take advice for your own market.
How should the comparison table be built?
Give every product the same rows, chosen by what a buyer in your category decides on, and fill each cell from a sourced fact. Put your own product in the same table with the same fields. A table where only your column has favourable fields is a sales graphic, and readers read it as one.
Pick fields in this order:
Price and what each plan includes, with the limit that matters most (seats, usage, projects).
The two to four capabilities buyers compare first in your category.
Integrations or platforms supported, if buyers filter on them.
Support and onboarding, as the vendor states them.
Who it suits best, in one line.
A template, with the rows you would fill from each vendor's own pages:
Field
Your product
Competitor A
Competitor B
Starting price
From your pricing page
From its pricing page, with the month you checked it
Not published
Plan limit that matters most
Stated limit
Stated limit
Stated limit
Capability buyers compare first
Yes, with detail
Yes, with detail
No
Integrations
Listed
Listed
Listed
Support
As stated
As stated
As stated
Best for
One honest line
One honest line
One honest line
Use a real HTML table, not an image. Google's AI features guidance asks that "important content is available in textual form," and a text table can be read row by row by both readers and search systems. The same point applies to AI answers generally; the guide to writing content AI answers cite covers why sourced tables get quoted.
How do you say who the competitor is better for?
State, for each competitor, the reader it genuinely suits better than you, and why. Google's guidance for reviews asks writers to "cover comparable things to consider, or explain which might be best for certain uses or circumstances," and to "discuss the benefits and drawbacks of something, based on your own original research."
Write it as a specific condition, not a vague compliment:
"If you need an on-premise install, Competitor A offers one and we don't."
"Competitor B's free plan includes three projects; ours includes one."
"For teams over 200 seats, Competitor A's enterprise plan includes a dedicated manager, which ours does not."
Then say, just as specifically, who your product suits. The honesty on the competitor's side is what makes your side believable. Google's guidance also says that when you call something "the best overall or the best for a certain purpose," you should "include why you consider it the best, with first-hand supporting evidence." On a vs page, that evidence is your own testing, screenshots and numbers.
Put every comparison page on a quarterly review, and add an out-of-cycle check whenever a competitor announces a change. At each review, re-open every source link, update what changed, note the new "checked in" month, and record what you changed. Update the page's modified date only when a fact actually changed.
A quarterly routine for each page:
Open every linked source and compare it with the page.
Update prices, tier names and limits that changed; replace dead links.
Re-read the "best for" lines: did a competitor add the thing you said it lacked?
Update the "checked in" month on every fact you re-verified.
Save new screenshots of each source.
If anything changed, update the visible "Updated" date and the page's dateModified; if nothing changed, leave both alone.
Google's list of warning signs includes "changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed," so a review that finds nothing new should leave the date as it is.
Which mistakes make comparison pages backfire?
The mistakes that sink comparison pages are the ones a reader can catch in a minute by opening the competitor's site. Each one costs you more trust than the page earns, and it also puts you on the wrong side of the FTC's "truthful and non-deceptive" condition.
Listing a weakness the competitor fixed months ago, because nobody re-checked.
Comparing your paid plan with the competitor's free plan, or annual prices with monthly ones.
Choosing only the fields where you win, and leaving out the ones buyers ask about first.
Hiding when the facts were checked, so a reader cannot tell a current price from an old one.
Writing the competitor's section from memory instead of its own documentation.
Each has the same fix: compare like with like, source every cell, and show the date.
What structure works for an alternatives page?
Open with the answer: the alternatives worth considering and the one-line reason each suits someone. Then the comparison table, then a short section per product with its sourced facts and who it fits, then how to choose, then an FAQ. Put your product where it genuinely belongs, and say why in terms of a criterion the reader cares about.
First two sentences: the options and who each suits.
The comparison table, with the "checked in" month.
One section per product: what it is, key facts with sources, who it is for, who should look elsewhere.
"How to choose": a short decision guide keyed to reader situations.
FAQ with the questions people ask about switching.
Sources, listed with dates.
The same structure works for "best tools" lists in your category, including lists other sites publish. The guide to getting listed in best-of articles covers the other side: being included fairly on pages you don't control.
Get drafts written from your product, ready for your sources
A comparison page is only as good as the facts about your own product, and that part should come from the product itself. LaunchScaler's content engine writes each article "from your product: what it does, who it is for, how it works," with "no invented facts, no borrowed examples," planned from your own Search Console queries. It writes one a day, thirty a month, and by default every draft waits in your workspace for you to add sourced competitor facts, rewrite, trim or scrap before it publishes.
It costs $99/mo per website, with 3 days free before the first charge. Start the engine and your first draft is ready on day one.
Is it legal to name competitors on a comparison page?
In the United States, the FTC's policy statement on comparative advertising encourages naming competitors as long as comparisons are truthful, not deceptive, and the bases of comparison are clearly identified. Get legal advice for your own market and claims.
03
How often should you update a comparison page?
Check every competitor fact at least once a quarter, and whenever a competitor announces a pricing or plan change. Show a 'checked in' month next to prices so readers know how current they are.
04
Should a comparison page say when a competitor is better?
Yes. Google's guidance for reviews asks writers to explain which option might be best for certain uses or circumstances. Saying who a competitor suits makes the rest of the page more credible.
05
What should a comparison table include?
The same fields for every product, chosen by what buyers decide on: price and plan limits, the main features, integrations, support and who it suits. Write 'Not published' when a vendor doesn't state something rather than guessing.
