Comparison Page Design (288)

What the strongest comparison pages do differently

Sorting these 288 comparison pages by how they score against the conversion rubric, then comparing the strongest 57 with the weakest 57, is the fastest way to see what actually separates them.

Strongest 57Weakest 57Share of comparison pages in each band, 0 to 100%

Other

1. A concession to the competitor, see the comparison pages that have it
   9%100%
   +91
2. An explicit "pick them if", see the comparison pages that have it
   2%86%
   +84
3. Prices compared side by side, see the comparison pages that have it
   15%73%
   +58
4. A date on the comparison, see the comparison pages that have it
   19%64%
   +45
5. Sourced claims, see the comparison pages that have it
   26%55%
   +29
6. A migration section, see the comparison pages that have it
   8%36%
   +28
7. A switching offer, see the comparison pages that have it
   6%27%
   +21

Navigation

1. A link on every alternative, see the comparison pages that have it
   0%91%
   +91

Content

1. A description for every alternative, see the comparison pages that have it
   25%86%
   +61
2. A comparison table across the set, see the comparison pages that have it
   70%54%
   -16

Fairness

1. A stated selection method, see the comparison pages that have it
   0%40%
   +40
2. A visible last-updated date, see the comparison pages that have it
   25%9%
   -16

Proof

1. Customer testimonials, see the comparison pages that have it
   56%28%
   -28

How to structure a comparison page, by the numbers

The questions a team asks when it rebuilds a comparison page, answered from the 288 here. Where the strongest 57 and the weakest 57 disagree, that gap is the answer.

How fair does the page have to be?

Fairness is the widest split in this set, and it lives on the head-to-head pages.

• A concession to the competitor on 43%
• An explicit "pick them if" on 33%
• Sourced claims on 29%, and a visible date on the comparison on 31%

What goes in the comparison itself?

• A side-by-side table on 60% of the pages here, and it is close to standard on the head-to-head ones
• Feature checkmarks marking who has what on 61% of head-to-head pages
• The two prices next to each other on 42%
• An FAQ under the table on 47%

What makes an alternatives roundup useful?

A roundup that lists names and nothing else sends the visitor back to search.

• A link on every product listed on 88% of roundups
• A write-up for every product on 61%
• A stated method for choosing them on 14%
• A price for every product on 14%, pros and cons on 5%

What convinces someone to switch?

• A migration section on 20% of head-to-head pages, covering the import, the help and the contract
• Testimonials on 47% of the pages here, with a real name attached on 55% of the head-to-head ones
• A number attached to a customer result on 18%

What is the page asking for?

• One ask, repeated 3 times down the page, three times or more on 67%
• 76% close on a CTA band
• A sticky header keeping the button in reach on 75%

The moves almost nobody makes

Each sits under 15% of the market, with the strongest comparison page that uses it.

An offer aimed at people leaving

10% of head-to-head pages put something on the table for a switcher, such as free migration or a discount that covers the contract still running.

Quotes from people who actually switched

12% quote a customer who moved from this exact competitor, rather than reusing the generic customer quotes.

A last-updated date on the roundup

9% of roundups show the reader when the list was last checked, on a page whose whole promise is that it is current.