Write an honest 'you vs. them' comparison page that still wins
Writes a comparison page built on the honesty that makes these pages actually convert: a fair choose-us/choose-them box, 5-7 buyer-relevant dimensions, at least two conceded to the competitor, and SEO metadata with FAQ schema. Unverified competitor claims get flagged instead of published, keeping the page defensible when their team inevitably reads it.
You are a competitive content strategist who writes 'X vs Y' comparison pages that rank and convert, and you know the counterintuitive truth: the honest version wins. Buyers reading a comparison page have their defenses up — a page where the vendor wins every row gets discounted instantly, while a page that concedes real trade-offs earns enough trust to make its recommendation stick.
Write a comparison page:
1. Title and intro (under 100 words) — acknowledge upfront that you make the thing you're comparing, and state who should read this page.
2. A 'short answer' box: choose us if... / choose them if... — two or three honest conditions each. This is the section that gets screenshotted and cited; make it genuinely fair.
3. A comparison across 5-7 dimensions that matter to buyers (not feature trivia): approach, pricing model, best-fit company size, implementation, support. For each: how we differ in two or three sentences, with the competitor described accurately and respectfully.
4. At least two dimensions where the competitor is the better pick for someone — stated plainly.
5. A closing section: the type of buyer we're built for, one proof point, and a CTA that fits comparison-stage intent ('see it on your data', not 'buy now').
6. SEO extras: title tag, meta description, and three FAQ-schema questions with answers.
Rules: every competitor claim must come from what I verify — mark anything uncertain as 'verify before publishing'. No feature-grid checkmark walls. No adjectives standing in for facts. Assume the competitor's team will read this page; write nothing you couldn't defend to their face.
Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time:
1. Who is the competitor, and what do you both do in one sentence each?
2. Where do you genuinely win, and where do they genuinely win? Both sides required.
3. What do you know for certain about their pricing, implementation, and support — and what are you unsure of?
4. What kind of buyer chooses you, and what kind chooses them, based on real deals?
5. What proof point best supports your side?
Once you have my answers, write the page. If I claim to win everywhere, push back — a sweep is a credibility problem, and we'll find the honest trade-offs together.How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Answer question 2 with both sides — the prompt will push back if you claim a sweep, so save the round trip.
- 3
Verify every flagged competitor claim against their current site and pricing before publishing.
- 4
Ship with the FAQ schema included; comparison queries are exactly what search and AI answer engines serve.
- 5
Recheck the page quarterly — competitor pricing and packaging changes silently invalidate comparison content.
Best practices
The choose-them conditions are the conversion mechanism, not a concession — buyers extend trust from the honest rows to your favorable ones.
Compare approaches and fit, not feature checkmarks; buyers on comparison pages are choosing a way of solving the problem.
Base question 4 on actual won and lost deals — 'they win below 20 seats' is the kind of specific honesty that ranks and converts.
Date-stamp the page ('last reviewed') so readers and search engines know the claims are maintained.
Example: what this looks like in practice
A marketer at a done-with-you outbound platform keeps losing deals to a cheaper self-serve tool and decides to own the comparison. She answers honestly: they win on managed deliverability and strategy support, the competitor wins on price and time-to-start for solo founders; she's unsure about the competitor's current warm-up limits. The model writes the page with a short-answer box conceding 'choose them if you're a solo founder sending under 5K emails a month', flags the warm-up claim for verification, and writes FAQ schema for 'which is better for agencies-style buyers'. The page ranks on the 'vs' query within two months, and sales starts sending it mid-deal precisely because prospects call it 'surprisingly fair'.
Best fit
This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.
Apply for a Pilot Spot → →Frequently asked questions
Yes — buyers search 'you vs competitor' whether you publish or not, and the only question is whether you or a third-party affiliate frames the comparison. An honest page ranks for high-intent queries, arms your sales team mid-deal, and gets cited by AI answer engines. The requirement is genuine fairness; a page you win entirely reads as an ad and converts nobody.
More sales copywriting & assets prompts
Generate an outcome-first value proposition buyers can repeat
Builds a complete value proposition system — primary line, three angle variations, a disqualifier, and channel-ready versions — instead of one throwaway tagline. The interview forces buyer, outcome, mechanism, and proof out of your head first, so the output is positioning you can defend, not word salad you'll rewrite next quarter.
Write a case study from a raw customer interview transcript
Turns a raw, rambling customer interview into a publish-ready case study — result-led headline, snapshot metrics box, four-part story, and verbatim pull quotes — while refusing to invent quotes or numbers. If the transcript is missing a strong metric, it tells you exactly what to ask the customer instead of papering over the gap.
Align your cold email and landing page so the click doesn't break the story
Audits your cold email and landing page side by side, finds where the story breaks between click and page, and fixes the cheaper side with minimum edits. The 'message spine' it outputs becomes a five-line contract both assets obey, so the next person who edits either one doesn't silently reintroduce the mismatch.