Anyone searching for “Mailchimp alternatives” already has one foot out the door. A price increase, a missing feature, or slow support has pushed them to build a shortlist, and the article they land on decides which names make it. That’s why alternatives articles bring in buyers even though the searches are small.
I’m a content strategist at Breaking B2B and a B2B SaaS writer, and two of my own alternatives articles, for Payoneer and Selar, rank on Google’s first page for their main searches, with about 500 clicks between them in the last three months.
To see how the articles that rank are built, I took 12 alternatives articles in Google’s top four, from PandaDoc, Zapier, Constant Contact, Teamwork, SE Ranking, and others, and coded each one by hand, from the URL to the FAQ.
Below you’ll find the structure they share, how they write about each tool without bashing the competitor, and a template you can hand to a writer.
Why alternatives articles bring in buyers with so little traffic
People who like their tool don’t search for a replacement. A search for “[competitor] alternatives” comes from someone who already has a reason to leave and is comparing options, so the article reaches buyers near the end of a decision even though it’s named after another company.
The searches themselves are small. In Semrush’s US data for October 2026, “mailchimp alternatives” gets 2,400 searches a month, “docusign alternatives” 2,900, “zendesk alternatives” 1,300, and “gusto alternatives” 480. What advertisers pay for a click on those searches shows what the visitors are worth to the companies competing for them: $24.34 for Mailchimp, $20.97 for DocuSign, $64.61 for Zendesk, and $67.86 for Gusto.
Even the articles in first place get modest traffic. Constant Contact’s Mailchimp alternatives article ranks #1 and draws about 690 US visits a month, and PandaDoc’s DocuSign alternatives article, also #1, about 350. That’s a few hundred people a month, and each of them is choosing their next tool.
Alternatives articles also get pulled into AI answers. AI Mode is counted in Search Console’s Performance report, and between July 20 and October 19, 2026, my Selar alternatives article appeared for 197 different queries there. Next to “selar alternatives”, which it ranks for at an average position of 1.6 with a 14.5% click-through rate, the list is full of follow-up questions people typed in the middle of a conversation, like “compare please”, “any free alternative”, “what about payhip”, and “i’m in nigeria”. An article that covers fees, regions, and free plans has an answer for each of those follow-ups.
At Breaking B2B, where I’m a content strategist, two of the agency’s published client results include this kind of page. Wildsparq reached page 1 for the competitor-alternative searches its buyers ran within 30 days. At VerifyTreatment, “us versus them” pages were one part of a program that took demos from 5 to 32 a month, and the team’s CRM now records “ChatGPT” and “Google AI Overview” as answers to “How did you hear about us?”
The 12 alternatives articles I studied
Each article below ranks in the US top four for its competitor’s “alternatives” search, as of October 2026. I picked blog articles, not comparison landing pages, and left out review sites like G2 and Capterra. Nine come from software vendors writing about a competitor, and three come from independent sites.
| Article | Publisher | Type | Google position | Tools listed | Words (approx.) |
| Mailchimp alternatives | Constant Contact | Vendor | 1 | 10 | 4,400 |
| DocuSign alternatives | PandaDoc | Vendor | 1 | 15 | 8,800 |
| Jira alternatives | Teamwork | Vendor | 1 | 10 | 3,900 |
| Zapier alternatives | Gumloop | Vendor | 1 | 10 | 4,600 |
| Slack alternatives | Pumble | Vendor | 1 | 8 | 4,600 |
| Mailchimp alternatives | Email Vendor Selection | Independent | 2 | 9 | 4,200 |
| Ahrefs alternatives | SE Ranking | Vendor | 2 | 13 | 9,300 |
| ChatGPT alternatives | Zapier | Independent | 2 | 4 | 2,600 |
| Ahrefs alternatives | Zapier | Independent | 3 | 8 | 3,500 |
| Google Analytics alternatives | Seline | Vendor | 3 | 10 | 3,100 |
| QuickBooks alternatives | Accounting Seed | Vendor | 4 | 9 | 4,300 |
| HubSpot alternatives | Salesforce | Vendor | 4 | 11 | 5,000 |
For each article, I recorded which sections it has and how each tool entry is written, including how often the entry names the competitor the reader wants to leave. The heat map shows the result.
The structure of an alternatives article, from URL to FAQ
The sections below follow the order the articles use. Each one shows how many of the 12 have it, the best example, and what to copy.
A short URL and a title with the year
All 12 articles use a short URL built on the competitor’s name, such as /mailchimp-alternatives/ or /blog/jira-alternatives/. Ten put the year in the title, usually as “The [number] best [competitor] alternatives in 2026”.
The two exceptions title the problem or the audience instead. Accounting Seed calls its article “When QuickBooks Isn’t Cutting It: 9 Accounting Alternatives for Growing SMBs”, which speaks to the reader’s frustration before it lists anything. Salesforce writes for “Small Businesses and Startups”.
What to copy. Put the competitor’s name and “alternatives” in both the URL and the title. Add the year only if someone owns the article and will keep it current, because a 2026 title with 2025 prices is worse than no year at all.
A named author, and a reviewer if you have one
Eleven of the 12 name an author. PandaDoc goes further, listing its Product Marketing Manager as the author and its CEO as the reviewer, with an author bio at the end. Pumble is the exception, with a “Why trust us?” box about its editorial guidelines instead of a person.
What to copy. Name a real person with a job title that explains why they can judge the tools. If someone senior signs off on the claims about the competitor, say so.
Top picks at the top
Eight articles answer the question before the long reviews, and a ninth sorts its tools into categories up front. Constant Contact’s “Top picks” gives five tools one line each, and every line names a weakness. Its own entry admits its automation features “are less advanced than some competitors.” PandaDoc uses “Key takeaways”, and Seline uses a “TL;DR”.
What to copy. Give a reader who stops after the first screen two or three tools to look at and the reason for each. Including a weakness in each line, even for your own product, makes the rest of the page easier to believe.
Why people leave the competitor
Four articles have a full section on why people leave the competitor, and two more cover it in the intro. It isn’t in every structure you’ll see recommended, but the vendors that rank use it to name the reader’s problem before they offer a fix.
PandaDoc has two sections, “Why look for a Docusign alternative?” and “What users say about switching from Docusign”, which list envelope limits, modular pricing, and document creation that happens somewhere else. Teamwork gives three reasons: Jira Server reached end of life, pricing adds up fast, and complexity slows down non-technical teams. In my Payoneer alternatives article, the section lists six reasons, from the inactivity fee to account freezes and slow support.
What to copy. List the reasons in the words your reader would use, and source them from review sites, Reddit threads, your sales calls, and the competitor’s own pricing page. A reader who sees their own complaint written down will keep reading to see the fix.
How you chose the tools
Four articles explain their selection in a section of its own, and three more do it in a paragraph. Constant Contact’s methodology lists six criteria, such as pricing structure, automation depth, and deliverability, and says the team “created testing accounts or explored live demos for each platform.” Zapier gives both of its articles a short “What makes the best [tool] alternative?” section.
What to copy. Keep it to a short paragraph or list: how many tools you looked at, what you judged them on, and whether you used them. Say what you tested only if you tested it.
A comparison table with a “vs. [competitor]” column
Five articles have a comparison table near the top. The most useful one is PandaDoc’s, which adds a column called “vs. Docusign” next to best for and starting price, so every row says how the tool differs from the one the reader wants to leave. A note under the table dates every price.
Accounting Seed skips the top table and puts a small one inside each entry, comparing that tool, QuickBooks, and Accounting Seed on CRM integration, users, customization, currencies, and reporting.
What to copy. Give your table a column that compares each tool with the competitor in a few words. A table of features alone tells readers what the tools do, and the comparison column tells them why they’d switch.
One entry per tool
The entries are where the articles agree most. All 12 give pricing, though Seline prices only some of its tools. Eleven cover pros and cons or limitations, 10 show at least one screenshot, and most give each tool a best-for label. The next section covers how the strongest entries are written.
Only Email Vendor Selection puts a call to action in nearly every entry. The vendors tend to put one on their own entry and leave the others without. Your reader came to compare tools, so a button under every competitor isn’t much help to them.
What to copy. Give each entry a best-for label, a line on what the tool does better than the competitor, pricing, pros and cons, and a screenshot. Add a call to action to your own entry, and link to the other tools’ sites.
Other tools worth a look
Three articles end the main list with a short set of extra tools for a narrower need. Email Vendor Selection and SE Ranking list free alternatives, and PandaDoc lists the cheapest ones.
What to copy. If a group of readers needs something the main picks don’t offer, such as a free plan, give them a few lines here instead of stretching the main list.
Help with switching
Help with switching is rare. Two articles cover it properly, and two more touch on it. Teamwork has a section called “How to migrate from Jira”. Accounting Seed asks the questions a buyer has to answer before switching accounting software, including “Who’s going to handle the switch?” Pumble labels one of its picks “best for Slack migration”.
My Payoneer alternatives article handles switching with a cost scenario. It works out what a freelancer earning $30,000 a year would pay in fees with Payoneer and with five of the alternatives, because fees make up most of the reasons people leave Payoneer.
What to copy. Answer the questions that stop a buyer from switching: what happens to their data, how long it takes, who does the work, and what it costs. Because so few articles cover it, a switching section is one of the easiest ways to stand out.
How to choose, or a verdict
Eleven articles end with a decision section. Zapier’s is called “Which Ahrefs alternative should you choose?” Accounting Seed asks five questions, from what’s breaking your daily workflow to what the real price tag is. Salesforce ends with a plain verdict: “We vote for Salesforce.”
What to copy. Match each type of reader to a tool. “If you mainly need X, pick Y” helps a reader more than a recap of the list.
FAQs, when there are real questions
Seven articles end with FAQs. The useful ones answer the worries people have about switching. My Payoneer article answers “What happens to my Payoneer account if I switch?” and “Is it safe to switch payment platforms mid-project?”, both questions people ask before they move money.
What to copy. Take questions from People Also Ask, your sales calls, and Search Console. If you can’t find real ones, skip the section.
What the technical data shows
The structure is only half of why these articles rank, so I also pulled the technical side for all 12: the domain’s Authority Score and the links pointing at each article (both from Semrush), how long each URL has existed (from the Wayback Machine and each page’s own published date), the schema markup in the page code, and the links each article makes to the rest of its site. With 12 articles, this shows patterns rather than causes, but a few are clear.
| Article | Google position | Domain Authority Score | Sites linking to the article | At this URL since |
| PandaDoc · DocuSign | 1 | 53 | 95 | June 2021 |
| Pumble · Slack | 1 | 48 | 5 | October 2021 |
| Teamwork · Jira | 1 | 50 | 2 | August 2023 |
| Gumloop · Zapier | 1 | 49 | 22 | October 2025 |
| Constant Contact · Mailchimp | 1 | 45 | 181 | August 2026 (date shown) |
| SE Ranking · Ahrefs | 2 | 59 | 76 | July 2023 |
| Zapier · ChatGPT | 2 | 75 | 304 | June 2024 |
| Email Vendor Selection · Mailchimp | 2 | 55 | 71 | January 2026 (date shown) |
| Zapier · Ahrefs | 3 | 75 | 11 | April 2026 |
| Seline · Google Analytics | 3 | 31 | 6 | May 2026 |
| Accounting Seed · QuickBooks | 4 | 34 | 37 | June 2025 |
| Salesforce · HubSpot | 4 | 84 | 4 | September 2026 |
Mid-sized domains hold the top spot
All five #1 articles sit on domains with Authority Scores between 45 and 53. The two strongest domains in the study, Salesforce (84) and Zapier (75), rank second to fourth. A strong domain still counts for something: Salesforce’s HubSpot article reached #4 within about seven weeks of publishing, with links from only four sites. But a vendor with a mid-sized domain and a well-built article can outrank a much bigger one for its competitor’s name.
Links to the article don’t explain the order
Teamwork’s Jira article ranks #1 with links from two sites, and Pumble’s Slack article ranks #1 with links from five. Constant Contact’s #1 article has links from 181 sites. Among these 12, the number of sites linking to an alternatives article says little about where it ranks, so don’t hold an article back until you’ve built links to it.
The #1 articles are old URLs, kept fresh
Four of the five #1 articles have lived at the same URL for one to five years. PandaDoc’s DocuSign article was first archived in June 2021, yet it shows a publish date of August 14, 2026, because the team updates it in place. Teamwork’s article dates from 2023 and was last modified on October 14, 2026, a week before I checked it.
What to copy. Publish your alternatives article once, at a URL you’ll keep, and refresh the content, prices, and date in place. A new URL every year starts the page from zero.
Schema is basic, and it isn’t what puts a page first
Eleven of the 12 articles mark the page up as an article with a named author, and six include FAQ markup. None uses list or review markup for the tools themselves. Pumble’s #1 Slack article has only basic page markup, with no article or author schema at all.
What to copy. Add article schema with the author, and FAQ schema if the page has a visible FAQ. Then spend your time on the article itself.
Entries link to deeper pages on the same site
Every article links to other pages on its own site from inside the text. The most useful links go one level deeper on a tool. Email Vendor Selection links each alternative to its own full review, such as its Brevo and MailerLite reviews, and Pumble links to its comparison and review pages, including a review of Chanty it calls “An Honest Review by a Competitor”.
What to copy. If you’ve written a head-to-head comparison or a full review of a tool, link to it from that tool’s entry. A reader who’s close to deciding can go deeper, and the article becomes the hub for everything you’ve written about switching from that competitor.
How to write each tool entry
Every article in the study lists tools. The ones that stand out make every entry answer the reader’s real question, which is whether this tool is better than the one they have now. These are the six techniques the strongest entries use.
1. Say what the tool does better than the competitor
Nine of the 12 articles name the competitor in most of their entries. Zapier’s Ahrefs alternatives article does it in a single sentence about Semrush: “What Semrush does better than Ahrefs is breadth.” The rest of the entry backs that up with Semrush’s competitor analysis tools.
Pumble builds the same idea into every entry with a line that asks the question directly, such as “What’s the difference between Chanty and Slack?”, and answers it in two sentences. Email Vendor Selection gives every tool a head-to-head subsection against MailChimp.
Compare that with Salesforce’s HubSpot alternatives article, which names HubSpot in one of its 11 entries. Each entry describes a CRM well, but a reader leaving HubSpot has to work out alone what each one does differently.
2. Use numbers the reader can check
PandaDoc’s entry for Adobe Acrobat Sign says it’s limited to 150 transactions per user a year “compared to Docusign’s 100 per user/year limit.” SE Ranking lists the minimum price of every tool next to Ahrefs’ minimum price before the reviews start.
A number gives the reader something to verify and something to repeat to their boss. “Cheaper than DocuSign” is a claim, while “150 transactions a year compared to 100” is a reason to switch.
3. Say where the competitor still wins
The strongest entries admit what the reader would give up. Zapier follows its Semrush praise with “Where Ahrefs still pulls ahead is keyword database depth and backlink accuracy.” SE Ranking says Moz’s backlink index is larger than Ahrefs’, then adds, “Still, many users prefer Ahrefs’ data due to its highly active crawler.”
These lines keep the article honest without bashing anyone. A reader who knows the competitor well will trust the rest of your claims once they see you give it credit where it’s due.
4. Tie each tool back to the reason people leave
Accounting Seed’s Xero entry ends with a “Pro tip” that connects Xero to the reader’s problem. Xero still needs third-party connectors to sync with a CRM, “creating the same fundamental data synchronization challenges you may be experiencing with QuickBooks.”
If your “why people leave” section lists three pains, every entry should say which of those pains the tool fixes and which it doesn’t. That’s how a reader with a specific complaint finds their tool.
5. End each entry with a one-line verdict
Gumloop sums up Make in one sentence: “Overall, I would say Make is the budget-friendly version of Zapier.” Teamwork ends each entry with a “Practitioner assessment” that says which kind of team the tool suits. My Payoneer article closes every entry with “Verdict: [tool] vs. Payoneer”, and my Selar article ends each one with “Choose [tool] when…”
A verdict saves the reader from turning four paragraphs into a decision. It also gives AI assistants a clean sentence to quote when someone asks which tool to pick.
6. Give the tool an image that shows its job
Seline opens its Fathom entry with “If GA4 feels like flying a cockpit when you just need a speedometer, Fathom is built for you.” In one line, it names the reader’s frustration with Google Analytics and the kind of tool that fixes it.
Use an image only when it’s accurate about the product and makes the difference easier to see. One good one per article is plenty.
Keep the facts current
An alternatives article makes claims about other companies’ prices and features, and those change without notice. PandaDoc handles this with one line under its table: “All pricing and feature content last updated August 2026.”
When I update my alternatives articles, I recheck every price on the vendor’s own pricing page, with the toggle set to monthly billing, and change the date only after that check. Put the article on a recheck schedule too. A wrong price about a competitor is the fastest way to lose the reader’s trust, and the competitor’s.
Where your own product goes if you’re the vendor
Eight of the nine vendors in the study list their own product first. Accounting Seed is the exception: it lists itself ninth, after eight competitors, and then gives itself a full section called “What makes Accounting Seed stand out?” Salesforce fills the first three spots with its own products before any HubSpot alternative from another company appears.
Watch how often you come back to yourself. PandaDoc’s entries for other tools keep comparing them with PandaDoc, as in Dropbox Sign’s “unlimited e-signatures without transaction limits (just like PandaDoc)”. A comparison like that helps once, but when it shows up in most entries, the article starts to read like a sales page.
My recommendation for vendors:
- List yourself first. Readers expect it on a vendor’s site, and every ranking vendor in the study but one does it.
- Hold your entry to the same standard. Give your product the same pros and cons, pricing, and limitations as every other entry. Constant Contact’s top pick admits its automation is less advanced than some competitors’.
- Say who should stay with the competitor. If the competitor is still the better choice for some teams, write that down. The readers who would never have bought from you leave, and the rest believe your other claims.
If you’re weighing a head-to-head “[you] vs [competitor]” page instead of a roundup, the same honesty applies, and I cover that format in how to write SaaS comparison pages.
An alternatives article template
Here’s the structure from the study as a template you can hand to a writer or turn into a brief.
- URL. /[competitor]-alternatives
- Title. The [number] best [competitor] alternatives in [year], or the reader’s problem in their words.
- Author and reviewer. A named person with a job title, plus a reviewer if one signs off.
- Updated date. Near the title, changed only after a full recheck.
- Intro. The reader’s reason for leaving, and what the article covers.
- Top picks. Two or three tools, each with one strength and one weakness.
- Why people leave [competitor]. Three to six reasons, sourced.
- How we chose. How many tools, what you judged, and what you tested.
- Comparison table. Tool, best for, starting price, and a “vs. [competitor]” column.
- One entry per tool. Best-for label, what it does better than the competitor, a number the reader can check, where the competitor still wins, pricing, pros and cons, a screenshot, and a one-line verdict.
- Other tools. Free or niche options in a few lines each.
- Switching help. Data, time, effort, and cost.
- How to choose. “If you need X, pick Y.”
- FAQs. Only questions people ask.
How to tell if an alternatives article is working
Traffic alone undersells these articles, so measure who arrives and what they do:
- Search Console. Filter to the article and check its position for “[competitor] alternatives”, the queries that include the competitor’s name, and conversational follow-ups like the ones my Selar article picks up.
- AI answers. Ask ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google’s AI Mode for alternatives to the competitor, and record whether you’re named and which page is cited.
- Your demo form. Add a “How did you hear about us?” field. VerifyTreatment’s answers include “ChatGPT” and “Google AI Overview”, which no analytics tool would have reported.
- Sales calls. Ask new prospects which tool they’re leaving. If the same competitor keeps coming up and you have no alternatives article for it, write that one next.
Write for the reader with one foot out the door
An alternatives article is read by someone who has already decided to leave a tool and is now picking the next one. The articles that rank give that reader a short list at the top, a reason to trust it, and entries that say plainly what each tool does better than the one they’re leaving, and where it doesn’t.
If buyers are comparing you with a competitor and you don’t have an alternatives article for that search, book a call with me.
