A sales rep comes back from a lost deal. The prospect picked your biggest competitor, and when the rep asks what tipped it, the answer stings. They searched “[competitor] vs [your product],” and the page that answered them was written by the competitor.
That’s the gap a comparison page closes. It puts your side of the story in front of a buyer at the exact moment they’re choosing. And more and more, it’s also the page ChatGPT and Google’s AI Overviews quote when someone asks which tool to pick.
I write comparison pages and alternatives articles for B2B SaaS companies, including Softr and Zapier. This guide is what I’ve learned doing it. You’ll see the two kinds of comparison content, real examples, and a teardown of one page that gets almost everything right. Then I’ll walk through the process I use, step by step, so you can hand it to your team.
What is a SaaS comparison page?
A SaaS comparison page helps a buyer choose between two or more software products. It usually includes a side-by-side table, a clear verdict on who each option suits, and a next step. It targets high-intent searches like “[Tool A] vs [Tool B]” and “[Tool] alternatives,” where the reader is already close to a decision.
There are really two kinds, and they do different jobs.
The first is the vendor page. It’s your product against one competitor, hosted on your site, often at a URL like /compare/competitor. It’s openly on your side, and readers know that. Its job is to make your case clearly for people who are already considering you.
Then there’s the editorial comparison. Think “Make vs Zapier” or “best Intercom alternatives,” written as a blog article that compares options more evenly and brings your product in where it fits. Because it covers the whole decision, it can reach buyers who haven’t heard of you yet.
You’ll probably need both. The vendor page supports deals already in motion. The editorial piece finds new ones.
Why comparison pages are worth the effort
Someone searching “Deel vs Remote” isn’t browsing. They have a budget, a shortlist, and usually a deadline. Few searches sit that close to revenue.
Comparison pages keep paying off after they rank, too. Sales reps send them to prospects mid-evaluation, customer success uses them when a client is tempted by a competitor, and they give leadership a clear, public answer to “why us?”
Here’s the part that surprised me, though. When I researched three “alternatives” keywords this month, for Deel, Intercom, and Vanta, vendor-written pages held most of page one for all three. Remote, RemoFirst, RemotePass, and Multiplier rank for “deel alternatives” with pages they wrote about themselves. Drata, Sprinto, and Scytale do the same for Vanta, and Freshworks, Front, and Kayako do it for Intercom.
So if you don’t publish your version of the comparison, your competitors will publish theirs, and theirs will be the one buyers read.
AI search raises the stakes further. When a buyer asks ChatGPT to compare two tools, the answer has to come from somewhere. A fair, clearly structured page with dated pricing and plain verdicts is exactly the kind of source those answers pull from.
SaaS comparison page examples worth studying
I’ve split these into vendor pages and editorial pieces, because you’ll borrow different things from each.
Remote vs Deel (vendor page)
Remote’s comparison with Deel leads with a single positioning line, pitching Remote as the Deel alternative for compliant teams. Before you scroll, you see customer logos and three numbers Remote attributes to its platform, including a 43% improvement in regulatory compliance.
Then comes a side-by-side table covering pricing transparency, infrastructure ownership, compliance, offboarding, recruitment, and indemnification. Testimonials follow, along with links to Remote’s other comparisons against Rippling, Papaya Global, and Oyster.
What I’d borrow is the focus. The whole page argues one idea, compliance, instead of listing every feature. And it isn’t a one-off. It’s part of a set, so a buyer comparing Remote with anyone lands on a matching page.
Freshworks’ Intercom alternatives (vendor-owned editorial)
Freshworks’ list of Intercom alternatives is a vendor page dressed as an editorial article. It covers 10 options against eight criteria, from omnichannel support to built-in onboarding, with a table showing price per user. Freshdesk, Freshworks’ own product, sits first.
It works because it answers the searcher’s real question, which is “what else is out there?” rather than “why Freshdesk?” Listing genuine competitors is a small risk that buys a lot of credibility, and it lets the page rank for the broad “alternatives” search instead of only a head-to-head one.
Mangools’ Ahrefs alternative page (vendor page)
Mangools’ page calls itself the best free Ahrefs alternative, then backs that up with five differentiators, a 10-row feature matrix, and review quotes from places like G2, Capterra, and Reddit. It’s a tidy template for a smaller tool taking on a category leader.
It also shows how quickly these pages go stale. When I checked it in September 2026, it described Ahrefs as costing $99 and up, while Ahrefs’ own pricing page listed its Lite plan at $129 a month. That’s not a scandal, just a reminder that any price on a comparison page needs a date and an owner.
Make vs Zapier for Softr (editorial)
I wrote Make vs Zapier for Softr, and it shows how an editorial comparison can serve a third company. The piece opens with a short TL;DR that gives the verdict straight away. Zapier is easier to start with, Make offers more control, and Softr is the better long-term option for certain use cases.
A quick comparison table follows, then deeper sections on ease of use, flexibility, integrations, affordability, AI features, and use cases. The pricing section includes a worked scenario explaining how Make’s credits and Zapier’s tasks add up, because “which is cheaper” depends entirely on how you build your workflows. It also pulls in community sentiment from Reddit, which buyers trust more than anything a vendor says.
v0 vs Lovable for Softr (editorial)
For v0 vs Lovable, the structure is similar but the category is newer, so the page does more explaining. There’s an eight-row table covering output type, back end, hosting, editors, integrations, security, collaboration, and pricing, followed by a side-by-side look at seven criteria, including code quality and security.
It closes with clear “when to choose” guidance for each tool and a section introducing Softr for teams building business-critical apps. Being upfront about where each product fits is what earns the reader’s trust for that final recommendation.
Category roundups that became traffic assets
Comparison thinking also scales into “best X software” roundups. Softr’s best knowledge management software article, which I wrote, carries an estimated $1.6 million a year in traffic value, and Taboola’s article on native advertising platforms carries an estimated $118,000. Both use the same fundamentals as a head-to-head page, just across a whole category.
Teardown: why Gumloop’s n8n comparison page works
If I had to hand a content team one vendor comparison page to study, it would be Gumloop vs n8n. Gumloop is an AI automation platform, and n8n is the workflow tool it most often gets compared with. The page is short and openly on Gumloop’s side, yet it’s fair enough that an n8n fan could read it without rolling their eyes. Here’s what it does, from the top of the page down. I reviewed it on September 26, 2026, so some details may have changed since.
It picks one angle and states it in the first screen
The headline asks “Which is best for you?” and the two sentences under it answer the question. n8n is built for developers and low-code builders, and Gumloop is for everyone in your org, “from Sales and Marketing to HR and Legal.” Everything else on the page supports that single idea. n8n suits engineers, and Gumloop suits the whole company.
The customer quote right below backs up the same angle. It comes from Amanda James, Director of Onboarding Operations at Remote, and it’s about getting “the people who are closest to the problem” involved in solving it. That’s the reader Gumloop wants on this page, an operations leader rather than an engineer.
Every claim comes with the competitor’s side
The next section, “What Gumloop does that n8n can’t,” could easily have been a list of boasts. Instead, each card pairs a Gumloop capability with a sentence on how n8n handles the same job. Gumloop agents “can write, execute, and iterate on their code,” for example, while agents in n8n workflows “can invoke prewritten code” but can’t write new code themselves.
Pairing the claims this way makes each one specific enough to check, and that’s what makes it believable. It’s the same idea as putting proof next to every claim, applied to the competitor’s features.
The table admits where n8n wins
The comparison table groups its rows under four buyer concerns, which are ease of use, AI capabilities, pricing, and security. The second row is the one I’d point any content team to. It shows prebuilt integrations, 100+ for Gumloop and 600+ for n8n. Gumloop loses that row by a wide margin, and it still sits near the top of the table.
The sentence above the table does the same thing in words, calling n8n “great for technical teams that want deep control.” Conceding a real strength up front makes the rest of the table easier to trust.
The FAQ answers the questions buyers are thinking
The page closes with seven questions, and they read like the hidden questions from earlier in this guide. “Can non-technical teammates actually use Gumloop?” “How does pricing compare at scale?” “Does Gumloop have as many integrations as n8n?” The answer to that last one starts with a plain “No.”
The final question is the boldest one, “When should I just use n8n?” The answer names three situations where n8n is the better choice. They’re engineering-heavy teams that want deep control, teams that need one of n8n’s long-tail connectors, and teams that have to self-host on air-gapped infrastructure. The questions and answers are also marked up as FAQ structured data, which gives search engines and AI tools clean question-and-answer pairs to pull from.
What I’d borrow, and what I’d change
The page is also part of a set. Its footer links to Gumloop’s comparisons with Zapier, Glean, Relevance AI, and five other tools, so a buyer who lands on one can find the rest. Put together, the pieces worth borrowing are one clear angle, a competitor’s side for every claim, a table that includes the rows you lose, and an honest answer to “when should I pick them instead?”
Two things would make it stronger. The pricing rows describe the two models, one credit pool against execution-based billing, but show no numbers or dates, so a buyer still has to open both pricing pages to compare costs. And the statements about n8n don’t link to n8n’s own docs, so a skeptical reader has to take Gumloop’s word for them. A dated cost example for a typical team, with sources, would make the pricing argument much harder to dismiss.
How to write a SaaS comparison page, step by step
This is the process I follow. I use it for vendor pages and editorial pieces alike, with small differences I’ll point out as we go.
1. Pick the matchups you’re already losing
Don’t start with the competitor you find most annoying. Start with the one showing up in lost deals. Your sales team’s loss notes and call recordings will tell you who that is, and Search Console will show you which “vs” and “alternatives” searches already bring people to your site.
One quick check is to filter your Search Console queries for “vs,” “alternative,” and “compared,” then sort by impressions. The competitors that appear there are the ones buyers already associate with you.
Two or three strong pages beat ten thin ones. You can always add more once the first few are pulling their weight.
2. Test the products wherever you can
Whenever I can, I sign up for the products I’m comparing and use them the way a customer would, taking screenshots as I go. I don’t always get to test every tool in a comparison. When I can, though, it gives me details no feature page will, like “setting up your first workflow took four clicks in one tool and a tutorial in the other.” That kind of detail is what makes a comparison believable.
When you can’t test a product, lean on what real users say. Review sites and community threads are a decent proxy, as long as you quote them fairly and link to the source. Either way, tell readers which products you tested and which you researched, so they know how much weight to give each section.
3. Decide the verdict before you write
A comparison without a verdict is just a spec sheet. Before drafting, write one sentence for each product finishing the thought “choose this when…” If you can’t, you don’t understand the difference well enough yet.
Then put that verdict near the top. Buyers are busy, and AI answers tend to lift the clearest summary on the page, so don’t make either of them dig for it. Gumloop’s n8n page does this in the two sentences under its headline.
4. Build a table you’d be comfortable showing the competitor
My test for a comparison table is simple. Would I be embarrassed if the competitor’s product team read it? If yes, it’s too one-sided.
Include the rows where they win. Take their pricing from their own pricing page and note the date. Use the same criteria for every product, and pick criteria your buyer cares about rather than the ones that happen to flatter you. A table that admits a weakness makes every other row more credible. Gumloop’s integrations row, 100+ against n8n’s 600+, is a good model.
5. Write for the buyer’s situation, not the feature list
Features matter less than fit. A small team and an enterprise can read the same feature table and come to opposite conclusions, so the most useful sections describe situations. For example, “If your automations mostly connect two or three apps, the simpler tool will do.”
A useful way to find those situations comes from a guide by Talia Wolf’s team at GetUplift, written by Sophia Dagnon. It points out that “How does this compare?” hides several smaller questions, like Russian nesting dolls. Buyers want to know which option has the features they can’t do without, which one companies like theirs use, which one their boss and team will feel good about, which one will still be around in a few years, and which one is simply better. Give each of those a clear answer in the buyer’s own words, and the reader can decide without opening another tab. Gumloop’s FAQ is a good example, since it answers “When should I just use n8n?” directly.
On a vendor page, this is also where you make your case. On an editorial piece, it’s where you introduce your product as an option for a specific kind of reader, without pretending it’s right for everyone.
6. Put proof next to every claim
Every strong claim needs something right next to it, whether that’s a screenshot, a customer quote, a pricing link, or a number with its source. “Easier to use” means nothing on its own. “Our onboarding checklist gets new users to their first report in under 10 minutes” gives the reader something to check.
The same GetUplift guide makes a useful point about customer quotes. The strongest ones name the competitor and come from someone like the person reading the page. Heap’s comparison page against Pendo, for example, uses a quote from a product manager that mentions Pendo by name, which speaks straight to a product manager weighing the two tools.
7. Date it and give it an owner
Competitors change their pricing, launch features, and retire plans, sometimes every quarter. Add “as of [month, year]” to prices, and assign someone to review each comparison page on a schedule. Quarterly is enough in most categories, and monthly makes sense in fast-moving ones like AI tools.
An outdated comparison page is worse than none, because the first buyer who spots a wrong price will stop trusting the rest of it.
Once a page is live, make it easy to find. GetUplift describes how Teamwork moved its comparison pages from the footer into the main menu, which increased engagement and free sign-ups. On an editorial blog, the equivalent is linking to the page from the posts buyers read just before they compare.
A SaaS comparison page checklist
Run through this before you publish.
- The verdict appears in the first screen, in plain language
- The comparison table uses the same criteria for every product
- At least one row shows where a competitor is stronger
- Every price comes from the vendor’s own pricing page, with a date
- Each product has a “choose this when” section based on the buyer’s situation
- Claims have proof beside them, such as screenshots, quotes, or sources
- The page links to your relevant product pages and a clear next step
- Someone owns the page and has a review date in the calendar
Mistakes that make comparison pages backfire
The most common one is the rigged table, where your product gets a checkmark in every row and the competitor gets a string of crosses. Buyers see through it instantly, and some of them will go straight to the competitor’s site to check.
Close behind is stale pricing, as the Mangools example shows. Then there’s the feature dump, a page that lists everything both products do without ever saying which one to pick. And the quietest mistake is ignoring the competitor’s real strengths. If they’re known for something, address it head-on, because the buyer is thinking about it whether you mention it or not.
One more, specific to editorial pieces. Don’t turn the final section into a hard sell that contradicts everything before it. If your comparison concluded that a competitor suits small teams better, don’t close by telling small teams to buy your product.
How to tell if your comparison pages are working
Rankings are the first signal, but not the one that pays the bills. Start with the “vs” and “alternatives” searches each page targets, and check its position in Search Console every few weeks.
The more useful numbers come next. Look at demo requests or signups from people who visited the page, and ask sales how often they send it to prospects. If you can connect page visits to opportunities in your CRM, the pipeline influenced by comparison pages is usually one of the clearest content ROI stories you can show leadership.
Finally, check AI answers. Ask ChatGPT and Google’s AI Mode the same comparison questions your buyers ask, and note whether your page is cited. For ongoing tracking, AI visibility tools can monitor those prompts for you.
When to bring in a writer
Comparison pages are hard to write well in-house, and not for lack of talent. The people who know the product best are often too close to it to write fairly about a competitor, and the people with time to write rarely have the product depth.
That’s where an outside writer who specializes in these formats helps. I write comparison pages, alternatives articles, and best-of roundups as a bottom-of-funnel content writer for B2B SaaS, testing each product myself before I write. If you have a list of competitors sales keeps losing to, that’s a good place to start. Book an intro call and bring it along.
Frequently asked questions about SaaS comparison pages
How long should a SaaS comparison page be?
A vendor comparison page often works at 600 to 1,200 words including the table, since readers want a quick answer. Editorial comparisons like “Make vs Zapier” usually run longer, often 2,000 words or more, because they cover pricing scenarios, use cases, and several criteria in depth. Length should follow the decision, not a word count target.
Is it legal to name competitors on a comparison page?
In the US and many other markets, comparative marketing is generally allowed as long as your claims are truthful and not misleading. That’s one more reason to take prices from competitors’ own pages and date them. Check with your legal team before publishing, especially around trademark use and pricing claims.
Should we build a comparison page for every competitor?
No. Start with the two or three competitors that show up most in lost deals and in your search data, and make those pages excellent. Add more once they’re ranking and converting, since a handful of well-maintained pages will do more than a long list of outdated ones.
What’s the difference between a comparison page and an alternatives page?
A comparison page usually puts two products head to head, like “Make vs Zapier.” An alternatives page lists several options for someone moving away from one product, like “best Intercom alternatives.” Alternatives pages target a broader search and reach buyers earlier, while head-to-head pages catch people choosing between two specific tools.
