---
name: claude-seo-competitor-pages
description: Build SEO comparison and alternatives pages ("X vs Y", "alternatives to X", category roundups) with feature matrices, schema, and honest competitor data. Use when the user says "comparison page", "vs page", "alternatives page", "X vs Y", or "alternative to". Not for full content briefs on other page types (use claude-seo-content-brief) or generating hundreds of comparison pages from data (use claude-seo-programmatic).
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: TechTide AI (Alex Cinovoj)
  provenance: rewritten from patterns in AgriciDaniel/claude-seo (MIT)
  category: SEO & AEO
---

# Competitor Comparison and Alternatives Pages

Comparison pages win on accuracy, not spin. A page that misstates a competitor's pricing loses trust, rankings, and sometimes a legal fight. Verify every claim before you publish it.

## Pick the page type

| User intent | Page type | Target keyword pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Deciding between two products | "X vs Y" head-to-head | `[A] vs [B]` |
| Leaving a product | "Alternatives to X" list | `[A] alternatives` |
| Surveying a category | "Best [category] tools" roundup | `best [category] tools` |
| Feature-level shopping | Comparison matrix page | `[category] comparison` |

## Workflow

1. Confirm which product is yours. The page must disclose the affiliation near the top.
2. Pull competitor data from public sources only: pricing pages, docs, changelogs, review sites. Record the source URL for every data point.
3. Build the feature matrix. Columns: your product, each competitor. Rows: features buyers actually compare, then pricing, then free tier. Mark partial support explicitly, never round up to full support.
4. Write the body. For vs pages: balanced feature-by-feature analysis, then a justified verdict. For alternatives pages: each alternative gets a summary, pros, cons, and a best-for line. For roundups: state the ranking criteria before the list.
5. Add schema. Read references/schema-and-keywords.md for the JSON-LD templates (Product with AggregateRating, SoftwareApplication, ItemList) and the title tag formulas.
6. Place CTAs: one above the fold, one after the matrix, one at the end. No CTAs inside competitor description sections, it reads as sabotage and kills trust.
7. Add trust signals: last-updated date, author with relevant expertise, methodology note, affiliation disclosure.
8. Cross-link: related comparison pages, your feature pages, migration case studies.

## Fairness rules (non-negotiable)

- Every competitor claim must be verifiable from a public source. Link it.
- Pricing gets an "as of" date and a quarterly review reminder.
- Missing data is marked "Not publicly available", never guessed.
- Acknowledge competitor strengths honestly. One-sided pages rank worse and convert worse.
- Never state anything false or misleading about a competitor. That is defamation risk, not marketing.

## Verification

Do this before calling the page done: pick 5 random competitor data points from the matrix and open each recorded source URL. Expect every one to confirm the claim as written. If any source is dead or contradicts the claim, fix the cell or mark it "Not publicly available" and re-check the rest of that competitor's column.

## Good vs bad

**Good:** "Competitor A: real-time collaboration is limited to paid plans (source: their pricing page, as of the review date). Strong offline mode, better than ours."
**Bad:** "Competitor A barely supports collaboration and users hate it." No source, editorializing, defamation exposure.

## Footguns

- **Stale pricing.** Competitors change pricing quietly. Fix: "as of" date on every pricing cell plus a scheduled quarterly re-verify.
- **Verdict-first pages.** Declaring your product the winner before the comparison reads as an ad and tanks engagement. Fix: matrix and analysis first, verdict last, with the reasoning shown.
- **No product overlap.** If the products serve different markets, say so and pivot to a category roundup instead of forcing a fake comparison.
- **Unreachable competitor site.** Note which sources failed, proceed with available data, and flag the gaps in the matrix. Do not fill gaps from memory.

## Completion checklist

- [ ] Page type matches search intent and the keyword pattern
- [ ] Every competitor data point has a recorded public source
- [ ] Pricing cells carry "as of" dates
- [ ] Affiliation disclosed, methodology stated, author named
- [ ] Schema from references/schema-and-keywords.md added and valid
- [ ] 5-point spot check passed
- [ ] Internal links to related comparisons and your feature pages

Any box unchecked: not done. Fix or say so.