The hard part of creating a comparison is not gathering the facts. It is selecting the criteria, and then applying those criteria in the same way to each side, even to the side that will ultimately lose. Most comparison pages fail there, and readers can tell within one row of a table.
We consider all factors that surround the recommendation and fill in the respective criteria after, instead of designing the recommendation and working backwards to fill in the criteria.
Reading a comparison that fails to synthesize is a waste of time. The cowardly comparison’ll try to minimize criticism, leaving both choices hopeful and voluntarily depending on the reader’s needs. Sound comparisons place their value judgments where they are so they can be clearly seen. The judgment of this case is your value judgment.
Comparison tables are the most damaging because a slight lack in generated text can render them completely useless. Filling cells with possible values instead of actual values can result in features that your competitor removed last year remaining on your comparison table, or one of the limits saying it is unlimited, when in fact, it is really only limited to ten entries. A small inaccuracy in one cell invalidates the entire table.
We agree to criteria and reader segments before research begins so there is a shape to fill for the table. Each cell is filled by searching the vendor’s current documentation, with a date included, because pricing pages often change faster than articles comparing products get published.
Comparisons lie close to the purchase, thus they pay their way in sales enablement as much as they do in search. Teams utilize comparisons for objection handling. Category pages sometimes send buyers to them. If you sell one of the options, a comparison that concedes where you lose is more persuasive than a page that never concedes.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical comparison article | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-option comparison | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard comparison | 2,000 | $200 | $2 | $202 |
| Multi-option comparison | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
What the piece is for, who reads it, roughly how long it should be, and anything it must include or avoid. Links to your existing material help. If you are unsure, send what you have and the writer will come back with questions.
Up to 3 days. The writer has to read around the subject before writing it, so we quote honestly rather than promising an hour. If your deadline is tighter, say so in the brief and we will tell you before you pay whether we can meet it.
We have always been honest, which makes our service more useful to everyone. We help set the criteria, we admit defeat when we lose, and we specify who should be taking advantage of the option. Buyers will weigh a page that admits its limitations much more than they will a page that does not.
Left unchecked, it is the responsibility of our vendors to report price changes to us twice a year, at least. Once we do the price checks, we highlight the changes in delivery notes. Because of this, periodic refreshments of delivery notes have us simply checking six highlighted values as opposed to reading every single delivery note (approximately two thousand words).
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
We received delivery around the end of day three. I based my weekly schedule around my day two expectations, which was an assumption, not their guarantee. The instructions are thorough, and they are right to be careful considering the different aspects of our process that might change from one area to the other.
We provided a recording and a rough transcript. What came back left the subject’s hesitations in the most important places, and removed them otherwise. They wrote to say that it was the first time they had read an interview of themselves that sounded accurate.
This how-to is for a setup that changed in the last release. The author must have done it because step 6 references a dialog that comes up only if you skip the optional plugin. You can’t fake that detail.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees