A comparison that concludes it depends on your needs has been a waste of the reader’s time. They came to the page with a decision to make. They have the two candidates. You need to give them one, or a least a rule that decides for them.
Getting there honestly means the specs have to be right for the exact models in scope, including the model year, because manufacturers change a component and keep the name. That is where most comparison pages quietly go wrong.
A good comparison gets straight to the point on the axis that distinguishes the two biggest differences. The rest is usually just a lot of specs. Typically one or two of these differences will matter. The goal of a good comparison is to identify the difference that matters most. Once the key difference is identified, answering the recommendation question becomes easy. If a label printer is used to print labels every day, then the recommendation is to get the other printer. If labels are printed weekly, then the recommendation is to get the label printer.
Generated comparisons are symmetrical. Both products dominate in every category, and the closing para tells the reader to consider their needs. At least one spec is different and is from a different model year. This is the shape of a comparison. The important part, the decision, has been left out.
Specifications are gathered from the manufacturer’s documentation for the model codes that are of interest. Once collected, they are put in a table structure side-by-side for view before writing the prose. Specifications that would not change the buying decision are removed from the table. What is shown on the page then becomes the structure.
A single comparison page is quick and easy, but making each page for all possible comparisons becomes tedious. For this reason, we usually make a main page with a sample spec table and only the three or four pages that people typically look at. Each comparison page uses the verified sample spec table and adds its own decision, resulting in the same numbers across all the pages.
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 product comparison copy | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head-to-head, two products | 700 | $70 | $0.70 | $70.70 |
| Three-way comparison | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Comparison hub, six products | 2,200 | $220 | $2.20 | $222.20 |
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.
Ask on the contact page and a person will answer, usually the same working day. For a live order, reply to your confirmation email and it reaches whoever is handling it.
Yes. For large batches we agree a structure and a voice sheet first, then work through the catalogue so the whole set reads consistently. The rate stays the same; what changes is that you approve the pattern once rather than every item.
Yes, and this will be factual and defensible. The competitor actually does certain things better, and comparing ourselves against them in every category in which we win results in our marketing looking like an advertisement, and in turn will be discounted by potential buyers. For this reason, we will not repeat any unverified claims that we have made about another company’s product.
Whenever products change (annually in the case of many electronics), we record the model codes for each and the date of every change so an update is a simple check against the current sheet as opposed to a complete rewrite. Amendments within the 14-day window of a launch are covered by a revision.
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.
Our customer base has advanced knowledge of bikes. We covered what a groupset is in our opening guide. Our audience would find this condescending. I reported this, and the rewrite assumed this knowledge properly. Everything else was calibrated correctly, so this was more of a briefing fail on my end.
Six guides delivered right at the end of the promised window. If you are planning a launch, expect to plan for three days, not two. The guides provide honest comparisons between the products, and indicate when the cheaper option suffices, which our clients appreciate.
The first pass of twelve product descriptions looked like a catalog from 1998! Stiff and very formulaic. Luckily, I sent back two examples of how we actually use customer language. That was on the money. I wish I would have slipped those examples into the initial brief.
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