Competitor Comparison Evidence Matrix Template

Evidence Matrix (fill-in)

When to use: One row per competitor claim on your page. Fill it while you draft, finish it before you publish.

Competitor claim evidence matrix

One row per claim. A claim is any sentence on your page that says something checkable about a competitor: price, feature, limit, speed, support or rating.

Page: [URL or draft link] | Competitor(s): [names] | Matrix owner: [name] | Publish date: [date]

Add a second sheet tab if you need more: claim type, page section, published wording, recheck date and archive link.

Next action

• Owner: [name] - action: [check every Unverified row] by [date]
• Reviewer: [name] - action: compare the page draft to the matrix line by line before publishing
• Recheck owner: [name] - next recheck: [date]

Completion check

• Every checkable sentence about a competitor on the page has a row.
• Every row has a source URL that opens for someone outside your team.
• Every row has a checked date and a saved screenshot or archive.
• No row marked Unverified or Contradicted appears on the page as a plain fact.
• Every row has a named owner and the page has a recheck date.

Evidence Rules by Claim Type

When to use: Decide what counts as proof for pricing, features, limits, performance, integrations, support and superlatives.

Match the evidence to the claim

Some claims need only the competitor's own page. Others need your own test. Pick the strongest evidence you can get for each type.

Saving the source

• Take a full-page screenshot and name it [competitor_claimID_date].
• Save the page URL plus a public web archive link if one exists.
• For pages that change often, save the raw HTML with Get Source Code of Webpage so you can show what the page said that day.

Looking for keyword and link gaps instead? Use the competitor SEO analysis template, or run Competitor Analysis.

Test Plan Guide

When to use: Write a repeatable check for any claim you test yourself on a trial account or side by side.

Write a test plan for every claim you test yourself

A test plan says how someone else could repeat your check and get the same answer. Keep it short.

• Question: [Does Competitor X export to Google Sheets on the Starter plan?]
• Setup: [account type, plan tier, date, region, browser]
• Steps: [1) log in 2) open report 3) click Export 4) note the options]
• Inputs: [same keyword list, file or URL for every tool]
• Expected result if the claim is true: [Sheets option shown]
• Result: [what happened, with screenshot link]
• Runs: [how many times, on which dates]
• Tester: [name]

Fair test rules

• Compare like with like: same plan level, same inputs, same day.
• Use your own product the same way you use theirs. No hidden settings.
• Record failures too. A failed test is evidence.
• If you can't get access, say so. Mark the row Supported or Unverified, not Verified.

Google's reviews guidance asks for evidence of your own experience and quantitative measurements across categories. A test plan is how you produce both.

Uncertainty Scale and Wording

When to use: Rate each claim Verified, Supported, Unverified, Contradicted or Stale, and word the page to match.

Uncertainty scale

Give every row one level. The level decides how the claim may be worded on the page.

Opinion vs fact

• "We think the reporting is easier to read" is an opinion. Label it as one.
• "It has no PDF export" is a fact claim. It needs a row.
• "Best for small teams" needs a reason the reader can check, such as plan limits or setup steps.

Pre-Publish Review and Disclosure Check

When to use: Read the final draft against the matrix, check disclosures and fairness before the page goes live.

Pre-publish review

Run this check on the final draft, not the outline. Read the page and the matrix side by side.

1. Highlight every sentence about a competitor. Each one maps to a claim ID.
2. Check the page wording matches the row's uncertainty level.
3. Check prices, plan names and limits against the source one more time on publish day.
4. Check both sides: you name the competitor's real strengths, not only weaknesses.
5. Check your own claims about your product too. They need the same evidence.

Rules worth knowing

• The FTC encourages naming competitors in comparative advertising, but it must be truthful and not deceptive.
• The FTC's substantiation policy expects you to have a reasonable basis for objective claims before you publish them. If you say "tests show", you need those tests.
• If you earn affiliate commissions from links on the page, the FTC says to disclose it clearly, close to the recommendation. Top or bottom of page only is easy to miss.
• Google's reviews guidance asks pages to explain what sets something apart from competitors and to discuss benefits and drawbacks based on original research.

This is a working checklist, not legal advice. For claims that could cause a dispute, ask your legal contact before publishing.

Disclosure check

• Relationship to each product named: [own product / affiliate / partner / none]
• Disclosure text and where it sits: [next to the first recommendation]
• Methodology note on the page: [how and when you tested]

Want a second pair of eyes on a high-stakes comparison page? See SEO and GEO services or book a free consultation with Anatolii Ulitovskyi.

Recheck and Correction Log

When to use: Keep the page accurate after launch: recheck dates, changes found, page edits and how to handle disputes.

After publishing: recheck and correction log

Competitor pages change. A comparison that was true in March can be wrong by June. Log each recheck and each fix.

When to recheck

• On a fixed schedule you choose: [monthly / quarterly].
• When the competitor announces pricing or a launch.
• Before any page refresh or promotion push.
• When a reader, customer or the competitor reports an error.

If a competitor disputes a claim

1. Reply that you are checking, with a date.
2. Recheck the row with fresh evidence.
3. If you were wrong, fix the page and log the change. If you were right, keep the evidence ready.

Worked Example (fictional invoicing software)

When to use: A filled-in matrix for an invented invoicing tool writing a vs page about an invented rival.

Worked example: Halvorbill vs Quillbase

Fictional example. Halvorbill, Quillbase, the people, URLs, dates and test results are invented to show a filled-in matrix.

Halvorbill sells invoicing software and is writing a "Halvorbill vs Quillbase" page. The draft had 9 competitor claims. Here are 5 rows.

Next action

• Tom - rerun C-04 with 10 invoices on both tools by 12 Nov 2026.
• Priya - recheck C-01 to C-05 on 3 Feb 2027.

Why this worked

• Two claims were caught and cut before launch: yearly-only billing (C-01) and an untested speed claim (C-04).
• The Supported row was reworded, not deleted, so the page stayed useful.
• The page now names a Quillbase strength (chat on Pro), which makes the rest more credible.

Next step

Shape the page title with the Comparison Article Title Generator, then check what ranking vs pages cover with the SERP Analyzer. For the full structure, use the comparison vs article template.