Versus Article Experiment Plan Template
A versus article is only as good as the test behind it. Test one tool on a trial and the other on a paid plan, and the verdict won't hold up.
This template is the test protocol you run before writing. Same inputs, matched plans, one task list, and a log of every result with dated screenshots.
It is not the writing outline. When the test is done, take the results to the Comparison and Versus Article Template.
Inside: a fill-in plan sheet, guides for plans and cost, tasks, evidence, caveats and results, and a fictional filled-in example.
- Format
- Editable Word .docx
- Length
- 7 variants · ~7 pages
- Price
- 100% free
- Setup
- Copy or download
Get the editable Word doc in one click.
Free · No signup · Instant download
Versus Article Experiment Plan Template
Versus test plan
Write the plan first. If a field changes during the test, note the change and the reason, don't overwrite it.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Test ID and article | [VS-007] [Tool X vs Tool Y for small agencies] |
| Question the test answers | [which tool does task A to Z better, for whom, at what cost] |
| Reader profile | [who the article is for: team size, budget, main job] |
| Same inputs | [input pack: keyword list, domain, CSV, brief, account settings] - identical for both tools |
| Matched plans | X: [plan name, billing period] / Y: [plan name, billing period]. Why these match: [closest price tier or closest limits] |
| Tasks | [5 to 8 tasks the reader actually does, see the Task List variant] |
| Outcome capture | [what you record per task: result, time, steps, screenshot file] |
| Cost | [list price, currency, date captured, add-ons needed for the tasks] |
| Caveats | [trial limits, tester familiarity, vendor contact, affiliate links] |
| Tester and test window | [name] / [start date] to [end date], [time zone, location] |
| Evidence folder | [shared folder link] |
Run log (one row per task per tool)
| Task | Tool | Date | Result | Time / steps | Screenshot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [T1] | [X] | [date] | [what happened] | [min / clicks] | [VS-007_T1_X_date.png] |
| [T1] | [Y] | [date] | [what happened] | [min / clicks] | [VS-007_T1_Y_date.png] |
Next action
- Owner: [tester] - action: [run all tasks in both tools] by [date]
- Reviewer: [editor] - action: check the run log and evidence before the article is drafted
Completion check
- Both tools got the same input pack, on the same dates.
- The plan match is written down, with the reason.
- Every task has a row for both tools, including failures.
- Every result has a dated screenshot or export.
- Prices have a capture date and currency.
- Caveats and disclosures are listed before the verdict is written.
Why it works
A written test protocol gives both tools the same inputs, matched plans and tasks, so the versus article verdict rests on dated evidence a reader can check.
- Plans are matched by one written rule, and cost includes any add-on the tasks needed, so the price comparison is like for like.
- Every task is logged for both tools with a dated screenshot, including failures, which gives the article first-hand evidence.
- Caveats such as tester familiarity, trial limits and affiliate links are recorded before the verdict, so the article states them openly.
7 ready-to-use variants
Copy allExperiment Plan Sheet (fill-in)
When to use: One sheet per X vs Y test: fill it in before you open either tool, then keep it open while you test.
Versus test plan
Write the plan first. If a field changes during the test, note the change and the reason, don't overwrite it.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Test ID and article | [VS-007] [Tool X vs Tool Y for small agencies] |
| Question the test answers | [which tool does task A to Z better, for whom, at what cost] |
| Reader profile | [who the article is for: team size, budget, main job] |
| Same inputs | [input pack: keyword list, domain, CSV, brief, account settings] - identical for both tools |
| Matched plans | X: [plan name, billing period] / Y: [plan name, billing period]. Why these match: [closest price tier or closest limits] |
| Tasks | [5 to 8 tasks the reader actually does, see the Task List variant] |
| Outcome capture | [what you record per task: result, time, steps, screenshot file] |
| Cost | [list price, currency, date captured, add-ons needed for the tasks] |
| Caveats | [trial limits, tester familiarity, vendor contact, affiliate links] |
| Tester and test window | [name] / [start date] to [end date], [time zone, location] |
| Evidence folder | [shared folder link] |
Run log (one row per task per tool)
| Task | Tool | Date | Result | Time / steps | Screenshot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [T1] | [X] | [date] | [what happened] | [min / clicks] | [VS-007_T1_X_date.png] |
| [T1] | [Y] | [date] | [what happened] | [min / clicks] | [VS-007_T1_Y_date.png] |
Next action
- Owner: [tester] - action: [run all tasks in both tools] by [date]
- Reviewer: [editor] - action: check the run log and evidence before the article is drafted
Completion check
- Both tools got the same input pack, on the same dates.
- The plan match is written down, with the reason.
- Every task has a row for both tools, including failures.
- Every result has a dated screenshot or export.
- Prices have a capture date and currency.
- Caveats and disclosures are listed before the verdict is written.
Matched Plans and Cost Capture
When to use: Pick plans that are a fair match and record the real cost of running your tasks, so the price section holds up.
How to match plans
- By price: pick the plan from each tool closest to the same monthly spend.
- By limits: or pick the cheapest plan in each tool that can run every task in your list.
- Choose one rule, write it in the plan, and use it for both tools.
- Use the same billing period for both: monthly vs monthly, or annual vs annual.
- Test on the paid plan when you can. If you use a trial, check it has the same limits as the plan you name.
Cost capture sheet
| Item | Tool X | Tool Y |
|---|---|---|
| Plan name | [plan] | [plan] |
| List price and billing period | [price / month or year] | [price / month or year] |
| Currency, region, tax shown | [USD, US, excl. tax] | [USD, US, excl. tax] |
| Add-ons the tasks needed | [extra credits, seats, modules] | [extra credits, seats, modules] |
| Limits hit during the test | [credits used / available] | [credits used / available] |
| Pricing page URL and capture date | [URL, date, screenshot file] | [URL, date, screenshot file] |
Rules
- Screenshot each pricing page on the day you test. Prices and plan names change.
- Quote list prices, not a private discount you were offered.
- If a task needed an add-on, count it in the cost for that tool.
- Say in the article when you last checked prices.
Task List and Same Inputs
When to use: Write the tasks and build one input pack, so both tools face exactly the same work.
Build the input pack
- Seed keywords: [the same 20 to 50 keywords], saved as one file.
- Test domain and competitors: [your site + 2 competitors].
- Location, language and device settings: [US, English, desktop].
- Files to import: [CSV, sitemap, brief], with the same file name and version.
- Account settings: defaults, unless a task says otherwise. Note any change.
Need a seed list? Pull one from Keyword Research and freeze it as the input file before testing starts.
Task list
| ID | Task (what the reader does) | Input | Pass if | Timebox |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | [Set up a project and import the keyword list] | [keywords.csv] | [all keywords imported, location set] | [20 min] |
| T2 | [Find the top competitors for the list] | [same project] | [competitor list exported] | [15 min] |
| T3 | [Build a client-ready report] | [same project] | [PDF or link a client can open] | [20 min] |
| T4 | [Ask support one set question] | [the same written question] | [correct answer received] | [note response time] |
Rules for fair tasks
- Pick tasks from the reader's job, not from either tool's feature list.
- Run the tasks in the same order in both tools, or swap the order on purpose and note it.
- Run both tools on the same day, so data is from the same point in time.
- If a tool can't do a task, record "not possible" with a screenshot. That is a result.
Outcome Capture and Evidence Log
When to use: Record what happened in a way an editor, or a sceptical reader, can check later.
What to capture per task
- Result: pass, partial or fail, and one line on what you saw.
- Effort: minutes and number of steps or screens.
- Output: the export, report or screen the reader would use.
- Numbers the tool shows: copy them with the date, they change by the day.
- Surprises: errors, limits hit, confusing labels.
Screenshot rules
- File name: [TestID_TaskID_Tool_YYYY-MM-DD].png, for example VS-007_T2_X_2026-10-28.png.
- Show the date or the browser address bar where you can.
- Capture failures too, not only good screens.
- Keep the raw file. Crop or blur private data only in the copy used in the article.
- Record the app version or release note date if the tool shows one.
Google's guidance on reviews asks for evidence such as visuals, audio or links of your own experience, and for quantitative measurements. This log is where that evidence comes from.
To compare against the pages already ranking for the versus keyword, review the results with the SERP Analyzer and note what evidence they show.
Caveats, Bias and Disclosure
When to use: List what could tilt the result before you write the verdict, and say it plainly in the article.
Caveat checklist
| Caveat | Your answer |
|---|---|
| Tester knew one tool better | [yes/no, which, how long used] |
| Trial or free account limits | [what was locked or capped] |
| Vendor gave free access or support | [who, what] |
| Affiliate or business link with either tool | [yes/no, which] |
| Your own product competes | [yes/no] |
| Tool changed during the test | [release, date] |
| Small sample or one market only | [e.g. 30 keywords, US only] |
Disclosure
- The FTC says affiliate relationships must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously, close to the recommendation.
- Per FTC guidance, a single homepage disclosure is not sufficient, and one at the very top or bottom of a page may be missed.
- Free access given by a vendor in exchange for a review is also a connection to disclose.
What not to claim
- Results beyond what you tested: "best for everyone" from 30 keywords.
- Accuracy rankings without a stated method.
- Speed or uptime as fact from one run.
Results Record and Article Handoff
When to use: Turn the run log into a short results record the writer can use, then move to the article outline.
Results summary
| Task | Tool X | Tool Y | Better for this task | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [T1] | [pass, 12 min] | [pass, 18 min] | [X / Y / tie] | [file names] |
| [T2] | [partial] | [pass] | [X / Y / tie] | [file names] |
Verdict notes for the writer
- Pick X if: [reader situation backed by tasks]
- Pick Y if: [reader situation backed by tasks]
- Cost at the matched plans: [X total] vs [Y total], captured [date]
- Caveats to print: [top 2 or 3]
- Retest date: [date, or next major release]
Next step: write the article
Take this record into the Comparison and Versus Article Template for the writing structure: verdict, criteria, deep-dives and use cases.
Draft headline options with the Comparison Article Title Generator, and plan sections with the Content Brief tool.
Worked Example (fictional rank trackers)
When to use: A filled-in plan for an invented publisher testing two invented rank trackers for a versus article.
Worked example: Tallyrank vs Mossgauge
Example only. The publisher, tools, people, prices and results are invented to show what a filled-in plan looks like.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Test and article | VS-012, Tallyrank vs Mossgauge for freelance SEOs, for Quillhaven Media |
| Question | Which tool tracks 50 keywords for 2 client sites and builds a client report with less effort, at a similar spend? |
| Same inputs | keywords-v1.csv (50 keywords), 2 client domains, US, English, desktop and mobile, daily updates |
| Matched plans | Tallyrank Solo (monthly) vs Mossgauge Starter (monthly). Rule: cheapest plan that covers 2 projects and 50 keywords |
| Tasks | T1 set up both projects, T2 add competitors, T3 schedule a weekly report, T4 export rankings to CSV, T5 support question on mobile tracking |
| Outcome capture | Run log per task: pass/partial/fail, minutes, steps, screenshot named VS-012_Tn_Tool_date |
| Cost | Tallyrank $29/month, Mossgauge $25/month plus a $9 report add-on needed for T3. Captured 27 Oct 2026, USD, excl. tax |
| Caveats | Tester Ines had used Tallyrank for a year. Mossgauge on a 14-day trial with paid-plan limits. Article uses affiliate links for both |
| Window | 27 Oct to 3 Nov 2026, both tools checked each morning at 9:00 CET |
Results record (fictional)
- T1: both pass. Tallyrank 9 min, Mossgauge 14 min.
- T3: Mossgauge needed the add-on, so its real cost was $34/month.
- T4: Mossgauge export had no device column. Marked partial, screenshot kept.
- T5: both answered correctly, Mossgauge in 2 hours, Tallyrank next day.
Why this plan is fair
- Plans matched by one written rule, and the add-on was counted in cost.
- The tester's familiarity with Tallyrank is printed as a caveat.
- Failures have screenshots, not just wins.
Want to check your own tracking setup while you test? Track the same keywords in the Rank Tracker as a third reference point.
How to use this template
- Write the question the article answers and who the reader is.
- Build one input pack and freeze it before testing starts.
- Match plans with one written rule and capture prices with a date.
- List 4 to 8 reader tasks with a pass rule and a timebox.
- Run every task in both tools in the same window and log each result with a dated screenshot.
- List caveats and disclosures, then fill in the results record.
- Hand the record to the writer and set a retest date.
Pro tips
- Freeze the input file. A changed keyword list breaks the comparison.
- Log failures with screenshots. They are results, not gaps.
- Count any add-on a task needed in that tool's cost.
- Say which tool the tester already knew.
- Retest after a major release or price change, and update the date in the article.
Frequently asked questions
What is a versus article experiment plan?
It is the test protocol behind an X vs Y article: the inputs, plans, tasks, what you record, cost and caveats. You fill it in before testing, so both options get the same treatment.
How is this different from a comparison article template?
This template covers how you test. The Comparison and Versus Article Template covers how you write it up: verdict, criteria, deep-dives and use cases. Run the test first, then write.
How do I match plans fairly?
Pick one rule and use it for both tools: closest monthly price, or cheapest plan that can run every task. Use the same billing period and count any add-on the tasks needed.
What evidence should I keep?
Dated screenshots of results and failures, exports, pricing pages on the test day and the run log. Google's review guidance asks for evidence of your own experience and quantitative measurements.
Do I need to disclose affiliate links in a versus article?
Yes, if you earn from them. The FTC says to disclose clearly and conspicuously, close to the recommendation. A single homepage notice is not enough, and one at the bottom of the page may be missed.
Can I test on a free trial?
Yes, if the trial has the same limits as the plan you name in the article. If it doesn't, say so in the caveats, or test on the paid plan.