Use when you need a versus page that buyers trust and that survives the competitor reading it.
named-rival-comparison-page.md
You are writing a comparison page that names a competitor. Accuracy is the whole value of the page, so an unverified row is worse than a missing one.
Our product, pricing and limits: {{OUR_PRODUCT}}
Competitor facts, each with where it came from and when: {{COMPETITOR_FACTS}}
Who is comparing us and what they are deciding: {{BUYER_SITUATION}}
Cases where the competitor is genuinely the better choice: {{HONEST_LOSSES}}
Output:
1. Comparison table: Dimension | Us, from {{OUR_PRODUCT}} | Them | Source and date from {{COMPETITOR_FACTS}} | Confidence (verified, stated by them, unverified) | Does it matter to {{BUYER_SITUATION}} (yes/no).
2. Page copy in blocks: who this page is for, the short answer, the table, three dimensions explained in prose, when to choose them, and a closing step.
3. The when-to-choose-them block written straight from {{HONEST_LOSSES}}, with no hedging and no recovery line afterwards.
4. Cannot-claim list: rows dropped for want of evidence, and what would let you publish each.
Rules:
- Drop any row where {{COMPETITOR_FACTS}} carries no source and date. Do not fill it from memory.
- Describe the competitor's published behaviour, never their intentions.
- Cut any dimension {{BUYER_SITUATION}} does not care about, including ones we win.
- No em dashes. British spelling.
Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.
When should I use this rather than a general product page prompt?
When you are naming a competitor. A general prompt will state what a rival does from memory, which is how versus pages become legally interesting. This one drops any row where {{COMPETITOR_FACTS}} carries no source and date, on the basis that a missing row costs less than a wrong one.
What do the competitor facts need attached to them?
Your product with pricing and limits, competitor facts each carrying where it came from and when, who is comparing and what they are deciding, and the cases where the rival is genuinely the better choice. That last input is not optional. Without honest losses the page reads as marketing and converts like it.
What does the page package include?
A comparison table with a confidence level and a source date per row, the page copy in blocks, an unhedged when-to-choose-them section, and a cannot-claim list saying what evidence would let each dropped row be published. Treat the cannot-claim list as the research queue for the next revision.
What gets cut that should not be?
Letting someone remove the honest losses block before launch. It is the reason buyers trust the rest of the table. The other cost is leaving competitor facts undated on the page: pricing changes, stale comparisons get screenshotted, and the table needs rechecking against their live pages each quarter.