Blog

We checked 29 competitor comparison pages. 20 had an error.

November 12, 2026 · The Selvio team

392 claims about a competitor, on 29 SaaS comparison pages, checked against the competitor's own pages. 49 were contradicted. Here is what went wrong.

On November 12, 2026, we read 29 comparison pages published by SaaS companies about a named competitor: “X vs Y” pages and “Y alternative” pages. On each page, we listed every factual claim about the competitor, and checked it the same day against the competitor’s own pricing page or help center.

Of 392 claims, 49 were contradicted by the competitor’s official pages. They were spread over 20 of the 29 pages.

How we checked

We chose pages that state facts about a well-known competitor: prices, plan limits, features. One page per company. That makes this a sample of pages that compare on facts, not an average of the market. A 30th page was set aside because the competitor’s site blocks automated reading, so none of its claims could be checked.

Each claim got one of four results:

• Confirmed: the competitor’s official page says the same thing.
• Contradicted: the official page says something else. We kept both quotes.
• Unverifiable: the value is not on any public official page, or the page could not be read.
• Ambiguous: the wording of the comparison page allows both readings.

We do not name the companies. The errors below are described without the names of either side.

The results

Nine pages had no contradicted claim. The other 20 had between one and six.

One claim in eight is wrong. But more than one claim in four cannot be checked by a reader at all: the value is on no public page of the competitor. For a buyer comparing two tools, that is the same as an unsourced number.

Three kinds of errors

We documented 48 errors with both quotes side by side. They fall into three groups of similar size.

Prices and plans: 18 errors

• A page listed a competitor’s five-user plan at $99 a month. The competitor’s pricing page showed $129 billed monthly, or $91 a month billed yearly. $99 was an earlier price.
• Under a “billed monthly” heading, a page gave the competitor’s per-seat price for yearly billing: $29 instead of $39.
• A page compared its product to a “Pro” plan that the competitor’s pricing page no longer lists.
• A page said a competitor was “over 4x” as expensive. On the two official pricing pages, the gap was about 1.9x.
• Two pages billed a competitor per user, while its pricing page lists unlimited users at no extra cost.

Numbers and limits: 14 errors

• Two pages, written by two different companies, gave a competitor’s free plan 2,000 contacts. The competitor’s page says 250.
• A table gave a competitor 29 languages. Its pricing page lists 74 on every plan.
• A page gave a plan 400 credits a month. The competitor’s help center says 1,500. 400 is the one-time allowance of its free plan.

Features marked as missing: 16 errors

• A cross for “native iPad app”, while the competitor’s site offers an iPad app, and the comparison page’s own FAQ says so.
• “No trial” in a comparison table, while the competitor’s site offers a free 14-day trial.
• “Export to PowerPoint: paid plans only”, while the competitor documents exports from its free plan.
• A cross for custom branding, while the competitor’s pricing page has a “Custom Branding” section.

What the errors have in common

They were true once. At least 11 of the 48 errors are a former price, a former limit, a free plan that was closed, or an older figure. The page was right when it was written. The competitor changed its pricing page, and the comparison stayed the same.

A cross is a claim. 16 errors are features marked as missing, or reserved to a higher plan. In each case, the competitor’s own pricing page or help center lists the feature. Not finding a feature is not the same as its absence.

Pages contradict themselves. On 5 pages, the error is contradicted elsewhere on the same page: in the FAQ, in the introduction, or in the page’s own pricing row.

More numbers, more errors. 16 of the 19 pages with a pricing table had at least one error, against 4 of the 10 pages without one. 15 of the 18 undated pages had an error, against 5 of the 11 dated pages. Only 4 pages of 29 said where a claim came from. These are small numbers: they show a tendency, not a cause.

Why it matters

The people who read a “vs” page often know the competitor well. Some are its customers, and know what they pay. One wrong number, and the rest of the page loses its weight.

It is also a legal question. In the EU and in France, a comparison has to be verifiable, and the advertiser has to be able to prove it is accurate. In the US, a competitor can sue over a false statement about its product. Our article on comparative advertising rules quotes the texts.

How to keep a comparison page right

1. Copy the competitor’s values word for word from its official pricing page or help center, not from a review site or from memory.
2. Link the source and date it: “Checked on November 12, 2026”, next to the value or in a note.
3. Write “not listed on their pricing page” when you cannot find a feature. Write “no” only when the competitor’s page says so.
4. Keep billing periods apart. A price billed yearly, shown under a monthly heading, is wrong even when the number is right.
5. Re-check before every campaign, and when the competitor’s pricing page changes.
6. Keep one version of each fact. If your FAQ and your table disagree, one of them is wrong.

This is how Selvio builds a comparison page: every value about a competitor is copied word for word from its official page, with a link to that page and the date it was read. A value that cannot be found stays empty, and the page says so.

Get the preview