Comparisons
Comparison Page Structure Readers Can Trust
A fair comparison page shows its criteria before its verdict, compares only facts you can source and date, states who each product is not for, and discloses how you are paid where the recommendation is made.
In brief
- Google's review guidance: when you call something best, "include why you consider it the best".
- Google also asks reviewers to "Explain what sets something apart from its competitors" and to cover comparable options.
- The FTC requires material connections, such as affiliate commissions, to be disclosed clearly and conspicuously.
- The ASA says affiliate marketing falls under the CAP Code and must be obviously identifiable as marketing.
The seven sections
| Order | Section | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Intro summary | Who the comparison serves, which market, and the short answer |
| 2 | Methodology note | Criteria, research dates and how products were chosen, including what was left out |
| 3 | Comparison table | Only current, sourced or tested features, each with a date; assumptions stated |
| 4 | Eligibility | Market, age and license for each product; regional limits |
| 5 | Pros and cons | Balanced points from your own testing |
| 6 | FAQ | The questions readers ask after the table |
| 7 | Disclosure footer and update log | Commercial relationships, how the page is reviewed, what changed and when |
Build an outline from these sections in the comparison page builder. A disclosure also belongs near the top, before the first recommendation; the footer version adds detail.
Designing the table
- Choose columns that match the stated criteria. A column you cannot fill with evidence should not exist.
- Date the table, and date any figure that changes often.
- Use the same units across products, and say where a value is the operator's claim rather than your test.
- Do not order products by commission. If order reflects a score, show the score method.
- Make the table readable on phones: let it scroll inside its box, with the product name column visible.
Selection bias: say what you did not compare
Every comparison leaves products out. Readers can only judge the result if they know why. State the pool you started from (for example, operators licensed in the market that you have tested), the criteria for inclusion, and whether commercial relationships affected inclusion. If they did, the comparison is advertising and must be labeled as such.
Disclosure placement
The FTC defines clear and conspicuous as "difficult to miss (i.e., easily noticeable)" and, for interactive media, "unavoidable". The ASA notes that the word "affiliate" alone "was not widely understood by consumers". Put a short plain statement above the table and the full explanation in the footer. See disclosure placement.
Worked example (synthetic)
Synthetic example. Invented names and figures that show the method. No real operator, site or test is described.
An editor builds a sportsbook comparison for UK readers with the seven sections. The intro says who the page serves: people choosing a licensed sportsbook for football betting. The methodology note lists the criteria and the test dates. The table shows four sourced features per product, with "not tested" where evidence is missing instead of a guess. Eligibility repeats the 18+ rule and the license check. Pros and cons come from the test log. The FAQ answers two questions readers asked by email. The disclosure footer states the commercial relationships and links to the review method. A reader can check every cell against the method before reaching any verdict.
Questions
Should a comparison page name a winner?
It can, if the methodology supports it. Google's review guidance asks pages that call something best to explain why, so tie any verdict to the stated criteria and to a specific use.
Is the footer the right place for the disclosure?
Not on its own. The FTC standard is difficult to miss, and unavoidable in interactive media. Put a short disclosure before the first recommendation and keep the full text in the footer.
Can I compare products across markets?
Only with care. Licenses, terms and rules differ by market, so a cross-market table can show products to readers who cannot legally use them. Build one comparison per market.
Sources
- Google Search Central, Write high quality reviews, last updated December 10, 2025.
- Legal Information Institute, 16 CFR § 255.0, Purpose and definitions.
- Legal Information Institute, 16 CFR § 255.5, Disclosure of material connections.
- ASA, Affiliate marketing, March 22, 2023.
Found an error? Tell the editors and link the source. Corrections are dated on the page they change (corrections).