Alternatives Pages (Competitive Comparison SEO/CRO)

Position in workflow: v0.9 AEO Audit → v0.9 Alternatives Pages → v0.9 Launch Metrics

Execution Mode

Default is standard. See .claude/rules/08-skill-execution-modes.md for selection logic.

Mode	What this skill produces
quick	2 pages for the single most-searched competitor (X-vs-us + alternative-to-X)
standard	5–10 pages covering top 3–5 competitors with both variant types; CRO copy + comparison table
deep	Full competitor portfolio (10+ competitors); plus multi-way comparison ("X vs Y vs Z"); page-level A/B test plan; SEO targeting per page

What This Does

Produces a portfolio of high-intent comparison pages — /x-vs-us and /alternative-to-x — that capture buyers actively searching for competitor names + comparison/alternative keywords. These are the highest-converting acquisition surface for B2B SaaS and many consumer products: the buyer has already passed awareness and is in active evaluation.

The pages must be fair, credible, and conversion-oriented — acknowledging where the competitor wins, claiming where you win, with social proof and a clear "when to pick each" guide. Aggressive trashing fails: buyers fact-check, and one false claim loses the page.

How It Works

1. Source the competitor list — From the AEO Audit's comparison gaps and v0.2 CFD- competitive landscape. Rank by search volume (use Ahrefs/Semrush/free volume estimators) × buyer-intent strength.
2. For each competitor, design two pages:
   • /<competitor>-vs-<us> — Symmetric comparison. Buyer is comparing both.
   • /alternative-to-<competitor> — Asymmetric. Buyer is leaving competitor or shopping replacements.
3. Apply the page template (see Output Template) — Honest comparison table on 5–8 dimensions, "When to pick each" guidance, your unique attributes (from Dunford positioning), social proof, CTA.
4. Anchor in positioning rules — Each page must respect the BR-POS-* constraints. If positioning says "not for enterprise procurement," the page does not court enterprise buyers.
5. Plan attribution — Each page gets its own UTM source and a conversion event. Track per-page activation rate to identify dead pages.

Example

Competitor: Mixpanel (mid-search-volume, B2B SaaS analytics).

Page 1: /mixpanel-vs-us

Symmetric comparison table:

Dimension	Mixpanel	Us
Setup time	1–2 weeks (data engineering required)	15 minutes (autoinstrument)
Analytics depth	Industry-leading (cohorts, retention, funnels)	Solid (cohorts, funnels — no formula language)
Pricing	Custom enterprise; usage-based	Flat tier; predictable
Best-fit team	50+ person product orgs	1–20 person teams

"Pick Mixpanel if: you have a data team and need advanced funnel/cohort analysis." "Pick us if: you're a small team that needs analytics today, not after a 2-week setup."

CTA: "Start free trial — full setup in under an hour"

Page 2: /alternative-to-mixpanel

Asymmetric, replacement-oriented. Headline: "Looking for a faster Mixpanel alternative?" Same table, plus migration guide ("export your Mixpanel events; we'll set up identical funnels in 1 hour"), plus customer story ("[Customer X] moved off Mixpanel in 2 days — here's how").

What You Get Back

• SCR-ALT-* page specs — One per page. Includes URL slug, headline, comparison table content, "when to pick each" copy, social proof references, CTA. Hands off to design/dev for build.
• GTM-* with Type=Channel for each page — The page treated as a channel (Owned layer), with attribution plan
• Page priority queue — Build order ranked by competitor search volume × conversion potential

When to Use It

Trigger	Mode
AEO Audit identified comparison gaps	standard
Competitor raised prices / had a public incident (capture displaced buyers)	quick (single page, fast)
Quarterly competitive SEO refresh	standard
Launch wave needs additional Owned-channel surfaces	standard
Enterprise / paid-tier buyer education	deep

Do not use for products in tightly regulated categories where comparison claims have legal exposure (e.g., medical devices, financial advice) without legal review.

Consumes

• CFD-* competitive alternatives (from v0.2 + v0.3 Moat) — Anchor for honest comparison; CFD- entries should include competitor strengths, not just weaknesses
• GTM-AEO-* gaps (from v0.9 AEO Audit) — Comparison gaps become page priorities
• GTM-* positioning + BR-POS-* (from v0.9 Positioning) — Defines "when to pick us" claims; pages must honor BR-POS- constraints
• CFD-* customer stories (from v0.1–v0.4 + post-launch) — Social proof and migration stories
• FEA-* feature list — Anchor for "what we have" claims (no vaporware)

Produces

• SCR-ALT-* page specs (subcategorized SCR- entries for alternatives pages, lives in SoT/SoT.USER_JOURNEYS.md alongside other SCR- entries)
• GTM-* with Type=Channel for each page (the page-as-channel with attribution plan)
• CFD-* gaps surfaced — If a competitor strength is unaddressed, log CFD- research-gap

Output Template

SCR-ALT-XXX: Comparison page — [Competitor] vs. Us
Type: ScreenAlternatives
Variant: [vs | alternative-to]
URL slug: /<competitor>-vs-<us> (or /alternative-to-<competitor>)
Owner: [Person / role]
Status: [Draft | Review | Live]

Headline: "[Headline]"
Subhead: "[Subhead]"

Comparison table (5–8 dimensions, honest):
  | Dimension | Competitor | Us |
  | ... | ... | ... |

"Pick competitor if": [Honest acknowledgment]
"Pick us if": [Anchored in BR-POS-* and positioning value claims]

Social proof:
  - CFD-XXX (testimonial or migration story)
  - [Customer logo references]

CTA: [Specific action; matches Offer Construction CTA where possible]

Linked IDs: CFD-XXX (competitor), GTM-YYY (positioning), FEA-ZZZ (feature claims), BR-POS-AAA (constraints)
Linked Channel: GTM-ALT-XXX

GTM-ALT-XXX: Channel — Alternatives page <slug>
Type: Channel
Layer: Owned
Status: Live

Channel: SEO/CRO page at <URL>
Attribution: utm_source=alt-page&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=<slug>
KPI target: KPI-AAA (alt-page → trial signup conversion rate)

Linked IDs: SCR-ALT-XXX (page), GTM-YYY (positioning), KPI-AAA

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Signal	Fix
Trash the competitor	Page reads like a hit piece	Acknowledge where they win; credibility > short-term clicks
Same page, find/replace competitor name	8 pages with identical structure	Each page tunes for the specific alternative's buyer profile
Stale comparison data	Comparison table is 18 months old	Quarterly refresh; date the page; cite version
Vaporware feature claims	Claiming features that don't ship	Every "we have" claim must trace to FEA-
Ignoring BR-POS-*	Page courts buyers positioning says aren't best-fit	Add "this might not be for you if..." section
No "when to pick each"	Pure us-favored framing	Buyers know it's biased; the "when to pick each" earns trust
No social proof	Empty assertion of superiority	Cite CFD- customer stories or migration data

Quality Gates

Before pages go live:

• Each page traces to one CFD- competitor entry
• Each page traces to GTM- positioning + at least one BR-POS- constraint
• "Pick competitor if" section exists on every page (the credibility test)
• All feature claims trace to shipping FEA-
• Attribution plan (UTM + KPI- target) per page
• Date on page; refresh schedule documented
• (deep mode) A/B test plan documented

Downstream Connections

Consumer	What it uses	Example
Launch Channels (ORB)	Pages = Owned channels; added to mix matrix	/x-vs-us → GTM- Owned entry
Launch Metrics	Per-page conversion rates roll up to KPI-acquisition	KPI-ALT-conversion-rate
Feedback Loop Setup	Page bounce/scroll signals feed CFD-	Bounce on a specific section → CFD-gap
AEO Audit (re-run)	Pages should resolve comparison gaps; re-test after 4–6 weeks	Gap closure verification
v1.0 Continuous Discovery	Page winners suggest positioning sharpenings	High-converting page → positioning hypothesis

Detailed References

• jonathimer's alternatives-pages skill (devmarketing-skills)
• Corey Haines's competitors and competitor-profiling skills (marketingskills)
• (No bundled references/ — competitor data lives in CFD-, not here)