Compare companies, products, or approaches objectively
A fair, evidence-based comparison table of companies, products, or approaches, with sources, unknowns, and best-fit scenarios.
The prompt
Compare the options below objectively.
What I'm comparing: [e.g. "3 project management tools", "2 potential partners", "build vs. buy vs. outsource"]
Options: [LIST]
Why I'm comparing: [the decision or question behind it]
Criteria that matter to me: [e.g. cost, features, integration, support, risk, scale - or ask you to suggest them]
Information I have: [PASTE vendor material, reviews, notes, pricing, or "none"]
Return:
1. Criteria - the list you used, with a one-line note on why each matters for my purpose.
2. Comparison table: rows = criteria, columns = options. Each cell: a short factual description, plus the source (my material, public information, or [VERIFY]).
3. Strengths and weaknesses of each option, stated even-handedly.
4. Best fit - which option suits which situation (e.g. "best if budget is the main constraint").
5. Unknowns - what can't be compared from the information available, and how to find out.
6. Bias check - where the information is one-sided (e.g. vendor marketing, a single review), and how that affects the comparison.
Rules:
- Use neutral language. No ranking unless I ask for one; the choice is mine.
- Don't invent prices, features, or market share. If you can browse, cite sources with dates; if not, mark claims [VERIFY].
Highlighted [brackets] are blanks to replace with your own details.
Fill in the blanks and use this promptMore Research & Summaries prompts
What to fill in
- LIST
- the decision or question behind it
- PASTE vendor material, reviews, notes, pricing, or "none"
How this prompt is built
This prompt follows the Few-Shot structure (Few-shot prompting). A few-shot prompt includes one or more worked examples of the input and the output you want, so the model can copy the pattern instead of guessing it.
Related prompts
- Create screening criteria and a data extraction form for a reviewDefines clear inclusion/exclusion rules and a piloted extraction template so screening and extraction are consistent across reviewers.
- Check my manuscript against a reporting guidelineAudits a draft against the right reporting checklist (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and more) and lists exactly what's missing.
- Peer-review an academic paper or thesisA rigorous reviewer-style critique of a paper's contribution, methods, and clarity.
- Polish academic writing for clarity and toneEdits academic prose to be precise, formal, and well-argued without changing the content.