Brief · Template
Comparison.
LiveComparisonPut two to five alternatives side by side on criteria stated first, with a source on every cell, so the differences are visible and a mismatch in definitions is never mistaken for a finding.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
When to use it
You have two to five alternatives and need to see exactly how they differ, before anyone argues for one of them.
Who it is for. Market access, regulatory, innovation and corporate development leads who are building a position paper, a short list or the factual annex to a decision.
Why comparisons mislead
A comparison fails quietly when the items differ in definition, date or population and the table hides it. A weighted score can also reorder the options when the scoring scale changes, even if the weights do not. This template fixes the items and the criteria first, sources every cell, and treats comparability as a finding in its own right.2
What you get
The items and the criteria, stated first. One finding sentence, then the items compared, the criteria, the baseline and the date, so nobody has to guess what is being compared.1
One table, with a source on every cell. The side-by-side is a single table of at most six columns. Units are the same down each row. A cell with no source is marked as a gap and is never left blank or filled in.3
Where the difference matters. Two or three criteria that actually separate the items, each with why it matters and how strong the evidence is. At Standard length a bar chart of one measure sits beside it.4
Where they do not differ. At Comprehensive length, the criteria at parity, so you can stop worrying about them.
Where the figures are not like for like. The closing section lists differences in definitions, dates and populations, and, if scores were used, the weights and whether the order changes when the largest weights move.2
No recommendation. A comparison shows how the alternatives differ. It does not pick one. When you need a recommendation, the Decision Memo is the template for it.
What is in it, by length
| Section | Brief | Standard | Comprehensive |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is compared, and on what criteriaWhich items, which criteria, which baseline, which date | ● | ● | ● |
| The comparisonHow the items compare, cell by cell | ● | ● | ● |
| Where the difference mattersThe two or three criteria that separate the items, and why | – | ● | ● |
| Where they do not differThe criteria at parity | – | – | ● |
| Caveats on comparabilityWhere the numbers are not like for like, and what is missing | ● | ● | ● |
A Standard comparison runs about 1,200 words and up to 1,500. A Comprehensive comparison runs about 2,400.
Choosing a length
Choose Standard for most comparisons. Choose Comprehensive when there are five items or when it matters to show the criteria on which they do not differ. Brief is the table and its caveats only.
The standards and practice behind it
The structure and the checks come from published practice in decision analysis and table design. These are the references we drew on and what we took from each. None of their authors has reviewed the template.
| What we took | From | Where it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Rate each alternative against a named reference item, as better, the same or worse | The Pugh matrix, from Stuart Pugh’s Total Design (1991)1 | A baseline is named in the first section, and the differences are read against it |
| Warn that a weighted score can change the ranking when the scoring scale changes, so show the weights and test the order | Uses and misuses of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making (Steele and colleagues, 2009)2 | Any weighted total shows its weights and is labeled analyst judgment, and the caveats say whether the order holds when the largest weights move |
| Design tables for reading: units in the headers, numbers aligned, nothing decorative | Show Me the Numbers (Stephen Few)3 | One table of at most six columns, with the same unit down each row |
| Choose the chart for the question and draw it only from sourced data | The Financial Times Visual Vocabulary4 | A bar chart of one measure at Standard length, on the same unit and scale for every item |
What it will not do
It does not recommend an item. A comparison shows differences; a Decision Memo recommends.
It does not handle more than five items. Beyond five, the table stops being readable and a Landscape or a Scan is the better template.
It does not invent a cell. A cell without a source is a gap, and the caveats say how many there are.
References
- [1] Pugh, S. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley, 1991. Known from a secondary summary of the method; the book was not read.
- [2] Steele, K., Carmel, Y., Cross, J. and Wilcox, C. Uses and misuses of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis, 2009;29(1):26–33. DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01130.x. Read from the abstract. The rule to test whether the order holds when the largest weights move is our design choice, not a finding of the paper.
- [3] Few, S. Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten. Analytics Press, 2nd edition, 2012. Publisher listing; the book was not read.
- [4] Financial Times Visual Journalism Team. Visual Vocabulary. Financial-Times/chart-doctor repository.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
Use cases for the Comparison
7 ready-to-run use cases. Each opens its own page with the question, the specialists, the standards and the references.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.