From vendor claims to a fair comparison

A missing source is not a missing feature.

A vendor comparison evaluates options against the same requirements, purchase assumptions, and evidence—so you can see the tradeoffs and what still needs confirming.

Make this with my agent

Bring your notes. Review a draft before sharing.

Explore the method

01
Compare the actual plan.
Vendor A’s enterprise documentation does not confirm the proposed purchase.
02
Unknown is not a no.
Missing documentation for Vendor B is not a confirmed product limitation.
03
No premature winner.
Neither option has yet satisfied the mandatory requirement.

THE REAL HTML · FICTIONAL EXAMPLEView on its own

A worked example, not a customer result. September 2026 dates are sample facts.

Now make it about your work

Your requirements. Your agent. Your comparison.

Bring the purchase scenario and the evidence you have. Keep missing answers visible until they are confirmed.

Start with three things

The use case, mandatory requirements, and preferences.
Dated documents, quotes, written answers, and trial notes.
The proposed plans and common purchase assumptions.

Make this with my agent

You review the facts and access. Nothing is published without your approval.

The method behind the comparisonFrom feature claims to comparable evidence

How do I create a trustworthy vendor comparison with an AI agent?

Start with your requirements and approved source material. Ask the agent to compare each vendor on the same criteria, cite evidence with dates, and label unknowns explicitly. Share a reviewed HTML comparison that explains the tradeoffs and the questions to resolve before choosing.

What to give your agent

Your actual use case, must-have requirements, constraints, and the people who will approve the decision.
Current vendor documentation, pricing terms, written answers, or dated extracts you are allowed to share.
Results from your own trials or demonstrations, clearly separated from vendor claims and general impressions.
The cost assumptions, required plan or add-ons, evaluation date, and unresolved questions for each option.

Separate requirements from preferences
Write down what would rule out an option before comparing appealing features. A mandatory access control is not interchangeable with a nicer interface. Ask the agent to preserve this distinction and identify requirements that are too vague to test. Avoid weighting criteria simply to manufacture a single numerical winner.
Make every comparison traceable
Give each cell a status and evidence: confirmed, conditional, not supported by the cited source, or unknown. Include the relevant plan, date, and limitations. 'We did not find documentation' should remain unknown unless stronger evidence establishes absence. Keep observed trial behavior separate from a claim on a marketing page.
Compare the same purchase scenario
Use the same number of users, billing period, required capabilities, and assumptions for each option. Mark quotes and published list prices distinctly. Note excluded implementation or usage costs rather than silently treating them as zero. If information is stale or missing, make verification the next step instead of offering a confident total.
Show the decision and the remaining work
Create static HTML with a short fit summary, a readable comparison, and questions to resolve. Use your saved style if available and meaningful text labels alongside color. Review claims and current terms before sharing. Frame any recommendation around the stated use case, not as a universal best-vendor ranking.

Keep creating and revising in the agent you already use. Start with a saved artifact style and learn how to update HTML without changing its link.

Use the full promptReady for your agent and your notes

Use the conversation where you already did the work. Only attach material you are allowed to share.

Get the ready-to-copy creation request →

Create a vendor comparison for [use case] using my requirements and supplied evidence. Separate mandatory requirements from preferences. Compare every option on the same criteria and purchase assumptions. For each material claim, retain its source, date, applicable plan, and limitations. Distinguish documented capability, observed trial behavior, vendor claims, and unknowns. Never convert missing evidence into a 'no' or invent prices, features, scores, or weights. Show the main tradeoffs and unresolved questions before making a use-case-specific recommendation. Flag information that needs current verification. Build readable static HTML using my saved artifact style if available, with text labels as well as color and no scripts or forms. Present the page for evidence, accuracy, confidentiality, and recipient-access review before publishing. For a seller-authored product comparison, disclose the author and supplied commercial relationships. Apply buyer-approved criteria consistently; include limitations of the author's offering and strengths of alternatives. Never turn unverified competitor information into a negative capability claim.

Check before you shareAccuracy, clarity, and permission

Does each material capability or price claim have a dated source and the correct plan or purchase assumptions?
Are missing evidence, confirmed limitations, conditional availability, and trial observations clearly distinguished?
Are mandatory requirements visible, and are all options evaluated against the same criteria?
Have changing terms and unresolved questions been checked before relying on the comparison for a purchase?

When HTML fits

Use an HTML comparison when a group needs a shared view of requirements, evidence, and tradeoffs. Short summaries plus a structured matrix can make an asynchronous evaluation easier to discuss.

When another format fits better

Keep formal procurement approvals, contract negotiation, and security review in their established processes. A static comparison is a dated decision aid, not live pricing, a product warranty, or an automated purchasing recommendation.

What we started withThe same facts, as an email

Fictional project email

Vendor A / Vendor B — access-management evidence still needed

Team,

For this fictional internal-service evaluation, a specific access-management capability is mandatory. The technical acceptance criteria have not been supplied. Our original comparison used a green check for A and a red cross for B because documentation was found for A but not B. That overstates what we know.

Vendor A is conditional: the supplied source documents the capability on the enterprise plan, but availability on our proposed purchase plan still needs confirmation. The proposed plan name, document title, URL, publication date and verification date are not supplied. We have no hands-on trial or plan-specific written commitment.

Vendor B is unknown from the supplied evidence. No documentation found is not evidence that the capability is unavailable. The proposed plan, applicable documentation and source date are missing; no trial or written answer is supplied.

Neither option has yet satisfied the mandatory requirement for the actual purchase scenario. No selection is approved and there is no supported winner or score. We also lack quotes, list prices, seat count, currency, billing period, usage assumptions, add-ons, implementation costs and tax terms. Unknown costs are not zero; comparable total cost is not established.

Next: agree testable acceptance criteria and common purchase assumptions. Request written plan-specific answers from both vendors using the same criteria and obtain comparable current pricing. Update answers, plans, limitations and source dates before reviewing the choice. Owners and deadlines are not assigned. Keep procurement approvals, contracts and security review in their established processes.

Prepared September 20, 2026, a fictional preparation date—not a source verification date. Authored as the evaluating team, not either vendor; no commercial relationship supplied. This is a static decision aid, not live pricing, a warranty or an automated purchase.

Inspect the HTMLOne self-contained file

The example is sanitized and isolated from this site. No scripts, forms, or live data.

<!doctype html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><title>Unknown is not no · Vendor comparison</title><style>
*{box-sizing:border-box}body{margin:0;background:#f7f5ee;color:#202e38;font:16px/1.55 system-ui,sans-serif}main{max-width:1080px;margin:auto;padding:clamp(22px,5vw,56px)}h1,h2,h3,p{margin:0}h1{font:500 clamp(36px,5.8vw,64px)/1.07 Georgia,serif;letter-spacing:-.035em;margin:22px 0;max-width:800px}h2{font:500 clamp(26px,3.5vw,36px)/1.18 Georgia,serif;letter-spacing:-.02em}h3{font-size:16px}p{margin-top:12px}.eyebrow{font-size:11px;font-weight:750;letter-spacing:.12em;text-transform:uppercase}.masthead{display:flex;justify-content:space-between;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:10px;border-bottom:1px solid #b9c2c4;padding-bottom:16px}.intro{font-size:18px;max-width:720px}.gate{padding:22px 24px;margin-top:26px;border-left:4px solid #253f53;background:#e8edf0}.gate p{margin-top:8px}.evidence{display:grid;grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr;gap:18px;margin-top:26px}.vendor{min-width:0;border:1px solid #b9c2c4;background:#fffdf8;padding:24px}.vendor h2{font-size:32px;margin:8px 0 16px}.status{display:inline-block;padding:6px 10px;font-size:13px;font-weight:700}.conditional{background:#e4ecf2;color:#23485e}.unknown{background:#f3e5cc;color:#684a1c}.fact{border-top:1px solid #d5d8d4;padding-top:15px;margin-top:18px}.fact p{font-size:14px;margin-top:6px}.label{font-size:11px;font-weight:750;letter-spacing:.06em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#53616a}.decision{background:#233e50;color:#fff;padding:26px;margin-top:26px}.decision h2{margin-top:10px}.decision p{color:#e1e9ed}.section{margin-top:32px}.section>p{max-width:720px}.context{display:grid;grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr;gap:22px;margin-top:20px}.context p{font-size:14px}.steps{list-style:none;margin:20px 0 0;padding:0;counter-reset:step}.steps li{display:grid;grid-template-columns:32px 1fr;gap:12px;border-top:1px solid #b9c2c4;padding:16px 0;counter-increment:step}.steps li:before{content:"0" counter(step);font-size:12px;font-weight:700;color:#657887;padding-top:3px}.steps p{font-size:14px;margin-top:5px}footer{font-size:12px;color:#53616a;border-top:1px solid #b9c2c4;padding-top:20px;margin-top:26px}footer p{margin-top:6px}@media(max-width:580px){.evidence,.context{grid-template-columns:1fr}.vendor,.decision,.gate{padding:22px}.vendor h2{font-size:30px}.evidence{gap:16px}}@media print{body{background:white}main{max-width:none;padding:24px}.vendor,.gate,.decision,.steps li{break-inside:avoid}.decision{background:#e8edf0;color:#202e38}.decision p{color:#202e38}}
</style></head><body><main>
<header><div class="masthead"><span class="eyebrow">Vendor comparison / Evidence before ranking</span><span class="eyebrow">Fictional worked example</span></div><h1>Unknown is not no.</h1><p class="intro">Two vendors. One mandatory requirement. Neither is a confirmed fit for the plan the team would actually buy.</p></header>
<aside class="gate"><p class="eyebrow">The must-have · Internal service</p><h2>Confirm the required access-management capability.</h2><p>The technical acceptance criteria are not supplied. Agree those criteria first; an attractive feature list cannot substitute for this requirement.</p></aside>
<section class="evidence" aria-label="Same requirement, different evidence gaps">
<article class="vendor"><p class="eyebrow">Option A</p><h2>Vendor A</h2><span class="status conditional">Conditional · Plan confirmation needed</span><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Supplied evidence</h3><p>Capability documented on the <strong>enterprise plan</strong>. That does not confirm availability on the proposed purchase plan.</p></div><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Purchase-plan fit</h3><p>Proposed plan name not supplied. No plan-specific written commitment or hands-on trial supplied.</p></div><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Source date &amp; traceability</h3><p>Document title, URL, publication date and verification date not supplied.</p></div><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Question to resolve</h3><p>Does the exact plan we would buy meet the agreed access-management requirement, and under what conditions?</p></div></article>
<article class="vendor"><p class="eyebrow">Option B</p><h2>Vendor B</h2><span class="status unknown">Unknown · Evidence needed</span><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Supplied evidence</h3><p>No applicable documentation found. This is <strong>not evidence that the capability is unavailable</strong>.</p></div><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Purchase-plan fit</h3><p>Proposed plan name not supplied. No trial or written answer supplied.</p></div><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Source date &amp; traceability</h3><p>Applicable documentation and source date not supplied. Do not replace the gap with a red cross.</p></div><div class="fact"><h3 class="label">Question to resolve</h3><p>Does the exact plan we would buy meet the agreed access-management requirement, and under what conditions?</p></div></article>
</section>
<section class="decision"><p class="eyebrow">Decision status · No selection approved</p><h2>Neither option has yet satisfied the mandatory requirement.</h2><p>This is an evidence gap to close, not a verdict that both products fail. There is no supported winner or weighted score.</p></section>
<section class="section"><h2>Compare the same purchase.</h2><div class="context"><div><h3>Pricing is not established.</h3><p>No quotes or list prices supplied. Seat count, currency, billing period, usage, add-ons, implementation costs and tax terms are unknown—not zero.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence is not a warranty.</h3><p>A documented enterprise feature is not a commitment for another plan. Missing documentation is not a confirmed limitation. Source dates still need verification.</p></div></div></section>
<section class="section"><h2>Ask both vendors the same questions.</h2><ol class="steps"><li><div><h3>Define a testable requirement.</h3><p>Confirm the technical acceptance criteria and common purchase assumptions.</p></div></li><li><div><h3>Request written, plan-specific answers.</h3><p>Ask both vendors about availability and conditions on the exact proposed plan. Obtain comparable current pricing.</p></div></li><li><div><h3>Update the evidence, then review the choice.</h3><p>Record answers, plans, limitations and dates. Owners and deadlines are not assigned. Keep approvals, contracts and security review in their established processes.</p></div></li></ol></section>
<footer><p>Source: the guide’s fictional Vendor A / Vendor B evaluation notes. Prepared September 20, 2026—not a source verification date.</p><p>Fictional worked example by share/artifacts, authored as the evaluating team, not either vendor. No commercial relationship supplied. No actual vendor claims, live pricing, warranty or automated purchasing. Static snapshot.</p></footer>
</main></body></html>

The original comparison, reframedThe same evidence, without misleading checkmarks

Unknown is not the same as no

An illustrative team compares fictional Vendor A and Vendor B for an internal service. Their mandatory requirement is a specific access-management capability.

The original notes

A comparison gives Vendor A a green checkmark and Vendor B a red cross because the evaluator found documentation for A but not B.

Requirement

Confirm the required access-management capability on the plan the team would purchase.

Vendor A

Documented on the enterprise plan in the supplied source. Availability on the proposed plan still needs confirmation.

Vendor B

Unknown from the supplied evidence. No documentation found is not evidence that the capability is unavailable.

Decision status

Neither option has yet satisfied the requirement for the actual purchase scenario.

Next step

Request written plan-specific answers from both vendors and update the comparison with the answers and dates.

A fair comparison distinguishes a product limitation from a limitation in your evidence. Both matter, but they call for different actions.

Questions, adaptations & sourcesGo deeper when you need to

Should I use a score to choose the winning vendor?

Only when the criteria, scale, and weights represent the decision-makers' priorities. Keep mandatory requirements separate from a total score. A high score should not conceal a disqualifying gap, and unknown information should not receive a made-up rating.

How do I handle conflicting vendor information?

Show the conflict with the dates, sources, and relevant plans. Ask for clarification or test the requirement where appropriate. Do not silently choose the source that favors an option, and do not treat a general marketing claim as a plan-specific commitment.

Can I reuse the comparison for another team?

Reuse the structure, but review the requirements, assumptions, and sources. Another team may need different capabilities or have different constraints. A recommendation only makes sense in the context of the use case and evidence that produced it.

A seller-authored product comparison

Disclose who wrote the comparison and any commercial relationship. Start with the buyer's requirements, apply the same criteria to all options, and preserve limitations of your own product alongside competitors' strengths.

Fictional inputs: Fictional seller A writes the comparison. The buyer requires export on the proposed plan. A supplied document confirms A's export only on its enterprise plan; B's export is unverified. No trial or plan-specific confirmation is supplied for either proposed purchase.

A clearer result: Disclose seller A's authorship. Mark A conditional on plan confirmation and B unknown. Neither is a confirmed fit yet. Ask both vendors the same plan-specific question instead of displaying a green check for the author and a red cross for the competitor.