---
name: rankizz-write-competitor-review-pricing
description: Research and write an honest competitor product review, pricing guide, or combined review-and-pricing page with current plan details, total-cost scenarios, documented methodology, meaningful limitations, alternatives, and commercial disclosures. Use when a user asks for a competitor review, "is X worth it," "X pricing," "X plans," a pricing breakdown, or a buyer-focused competitor page. Rankizz keyword and SERP data is optional; current official pricing and product research is required.
---

# Write a competitor review and pricing page

Help a buyer understand the product, its real cost, and its fit. Do not pretend documentation research is a product test, copy vendor copy, or invent a rating.

Read [references/review-pricing-evidence.md](references/review-pricing-evidence.md) before researching or drafting.

## Choose the page mode

Use one of three modes:

- **Review:** the main question is product quality and fit.
- **Pricing:** the main question is plans, limits, and likely cost.
- **Combined:** both questions are central and enough evidence exists to answer them without repetition.

Do not force a long review into a pricing query or bury pricing below a generic product history.

## Establish the brief

Resolve:

- product, intended reader, job, company size, and region
- review or pricing mode
- reader's likely seats, usage, billing preference, and integrations
- evaluation criteria and non-negotiable requirements
- actual account access and tasks tested, if any
- publisher ownership, competing product, affiliate, sponsorship, or free-access relationship
- research and price cutoff date

If the publisher competes with the reviewed product, disclose that before the verdict. Do not describe the page as independent when it is commercial competitor content.

## Research with an evidence ledger

Prefer official pricing, documentation, limits, policies, security material, terms, changelog, and product UI for current facts. Use original independent research or named reporting for experience claims that official sources cannot prove.

| Claim | Source or test | Date | Evidence type | Confidence | Allowed wording |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

Label evidence precisely:

- `hands-on`: the stated workflow was actually performed and documented
- `officially verified`: supported by the product's current first-party material
- `independently reported`: supported by a named, credible third party
- `not verified`: evidence is insufficient or inaccessible

Do not treat a marketing demo, screenshot, free-account limitation, search snippet, or other reviews as your own test.

Rankizz is optional. Use connected keyword or live SERP data only when it changes intent, prioritization, or the questions answered. It does not prove a review conclusion. If a Rankizz call is unavailable because of entitlement or credit balance, tell the user: "This feature is unavailable because the connected account does not have the required entitlement or credit balance."

## Model the full price

Record:

- displayed currency, region, and whether tax is included
- monthly and annual commitment
- per-seat, per-workspace, usage-based, or flat pricing
- minimum seats or spend
- included usage, credits, storage, projects, or other limits
- overages and required add-ons
- onboarding, implementation, support, or contract charges
- trial versus permanently free plan
- cancellation, renewal, and refund terms when relevant and verified
- enterprise or negotiated pricing as `contact sales`, not an estimate
- date checked

Create disclosed scenarios for the intended reader. Separate published price, calculated scenario cost, and unknown charges.

## Evaluate the product

Use criteria tied to the reader's job. A useful evaluation may cover:

- core workflow success and output quality
- usability and required setup
- integrations and data portability
- collaboration, permissions, or governance
- reliability, privacy, security, and support only to the level verified
- total cost and plan constraints
- switching cost and credible alternatives

Use ratings only when a documented rubric, consistent evidence, and score calculation exist. Avoid false precision. `Meets`, `partly meets`, `does not meet`, and `not verified` may be more honest than `8.6/10`.

## Write the page

### Review mode

1. direct verdict with fit and non-fit
2. disclosure and methodology
3. what was tested versus researched
4. product workflow and decisive strengths
5. meaningful limitations
6. current pricing and true-cost scenarios
7. alternatives for readers poorly served
8. final decision by audience

### Pricing mode

1. direct price answer with currency, billing basis, and date
2. current plan comparison
3. what each plan actually includes and excludes
4. scenario calculations
5. overages, minimums, add-ons, contract, and unknown costs
6. which plan fits each buyer
7. when an alternative is better value

### Combined mode

Keep one methodology, one pricing analysis, and one conclusion. Do not repeat the same facts in a review section and a pricing section.

## Do and do not

| Do | Do not |
| --- | --- |
| State exactly what was tested | Write "we tested" after reading documentation |
| Use current official sources for prices and limits | Copy old prices from another review |
| Date every volatile fact | Use "current pricing" without a checked date |
| Show seats, billing, usage, overages, and add-ons | Promote the lowest number without its conditions |
| Give strengths and meaningful drawbacks | Add token cons to make an advertorial look balanced |
| Tie conclusions to a defined reader | Call a product best or overpriced for everyone |
| Disclose competition, affiliate links, and access | Hide the publisher's commercial interest |
| Use a documented rubric if scoring | Invent a precise rating from general impressions |
| Recommend alternatives for clear non-fit cases | Add unrelated alternatives only for internal links |
| Keep structured data truthful and eligible | Mark up the publisher's unsupported opinion as a user review |

## Examples

### Testing disclosure

Good:

> Hands-on: created a project, invited one guest, exported a CSV, and cancelled the trial. SSO and audit-log limits were verified from official documentation but not tested.

Bad:

> We thoroughly tested every feature.

### Price answer

Good:

> Acme starts at $12 per user per month when billed annually, with a five-seat minimum. The smallest published annual commitment is therefore $720 before tax. Monthly billing is $15 per seat. Prices checked 16 August 2026.

Bad:

> Acme costs only $12 per month.

### Review conclusion

Good:

> Acme fits agencies that use its native proofing workflow with at least five editors. A two-person team pays for unused seats and should compare per-seat alternatives. We did not verify performance above 50 simultaneous projects.

Bad:

> Acme is an excellent all-in-one platform with great value for businesses of all sizes.

### Rating restraint

Good:

> Partly meets the export requirement: project data exports as CSV, but comments are excluded.

Bad:

> Data portability: 8.4/10.

## Add the publication package

Provide one H1, concise title and page-specific description, stable slug, descriptive internal links, current sources, product image or original screenshot brief, disclosure placement, and a refresh schedule. Use product or review structured data only when the visible page and publisher relationship satisfy current rules. Do not assume a rich result will appear.

## Limitations

- Public material may omit negotiated rates, renewal increases, implementation costs, enterprise limits, or regional availability.
- A short trial does not establish long-term reliability, support quality, or performance at scale.
- Security and privacy claims require direct evidence and may need qualified review.
- Prices, plans, ownership, and features change. Refresh the evidence, not only the date.
- Do not fabricate first-person use, customer feedback, screenshots, measurements, or quotes.
- A review or pricing page cannot guarantee rankings, purchases, or legal compliance.

## Output template

```markdown
# [Product] review and pricing: is it worth it for [specific audience]?

[Direct verdict and price basis, with research date.]

Disclosure: [competitor ownership, affiliate, sponsorship, or free access]

## Quick verdict
- Best for:
- Skip if:
- Published starting price:
- Smallest realistic commitment:
- Evidence level:

## How this review was researched
- Hands-on tasks:
- Officially verified facts:
- Independent evidence:
- Unverified areas:
- Pricing assumptions and cutoff:

## Plans and pricing
| Plan | Billing basis | Included limits | Important exclusions | Best fit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

## What [Product] really costs
| Buyer scenario | Published price | Add-ons or overages | Estimated total | Assumptions |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

## What [Product] does well
### [Decision-relevant strength]
[Evidence, affected reader, and boundary]

## Where [Product] falls short
### [Meaningful limitation]
[Evidence, affected reader, and workaround if real]

## Which plan should you choose?
- [Buyer type]: [plan and reason]

## Alternatives to consider
- [Alternative]: better when [non-fit condition and evidence]

## Final verdict
[Choose, skip, or verify based on the reader's constraints]

## Research notes
- Last checked:
- Facts to refresh:
- Unverified claims omitted:

## Editorial QA
- [ ] Testing and desk research are clearly separated
- [ ] Pricing includes billing, seats, usage, minimums, and date
- [ ] Scenario math exposes assumptions
- [ ] Strengths and limitations are evidence-backed
- [ ] Publisher relationships and compensation are prominent
- [ ] Scores use a documented rubric or are omitted
- [ ] No invented experience, sentiment, or current facts
```