Comparing yourself with a competitor in UK advertising: the rules behind every cheaper than and better than

The CAP Code has two tiers. Comparisons with identifiable competitors answer to rules 3.32 to 3.36: they must avoid misleading about either product, compare products meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, and objectively compare material, relevant, verifiable and representative features. Comparisons with unidentifiable competitors answer to rule 3.37, which bars misleading and bars selecting elements that give an unrepresentative advantage.

CAP's reading of identifiable is deliberately broad. In a small, specialised or concentrated market the intended competitor is usually clear without a name, and an unqualified superlative such as the most efficient insulation on the market or the world's purest wipes is by nature a comparison with every competitor (RoofSURE and WaterWipes, 2023). Comparisons that denigrate a competitor also risk rule 3.41, and CAP has separate advice on denigration.

Rule 3.33 asks for products meeting the same need. The ASA accepted a comparison between two breakdown recovery services with different specifics (Green Flag, 2018) and between a part exchange deal and a cash for cars service, since both took a vehicle and returned its value (Vauxhall, 2018). Where a significant difference would change a reader's understanding, the ad should acknowledge it.

Rule 3.34 asks for objective features. A 2026 ruling against an estate agency's tick and cross table found it misleading where criteria were ambiguous or subjective, or where it suggested competitors lacked features they offered. Hotpoint's the UK's most trusted appliance brand beside Trustpilot branding failed the same year because the basis, the share of five star reviews within a filtered group of brands, was unclear to readers who would assume a comparison with all UK appliance brands.

Rule 3.38 requires the basis of a price comparison to be clear. Aldi's home of Britain's cheapest Christmas dinner rested on a Which? check of twelve items at seven supermarkets, stated in text so small that many readers would miss it, and was ruled misleading (2024). Octopus Energy's savings claim applied only to customers on other suppliers' standard variable tariffs, which the ads left unclear (2025). Comparing your promotional price with a competitor's normal price needs saying too.

Objective comparative claims need documentary evidence under rule 3.7, and the evidence must match what readers will understand the claim to mean. Beyond holding the evidence, a comparison with identifiable competitors must be verifiable: the ad states the relevant information or signposts where the audience can check it, and where checking needs expertise, an independent person must be able to do it. Information that is incomplete or behind a paywall has been ruled insufficient.

Comparisons with unidentifiable competitors carry a quieter trap: selecting the comparison to flatter yourself. Made.com's price comparison with similar high street products failed in 2014 because readers would assume the only difference was the direct from makers route, and the advertiser held no evidence that quality was equal.

A comparison is a positioning statement with a named reference point, and it works for the same reason positioning works: it tells the buyer which alternative to hold in mind. Done fairly, it also tells them you know the market well enough to be honest about it.

The comparisons that go wrong usually try to win on every row. The ones that hold pick the one or two features where the difference is real and measurable, state the basis, and leave the rest alone. That restraint reads as confidence, and it is also what the Code asks for.