Comparison charts are designed to guide decisions—but they don’t always tell the full story, warns Rory Sutherland.
Most marketers aren’t trained to comment on highly specialized fields like neonatology, so stepping into expert debates about complex trials is outside our scope. Yet, there is one area where many of us could act as informed observers: the proper use—and misuse—of comparison charts.
In some cases, charts have been used to imply correlations that may not be fully justified. For instance, certain data points may be omitted, giving a distorted impression of causality or significance.
For those familiar with marketing, comparison charts are a common tool. Their appeal lies in their simplicity: they condense complex information into a format that allows easy side-by-side evaluation.
These charts are valuable because they help consumers make choices when faced with multiple options. Brands that offer a variety of products risk losing customers if individuals cannot easily distinguish which option suits them best. Presenting several acceptable choices at once can paradoxically lead to decision paralysis, where the consumer ends up choosing nothing.
For example, choosing a second-hand car can be simpler than configuring a new one. With a new vehicle, decisions multiply—do I upgrade the lighting, or opt for ventilated seats? Too many comparable options can overwhelm, turning choice into a burden.
Side-by-side comparisons are essential in many scenarios. People need to see all relevant information together to make informed decisions, whether it’s selecting a flight class or evaluating a product portfolio. But comparison charts also introduce a subtle cognitive bias: they draw attention to differences more than similarities.
Take a standard car comparison chart. Suppose three models are priced at $30,000, $45,000, and $60,000. The lowest-priced model might list two features, the mid-tier adds a few more, and the top-tier shows an extensive list of benefits. While accurate, this presentation highlights differences more than shared attributes, subtly steering the consumer toward higher-margin products.
Comparison charts are simultaneously invaluable and potentially misleading. When used responsibly, they clarify choice. When misused, they shape perceptions in ways that can exaggerate distinctions and obscure the bigger picture.
