Research competitors with evidence

A comparison table, a traceable recommendation, and the unanswered questions that could change your choice.

Start with the practice pack below, then adapt the brief to your own sources. A matching format is only the beginning: check the facts, omissions, and boundaries too.

Set up the task

Before you begin

• For the first attempt, use the fictional evidence packet below. It contains every fact needed; browsing is deliberately unnecessary.
• For real research, name two to four competitors and a decision: buying a tool, evaluating positioning, or monitoring a specific feature.
• Set the required features, budget basis, currency, geography, and as-of date before collecting evidence.
• A Bot with access to the supplied files or public source pages. The 20-minute setup estimate excludes open-ended research and is not a benchmark.

1. Run the brief with the complete fixture. Keep fictional product names out of web search; the exercise evaluates reasoning from supplied evidence.
2. Check unit arithmetic, annual-versus-monthly billing, eligibility, and citation coverage against the answer key.
3. Remove evidence B2 and rerun. Beacon's SSO status should become unknown, which prevents an unconditional recommendation of Beacon.
4. Repeat the original packet in a fresh conversation with the competitor order reversed. Product eligibility and normalized totals should stay the same.
5. For a real run, replace the packet with official pricing, feature documentation, and release notes. Save a page title, URL, access date, and the supporting passage for each claim. If a page cannot be read, retain the gap.
6. Have a person verify the few facts that determine the recommendation. Publish or share only after checking whether tax, minimum seats, annual commitment, or regional terms change the comparison.

Give it a clear brief

A small practice run

Copy the fictional source packet into your Bot alongside the brief. Keep the answer key out of its input, then compare the result yourself. These examples illustrate the intended result; they are not captured Bot output.

SYNTHETIC FIXTURE — fictional vendors and prices.
Decision D1: Choose a tool for 5 people as of 2026-09-07. SSO and CSV export are mandatory. Budget: at most USD 100/month equivalent. Annual prepayment is acceptable. Compare base subscription charges before tax; no other fees are specified.
A1: Atlas pricing page, checked 2026-09-07: USD 15/user/month, billed monthly; no seat minimum.
A2: Atlas feature table, checked 2026-09-07: CSV export included. SSO not supported on this plan.
B1: Beacon pricing page, checked 2026-09-07: USD 18/user/month equivalent, billed annually at USD 216/user/year; no seat minimum.
B2: Beacon feature table, checked 2026-09-07: SSO and CSV export included in the quoted plan.
C1: Cedar pricing page, checked 2026-09-07: USD 80/workspace/month, billed monthly, includes up to 5 users.
C2: Cedar roadmap, dated 2026-08-15: "SSO planned for next quarter." CSV export available now. No current SSO availability statement supplied.

HAND-AUTHORED ANSWER KEY — not an actual Bot result.

Atlas: 5 × USD 15 = USD 75/month, billed monthly [A1]. CSV yes, SSO no [A2]. Ineligible because SSO is mandatory [D1].
Beacon: 5 × USD 216 = USD 1,080/year, or USD 90/month equivalent [B1]. SSO and CSV yes [B2]. Meets the requirements and budget, with annual prepayment [D1].
Cedar: USD 80/month for 5 users [C1]. CSV yes; current SSO unconfirmed. A roadmap promise does not prove availability [C2]. Eligibility not established.

Recommendation: Beacon is the only candidate supported as eligible by this packet. Its annual commitment is USD 1,080 before tax, not a USD 90 cancellable monthly plan. Atlas is cheaper but fails the SSO requirement. Ask Cedar for current plan-specific SSO documentation if considering it. Taxes and unspecified fees have not been evaluated.

Try it again with a harder case

Remove one required source and rerun. The output should name the gap without filling it in. Then repeat the original input and compare facts and omissions. Record both attempts; a single good result is not a reliability measurement.

When it goes wrong

Sources & next steps

These sources establish product capabilities. The recipe, sample output, and evaluation method are our editorial work.

• Official Grok Bot capabilities overview ↗
• Official approval and privacy documentation ↗