Plan a B2B Meta comparison ad for buyers who are already considering a change. The reference is described here so the task works without opening a link.

REFERENCE OBSERVED IN A PUBLIC AD
monday.com ran a tall static ad on a black background. Large white type asks “Thinking of switching?” Its logo sits beside Airtable's, with “vs” between them and “Compare now” at the bottom. The ad body says the comparison covers automations, ease of use, scale and AI. The button says Sign up, but the recorded destination is a monday.com-versus-Airtable comparison page. A second variant is sized for Story placement. The creative names a live alternative and offers comparison information; it does not prove that monday.com wins on any criterion. Source record: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1066220179486628

WORKED FICTIONAL ADAPTATION
ClearLedger could ask “Still assigning overdue invoices in a spreadsheet?” and offer an honest comparison of a spreadsheet queue with a dedicated owner-and-next-action workflow. The page would compare setup effort, visibility of the next owner, follow-up history and cost, using a completed sample row for each option. If ClearLedger wants to name a competing software brand, it must inspect that product, verify every comparison and maintain the page when features change. No competitor logo or superiority claim should appear by assumption.

MY INPUTS
- Product and its verified workflow:
- Current alternative buyers actually use (spreadsheet, process or named product):
- Buyer stage and question they are trying to answer:
- Three or four comparison criteria that matter to that buyer:
- Evidence for each side, including tested features, prices or limitations:
- Destination comparison page and its current status:
- Rights to use any third-party mark, or a plan to use plain names only:
- Placement sizes and brand materials:

METHOD
Use a comparison only when the buyer is deciding between real options. Make the visual readable in a feed: one question, two choices, one invitation to compare. The landing page must answer the promised criteria in a table with sources, date checked and honest tradeoffs. If it does not exist yet, design it before the ad. Do not turn an unresolved comparison into “we beat them.” Keep the in-image invitation and the actual button aligned with the destination even if the platform button wording differs.

DELIVER
1. A one-sentence buyer question and why the comparison belongs at this stage.
2. Exact in-image copy and a 4:5 and 9:16 layout specification, including safe areas.
3. Exact primary text, headline, CTA and destination-page heading.
4. A four-row comparison-table outline with the evidence needed for both sides and the date each fact should be checked.
5. A completed sample row using supplied facts; if none are supplied, mark it pending rather than inventing a verdict.
6. A fact/rights review, including trademark presentation and any price or feature claim that can change.
7. A measurement note about qualified comparison-page requests or meetings. Do not predict performance.

If the alternative, criteria, evidence or destination is missing, ask focused questions and complete only the parts that do not require those facts. You may propose criteria, but label them as proposed. Do not invent a competitor weakness, customer preference or measured switching rate.