ProductHow it WorksBrief TypesUse CasesPricingFAQ

Brief typeCompare

Comparison Brief

Lines up options against shared criteria — and deliberately stops before picking one.

Each criterion says what the evidence supports for each option, and whether one of them leads. What it never produces is an overall verdict — that belongs to a Recommendation Brief, where the confidence can be stated.

Create a briefFree plan · No card required

Comparison Brief

3 options · 4 criteria

Evidence coverage for each option on each criterion
CriterionLinearJiraShortcut
Setup effortSupportedSupportedlimited — Limited evidence
Cost at scaleSupportedlimited — Limited evidencemissing — No source coverage
Migration effortSupportedSupportedSupported
Ends inTradeoffsOpen questions— not a winner
Answers
“How do these options compare on the criteria that matter?”
Appears when
You compare options you already know — in Comparison mode, or named in your prompt in Auto. When the options still need discovering, Auto builds a Research Brief first. Also the next stage after a Research Brief.
Never does
Produces an overall verdict, a score, a rating, or a recommendation. Not a setting — the artifact has no field for it.

The rule that defines this type

Where a verdict would go, there’s a next step instead

An option can lead on an individual criterion where the evidence supports it. That is as far as the brief goes — it never collapses four criteria into one answer.

Not in this artifact

  • Overall winnerNo field
  • Score · 8.4 / 10No field
  • Rating · ★★★☆☆No field
  • Recommendation (optional)No field

A comparison that quietly declares a winner hides which criterion decided it. Keeping the criteria separate is the point of the artifact.

Instead

What you get instead

  • Option advantageLinear leads on setup effort
  • ComparableMigration effort is similar across the destinations
  • Context dependentReporting depth depends on team size
  • UnresolvedCost at scale — the evidence conflicts
And when you need the call
  1. Turn into…
  2. Recommendation Brief

Inside the brief

Criteria × options, with coverage stated per cell

Illustrative example — not a recorded run
Comparison BriefV1 · Primary · 7 sources

Overview

For a six-person team leaving Jira, the options trade setup effort against reporting depth; cost at scale is not settled by these sources.

  • Linear’s low-configuration default is the best-evidenced setup story source 1 source 3
  • Shortcut rests on a single source in this set source 4

Options compared

  • Linear

    Opinionated, low-configuration tracker aimed at small product teams source 1.

  • Jira

    Highly configurable incumbent; the thing being moved away from source 2.

  • Shortcut

    Limited evidence

    Middle ground on configuration; thinner coverage in this source set source 4.

How they compare

How they compare
LinearJiraShortcut
Evidence gap: Setup effort for a small team
Supported: Default workflows usable without configuration; two sources describe same-day setup source 1 source 3.Supported: Requires scheme and workflow configuration before use; the review calls this its main cost at this size source 2.Limited evidenceSetup is mentioned but never described for a team this size source 4.
Linear leads on this criterion. Its low-configuration default is directly evidenced; Shortcut’s is not source 1 source 3.
Evidence gap: Cost at scale
Supported: Per-seat pricing published; no independent cost analysis in this set source 1.Limited evidenceThe review and the pricing page give incompatible figures for the same tier source 2 source 5.No source coverageNo eligible source gives pricing for Shortcut.
Coverage is incomplete and the two sources that do speak conflict. No option leads here, and the absence of evidence is not read as weakness.
Migration effort from Jira
Supported: Importer covers issues and comments; historical workflow states are rebuilt manually source 3.Supported: Not applicable as a destination; sources describe it as the origin source 2.Supported: Importer described in comparable terms to Linear’s source 4.
Both destinations import the same things and leave the same gap. Migration effort shouldn’t decide this comparison.
Reporting depth
Supported: Deliberately limited reporting; sources frame this as a design choice source 1.Supported: Deepest reporting and dashboards of the three, at configuration cost source 2 source 6.Supported: Mid-range reporting; one source only source 4.
Jira leads if reporting depth is required. For a six-person team, the sources treat that depth as optional.
Setup effort for a small team
Linear leads on this criterion. Its low-configuration default is directly evidenced; Shortcut’s is not source 1 source 3.
Cost at scale
Coverage is incomplete and the two sources that do speak conflict. No option leads here, and the absence of evidence is not read as weakness.
Migration effort from Jira
Both destinations import the same things and leave the same gap. Migration effort shouldn’t decide this comparison.
Reporting depth
Jira leads if reporting depth is required. For a six-person team, the sources treat that depth as optional.

Tradeoffs

Speed of setup versus reporting depth

Low configuration buys speed and costs reporting depth — the two criteria move in opposite directions source 1 source 2.

Staying versus switching

Staying on Jira avoids migration entirely, at the setup cost the team is trying to leave source 2.

Open questions

  • What does each option cost at 20 seats, on comparable terms?
  • Does Shortcut’s importer handle historical states any better?

Evidence gaps & caveats

2 OPEN
  • Shortcut is covered by a single source, and one criterion has no coverage for it.
  • Two of seven sources are vendor-published and marked single-perspective.

Suggested next steps

  1. Add pricing sources for Shortcut before treating cost as decided.
End of brief — no verdict section follows
  1. Turn into…
  2. Recommendation Brief

Reading the brief

Evidence coverage · per cell

No mark
A source speaks directly to this option on this criterion.
○ Limited evidence
Only indirect or partial evidence exists.
○ No source coverage
No eligible source covers it. Stated, not inferred.

Coverage is only marked when it is limited or missing — a supported cell carries no mark in the app.

Criterion finding · per row

Option advantage
One option leads — on this criterion only.
Comparable
No meaningful difference in the evidence.
Context dependent
The answer changes with your situation.
Unresolved
Evidence conflicts or doesn’t reach. No leader named.

The brief writes each finding as the sentence under its criterion; it does not label them. These are the four kinds of finding a sentence can state.

A real Comparison Brief

Real briefComparison BriefGenerated 23 Oct 2026 · 15 sourcesVerbatim excerpts

PostHog vs Mixpanel vs Amplitude for an early-stage SaaS

Three analytics tools on three shared criteria. Every cell has supported coverage, two criteria are still not settled, and the brief stops before the overall call. The anatomy above is illustrative; this is a real run, read-only.

Open the real brief: Comparison Brief, opens in a new tab

How you get one

Name the options, or arrive from research

From a prompt

“Compare Linear, Jira and Shortcut for a six-person product team”

Find sources & createMode · Comparison

The link fills in the prompt only — choose Comparison in the composer before you create. A free brief without an account runs in Auto, which picks the brief type itself.

Criteria come from your wording and what the evidence supports — there is no criteria picker to fill in first. In Auto, naming the options can land here too; asking for “the best trackers” routes to Research first.

From a Research Brief

  1. Research Brief
  2. Create comparison
  3. Comparison Brief

When research has narrowed an open question to a real candidate set, this is the next stage. The comparison is built from the Research Brief’s PRIMARY variant.

Captured tabs work too: pick vendor pages and reviews in the extension and choose Comparison.

Evidence behavior

A thin column stays visibly thin

Absence isn’t weakness

A missing cell means no source covered it — never that the option performs badly. The criterion’s takeaway says it is unresolved rather than naming a leader.

Every cell is cited

Each assessment carries its sources, so a surprising cell can be checked rather than argued about.

Conflict is stated

Where a vendor claim and an independent review disagree, both stay, and the criterion’s takeaway says the evidence conflicts.

Criteria are kept separate

No weighting, no aggregate. If setup effort matters more to you than reporting depth, that judgement stays yours.

What you can do next

Close the gaps, then make the call

From this brief
  1. Comparison Brief
each move below starts here
    1. Add sources
    2. variant 2

    Target the missing column. The re-run arrives as a variant, so you can read the better-evidenced comparison beside the original and choose which is PRIMARY.

    1. Turn into…
    2. Recommendation Brief

    Where the overall decision belongs. It carries these criteria into Factors considered, and states whether the call is confident, conditional, or made on insufficient evidence.

    1. Ask
    2. Create draft
    3. PDF · Word

    Ask about a single criterion, write the comparison up as a draft, or export the brief for a review meeting.

From Comparison Brief

  • Next stage

    Recommendation Brief

    The only type that makes an overall call — and states how confident it is. It carries these criteria into Factors considered.

  • Different comparison

    Source Comparison Brief

    Compares source perspectives instead of options — use it when the disagreement is between your sources, not your candidates.

  • Comes before

    Research Brief

    If you can’t name the options yet, a comparison is premature. Research first, then compare the candidates it surfaced.

  • Use it for

    Compare tools or options

    The job end to end, including how teams take the comparison into a decision.

Compare the options without pretending the evidence is complete.

Create a briefFree plan · No card required