Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Medium-term (3-6 months)
Last year, a B2B SaaS client came to me frustrated. Their beautifully designed feature comparison grid was getting tons of traffic but converting terribly. "People scroll through it and leave," they said. "We spent weeks on this thing."
Sound familiar? I see this everywhere. Companies obsess over making comprehensive feature grids that look impressive but actually confuse prospects more than help them. The classic trap: more features = better conversion. Wrong.
After rebuilding their comparison grid from scratch using a completely different approach, we saw conversions double within three weeks. The secret wasn't adding more features or making it prettier – it was understanding how people actually make buying decisions.
Here's what you'll learn from my experience:
Why comprehensive feature lists actually hurt conversions
The psychology behind effective comparison design
My step-by-step grid redesign process
Specific design patterns that guide decisions
How to test and optimize comparison grids
This isn't about following design trends. It's about creating comparison tools that actually help prospects choose you – instead of overwhelming them into choosing nobody.
Industry Reality
What every SaaS founder builds wrong
Walk through any SaaS website and you'll find the same feature comparison pattern everywhere. A massive grid with every possible feature listed, checkmarks everywhere, and pricing tiers that somehow justify why the enterprise plan costs 10x more than basic.
The conventional wisdom goes like this:
List every feature – show prospects you're not missing anything
Use checkmarks liberally – visual confirmation builds confidence
Create clear tier separation – guide people toward higher plans
Make it comprehensive – answer every possible question upfront
Follow competitor formats – if everyone does it, it must work
Design agencies love this approach because it looks professional and covers all bases. Product teams love it because it showcases everything they've built. Marketing loves it because it seems thorough and transparent.
But there's a fundamental problem: people don't buy features, they buy outcomes. When you present 50 features in a grid, you're essentially asking prospects to become product experts before they can make a decision.
The reality is that most prospects scan these grids, feel overwhelmed by choice paralysis, and either pick the cheapest option or leave entirely. The comprehensive approach that feels "complete" actually creates decision fatigue – the enemy of conversion.
Every competitor is doing this exact same thing, which means your comparison grid becomes a commodity. When everyone lists the same features in the same format, price becomes the only differentiator. That's a race to the bottom you don't want to win.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
The client was a B2B project management SaaS with about 50 employees. They'd been growing steadily but hit a plateau around 1,000 paid users. Their biggest challenge? People would sign up for trials but struggle to understand which plan to choose.
Their existing comparison grid was a classic "comprehensive" approach – 25+ features listed across four pricing tiers, from $9/month to $99/month. Everything was technically accurate, but it told a story of confusion rather than clarity.
The data was telling: 60% of trial users visited the pricing page multiple times before canceling their trial. Support was getting flooded with "what's the difference between..." questions. Most concerning? When people did convert, 80% chose the basic plan, even though the product was clearly designed for teams needing advanced features.
My first instinct was typical designer thinking: maybe the grid needed better visual hierarchy, clearer typography, or more intuitive iconography. So I started there – created a cleaner version with better spacing, consistent icons, and improved mobile responsiveness.
The results? Basically nothing. Maybe a 5% improvement in mobile engagement, but conversion rates stayed flat. People were still bouncing from the pricing page at the same rate.
That's when I realized the problem wasn't how we were presenting the features – it was which features we were presenting and why. The grid was organized around internal product logic, not customer decision-making logic.
After digging into their customer research and support tickets, I discovered something crucial: prospects weren't trying to evaluate all 25 features. They had 3-4 specific jobs they needed the software to do, and they wanted to know which plan would handle those jobs best. The comprehensive grid was forcing them to evaluate irrelevant features while burying the ones that actually mattered for their use case.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Instead of starting with features, I started with customer jobs. I analyzed their support tickets, onboarding surveys, and churn feedback to identify the top 5 reasons people actually bought their software:
Track project deadlines (mentioned in 89% of successful onboarding surveys)
Collaborate with external clients (67% of enterprise customers)
Generate client reports (54% of paying customers)
Manage team workload (43% of team plan users)
Integrate with existing tools (38% of power users)
Then I rebuilt the comparison grid around these jobs, not features. Instead of "Advanced Reporting: ✓" it became "Generate branded client reports weekly" with a specific outcome description.
The new structure looked like this:
Section 1: "If you need to..."
Listed the 5 core jobs with clear yes/no indicators for each plan. No technical jargon – just outcomes in plain language.
Section 2: "Perfect for..."
Instead of feature lists, I created persona descriptions: "Solo freelancers tracking 1-5 projects" vs "Teams managing 10+ clients with external collaboration."
Section 3: "What's included"
Only showed features that directly enabled the jobs above. Cut the 25-feature list down to 8 core capabilities that prospects actually cared about.
The visual design changed too. Instead of checkmarks everywhere, I used outcome-focused language: "Up to 10 projects" instead of "Project Limit: 10." Instead of "Advanced Analytics: ✓" it became "Weekly performance insights for your team."
Most importantly, I added contextual help. When someone hovered over a plan, they'd see a small preview: "Most agencies with 3-8 team members choose this plan" or "Perfect if you're managing client work solo."
The entire grid became about guiding decision-making, not showcasing features. Every element was designed to help prospects self-select into the right tier based on their actual situation, not their aspirational feature wishlist.
Decision Framework
Clear criteria for each plan selection – removes guesswork and builds confidence
Outcome Language
Features translated into specific job outcomes that prospects actually care about
Social Validation
Contextual hints about what similar businesses choose
Progressive Disclosure
Essential info upfront with details available on demand
The results were immediate and dramatic. Within three weeks of launching the new comparison grid:
Conversion rate doubled from 12% to 24% for trial-to-paid
Plan distribution shifted upward – 40% now chose mid-tier instead of basic
Support tickets dropped 60% for pricing-related questions
Time on pricing page increased 80% but with higher conversion
The most interesting insight? People weren't bouncing because they couldn't understand the features – they were bouncing because they couldn't understand which plan was right for them.
Six months later, the client reported their best quarter ever. Not because they added features or changed pricing, but because prospects could finally make confident buying decisions. The comparison grid had become a conversion tool instead of a comprehensive feature list.
What surprised me most was how this approach actually increased trust. By focusing on specific outcomes and being honest about which plan fits which use case, prospects felt like the company understood their situation. This led to better customer fit and lower churn down the line.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
Here are the key lessons that transformed how I approach feature comparison design:
Start with customer jobs, not product features – What outcomes are people trying to achieve?
Less is more powerful than comprehensive – Show only what matters for decision-making
Use outcome language, not feature language – "Weekly client reports" vs "Advanced reporting module"
Add contextual social proof – Help people see where they fit
Test one variable at a time – Don't redesign everything simultaneously
Watch support tickets as a leading indicator – Confusion shows up there first
Design for self-selection, not persuasion – Help people choose correctly
The biggest mistake I see teams make is treating comparison grids like feature documentation. They're actually decision-making tools. Your job isn't to list everything you've built – it's to help prospects confidently choose the option that solves their specific problem.
When you shift from "here's what we offer" to "here's what you get," everything changes. Prospects feel understood instead of overwhelmed, and conversions follow naturally.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups specifically:
Map features to customer onboarding jobs
Use trial behavior data to inform grid design
Test grid changes against support ticket volume
Include seat-based pricing context upfront
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce implementation:
Focus on product benefit comparisons over specs
Use customer review themes to structure grids
Include shipping and return policy differences
Test mobile-first grid layouts extensively