Compare Site Reports

Comparison was limited to two locations, and comparing meant switching between reports, evaluating metrics manually and spotting differences on your own. The process was slow and inconsistent, with no structure for evaluation.

The moments of uncertainty

• ?Which location performs better, and on what?
• ?Why does it perform better?
• ?What am I giving up by choosing one over the other?
• ?How do I take this comparison into a meeting?

Helping people find their bearings

Conversations with stakeholders surfaced the three questions every user asked. I explored side-by-side, summary-first and score-driven models, then chose a differences-first approach: similarities fade back, differences stand out, and visual signals show which location is stronger on each metric.

What I chose — and why

1. 01

   Differences over similarities

   Rows where locations differ are highlighted, with signals for stronger and weaker values; identical values are toned down.

   Note: Nobody compares everything. They compare what’s different.

2. 02

   Structured grouping

   Metrics are grouped by decision theme (demographics, competition, revenue potential) so they’re faster to scan.

3. 03

   From two to five

   The layout scales from two locations to five without losing readability.

4. 04

   Export as a first-class flow

   A dedicated Excel export, because the decision usually continues outside the product, in meetings and discussions.

Product

Comparison grew from two locations to up to five, with a differences-first layout, structured grouping, stronger/weaker signals and a dedicated Excel export.

Delivery

From design to production in about a month.

Evidence

In roughly the first month: 17 comparisons covering 45 locations (2.6 per comparison, up to 5), and all 17 were exported to Excel, which backs the decision to make export a first-class flow.

Comparison works best when it highlights differences instead of treating all information equally.