Avoid cannibalization on comparison pages with a hub setup

What cannibalization looks like on comparison content

Cannibalization on comparison content is when two or more pages on your site compete for the same search. Instead of one clear winner, Google keeps switching which URL it shows. Rankings wobble, traffic spreads thin, and none of the pages reaches its potential.

On comparison-heavy sites, this often shows up as ranking swaps. One week your big “Best X tools” page ranks. The next week, a smaller “X vs Y” page replaces it for the same query. Both pages end up weaker because they keep stealing relevance from each other.

You’ll usually notice it as a mix of these symptoms:

• Rankings bounce between similar comparison pages for the same query
• Traffic splits across multiple URLs that cover the same thing
• Click-through rate drops because titles and snippets feel interchangeable
• The “wrong” page ranks (a niche comparison shows for a broad term, or the other way around)
• New comparison pages don’t add traffic, they just shuffle it

This is common with long lists, templates, and programmatic comparison pages. They tend to create lots of near-duplicates: similar intros, similar tables, overlapping tool lists, and the same “best/top/alternatives/vs” language. Even if the tools differ slightly, the intent can look identical to a search engine.

A simple example: you publish “Best email marketing tools” (a big list) and also “Mailchimp alternatives” and “ConvertKit vs Mailchimp.” If they all target the same broad wording, the big list and the alternatives page can fight for the same searches. The broad page loses focus, and the narrow page gets pulled into a battle it can’t win.

Readers usually want a quick answer first, then the option to go deeper. They want a clear recommendation or shortlist on the main page, plus specific pages for their situation (budget, a certain industry, one tool vs another, or “best for beginners”).

The goal is straightforward: keep one main page stable for the broad query, then build supporting pages that target narrower searches. The main page should satisfy “I want the overall best choice.” Supporting pages should satisfy “I have a specific need, compare these exact options.” That separation keeps your pages from competing.

The hub plus supporting pages model (simple version)

A hub setup is one main comparison page (the hub) supported by a small set of focused pages (the supporting pages). The hub is the page you want to rank for the broad, high-intent query, like “Best project management tools” or “X vs Y vs Z.” Supporting pages answer the smaller questions people ask before they choose.

This structure works because it gives Google a clear “main answer” and a set of useful “details.” The hub looks like the best single result for the big query, while the supporting pages look like references that expand parts of the decision.

Supporting pages should add depth without trying to win the exact same search as the hub. They need a different angle, not the same page with a new title. If the hub compares tools broadly, a supporting page might focus on pricing tiers, a specific use case (for agencies, for small teams), or a deep dive into one product’s trade-offs.

Here’s the simplest way to think about it:

• Hub page: broad comparison, summary table, quick picks, final recommendation
• Supporting pages: one clear slice each (pricing, use case, “X vs Y,” setup steps, alternatives)
• Shared goal: help the reader decide, without fighting over the same keyword

This model fits topics where the intent is naturally “choose one from many,” such as software comparisons, service providers, local options (like “best plumbers in [city]” with neighborhood pages), and pricing tiers.

It’s also a good fit if you plan to build links over time. You can send your strongest backlinks to the hub, then earn or place more specific links to supporting pages so multiple URLs can rank, instead of everything collapsing into one page.

Example: a “Best email marketing tools” hub can stay high level, while supporting pages cover “best for ecommerce,” “pricing breakdown,” and “Mailchimp vs Klaviyo.” Each page has a distinct job.

Step by step: choose one main keyword and carve out supports

1) Pick the hub query

Start by choosing one primary query for the hub page. This should match broad intent: the searcher wants a high-level choice, not a narrow answer. Hub keywords usually include words like “best,” “top,” or “compare.”

Decide up front: the hub is the only page that tries to “win the whole category.” Everything else supports it.

2) Brainstorm supporting topics that change the recommendation

Aim for 6-12 supporting pages. Think of specific needs that genuinely change what you’d recommend: budget, audience, use case, constraints, and switching intent.

If your hub is “Best CRM software,” supporting pages might be:

• Best CRM for small teams
• Best budget CRM under $50
• CRM for real estate agents
• CRM with the best email automation
• Alternatives to a leading brand

Keep going until you have enough options, but stop when new ideas start sounding like reworded copies of the same page.

3) Define what’s unique on each page

For every supporting page, write down:

• 3 things that must appear
• 3 things that must not

Example: a “budget” page must include pricing tables and cheap-but-decent picks. It should not include premium enterprise tools just because they’re popular.

4) Write a one-sentence promise for each page

Use a simple format:

“This page helps [who] choose [what] when [constraint], by comparing [specific criteria].”

If two pages have promises that feel interchangeable, merge them or sharpen the angle until each page has a distinct job.

How to structure the big comparison page

A strong hub helps people decide, but it shouldn’t try to answer every question in full. The hub should feel like the place to choose, while supporting pages are where you go deep.

A practical hub layout that matches real intent

Most visitors arrive in one of two modes: they’re researching options or they’re close to picking. Build the page so both can move fast.

A practical layout looks like this:

• A quick summary table near the top
• A short list of top picks with tight reasoning (2-4 options, not a giant catalog)
• “Who each option is for” sections (simple scenarios and constraints)
• A decision guide that explains your criteria
• FAQs focused on buying questions (setup time, contracts, hidden costs)

After the summary table, keep the writing easy to scan. Use the same comparison criteria across the whole page so readers can trust the pattern. Common criteria include features, price, support, reliability, integrations, compliance, and best fit.

What to keep short on the hub (so supports can rank)

The hub should hint at depth, then point to it. If you unpack every feature and every objection on the hub, your supporting pages become redundant.

Keep these parts brief on the hub:

• Detailed feature breakdowns (save for head-to-head pages)
• Long “how it works” explainers (save for a dedicated guide)
• Industry-specific compliance deep dives (save for niche pages)
• Step-by-step setup tutorials (save for onboarding content)
• Full pricing math and edge cases (save for pricing-focused supports)

A useful rule: the hub answers “Which one should I pick?” Supporting pages answer “Will it work for my situation?”

To serve both intents, use section headers that match how people scan: “Best for small teams,” “Best for enterprises,” “If you care most about price.” Keep each block tight: a verdict, 2-3 reasons, and one caveat.

What supporting pages should cover (and what they should avoid)

Supporting pages work when each one has a single clear job. If the hub is the big answer, supports are single-purpose helpers that capture specific searches and guide readers to the right next step.

Supporting pages usually fall into a few patterns because people search them in a very specific way:

• “X vs Y” for a narrow head-to-head decision
• “Best for [use case]” (freelancers, agencies, ecommerce)
• Budget pages (cheapest options, under a price cap)
• “Alternatives to [brand]” for switching intent
• “Best [category] for [industry]” when context changes the winner

The template doesn’t make these pages rank. The unique angle does.

What must be unique on every support page

Treat each support as a mini-review with details the hub doesn’t carry. The unique elements can be simple, but they should be specific to that page’s angle.

Strong options include:

• A realistic scenario and what you’d choose
• Setup notes for that use case
• Pricing details that match the page’s promise (monthly vs yearly, where costs jump)
• Pros and cons written for that audience (not generic)
• A clear winner for the page intent

Example: if the hub covers “Email tools for small businesses,” a support page called “Cheapest email tools” should explain what “cheap” really means, where pricing breaks, and which tool stays affordable as your list grows.

What can be repeated without creating duplicates

Some repetition is normal. You can reuse a shared table layout across pages, but the commentary needs to change.

If a table says “Pricing: starts at $X,” the text should explain why that matters for this page’s intent. On an “alternatives” page, focus on what people dislike about the brand and which option solves that. On an “X vs Y” page, focus on trade-offs and best fit.

What to avoid so pages don’t compete

Skip broad intros like “Here are the best tools” on every support page. Also avoid copying the hub’s headings, the same top picks, and the same final verdict.

A quick test: if two pages could swap titles and still mostly work, they’re too similar.

End each support with one clear next click. Either send readers back to the hub for the full shortlist, or point them to the most relevant neighboring support.

Internal linking rules that prevent rankings from collapsing

Internal links act like guardrails. They tell Google which page is the main answer and which pages are supporting details. Without clear signals, your hub and supporting pages can compete, swap positions, or both rank poorly.

Start with one simple rule: the hub is the default destination for broad, mixed, “best” style searches. Each supporting page exists to satisfy one narrow intent.

The hub-first linking pattern

Use a consistent pattern so people and crawlers see the hierarchy quickly:

• The hub links out to every supporting page from a clear “Related comparisons” or “Deep dives” section.
• Every supporting page links back to the hub near the top (not buried at the bottom).
• Supporting pages cross-link sparingly, only when it genuinely helps a reader.
• The hub gets the strongest internal links from navigation, category pages, and relevant blog posts.
• Supporting pages get links from articles that match their exact narrow intent.

This keeps authority and relevance flowing toward the hub for broad terms while still letting supports collect traffic from specific queries.

Anchor text that keeps pages distinct

Cannibalization often gets worse when every internal link uses the same words. If all anchors look like “Tool A vs Tool B,” Google has fewer clues about what each page is really for.

Vary your anchor text naturally and match it to the destination page’s purpose. Links to the hub can use anchors like “full comparison,” “complete breakdown,” or “see all options.” Links to a supporting page should include the narrow angle, like “pricing details,” “integration list,” or “best for small teams.”

Also avoid publishing two pages with the same title pattern and the same H1 meaning. If you have “Tool A vs Tool B: Which is better?” in two places, internal links won’t fix it.

Backlink targeting that spreads rankings across URLs

Backlinks are powerful, but they can also create problems if they point to the wrong page. If every new link goes to your hub, Google may treat it as the answer for many sub-intents, pushing your supporting pages down even when they match the query better.

A better approach is to choose link targets by intent, not by habit. Use the hub for broad “I’m still researching” searches. Use supporting pages for “I’ve narrowed it down” searches.

Match link targets to search intent

Think of each backlink as a vote for a specific job your page should do:

• Point broad, general backlinks to the hub.
• Point intent-specific backlinks to supports (pricing, use case, alternatives, a specific matchup).
• Use the supporting page as the target when the linking site’s context is narrow and practical.
• Keep targets mixed over time so more than one URL earns signals.

Example: if someone publishes a post about “reducing costs for small teams,” a support page about pricing for small teams is a better target than the main hub. The hub can still rank for the big comparison.

Pacing: build a baseline, then follow the winners

If you build links too aggressively to the hub early on, it can “eat” rankings you want your supports to hold. A safer pace looks like this:

• Give the hub a baseline of authority.
• Publish supports and let them index and settle.
• Add links to the supports that start showing impressions and early movement.
• Reinforce the hub later with fewer, higher-quality links.

Common mistakes that cause cannibalization

Cannibalization on comparison content often happens when good intentions stack up: you publish a big hub, you publish supports, and soon several pages are competing for the same search.

Mistake 1: Reusing big chunks of text

Copy-pasting intros, “who it’s for” sections, and verdicts across pages tells search engines the pages are interchangeable.

Fix: give each page a distinct job and a distinct angle. Even if the products overlap, the framing should not.

Mistake 2: Forcing every page to rank for the same head term

If the hub targets the main query, supporting pages shouldn’t repeat that exact head term in the title, headings, and first paragraph. That turns supports into mini hubs.

Fix: let supports focus on narrower questions (pricing, use cases, setup, alternatives, or one specific matchup).

Mistake 3: Thin supports plus heavy internal linking

A weak support page with vague pros and cons, plus a bunch of internal links pointing at it, creates noise. Google sees a page you’re promoting but doesn’t see enough unique value.

Fix: make supports deep enough to deserve their own rankings, then link them with intent.

Mistake 4: Backlinks that collapse everything into one URL

If every external link goes to the hub, supports struggle to stand on their own. If every external link goes to one support because it’s “easier,” the hub loses its role as the clear center.

Fix: match link targets to intent. A pricing support should earn links about pricing. The hub should earn links about the overall comparison.

Quick checklist before you publish or build links

Do this while the content is still easy to change. It’s much harder once Google has indexed everything and backlinks are pointing in different directions.

• Write the job of each page in one sentence. If you can’t explain why a visitor should choose Page A over Page B, you have overlap.
• Assign one primary query and one one-line promise per page. If two pages promise the same outcome, merge or rewrite one.
• Make sure the hub is the widest, most useful overview (best summary, main table, clear next steps).
• Remove repeated blocks across pages (intro paragraphs, feature lists, tables, conclusions). Keep the idea, but rewrite the wording and add a different example or angle.
• Check internal links: each support should point back to the hub clearly, and the hub should link out to supports from a dedicated section.
• Plan backlinks on purpose: decide which URL gets authority for the broad term (the hub) and which supporting URLs deserve links for specific terms.

A useful reality check: if the hub and a support page have a similar title, a similar first table, and both try to answer “which is best” in the same way, Google will keep swapping them. That’s a scope problem, not a word-count problem.

Example: one hub page plus 3 supports with a link plan

A SaaS company has a big “Best project management tools” page. Over time, they also publish pages like “Best project management tools for agencies,” “for startups,” and “for remote teams.” Most of the pages repeat the same intro, the same top tools, and the same “how we chose” section. Google keeps swapping which URL ranks, and none of them holds position.

The fix isn’t deleting everything. It’s tightening the job of each page.

Rewrite the scopes (what stays vs what moves)

Keep the hub as the broad, definitive answer. Move anything that’s only true for one audience into supports, and remove repeated blocks from the supports.

• Hub page keeps: the core list (maybe 8-12 tools), your scoring method, and a short paragraph that mentions a few audiences.
• Support 1 (Agencies) owns: agency needs (client approvals, permissions, billing), a narrower shortlist, and an agency-focused table.
• Support 2 (Startups) owns: budget tiers, quick setup, “best for MVP,” and a shortlist that favors speed and price.
• Support 3 (Remote teams) owns: async features, mobile, time zones, and a shortlist tuned for distributed work.

Each support should reference the hub for the full list, and the hub should point to supports as “best for agencies/startups/remote teams” options. Only one page should try to rank for the broad “best tools” query.

A simple backlink split plan

Treat links like votes. Start with a clear split:

• Send 60-70% of new backlinks to the hub to keep it stable on the main term.
• Send 15-20% to the top support you most want to grow first.
• Send 10-15% split across the other supports.

Over the next 4-8 weeks, track three things: the hub stops URL flipping, each support starts ranking for its long-tail terms, and impressions rise on supports even before clicks do.

If you’re using a backlink provider, map your targets in advance so you’re not guessing later. For example, SEOBoosty (seoboosty.com) is built around placing premium backlinks on specific URLs, which can be useful when you want to strengthen the hub while also giving your best supporting pages enough authority to hold their own.