Your page scores 66 out of 100 for sameness against the 2 competitors you named.

Claims only you make, that buyers weigh, and that competitors can’t easily copy.

Territory you spend prominent space on that the set also occupies. Not every line is one to delete — the question is whether it has earned the space, or whether something only you can say should be there instead.

• Commodity · 100%Table stakesHero

  end-to-end brand, web and product design services

  • “We help with launches, repositioning, website redesigns, product UX, and sales materials.”
  • “Branding & Rebranding: You get messages, visual direction, guidelines, templates, and source files.”
  • “Strategy & Positioning: You get positioning, evidence priorities, and a 90-day roadmap.”
  • “Product UX/UI: You get journeys, tested UI, reusable components, and development handoff.”
  • “Website Design & Redesign: You get structure, copy, responsive design, reusable sections, and build or handoff.”

  You say this 5 different ways.

  Feely and Embacy all cover this territory. Buyers may need to hear it, but in your hero it spends the first impression on shared ground.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Feely“Brand and web in one team: Strategy, identity, website design, Webflow development, and marketing assets are handled by one integrated design team”
  • Embacy“Embacy is a full-cycle web design and development company: we take a project from brand to a live site under one roof”
• Commodity · 100%KeepHero

  specialises in a client industry or segment

  • “Strategy and design for companies with complex products or services.”
  • “9+ industries”

  You say this 2 different ways.

  Feely and Embacy all say what they are and who they are for, as every page in a category must. Keep it — it is orientation, not differentiation.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Feely“Feely helps startups and digital companies build brand identities, launch websites, and get ongoing design support for launch, fundraising, and growth”
  • Embacy“Strategy, Positioning, Design and Development for Tech companies built for the AI era”
• Commodity · 100%Table stakesSection

  named clients and case studies as proof

  • “Design & Brand partner from 2019. Ranked #43 on The Globe and Mail's Top Growing Companies.”

  Common ground with Feely and Embacy. Say it if buyers need it — lower on the page, where it is not the thing they read first.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Feely“Trip.com's global brand, adapted into a flexible campaign system for the European market”
  • Embacy“Past projects include Finom, Kommo, Cashew, HAQQ, and XPANCEO (now a unicorn), among other tech companies from 40+ countries”
• Commodity · 100%Table stakesSection

  quantified client business results after the work

  • “round raised after the rebrand”
  • “9.2 revenue growth over three years”
  • “Campaign setup moved from several screens into one canvas.”

  You say this 3 different ways.

  Feely and Embacy make the same claim. It cannot set you apart, so it should not carry the section.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Feely“Basic Capital — fintech brand identity and website; later raised $25M Series A”
  • Embacy“XPANCEO is now a unicorn, as reported by Bloomberg; we created their logo, identity, and website”
• Commodity · 100%Table stakesSection

  third-party recognition, awards and partner status

  • “Product Hunt Product of the Day”
  • “Clutch 5.0 (7 reviews)”

  You say this 2 different ways.

  A buyer comparing tabs sees this on Feely and Embacy. Yours earns nothing by repeating it up top; it can live lower down.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Feely“5.0 rating on Clutch based on 31 client reviews”
  • Embacy“2nd out of 100,000+ Design Agency on Clutch with 53 client reviews”
• Contested · 50%SharpenHero

  senior practitioners do the work

  • “One senior team handles the work from decisions to implementation.”

  Embacy is on this territory too (50% of the set). It narrows the field without winning it — make it specific enough that it cannot be said of them.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Embacy“A stable in-house team (designers, UX researchers, developers, copywriters), and real accountability for the result”
• Contested · 50%SharpenSection

  structured collaborative process with the client

  • “We agree on goals in week one.”
  • “No brief needed. A paragraph is enough for us to tell whether we're the right team.”
  • “We reply within one business day.”
  • “Revisions are included.”
  • “Weekly working sessions.”

  You say this 5 different ways.

  Shared with Embacy. Sharpen it to the thing only you do here, or it reads as a claim any of you could make.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Embacy“A detailed brief isn't required upfront, the team helps structure the scope on the first call”
• Contested · 50%SharpenSection

  track record: volume, tenure and global clients

  • “50+ projects”

  Contested ground: Embacy claim it as well. The version that wins names a mechanism, a number or a scope that theirs cannot match.

  This is grouped wrong
  They say

  • Embacy“Over 8 years we've delivered 200+ projects across 40+ countries”

Sameness measures how much your claims overlap with the sites compared. It does not measure message quality or whether buyers prefer you.

AI-analyzed: an AI read each page on its own and grouped the claims that say the same thing. No score here was written by a model — every number is computed from those groupings in our own code, with the weights below.

Trusted by