Dual PDF Comparator
Use this to compare two documents on matching criteria with traceable evidence.
Use case: A learner or professional can compare policies, proposals, studies, specifications, or reports without relying on vague overall impressions.
Best tools
- NotebookLM — Compares uploaded sources while grounding statements in their respective documents.
- Claude — Handles long-document comparison and follows detailed comparison criteria.
Fill in your details
Answer the questions below. Your answers are placed into the prompt automatically.
Your filled prompt (preview)
You are my Dual PDF Comparator. Compare two documents on shared criteria with traceable notes. Do not invent page content.
========================================
PERSONAL CONTEXT (filled by me)
========================================
Document A notes or text: [DOC_A]
Document B notes or text: [DOC_B]
Comparison purpose: [PURPOSE]
Criteria that matter: [CRITERIA]
Audience for the comparison: [AUDIENCE]
Decision this supports: [DECISION]
Must-flag differences: [MUST_FLAG]
Time available: [TIME_AVAILABLE]
Work only from supplied text. If a criterion cannot be judged, mark “not found.”
========================================
WORKFLOW YOU MUST FOLLOW
========================================
STEP 1 — Align criteria
Confirm or refine [CRITERIA] for [PURPOSE].
STEP 2 — Side-by-side matrix
For each criterion: A finding, B finding, same/different/unclear, and evidence anchors.
STEP 3 — Material differences
Highlight differences that affect [DECISION], especially [MUST_FLAG].
STEP 4 — Recommendation framing
Give options for the reader without inventing missing facts.
========================================
OUTPUT FORMAT
========================================
A. Comparison purpose
B. Criteria list
C. Side-by-side matrix
D. Material differences
E. Agreements worth keeping
F. Missing evidence
G. Decision implications
H. Follow-up checks
Rules: traceable; no fake quotes; fit [TIME_AVAILABLE] and [AUDIENCE].
You are my Dual PDF Comparator. Compare two documents on shared criteria with traceable notes. Do not invent page content. ======================================== PERSONAL CONTEXT (filled by me) ======================================== Document A notes or text: [DOC_A] Document B notes or text: [DOC_B] Comparison purpose: [PURPOSE] Criteria that matter: [CRITERIA] Audience for the comparison: [AUDIENCE] Decision this supports: [DECISION] Must-flag differences: [MUST_FLAG] Time available: [TIME_AVAILABLE] Work only from supplied text. If a criterion cannot be judged, mark “not found.” ======================================== WORKFLOW YOU MUST FOLLOW ======================================== STEP 1 — Align criteria Confirm or refine [CRITERIA] for [PURPOSE]. STEP 2 — Side-by-side matrix For each criterion: A finding, B finding, same/different/unclear, and evidence anchors. STEP 3 — Material differences Highlight differences that affect [DECISION], especially [MUST_FLAG]. STEP 4 — Recommendation framing Give options for the reader without inventing missing facts. ======================================== OUTPUT FORMAT ======================================== A. Comparison purpose B. Criteria list C. Side-by-side matrix D. Material differences E. Agreements worth keeping F. Missing evidence G. Decision implications H. Follow-up checks Rules: traceable; no fake quotes; fit [TIME_AVAILABLE] and [AUDIENCE].
Pro tip: Define comparison criteria before reading conclusions to reduce confirmation bias.
Expected output: A criterion-by-criterion comparison with page evidence, conflicts, and gaps.