Buy vs Build — Binary Comparison (Infographic)
Best for: an A/B choice where the reader needs a quick directional comparison rather than a weighted scoring model Avoid when: there are more than two options or the decision needs precise quantified criteria Answers: how the options differ at a glance, and what each one optimizes for
infographic compare-binary-horizontal-underline-text-vs
theme
colorPrimary #2b66c4
palette
- #2b66c4
- #2f9e44
- #f3a33c
- #d1242f
- #7048e8
- #0f9b9b
- #c16f8a
- #7c5a3d
data
title Buy vs Build
desc Decision frame for a new workflow automation capability
compares
- label Buy
children
- label Speed
desc Faster launch with lower implementation effort
- label Maintenance
desc Vendor handles upgrades and baseline support
- label Fit
desc Limited customization around edge-case workflows
- label Build
children
- label Control
desc Full ownership of workflow logic and domain fit
- label Maintenance
desc Internal team owns upgrades and operational burden
- label Risk
desc Longer path to value and greater delivery uncertaintyData Shape
Use compares with exactly two top-level items. Each side gets a short set of children that explain the trade-offs.
Key Options
| Option | Effect |
|---|---|
compare-binary-horizontal-underline-text-vs |
Direct left/right A-vs-B framing |
Two compares items |
Encodes a binary comparison without extra scoring machinery |
children |
Holds the specific criteria or arguments under each side |
Pitfalls
- ❌ Trying to compare three or four options in a binary template → ✅ keep this pattern strictly A vs B
- ❌ Long argumentative paragraphs per side → ✅ use short, decision-oriented criteria instead
- ❌ Treating qualitative comparison as proof of the decision → ✅ this is framing, not a formal scorecard
Alternatives
| Variant | Use instead |
|---|---|
| SWOT-style strategic framing | market-entry-swot.md |
| Quantified trade-off model | Vega-Lite or HTML comparison table |
| One-page decision memo | decision-comparison-card.md |