We wrote a comparison page against five competitors and concluded we were best. Is that genre dead on arrival?

We wrote the page nobody believes: a comparison of our own tool against five direct alternatives, which concludes that ours is the strongest overall for the general case.

I know exactly how that reads. Self-authored comparison pages are the most obviously motivated content on any product site, and most of them are indefensible - a table of green ticks in your column and grey dashes in everyone else's.

So we tried to make ours falsifiable instead of flattering:

• Every alternative is named directly, not called "other tools". Ours is a web-game particle and VFX workflow, and the page compares it against three.quarks, three-nebula, PixiJS Particle Emitter, Effekseer and PlayCanvas.
• There is a section specifically for the narrower cases where each alternative is genuinely the better pick, with the actual constraint named. If you match one of those constraints, the page tells you to use the other thing.
• Primary sources at the bottom, so a claim about someone else's tool can be checked rather than taken on trust.
• The performance question is answered as "here is what is fast and here is what is not", instead of the word "blazing".

What I cannot tell yet is whether any of that changes how it is received, or whether the genre is simply dead on arrival and the effort was wasted.

The page: https://nixiefx.com/nixiefx-vs-particle-systems/

Two questions for anyone who has done this. Do self-authored comparison pages actually convert, or do they mostly just sit there as SEO furniture? And does naming competitors directly help you, or does it hand them the traffic and the credibility?