A competitor's brand name can express comparison intent. That can make competitor-keyword campaigns worth evaluating, but keyword eligibility, ad text, the landing page and local trademark law are separate questions.
Google's trademark policy, reviewed November 4, 2026, distinguishes keyword use from restricted uses of trademarks in ads. Platform eligibility does not provide a universal legal clearance. Get jurisdiction-specific advice for a disputed or consequential use.
Start with the comparison the buyer is actually making. Which product characteristics differ? Can the brand substantiate each claim? Is the competitor named accurately, without implying affiliation or endorsement?
Search campaigns can address a comparison query. Audience signals in Performance Max serve a different targeting role; adding a competitor URL is not equivalent to buying only that competitor's branded searches.
A useful comparison page contains an honest feature table, dates for changing claims, sources for product facts and a clear route to the actual offer. Sending all comparison traffic to a generic product page may leave the buyer's question unanswered, but a comparison template does not guarantee a better conversion rate.
The original account story reported $47K in monthly campaign-attributed revenue and 4.3× ROAS. The public note does not establish the measurement dates, attribution settings or incremental contribution. Those figures describe the author's account anecdote, not a forecast or proof that competitor campaigns caused all those sales.
Evaluate a bounded campaign against contribution after acquisition costs, not only attributed ROAS. Keep the trademark and factual-claim review attached to the specific keywords, ads and pages that will run.
Take the idea further
Review the competitive campaign boundaries