Business energy comparison websites, built on real tariff logic.

Plenty of comparison sites show every visitor roughly the same estimate regardless of their actual usage, because it's easier to build a single blended figure than to model consumption properly. That's fine for a rough domestic ballpark. It's not fine for a business deciding whether to switch, because a site using half-hourly settlement on a large meter and a microbusiness on a deemed rate are nowhere near comparable, and showing them the same kind of estimate misleads both.

I build the calculation logic around Estimated Annual Consumption for electricity and Annual Quantity for gas, factoring in kVA capacity charges, standing charges, and where relevant TNUoS and DUoS pass-through costs, so the number a visitor sees reflects their actual meter profile rather than a generic average dressed up as a personalised quote.

Rates change constantly in this market, and a comparison site with rates hard-coded into the front end goes stale within weeks. I build an admin layer for managing panel rates, standing charges and supplier terms directly, so updating a rate card doesn't require a development ticket every time a supplier repricing lands in your inbox.

Where a supplier or aggregator offers a live rate feed or API, I connect it directly so quotes stay current automatically. Where they don't, which is common outside the largest suppliers, the manual admin interface is built to make bulk updates quick rather than a line-by-line chore.

A comparison site has to be honest with visitors about how the panel is constructed, whether every supplier in the market is represented or only a paid panel, how the site earns money from a switch, and what happens to the data a visitor submits before they've agreed to anything. I write this copy myself, in plain language, placed where a visitor will actually see it rather than buried in a footer link nobody clicks.

I'm not a compliance consultant and this isn't legal advice, but the copy is written to be specific and accurate rather than vague boilerplate copied from a template site, and I'd always recommend your own legal review before anything customer-facing goes live.

A comparison result that ends on a static thank-you page wastes the moment a visitor is most engaged. I build routing so a completed comparison feeds either directly into a sales team's CRM for a callback, or into a supplier's own quote or sign-up API where one exists, with the contract end date and current supplier captured alongside the consumption data so whoever picks it up isn't starting from zero.

For out-of-contract or deemed-rate visitors specifically, I build separate messaging and urgency into the flow, because a business paying deemed rates is losing money every day the switch is delayed, and a generic comparison journey doesn't communicate that.

I won't build a comparison page that shows an artificially low headline rate pulled from the cheapest possible meter profile just to win the click, when the visitor's own profile would never actually qualify for it. It generates enquiries and destroys trust the moment the real quote arrives, and it's the kind of practice that gets a comparison site's reputation dragged through forum complaints within a year.