A compare-at price is a reference price shown next to a lower current selling price so shoppers can understand the claimed savings. On Shopify, for example, the Compare-at price is the original/reference price and the Price is the current selling price; the compare-at amount must be higher than the current price for the theme to present the item as on sale.
- What is a compare-at price? A reference price, not permission to manufacture a discount
- Selling price versus compare-at price
- The U.S. former-price principle
- The EU uses a more prescriptive prior-price rule for announced reductions
- Reference price can mean more than former price
- A deceptive-pattern scenario
- Compare-at price versus MSRP
- Compare-at price versus MAP
- Shopify implementation does not replace compliance judgment
- Multi-market stores need a pricing-history model, not one static field
- Worked example
- What passes and what does not
- Common mistakes
- Compare-at price checklist
- Questions we get asked
- OnVoard's take
What is a compare-at price? A reference price, not permission to manufacture a discount
The storefront mechanic is simple. The legal and trust question is harder: what makes the reference price truthful? A merchant should not invent an inflated "was" price merely to make an ordinary selling price look like a bargain.
Selling price versus compare-at price
Suppose a product is shown as: $80 ~~$100~~ The current selling price is $80. The $100 figure is a reference claim. Depending on context and jurisdiction, a shopper can reasonably interpret it as a former price, regular price, manufacturer's price, or another comparison basis.
That means the $100 number needs a defensible meaning. The fact that a commerce platform provides a compare-at field does not make any number placed in it lawful or nondeceptive.
A crossed-out price is a claim with a basis
$80 selling price, $100 crossed out. The $100 needs a defensible basis.
- Former priceMerchant genuinely sold here beforeNeeds price history evidence.
- MSRPManufacturer suggested this priceLabel it MSRP, not "was".
- Other basisA lawful market referenceStill needs a defensible source.
- InventedNo real basisManufactured only to show a percent off.
The U.S. former-price principle
Current U.S. FTC pricing guides state that a former-price comparison can be deceptive when the purported former price was not a bona fide price at which the article was openly and actively offered for a reasonably substantial period. They specifically warn against artificially inflating a former price to create the appearance of a bargain.
The editorial lesson is not "there is one national 30-day rule." The U.S. guide uses a bona fide former-price standard, while state laws and enforcement can add requirements. For a merchant, the practical question is: Can we substantiate what this crossed-out number represents?
Reference-price rules are not one global formula
U.S. federal guide
- Bona fide former-price principle.
- Artificially inflating a former price is deceptive.
- State rules can add requirements.
EU Article 6a
- Announced reductions generally reference the lowest price of at least the previous 30 days.
- Member States may set exceptions.
The EU uses a more prescriptive prior-price rule for announced reductions
The European Union's Price Indication Directive includes a specific rule for announcements of price reductions: the indicated prior price is generally the lowest price applied by the trader during at least the previous 30 days, subject to Member State provisions/exceptions for situations such as progressively reduced or perishable goods.
That is a useful example of why global merchants should not turn one generic compare_at_price field into one universal legal rule. The same interface field may need different operational controls by market.
Reference price can mean more than former price
A crossed-out amount might be intended as:
- the merchant's own former/regular price
- a manufacturer suggested retail price
- a competitor/market price
- another external reference
Those claims are not interchangeable. FTC guidance on suggested/list price comparisons also cautions that a manufacturer-suggested price can mislead when it does not correspond to prices at which substantial sales are actually made in the trade area, and that retailers should act in good faith rather than using fictitious suggested prices to create false bargains.
If the basis is MSRP, label and substantiate it as MSRP rather than implying the merchant itself previously sold the item at that price.
A deceptive-pattern scenario
A merchant wants to sell a product for $80 from launch. To make the launch look dramatic, it enters:
- Price: $80
- Compare-at price: $160
The store never genuinely offered the item at $160, and the number has no defensible external reference. The interface now visually manufactures a "50% off" story. That is exactly the kind of artificial reference-price practice that deceptive-pricing rules are designed to address.
Compare-at price versus MSRP
Compare-at price describes a storefront comparison field/presentation. MSRP is a manufacturer-suggested retail price. MSRP can sometimes be used as the reference basis if the claim is truthful and lawful, but MSRP is not automatically the merchant's former price. If a product was always sold by the merchant for $80, showing an MSRP of $100 should not be phrased in a way that falsely claims "was $100 at our store."
Compare-at price versus MAP
MAP, or minimum advertised price, is a supplier/manufacturer advertising policy concept. It is not a reference price and does not prove a product was formerly sold at that amount.
A MAP policy can constrain how a merchant advertises a current price under its contractual/supplier relationship, while compare-at price is about the reference used to communicate savings. Keep the concepts separate.
Shopify implementation does not replace compliance judgment
Shopify's product pricing fields help themes display a sale when the compare-at price exceeds the selling price. But the platform cannot know whether the reference amount satisfies every jurisdiction's advertising rules or whether the merchant can substantiate it. The data model handles presentation; the merchant owns the claim.
Multi-market stores need a pricing-history model, not one static field
A reference price can differ by:
- market/currency
- channel
- variant
- promotion period
- applicable jurisdiction
If your compliance rule depends on prior prices over a period, overwriting the current compare-at field is not enough. You may need historical price records that can answer "what was this variant actually offered at in this market during the relevant window?" That is an operational data problem, not just a theme-design problem.
Worked example
A store sells a jacket for $120 for a meaningful period. It then runs a legitimate promotion at $90.
- Where permitted and properly documented, presenting $120 as the prior/reference price can communicate a real $30 reduction
The merchant should retain evidence such as:
- price history
- dates the original price was offered
- applicable sales volume or offer history where relevant
- source of an external MSRP/reference price
- market/jurisdiction rules used for the display
The point is not paperwork for its own sake. It is being able to explain the claim the shopper saw.
What passes and what does not
- This workflow is backward:
- decide the product should show "40% OFF"
- solve backward for a high compare-at price
- enter that number even though it has no pricing history
- The discount claim should follow the reference price evidence, not create it
Common mistakes
- It represents a claim about another price, not merely a visual anchor
- They have different provenance
- Artificial former prices can be deceptive
- The EU's prior-price framework, U.S. federal guides, and local/state laws can differ
- A reference for one variant or currency may not substantiate another
Compare-at price checklist
- Before displaying a crossed-out price or percentage saving:
- Name the basis. Former price, regular price, MSRP, or another comparison?
- Keep evidence. Can the business substantiate that basis?
- Check the market. Which jurisdiction's rules apply to the offer?
- Check the time period. Does the rule depend on price history?
- Check the wording. Does the UI imply "was" when the number is actually MSRP?
- Check the math. Is the percentage reduction calculated from the permitted reference?
- Check variants. Are you comparing the same product/variant configuration?
Questions we get asked
Does a compare-at price have to be the product's MSRP?
No. On a commerce platform it can represent an original/reference price, but the legal basis and labeling of that reference must be truthful. MSRP is one possible reference concept, not the definition of compare-at price.
Can I set compare-at price higher than MSRP?
The technical field may accept it, but that does not answer whether the resulting advertising claim is truthful or lawful. You need a substantiated reference basis and applicable legal guidance.
Does the U.S. have the same 30-day prior-price rule as the EU?
Not as one universal federal rule equivalent to EU Article 6a. Current FTC guides focus on bona fide former prices and deceptive comparisons, while U.S. state requirements can add their own rules. The EU framework generally uses a lowest-price-in-at-least-30-days rule for announced reductions, with specified flexibility/exceptions.
Is this legal advice?
No. The page explains operational concepts and examples from current authoritative guidance. Merchants running promotions across jurisdictions should obtain legal advice for their actual practices.
OnVoard's take
A compare-at price should be evidence-backed data, not decorative strike-through text. The safest product model remembers what the reference means, where it applied, and when it was valid. If the team cannot explain the crossed-out number without saying "it makes the discount look better," the number should not be there.
Every app on every plan. Connect your store and switch on the flows in an evening.