Comparators
5 min read · Reviewed 22 June 2026
A comparator is how you show you were treated 'less favourably' in a direct discrimination claim. Choosing the right one is where these claims are most often won or lost. This guide explains how to pick a comparator that holds up — in plain words.
What a comparator is for
Direct discrimination means being treated worse than someone else because of a protected characteristic. That 'someone else' is the comparator. The law requires the comparison to be a fair one: the comparator's circumstances must not be materially different from yours. In plain terms, they should be in the same situation as you, minus the protected characteristic.
In plain terms
A comparator is a yardstick: a person in materially the same position as you, but without your protected characteristic, who was — or would have been — treated better.
Real or hypothetical
A comparator can be a real person, such as an actual colleague who was treated better. Or it can be hypothetical: how a person in your position, without your characteristic, would have been treated. If no real person fits closely enough, you build a hypothetical comparator from how the employer treats people generally.
Choose the comparator on the axis that matters
This is where comparators are most often lost. The circumstances that have to match are the ones relevant to the treatment you are complaining about — not every detail of your job. Pick the comparator on the point the complaint is actually about. If your complaint is about how a grievance was handled, the right comparator is someone else whose grievance was handled — not someone doing the same role who never raised one.
When a perfect comparator is not the point
Tribunals are often better going straight to the real question: why was I treated this way? If the honest answer is the protected characteristic, the precise construction of a comparator matters far less. Do not get bogged down building an elaborate comparator when the 'reason why' is the real issue. And remember — a real comparator who was treated better can itself be the 'something more' that shifts the burden of proof.
Where this comes from
- Equality Act 2010, s.13 — direct discrimination — less favourable treatment than a comparator
- Equality Act 2010, s.23 — the comparison: no material difference in the relevant circumstances
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] ICR 337 (HL) — a tribunal can go straight to the 'reason why' instead of constructing a comparator
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] ICR 867 (CA) — a real comparator treated better can be the 'something more' that shifts the burden
Your next step
When you log in, the Framing Engine helps you test a comparison on your own facts — on the axis that matters.
The Framing Engine is a tool in your private workspace — log in to use it on your own situation.