The conflicted business models of a catalogue of comparison websites drew fire last week from the Productivity Commission in its report on Competition in the Australian Financial System."At their best, comparison websites facilitate demand-side competitive pressure assisting consumers to quickly and easily compare products. They may also lower effective barriers to entry for new insurers that do now have access to the distribution channels of established insurers," the report acknowledges."But when the comparison website has a financial interest in the products it features (either through ownership or commission structures that allow the website to benefit from recommending a particular product), they have an incentive to push these products over others. "These arrangements are common."iSelect and Compare the Market "receive an upfront commission for each policy purchased through them, and may also receive a trailing commission if the customer remains with the insurer," the commission writes in a short and blunt appraisal."Compare the Market is also owned by the same holding company as Auto and General Insurance, and features many of its products.Canstar and Finder, it said, "work on a 'cost-per-click' model, where the insurer pays a fee for each customer referred to their website."Choosi.com.au "is a related company of the Hollard Insurance Company," an enterprises from more than 20 separate brands in pet insurance alone.Compareinsurance, the final comparison site chastened by the Productivity Commission, "has directors and shareholders in common with six of the travel insurance brands featured on its site."