We judge things relative to nearby alternatives, not in isolation.
More quotes£4. £4. Choose. Equal pricing looks magnificently fair until the customer has to invent a reason for selecting either option. With unfamiliar products, a tie can remove the simplest distinction and leave “keep the money” as the only decision requiring no explanation.
The gum study is wonderfully annoying because twenty won mattered less than having a handle. One was cheaper. Choice could proceed.
You see the same paralysis when two subscription plans cost the same and differ by a fog of features, or a menu offers six sandwiches with no apparent speciality. More detail rarely saves the customer. It merely gives indecision a larger reading list.
Naturally, somebody will turn this into a fake bargain and deliberately cripple one product. That is not choice architecture; it is a small con wearing a pricing table. A meaningless gap may look like a typo, and serious purchases deserve distinctions more useful than “this one costs 2p less”.
What each option needs is a role. Cheapest for trying. Fastest for urgency. Best for families. Built for the awkward case. Price can signal the role, although naming the use case often works better and preserves trust.
Listen for the customer’s unfinished sentence: “I picked this because…” If both options produce the same ending, another feature comparison will only give the hesitation a clipboard.