When you compare your site to your competitor's, you're comparing aesthetics: color choices, photography quality, modern typography versus something that looks like it was built during the Obama administration. Your site wins that comparison clearly. The problem is that Google isn't making that comparison at all.
Google's algorithm evaluates hundreds of signals, and visual design quality is not among them. What it does measure: how long the domain has been established, how many other sites reference it, whether the Google Business Profile is complete and active, how many consistent citations exist across the web, and whether the page content clearly matches what local customers are searching for. A newer, cleaner site with none of those signals loses to an older, plainer site that has all of them.
Here's a scenario that plays out constantly in Bloomington-Normal. A roofing contractor launches a sharp new website with professional photography and careful design. Their competitor runs the same template they've used since 2017. But that competitor has 49 Google reviews accumulated over six years, appears in 38 directories with consistent contact information, and has had a fully populated Google Business Profile since 2019. The newer site has 3 reviews, no citations, and a blank GBP. The newer site sits on page two while the competitor holds page one.
This isn't unfair. It has a logical explanation. The competitor built their digital foundation earlier. You're building yours now, which means you're starting later. But the same path that got them there is open to you.