The state-owned enterprise rules developed by the US and Australia represent two diverse paths of promoting competitive neutrality. The former is expanded based on ownership discrimination, while the latter is promoted based on domestic reform practices. It can be concluded by comparative analysis that the American path has some logical errors, such as practicing competitive non-neutrality in the name of competitive neutrality, deviating from the framework of competition policy by undertaking ownership discrimination, adopting double standard in implementation with internal logic contradiction, and lacking domestic practices as well as international consensus. China can construct a Chinese-style competitive neutrality system within the framework of competition policy and participate in institutional competition internationally by drawing lessons from the Australian path.