Pick the one that fixes what's actually wrong.
You can hold a voice together with ChatGPT, a Notion doc or a good editor. For plenty of teams one of those is the right answer, and this page says which, including the places we'd send you somewhere else.
Start with what's broken, not with the tools.
One person writes everything.
Then this isn't your problem yet. You have a workload problem, and that's what drafting tools are for.
You need more copy, faster.
That's a generator. Jasper and Copy.ai are built for it and we aren't.
One page is carrying the whole ad budget.
Give that page to a human editor. We'd tell you the same thing on a call.
Four people publish under your name and no two of them agree.
That's the one we built for. Keep reading.
ChatGPT, plus taste, plus hope.
This is what most teams are already doing, and it mostly works. One person who knows how the company should sound, pasting a draft in with a paragraph of instructions, gets something usable back.
It stops working at the fourth writer. The voice becomes whatever each person happened to type into the prompt box that morning, and nobody can see the gap between their instructions and yours. Custom instructions don't close it. They live on individual accounts, they drift, and nothing tells you when somebody's have gone stale.
The bigger difference is the shape of what comes back. You get a new document rather than a marked-up one. Somewhere in it a number may have moved, a claim may have been sharpened past what you can prove, and the only way to find out is to read both versions side by side, which is the work you were trying to avoid.
A shared custom GPT and a style guide in Notion.
A team that actually runs this doesn't need us. A shared GPT carrying the rules in its instructions, a Notion page everyone has read, and one person keeping both current will get you most of the way there.
Two things break, and neither of them is the writing. Nothing checks a draft against the doc, so the doc only reaches the people who remembered it existed, who are the people who already knew the rules. And the doc has no memory. When somebody changes “users” to “teammates” throughout, nothing records who decided that or why, so the same argument comes back next quarter with different people having it.
We lose teams to this setup.
Grammarly
Grammarly checks whether the sentence is correct. That's a different question from whether it sounds like your company, and it's a question worth answering—most teams should keep it.
Its tone settings are the closest it comes to voice, and they're the same settings sitting on everybody else's account.
Writer and Acrolinx
They're better than us at governance for a company that has a content ops lead, an annual contract and a taxonomy to maintain. If you have those three things, buy one of theirs.
Jasper and Copy.ai
Jasper and Copy.ai make more copy, which isn't what's broken.
“AI humanizers”
These swap words around until a detector changes its mind, which is a different objective from ours and usually leaves the writing worse.
We won't build it, and we turn down the people who write in asking for it. A tool pointed at a classifier gets good at classifiers. The thing we're pointed at is a reader deciding whether you're worth listening to.
A good editor still beats us.
On the pages that matter, use one. If a landing page is carrying your whole ad budget, hand it to a human (we'd say so on a call before we said anything else).
What an editor can't be is available on Thursday afternoon for a support macro. Editors work in days and charge by the word, and the copy that drifts furthest is exactly the copy nobody would pay an editor to read: the changelog entries, the macros, the posts, the next slightly better draft of the feature page.
So it isn't really a comparison. An editor is the better answer for anything you'd pay an editor for.
Writing a style guide
Free, and the correct thing to want. It's also what we ask you to do—a Voice Profile is a style guide with something attached that reads your drafts.
The reason to attach it is that a document can't enforce itself. Most teams never get round to writing one, and the ones that do end up with a page nobody opens, because nothing checks a draft against it and nothing mentions it when the draft goes out anyway.
When this is the wrong tool.
- Copy that isn't in English. The beta is tuned and tested for English. Other languages will run, but the word list is much thinner and the rhythm checks are shaped around English, so treat what comes back as rough. Keeping one voice across a translation is on the roadmap.
- Long-form editorial. Essays, narrative, anything where the unit of judgement is the argument rather than the line. Our checks run on the sentence and the paragraph.
- Anything that needs approval workflows, a terminology database or brand asset management. Those aren't on the roadmap and they aren't going on it.
The short version
We don't have to beat an editor. We have to be there for the drafts an editor never sees.