Writing great content is hard! Wouldn’t it be helpful to have software watch your back so you don’t make any silly mistakes?

Copywritely aims to help you write more engaging content that your users and search engines can understand.

Dave's Review Head

7.1 / 10

Dave's Score



Community Score
Read the reviews

Rate this LTD

You need to login first. Login here.

Copywritely Review & Tutorial – AppSumo Limited Time Offer 2019

There are many grammar check tools out there. What makes Copywritely special? At the very least, it is geared towards two important considerations about content today –  people and SEO.

It tries to guide users in creating readable, as well as SEO-optimized content for audiences.

AppSumo currently runs a lifetime offer for it. We’ll check Copywritely’s ins and outs so you can judge if it can actually serve you as a tool. Let’s also compare it with Textmetrics (previously called Webtexttool), a similar site that had its own stint in AppSumo.

AppSumo’s Copywritely Lifetime Package

Here are AppSumo’s lifetime plans lined up for Copwritely. You can stack up to three codes.

Plans and Features Plans and Features

One code allows one user. You can scan up to 50 documents per month. Each document has a limitation of 5,000 words maximum. You can do unlimited rechecks for one document. You can also do SERP analyses. (SERP stands for search engine results page.) You get 50 overall analyses per month and you get to analyze your top 10 competitors.

Now these numbers jump up, although not really proportionally with each code. For two codes, you get five users. You’ll have up to 150 document checks per month. The maximum word count doubles (or 10,000) for each document. Then, you’ll still get the single document with the unlimited rechecks. Your SERP analysis does not double, but only goes up by 25. The number of competitors increases by five.

Once you level up to three codes, you’ll earn 10 users, 300 documents per month, and 15,000 words maximum per document. Again, you get to run an unlimited check for only one document per month, so that doesn’t change across any of the plans. Then you get 150 SERP analyses, inclusive of the top 30 competitors.

I think for most people, a 5,000-word document is probably going to be enough for blog posts. But then maybe it’s not and that might push you up into the second code here.

Get Your Text

So we’ll just get into it and see how valuable this tool really is. In the Copywritely dashboard, there are two options in retrieving a document. You can either paste your text or grab a URL.

For a start, I pasted in some text. The text is from a document that we created in the past for a client. It is a lead magnet and I’ve got permission to use it. Its content is in the fitness genre. It is fairly lengthy, almost underneath that 5,000-word limit.

Upon pasting, it said, “There are enough words entered, Click to Check.” Let me mention that before this, I saw a notification that required inserting at least 30 words before I could proceed further.

Please enter more text.

There are enough words entered. Click on Check.

Now that the amount of words is adequate for the checking process, I hit the check button.

Analyze the Content…

The results are in. Let’s go ahead and take a look at what Copywritely has to say. Below are the main sections of Copywritely’s content checker:

writing interface copywritely sections


The first section tackles the article’s “uniqueness”. It says that the document is a hundred percent original. That’s great – I do know that to be true.


Keyword Stuffing

Keyword stuffing implies overusing of search terms (keywords) in your content. It mostly comes across as spammy to search engines.

Google particularly is very smart these days. If it looks like you’re trying to game the system, it will penalize you and not display your document or your website higher in the search ranking. So really, the best way to rank is to write engaging content that keeps people on your page and helps them out.

So it does check for keyword stuffing here. It says I don’t have any cases of keyword stuffing.

keyword stuffing


Meanwhile, you can toggle on this idea of stemming. Stemming is when you have a group of words that are similar and are only different in terms of suffixes, etc. The analyzer lets you ensure that you’re not using too many variations of a word, as that can add up to keyword stuffing.

Stop Words

Stop words are essentially those that fill out the bulk of a text. Things like: to, you, the, and, a, your.

It’s really hard to write without using those, although you shouldn’t overuse them. Not only can stop words make content difficult to read, they’re also seen as lower quality by search engines.

So if I wanted to see all of the times I use “to”, I can just click on that word and it will highlight in the document.

stop words

This one’s a pretty nice feature and is easy to navigate.

Redundant Phrases

The next section is about redundant phrases. It says at the top that “redundant words are useless filters that do not add any value to the text.” So these are words like: probably, happened, you know, right, happens (as taken from my document).

You’ve probably encountered writing tips about avoiding fluff in content. There’s a great book called Writing Without Bullshit that talks about how much of our language is just all of these redundant phrases. Once you strip them out, you end up sounding a lot more intelligent. It’s nice that Copywritely is pointing these types of words out.

For example, here, I used “it seems” twice. I can see exactly where it is in the document by just clicking through.

redundant phrases


Readability reviews how complex it is to read your document. If you’re trying to reach a broad audience, you want your content to be as easy to read as possible. The following are how the site evaluates this factor:

Gunning Fog Index

I think the general guideline is to aim for the third grade reading level, where you’ll be most effective in terms of relating to a wide audience. Our document at this point was set to sixth grade, which is probably a little bit more academic than we’d like.

Flesch Index

With the Flesch index, you want to stay under 70 for the document to be considered easy to read. Our document shows 53, which means it’s fairly difficult to read. So possibly, I can revisit this document and make it a bit simpler to understand.


Rhythmic Monotony

The checker says well done, the text is monotony-free. So no other real feedback here other than I did a good job.

rhythmic monotony


Relevance lets you check and see if your document is significant to certain keyword searches. You can just type the keyword/s in the search field. After checking, the results will inform whether your document is significant for those keywords or not.

Meanwhile, it does tell you right away which are the top keywords that are relevant in your article. You can find these words on display.

So if I were to search for something like “video games”, that shouldn’t come up in this document at all. It’ll tell me right away that this text is not relevant to that.


However, if I were to search a relevant keyword, it would just tell me like, “calories” shows up 34 times. So it’s really just scanning the document and telling you how many times a particular keyword appears.

Keyword check

The keyword check is a pretty similar type of feature. It says, “with keyword check parameter, you can examine whether all the keywords are used in this text”.

So I could paste in a series of keywords here and hit the button “check keywords in text”. Then I’ll be able to see how many times the words are used.

keyword check


I’m gonna be totally honest with you – I don’t know what morphology is. I had to google it and it told me that it’s the study of the form of words, but that didn’t really help me much either. The Copywritely interface defines it as “balance the average parts-of-speech usage”.

So let’s see how my morphology is doing in this document.



Under Union (showing an exclamation mark next to it), it says I’ve used union words 412 times, while recommended are only 332 words (about 10% of the total words).

In our example, it shows “sentence 1”, which in this case, refers to the heading (“Introduction: Everything You Know is Probably Wrong”) in the document. It’s telling me that I used the keyword “you”. I deleted the word “you” (while not grammatically correct) just to see if it removes the indicated error.

But when I reran the analysis, it detected “you” again (when it’s not there). That is even after I’ve refreshed the page and cleared the cache.


Passive Verbs

Still beneath Morphology, it says that “verbs passive” is good – I have 13 where I could have up to 66.

verbs passive


For preposition, I have 46, where I can have up to 332.


Again, I’d like some more clarity on what the items under Union really mean. If I’m an English teacher, I’d probably know things like passive verbs and prepositions very well. However, I’ve been out of school for a long time and these are going to be a bit confusing. That especially includes assessing their necessity in making the document readable. I guess that’s up for debate as well.


For “introductory”, I have got a red X. It refers to my sentence, “Over the last 30 years, no one has given us a good answer as to why we keep getting fatter and fatter as a society.” It also says that I used the word “as” twice and I guess that is bad. Also noted was that I have 113 introductory sentences, when the recommended count is 66 times. These put more question marks in my head.


I gotta be honest here. I’m not really sure what I’m supposed to be doing with this section. There’s not really a lot of education going on about it, such as what an “introductory” is.

More Options

Other items are in the Morphology section. The point is these might occur more often than the recommended count and need some correction.

These include words of amplifiers – those that emphasize or intensify statements, such as “probably”. Adverbial turns – it says “tight” and that I’ve used about twice as much as I’m supposed to. Meanwhile, the abstract adjectives are well within their limitations.

complex predicates

 words of amplifiers

adverbial turns

 abstract adjectives

This section is not super impressive to me. I was kind of enjoying what the platform was doing until I got here. I don’t really know what this part is asking me to do.


Moving on, we go to the section for grammar. It’s saying that my grammar in the document is bad. I’ve got 26 errors that I need to correct. These cover things like spelling mistakes, improper use of hyphenations, and any sort of bad style.


An example of a sentence I worked on is the one shown below, where it’s saying I should probably change “try and” and “all of the”.



I followed the suggestions and made a few changes in my statement.

Another example of my edit is the following:


I’m knocking out some of these grammatical errors pretty quickly. Overall, I’d say it’s being helpful in making this a more readable document.

Meanwhile, there are some things that are not helpful or useful (or “neither helpful nor useful”, either way :D). Like where it said “back” is a possible typo. The text says “only to gain it back a few months or years later”. Their suggestion is “backs”, which would definitely be incorrect grammar.

grammar correction error grammar correction error

I think you’ll run into some of that with just about any grammar-related tool, especially if your current writing style is informal. It’s bound to be rejected by more formal types of grammatical rules.

I found the grammar section to be much better than the morphology one. I apologize if I don’t understand what the morphology section is asking me to do, but the percentages or indications didn’t really tell me what to resolve! Or let me understand that the problem exists at all.

The Chrome Extension of Copywritely

Let’s witness another use case, which is regarding Copywritely’s Chrome extension. For the demo, I analyzed my FunnelDash review using the Chrome extension that I installed earlier.

I clicked on the extension’s button first, which opens up Copywritely. A new tab begins to analyze the content and present results as usual. As you can see, you could grab content from a site and proofread that by using the extension.

Chrome extension

Chrome extension

I must also say that it took me a minute or so to grab this link and open it up inside of Copywritely. But then know that my FunnelDash page at that point had a video transcription (automatically created by YouTube) as its main text content. That means that there were many grammatical errors to expect with that video script.

If you’re not familiar, when you upload a video to YouTube, it will try to do closed captioning by auto transcribing the words that are in your video. So I included that transcript into this blog post. Copywritely noticed it and noted that I’ve gotten 95 grammatical errors.

That didn’t surprise me too terribly. Then I noticed that there is some code that has somehow seeped into the HTML view. There is a toggle between HTML and content located at the top of the interface. Both these modes are not supposed to show any code.

Of course, I could remove the code that appeared in the HTML view. Yet if I toggle over to the content view, then I only see words and all of my formatting is lost because obviously the HTML is adding the structure to the content. So you probably want to view your content in the HTML mode (if it’s something like our example). Although it’s kind of disappointing because of the error we’re seeing. Not the end of the world, but it’s worth noting.


Comparing Copywritely with Webtexttool (Textmetrics)

Now, the moment you’ve been waiting for. Let’s do a direct comparison between Webtexttool and Copywritely. If you’re not familiar with Webtexttool, it’s a previous AppSumo deal which is very similar in nature. Webtexttool has since changed its name into Textmetrics. So I might use those two terms interchangeably but I’ll try to stick with the current name of Textmetrics.

Basically what’s happened here is I pasted in that same content that we used in the first example on Copywritely. Let’s compare how the tools differ in their analysis. Now one thing that’s different right away with Textmetrics is it asks for the page title, the URL, a page description and a main keyword. So that’s going to help you speak to the search engine a little bit more articulately.

Textmetrics’ SEO Section

The Textmetrics analyzer has to two main divisions – that of SEO and content.

Over here in the optimized SEO section, I get some guidance on what to do with the page title. For example, it says I need to add the keyword to the page title.

After following the suggestion, the page scoring went from 26% to 41%, while I’m getting all green checks on the page title. So you can see right away it gives you good ideas on things you could actually do to improve your content (my cheesy headline aside).



It’s also giving me guidance for the page description and the headings. So it’s gonna get into the mark-up of the text, like how I don’t have any headings at all included. The main content itself is giving me a reasonably high score. It provides tips like how I can add the keyword a few more times, as well as put some images. So really getting kind of outside of just the pure grammar checking aspects.

There are also suggestions under Miscellaneous. These are things that could have a smaller impact on the overall optimization but are good to consider. These include tips like adding bold or italics to spruce up the content and make words jump off the page.

textmetrics seo

Textmetrics’ Content Analysis Section

Let’s delve into the content analysis section. I’ve got a 78 score, which implies I’m making good progress. In order to get the analysis done, you have to click its blue button which will analyze your text.

This is interesting to me because with Copywritely, as soon as I clicked on that Chrome extension, I’d burned up a credit, used one of my documents, and there’d be no confirmation. There’s no ‘hey we’re gonna analyze this content, it’s gonna use one of your credits, are you sure you want to proceed’.

I could see myself accidentally clicking the wrong Chrome extension or possibly forgetting which extension is which. These do have small icons. So I would like to see a confirmation show up within Copywritely to prevent users from accidentally consuming credits.

Back to Textmetrics’ content analysis, it gives me an estimated reading time. It says that the text is in the elementary school reading level, which is kind of the goal here. Under readability, it provides ideas on how I can enhance the article to be even more readable.

 textmetrics content

The findings shown are interesting. I won’t necessarily follow all the suggestions, but they look relevant. There are some spelling errors and I like that these are segmented out, where I can make those changes in one go. In Copywritely, the spelling errors were kind of intermingled with all of the other grammatical errors.

You can also view other criteria such as text credibility, targeting audience, sentiment, and text layouts. For one, I’m going for a female audience, so I’d probably improve my content from its currently “neutral” audience. As for the text layouts, obviously, I didn’t give any thought to it, so I need some revisions. Like how it says I’m not using enough list items, so I should do that to make my layout better.

I find all of that information actionable and usable. It doesn’t throw a lot of grammar rules or grammar terminology at me. It just tells me what I need to do somehow to make things a bit better and easier to read. So my vote here is gonna go for Textmetrics.

Copywritely Final Thoughts & Rating

So there you have it. Copywritely is an interesting tool. I think it needs a little bit of refinement before it is fully polished.

I’d like to see something like an integration with WordPress where you could publish your posts automatically there.

I’ll say that if you already have the Webtexttool/Textmetrics deal, you probably don’t need to pick Copywritely. However, if you missed that one (doesn’t look like it’s coming back soon), maybe Copywritely is your best bet to jump on it.

Rating: So I’m gonna give this deal a 7.1.

I think it’s an OK tool. It’s got a lot of room to grow but it’s not for me at this point. I’m definitely gonna be returning this because I’ve already kind of invested with Webtexttool.

Community Reviews

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Tool is good enough for copywriting tasks, but needs more room for growth.


Tools like Textmetrics are more matured at this point, but we wouldn’t know when their lifetime deals are coming back.


Yes. Can stack up to three codes. $118 for the Company Plan & $177 for the Enterprise Plan.

Where Can You Get It?

Check Out More Deal Reviews:

Get notified when new reviews are posted.

No spam, no b.s., just cold crisp LTD Reviews.
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Don't Miss A Deal.

Get notified when new LTD reviews are published.

No spam, no b.s., just cold crisp LTD reviews.