ProWritingAid: our review

ProWritingAid doesn't just underline a mistake: it generates about twenty reports on a text — repetition, sentence rhythm, clichés, dialogue, readability — designed for someone reworking a manuscript or a long report, not for fixing an isolated typo.

What it actually does

A text pasted into the editor or submitted through the extension triggers a series of reports that can be viewed separately: a "repeats" report flags words used too often, a "rhythm" report signals a run of sentences all built the same way, a "clichés" report points out stock phrases. This is a different format from a simple checker that underlines and offers a correction: the user chooses which angle of analysis to open, and can ignore the rest. For a report several pages long or a manuscript, this approach of separate reports avoids being overwhelmed by dozens of suggestions at once.

What happens to the submitted text, and why it's clear-cut

Of the three tools in this comparison, ProWritingAid holds the clearest commitment on data. The publisher states, in its own help centre, that it never uses users' texts to train its models or algorithms, and keeps submitted text only for the time needed to produce the report — on the order of a few seconds, according to the publisher. The sole exception: a document deliberately created in the online web editor, encrypted and stored until the user deletes it. This commitment applies to all plans, free and paid alike, with no distinction for Teams accounts. That's the opposite of QuillBot, which retains and trains by default outside the Team plan, and a clearer stance than Grammarly, which only excludes training by default on its Business and Enterprise accounts sold by the sales team.

Why it doesn't suit a French-speaking SME

This is the point no one can ignore before buying: ProWritingAid only corrects English. The publisher confirms this in its own help centre, which lists only the variants it supports — general, British, American, Australian, Canadian — with no mention of French or any other language. For a firm or an SME that writes primarily in French, the tool is simply beside the point, whatever the quality of its style reports in English. An agency producing bilingual content can use it on its English side and pair it with a French checker, as mentioned on our AI training for writing page. See also our proofreading and rewriting category for tools that do support French.

Where it falls short, even in English

The free tier limits each check to 500 words, which forces a longer document to be split into several passes — cumbersome for proofreading an entire report. Its privacy policy places processing in the United Kingdom and "in other countries where our providers operate, including the European Economic Area and the United States": for a compliance file that requires data to stay within the European Union, this dispersal without a fixed regional commitment remains an obstacle. Finally, Orpheus Technology Ltd remains a modestly sized British company, without the backing of a large group: an advantage for data governance, but a question of long-term staying power worth keeping in mind.

Our recommendation

Best reserved for organisations that write in English and want the clearest confidentiality commitment among the three tools in this comparison. For any use in French, go straight to a checker that supports the language, such as Antidote. The free tier lets you test the report format before buying — see our free-tier AI tools page to compare.