Wordtune

By Minel Gunesoglu, founder of Vouch. What sits under this page is reading rather than trying: wordtune.com/plans opened in a browser and read in both billing states, the Terms of Use pulled whole and quoted by section number, Apple's own lookup endpoint, a rendered Trustpilot profile, two archived Capterra captures, the App Store review feed, and the privacy policy. No session with the product sits under any sentence here, because none happened. Read and published 12 September 2026, re-checked monthly.

Open Wordtune's plans page and the first paid price on the screen is $6.99 a month. That figure is real and it is not what the entry paid tier costs, unless a year is paid up front. The page loads with its own billing control already set to Annually, its toggle reading "Monthly (-50%) Annually"; click Monthly and the same tier, Advanced, reads "$13.99 per month". Both states were read in a browser on 12 September 2026 and the bytes of both were kept. That difference is why every price below carries the billing view it was read in and the date it was read on. A price quoted without its basis cannot be checked by the person reading it, whoever published it and however recently; that is a discipline this page applies to itself, not a claim about who else applies it. One limit decides fit before any of it matters, so it comes first: Wordtune writes only in English.

That limit is worth having in the vendor's own words rather than ours. Wordtune's homepage FAQ answers the question "Does Wordtune only work in English?" like this: "While Wordtune can only write in English, it is capable of translating text into English from a wide array of languages including: Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, Hindi, Korean, Hebrew, Russian, German, French or Portuguese into English." So a writer working in Spanish, Arabic or Turkish is buying a route into English, not an editor for their own language. The same homepage prints the number 10 above the label "Languages supported for translation", and that figure counts what the tool reads, not what it writes.

Wordtune itself is a rewriting tool published by AI21 Labs. It takes a sentence or a paragraph you have already written and offers alternative versions of it, tuned for tone, clarity and length, and it ships as a Chrome extension, a Microsoft Edge extension, an iOS keyboard app and a web editor. It belongs in the AI paraphrasers category here: software for the editing job, rewriting a passage in different words while keeping its meaning.

The Real Price of Wordtune's Entry Tier Is $13.99, Not the $6.99 the Plans Page Shows by Default

Both billing states of Wordtune's plans page were read on 12 September 2026 and both are printed here, because either one alone answers half the question.

Two things about that table are worth more than the numbers in it. The annual column is not a discount applied to a monthly plan you can leave; it is a different commitment, and the page's own toggle advertises it as "(-50%)". And both paid tiers carry "Start 3-day free trial" beside the price, which is a trial rather than a free tier. The free tier is the Basic row, it costs nothing, it asks for no card, and its allowance refills rather than expiring.

A default annual view is an ordinary way to lay out subscription pricing and it is common well beyond this vendor, which is exactly why a price is only checkable when it arrives with two things attached: which billing view it was read in, and the date it was read. A price published without both is not checkable by the reader who meets it, whoever published it. A reader who meets one of those figures has no way to tell whether it was right on the day it was written, whether it describes the other billing state, or whether the tier has since been renamed. The figures above carry both attachments. They will still need re-reading, and this vendor's page shows why in its own layout: a toggle that opens on one state and labels the other with a discount is a page built to be toggled, and a reading taken from it is a reading of one day.

Wordtune's Free Plan Limits: 10 Rewrites a Day and 3 AI Summarizations a Month

Wordtune's free Basic plan is metered in the vendor's own unit rather than in words: the plans page prints "Limited daily use: 10 Rewrites & AI suggestions" and "Limited monthly use: 3 AI summarizations", with spelling and grammar checks marked unlimited. Ten rewrites is roughly ten decisions, not ten sentences of output, and the ceiling is the thing reviewers notice first. A Capterra reviewer, a CEO writing on 11 March 2022, put the practical consequence in one line: "the Chrome version has a daily restriction. So you can't depend on it totally". The entry paid tier triples that allowance to 30 rewrites a day and moves summarizations from 3 a month to 15.

The free plan is also the simplest way to answer the question this page's score cannot answer, which is whether you will actually like what Wordtune hands back. Ten rewrites a day, with no card, is enough to find that out on your own drafts before any money moves.

Does Wordtune Offer a Student Discount? What the Plans Page Actually Shows

Wordtune's plans page shows no student price anywhere beside its tiers. The answer sits lower down, in the page's own FAQ block, under the question "Do you offer discounts for nonprofits, NGOs or academia?", and it reads: "If you are a student or an educator with a valid .edu email address and are currently enrolled at or working at an academic institution, or at a non-profit, you are eligible for a 30% discount on both our annual and monthly plans." The same answer says how to get it: "To apply, please contact support."

Three details matter for a student reading that. The discount is described as applying to both billing views, so it does not force the annual commitment. It is requested rather than applied at checkout, which means it is a support conversation before a purchase rather than a coupon field. And the eligibility condition the page states is a valid .edu address, which will exclude a large number of students outside the United States. The wording above was read from the plans page on 12 September 2026; the separate discount page it links to was not opened for this review, so nothing here describes what that page asks for.

Who Owns a Wordtune Rewrite? Title, a Licence Back to the Vendor, and a Personal-Use-Only Restriction

Wordtune's Terms of Use answer a question that decides whether this tool is usable for paid work at all, and clause 5.3 is where the answer sits. That clause does two things at once, and quoting either half without the other misleads.

The first half is generous: "You retain all right, title, and interest in and to your User Content." Your draft stays yours. In the same breath the clause grants the vendor a licence back over that draft, described as a "nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sub-licensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license", to copy, store and use it in order to provide the software, to administer and improve it, and to collect and analyse anonymous information.

The second half is the one to read twice. What the tool hands back is defined in the same clause as User Derived Content, covering "all summaries, content or text derived or extracted from the User Content using the Summarization Service and/or Software", and that output, the agreement says, "shall be used by the User for personal use only".

Read plainly, on the document as it stood on 12 September 2026: you keep title to what you typed, and the agreement restricts what Wordtune returns to personal use. The agreement draws no line anywhere between a free user and a paying user on that point, so paying does not visibly change it. This page is reporting what the clause says, not what a court would do with it and not what the vendor intends by it; that distinction matters, because plenty of software is used commercially every day under wording like this without anyone raising it. What is fair to say is narrower and still useful: a freelancer about to run client copy through Wordtune should read clause 5.3 first, and a student rewriting their own coursework is squarely inside what the clause describes. The commercial-terms cell on this card scores that sub-component 50 for exactly this shape, ownership granted and commercial use withheld in the same clause.

Wordtune's Cancellation and Refund Policy: What Section 6 of the Terms Says

Section 6 of Wordtune's Terms of Use covers billing, and it is short enough to quote where it counts. Cancellation is self-service: "You can cancel your paid account at any time via your account page in the Software". What cancelling does is also spelled out, and it is not a stop button: "the cancellation will take effect the day after the last day of the current subscription period, and you will be downgraded to the free version of the Service". Subscriptions renew automatically against the card on file.

On money already paid, the document is flat: "We do not provide refunds or credits for any partial subscription periods." Clause 6.4 calls the fees themselves "non-refundable". Against that sits the floor the agreement cannot contract out of, in its own words: where "consumer protection or local laws or regulations grant you mandatory or statutory rights, this agreement shall only limit such rights to the maximum extent permitted by such laws or regulations."

So there is no published refund window in this contract, and what protection exists past cancellation is whatever your local law supplies. That reading is what puts the refund sub-component at 64. It describes the document, not the vendor's behaviour; what customers report happening in practice is a separate record and it is further down this page, where it contradicts the document in both directions.

Wordtune's One-Way Indemnity Clause, and Why That Is the Ordinary Position in This Market

Section 12 of Wordtune's Terms of Use opens "you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Wordtune", and runs through the events it covers: your use of the software, your breach of the agreement, your violation of a third party's rights, and a third-party claim connected to your content or to the content the tool derived from it. To indemnify is to carry someone else's legal costs. Nothing in this agreement runs the other way.

That sounds worse than it is, and saying so is part of reporting it accurately. A one-way indemnity is the ordinary position in consumer software agreements, which is why the rubric behind this card scores that clause 68 rather than treating it as a defect: 68 is the value this site assigns to the market default. A handful of vendors, mostly selling to enterprises, do indemnify their customers in the other direction, and they score higher for it. Wordtune does not, and neither do most of its neighbours. The fourth clause in that list is still worth a pause for anyone generating text at volume, because it names claims arising from the derived content specifically.

Wordtune's Capability Cell Is Not a Rewrite-Quality Score: What Delivery Envelope Actually Measures

Wordtune's whole card, computed 12 September 2026, is below, and the thing to read beside each number is what that number converts.

The first row needs a warning printed next to it rather than in a footnote, and the card marks it thin for the same reason. Every other row on this card reads the thing its heading names. That one does not. It is a substitute, carrying a criterion called delivery_envelope_v1, and the question that criterion asks is what the entry paid tier lets a buyer take away, not how good the rewrites are. If you set this card beside another one on this site, that row is not reading the same kind of thing its neighbour reads, and a reader who assumes otherwise will be wrong.

The reason it is a substitute is a count rather than an opinion. No blind-vote arena seats paraphrasing tools against one another, and no standing board publishes per-product rows for them. A search on 12 September 2026 across arXiv, ACL Anthology, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar, Hugging Face Spaces and the public arena boards found one independent peer-reviewed paper carrying per-product numbers, and what that paper measures is how closely each tool's rewrite resembles the original passage. A tool that changed nothing would top it. Its figures are held unused here and are not printed as a quality ranking, because they are not one. That search is why this row exists in the form it does: it publishes a different measurement under its own name and says so. The full rubric, including what a substitute has to satisfy before it is adopted, is on the methodology page.

What stands in for that missing measurement, imperfectly, is what reviewers say when they describe an actual rewrite rather than giving a one-line reaction, and that record splits in both directions across four years and two platforms. A Capterra reviewer on 22 January 2023 wrote that when they rewrite a sentence or paragraph "it retains its meaning and appeal". A Capterra reviewer on 16 May 2022 wrote the opposite about the same property: "Sometimes, the sentence becomes meaningless & more robotic." A Trustpilot reviewer on 9 September 2026 goes back the other way, saying Wordtune "doesn't just blindly or robotically do it for you". THE DATES DO NOT SPLIT EVENLY AND THAT IS WORTH SAYING PLAINLY: every account in this record that criticises the rewriting itself is from 2022, and every positive account is from 2023 or 2026. What that means cannot be settled from here. It could be a product that improved, or a review population that changed, or older complaints simply falling out of the window each platform shows. It reads as a tool that suits some writers' sentences and not others, which is a judgement only your own drafts can settle.

What the delivery row is actually built from is four readings of the vendor's own pages. Output leaves Wordtune as ordinary editable text, which is table stakes among text tools and no advantage. Work moves by hand: the homepage and the extension page name no programmatic route in or out, so there is nothing to schedule or batch. The tool runs in a browser and on a phone. And it writes in one language. That last component is the one dragging the row, and it is the next section.

What Languages Does Wordtune Write In? The Vendor's Own Answer on Translating Into English

Wordtune writes in English. The vendor says so itself, in the homepage FAQ answer quoted at the top of this page, which pairs the limit with the capability that sits beside it: translation into English from ten named languages, Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, Hindi, Korean, Hebrew, Russian, German, French and Portuguese. The homepage's own statistics block prints 10 under the label "Languages supported for translation".

Those two statements are not in conflict, and a reader can still misread the second as an answer to the first. Ten is the number of languages Wordtune reads. One is the number it writes. The scoring component that records this reads english_only, and it is worth more to a buyer than its position on the card suggests: a writer producing Spanish marketing copy or a Turkish thesis gets no rewriting from this product at all, at any price. That decision is made before the pricing table, not after it.

Wordtune's Platform Support: Chrome, Microsoft Edge and iOS, and What the Keyboard Reviews Report

Wordtune's own extension page, read 13 September 2026, says the extension "integrates directly into Chrome, Firefox, Arc, and Edge", and the vendor separately ships an iOS keyboard app and a web editor. This page gives the list rather than a count, because the vendor's pages name different sets in different places and a count would change with the page opened. No Android package was found under this vendor's name in a store search, which is a failed search rather than proof of absence, so nothing on this page claims one exists or that one does not.

The iOS surface carries a complaint worth knowing before it is bought, and it is specific to the separate "Wordtune: AI Writing Keyboard" app rather than to the browser extension. Three App Store reviewers across an eighteen-month span each describe the system-wide keyboard integration breaking or disappearing after an update: "the keyboard feature I enjoyed is no longer available" (3 October 2024), "Something changed and this keyboard became useless." (24 July 2025), and "I used to be able to use this in keyboard, what happened?" (7 April 2026). Three reports over eighteen months is not a failure rate and this page does not present it as one. It is a recurring, dated, named pattern on one surface, and it is the surface Apple's rating describes.

The browser extension carries no matching pattern in this record. Nothing read for this page reports the Chrome or Edge extension itself breaking, in the way three App Store reviewers report the keyboard breaking, and that is an absence in what was read rather than evidence that the extension does not break. On Google Docs, which is a common question for this product, the honest answer is the same: the record read for this page holds no dated first-hand report either way. Both gaps are stated rather than filled.

Wordtune's Two Star-Rating Claims: 97% and 4.7/5 on the Homepage, and the Stores' Own Records

Wordtune's homepage carries a statistics block, read 12 September 2026, printing "97%" above the label "Our App Store rating" and "4.7/5" above "Our Chrome extension rating".

The stores' own records were read the same day. Apple's public lookup endpoint returns 4.43 out of 5 across 985 ratings for "Wordtune: AI Writing Keyboard", seller AI21 Labs, Inc. The Chrome Web Store listing for "Wordtune: AI Paraphrasing and Grammar Tool" shows 4.6, with its rating count displayed in rounded form as "2.4K ratings" and an install band of 1,000,000 users; the listing's own note says ratings "are updated daily and may not reflect the most recent reviews".

Both readings are printed with their sources and their dates, and this page stops there. A percentage and a five-point average are not the same unit, so the vendor's 97% and Apple's 4.43 are not two readings of one number that can be subtracted from each other. What a reader can do is check each figure against the source that publishes it, on a date, which is the only reason to print all four.

Is Wordtune Safe to Use? Trust Signals, Ratings and the Plagiarism Question

Asking whether Wordtune is safe to use splits into three questions with different answers, and only two of them can be answered from evidence. What Wordtune's Terms of Use commit a buyer to is a contract question, and the document answers it. What paying customers report is a second question, and Trustpilot, the App Store and two archived Capterra captures answer that one. Whether the rewrites themselves are good is the third, and this card does not measure it.

The usability row, 86.6, is the highest number on Wordtune's card, and two caveats travel with it rather than one. The first is what it pools: a sample of 1,565, weighted by sample size, from Apple's 985 ratings and Trustpilot's 580 reviews. Those two populations rate different things, the iOS keyboard app and the company behind the web product, and this page argues further down that they are not the same software. Pooling them is a judgement, and it is the judgement behind the highest figure on the card. A third record, the Chrome Web Store's 4.6 on a rounded count of about 2,400, is the largest of the three and is NOT in this cell at all, because a rounded sample size cannot carry the weighting the cell uses. So the row is not the reading with the most people behind it; it is the reading with the most people whose sample size we could use. Neither platform discloses its solicitation regime, so whether these reviewers were invited to write or arrived unprompted is unknown, and pooling them assumes something nobody has checked. The Trustpilot profile is claimed by the vendor, has been since February 2021, and the company replies on it.

What Wordtune's Reviewers Say About Billing: 9 Renewal or Charge Problems in 108 Reviews Read on 12 September 2026

One hundred and eight individually dated Wordtune reviews were read in full for this page on 12 September 2026: 50 on the Apple App Store, 38 on Capterra across two archived captures, and 20 on Trustpilot. Nine of those 108 describe a locked-in renewal, a double charge, or support that could not be reached. The earliest of them is dated March 2022 and the most recent 24 June 2026, so this is neither a one-off nor a phase that visibly ended. Nine out of 108 is the whole claim: a real, countable, recurring pattern, and not what most reviewers describe.

The sharpest of them, a one-star Trustpilot review dated 24 June 2026, reads: "Word Tune is a scam! It is impossible to cancel your subscription." The same reviewer reports disputing an $83 charge with his card issuer and having the dispute declined. That word is his, quoted as his, and this page makes no such characterisation of the company.

The same record holds the opposite outcome on the same kind of complaint, and both halves belong in the same paragraph. A five-star Trustpilot review dated 24 February 2026 describes a surprise renewal that support reversed, saying a named agent "personally ensured that my subscription was cancelled" and that a full refund followed. A second five-star review, dated 3 March 2026, describes a renewal that went through after the writer forgot to cancel, and says support "was quick to help me out". Whether that reviewer was refunded is not stated in the review, and it is not inferred here. What cannot be told from review text alone is whether outcomes genuinely improved or whether Trustpilot simply collects grateful reviews from people whose problem was solved while a frustrated App Store user leaves a low rating and moves on. That ambiguity is stated rather than resolved, because resolving it would need data nobody here has.

Two absences belong in this section rather than in a footnote. Reddit, which is usually the richest source of purchase regret in any software market, was unreachable for this brand on 12 September 2026: six methods were tried and each returned a distinct, nameable failure, from a network block under a desktop browser agent to an empty index at the Internet Archive. G2 serves an empty document to an automated browser. Neither surface contributed anything to this page, and where it says what customers report, it means Trustpilot, the App Store and archived Capterra.

Which Wordtune Rating Rates Which Product: the iOS Keyboard App Is Not the Chrome Extension

Wordtune ships under one brand, and the four ratings read for this page do not describe the same thing. Apple's 4.43 across 985 ratings rates "Wordtune: AI Writing Keyboard", the separate iOS keyboard app. Trustpilot's 4.2 across 580 reviews rates the company behind wordtune.com. The Chrome Web Store's 4.6 rates the browser extension listing. Capterra's archived captures rate the web app and extension as business software: 4.4 across 77 reviews in the 8 April 2024 capture, down from 4.6 on a sample of 25 in the 29 April 2022 one, and the 2024 capture discloses each review's solicitation status where the 2022 template does not: of the eleven reviews the community record drew from that capture, four are marked as having been offered a nominal gift card and seven as submitted organically.

Who these reviewers are is worth one line, because it is the clearest signal in the record about who buys this: of the twenty individually dated Trustpilot reviews read in full for this page, six name a school or research use case without being asked, between March and July 2026. A student editing an essay in Chrome and a commuter using the iOS keyboard are rating different software. The headline number moves by four tenths of a point depending which platform a reader happens to land on, and every number on this page names the platform that published it and the surface it rates, in the same sentence, for that reason.

Is Wordtune Plagiarism-Proof? What the Vendor's Own Pages Claim, and What the Terms Put on You

Wordtune's help centre, which publishes a page on this exact question, was unreachable on 12 September 2026: support.wordtune.com returned HTTP 403 and the other two addresses tried did not resolve. So no help-centre wording is quoted here, and this page does not paraphrase a document it could not open.

What can be quoted is the vendor's homepage FAQ, read the same day. Under "Can Wordtune help with essay writing?" it answers: "Yes. Wordtune is an ideal essay writing tool for students, as it includes citations and sources with the information it generates, allowing you to use it without worrying about misinformation." That is the vendor's claim, dated, in the vendor's own words. No independent check of citation accuracy exists in the record behind this page, and none was run for it.

One thing about the vendor belongs in this section by the rules this category runs on, and it is a fact rather than a judgement. Wordtune's own homepage, read 13 September 2026, lists "Humanize AI" among its named features, described there as "Humanize AI content effortlessly", and the same page links to an "AI content detector". So the company selling the rewriting tool also sells a tool for making machine-written text read as human and a tool for spotting it. This site scores paraphrasers and detectors as separate categories and links them to each other nowhere, and it does not measure or advise on whether any rewrite gets past any checker. The disclosure is here because a reader deciding about the rewriting tool is entitled to know what else is sold from the same account.

The contract is less comfortable and more specific. In clause 5.3 the user warrants that "no User Content or User Derived Content (as defined below) infringes, misappropriates or violates" anyone's rights, including copyright, and the same clause restricts the derived text to personal use. Responsibility for what a rewrite does with a source sits with the person who submitted it. For a student, the practical consequence is plain: rewriting a passage does not settle whether it needed a citation, and the agreement you accepted says as much. This page makes no claim about whether any checker flags Wordtune's output, in either direction, because no such check was run for it.

Who Owns Wordtune, and What AI21 Labs Says About Data Privacy

Wordtune is published by AI21 Labs, an Israeli company headquartered in Tel Aviv and founded in November 2017, according to English Wikipedia's article on the company, read 12 September 2026 and used here for identity and history only. Wordtune itself dates from October 2020, per Wikipedia's separate article on the product.

For anyone about to paste a real draft into a third-party rewriter, the two documents that answer the privacy question were both read on 12 September 2026 and they answer it in the same direction. The licence in clause 5.3 lets the vendor use submitted content to "administer and make improvements to the Software and Services", which the clause expands to include improving "the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services". The privacy policy separately lists, among the purposes personal information is used for, "developing, enhancing, training, improving and marketing new products and Services". The whole privacy policy was then re-read on 13 September 2026, and it answers two questions the first reading of it could not, because that reading held only a fragment of the document. It DOES publish a retention position: a section headed "Retention periods" says personal information "will be stored until we proactively delete it, or you send a valid deletion request", with named exceptions for legal and regulatory obligations. And it DOES publish one opt-out, narrowly: on aggregation, section 5.5 reads "To opt-out from us to continue aggregating your data in the future, you may contact us at [email protected]". What neither document publishes is a way to opt out of the licence in clause 5.3 itself, which is the broader of the two permissions and the one attached to the text a user actually pastes in.

That is what the words say, and it is where this page stops. Nothing here establishes what happens to a specific document in practice, which is not visible from outside the company. A reader handling client-confidential or unpublished material has enough above to decide whether that is acceptable, which is the whole point of quoting it.

Wordtune's Vendor, AI21 Labs, Spelled Three Ways: What the Terms, the App Stores and Wikipedia Each Call It

One identity note, because it matters to anyone matching a card statement to a company. The saved Terms document carries three different forms of the name, counted on 12 September 2026: the binding clause self-identifies in lowercase as ai21 labs ltd, once; AI21 Labs Ltd appears twice, both inside the agreement's own text; and the bare brand name appears four times, once in the patent notice and three times in the page furniture around the agreement, the footer links and the copyright line. Apple's lookup endpoint publishes the seller as AI21 Labs, Inc. The Chrome Web Store listing names the same publisher in that second form. Wikipedia titles its article AI21 Labs.

Those three strings have not been confirmed here to name one single legal entity, so this page reports what each document says rather than asserting they are interchangeable. In practice it means a charge, a dispute or a data request may name a company whose spelling does not match the one on the terms you accepted.

Wordtune Alternatives: QuillBot and Grammarly, Neither of Which Carries a Score on This Site

As of 12 September 2026 Vouch publishes no score for QuillBot and none for Grammarly, so nothing in this section of Wordtune's review ranks one product against another. That is a statement about this site on that date, not about either product. What follows is what reviewers of Wordtune said about each, with dates, and it is worth reading as exactly that: individual opinions from specific years, not a measurement.

Grammarly comes up most often, and reviewers describe the two products doing different jobs rather than one replacing the other. A Capterra reviewer on 14 October 2021, writing in the platform's own field for why they switched, said: "Needed other options, tho I still use Grammarly for grammar but not for wording". Another, dated 26 November 2022, ran the other way inside a single review: "I switched to this app from Grammarly. but now plan to switch back to Grammarly because of the pricing." Price was the reason, in 2022, on prices neither product charges today. The most recent of these in the record runs the opposite way and is worth printing beside them for that reason: on 1 January 2024 a reviewer in marketing and partnerships wrote, "The AI suggestions are much more accurate and realistic than Grammarly!"

QuillBot appears less often in this record, and where it does the reasoning is narrow rather than sweeping. A Capterra reviewer on 23 March 2022 gave as their reason for switching: "QuillBot does not have the feature that i want to use."

One thing about this market is worth a reader's attention here, and it is a matter of public corporate record rather than a judgement about anyone. Learneo, Inc.'s own homepage, read on 12 September 2026, lists QuillBot among its portfolio brands, and lists Scribbr there too; Scribbr publishes roundups of paraphrasing tools, and on 12 September 2026 a reading of the query "best paraphrasing tool" found scribbr.com twice in the first ten results. Whether either brand states that relationship on its own pages could not be established for this review, because every attempt to read them returned an HTTP 403, live and archived, so nothing here should be taken as saying they do not.

Two cautions on all of the above. Every one of those statements is several years old, and both products have shipped a great deal since. And none of them is a measurement of anything; they are reasons individual buyers gave, quoted with their dates so a reader can weigh them accordingly.

Is Wordtune Worth the Price? Who Should Upgrade and Who Should Stay on the Free Plan

Wordtune reads 73.7 out of 100 on this card, which lands in the average band, and the shape of that number matters more than the number. Its strength is the consumer record: 86.6 across 1,565 ratings on two platforms, which is a lot of people broadly satisfied with a rewriting tool. Its weakest row is the contract, 61.4, and the thing pulling it down is the personal-use restriction on output, which scores 50. The one-way indemnity is not what drags it: at 68 it is the highest of the three clause readings, because a one-way indemnity is the ordinary position in this market and this site scores it as ordinary rather than as a fault. And the row a buyer probably wants most, whether the rewrites are any good, is the one this card cannot fill, because nothing independent measures it.

Stay on the free plan, or skip this one, if you write in a language other than English, because Wordtune will not rewrite in it at any price. Read clause 5.3 before you pay if your rewrites are going into client work, sales copy or anything else that is not personal use. Look elsewhere if you want a rewriting step inside an automated pipeline, because this product's published surfaces are a browser and a phone, driven by hand. And if what you mainly want is a grammar checker, note that Basic already includes unlimited spelling and grammar checks at no cost.

Upgrading makes sense in a narrower case than the pricing page implies: you are editing English drafts in a browser all day, ten rewrites before lunch is not enough, your use sits inside what clause 5.3 calls personal, and you have tried the free tier on your own writing first. If that is you, the honest price is $13.99 a month, or $6.99 if you commit to a year, and you should set a calendar reminder before the renewal date rather than relying on being able to stop it afterwards, because section 6 says cancellation takes effect at the end of the period you already paid for and that partial periods are not refunded.

Vouch carries no affiliate link to Wordtune and no commercial relationship with AI21 Labs; how each row on the card is built, and what this site does not do, are both set out on the methodology page and on the page about who writes here.