ScriptGrain vs Acta AI

ScriptGrain measures 45 attributes from writing you have already published, including the unconscious markers you cannot self-report, and scores every draft against the measured profile. Acta turns a sample into a voice description you can read and edit, inside a wider content and publishing product.

The actual difference

Acta turns a sample into a voice description you can read and edit, plus the choices you make about perspective, tone and terms. ScriptGrain measures 45 attributes including the unconscious ones nobody can self-report: function-word frequencies, clause ordering, punctuation cadence, sentence-length variance, and scores every draft against the measured profile.

Acta's voice matching starts on Tribune at $79 a month; the $29 Scriptor plan does not include it. ScriptGrain's plans are published: free, £12/mo, £29/mo, £99/mo, £299/mo.

ScriptGrain is not a replacement for the assistant you already use. It measures your voice from writing you have published and hands that profile to ChatGPT, Claude, Muse or any MCP client through its connector, then scores every draft against it. ScriptGrain makes your AI better at being you.

How the connector works

Every AI voice tool compared: prices, scores and API access, checked

	ScriptGrain	Acta AI
Entry price	£12/mo (Writer, 1 voice profile)	$29/mo (Scriptor, no voice matching)
Free tier	Yes, See your own voice profile and try one draft. No card.	None
Voices on entry plan	1 (3 on Operator, £29/mo)	Voice matching is not on Scriptor; it starts on Tribune at $79/mo
How the voice is built	45 measured style attributes, extracted from writing you have already published	Paste a writing sample and Acta writes an inspectable, editable voice description that stays with your template. You then answer questions about your experience and perspective, save topic notes and stories, choose perspective and tone, and set preferred and avoided terms, and review or ask for a revision. Writing-sample analysis is included on Tribune and Imperator.

Acta AI figures read from their pricing page on 30 September 2026.

What Acta AI is built for

Acta is a content and publishing platform. Its own tagline says it plainly: "Good ideas deserve to be published." So the product is organised around getting a piece from idea to live page: Content Forge for drafting, templates, schedules, images, SEO and GEO tools, Acta Score, and editorial review. Voice matching is one feature in that list. It isn't the point of the product.

That matters when you're comparing the two. If your problem is a content operation, with a site to feed, a calendar to keep and images to source, Acta is aimed squarely at you. You get the writing, the publishing and the optimisation in one place, and you don't stitch three tools together. To be fair, that's a real advantage, and ScriptGrain doesn't try to match it.

The plans follow the same logic. Prices were read on 2026-09-30: Scriptor is $29 a month for one site, Tribune is $79 for three sites, and Imperator is $249 for ten. The unit you're buying is sites, not voices. Voice matching sits on Tribune and above, which is worth knowing before you fall for the entry price.

How Acta AI handles voice

Here's how it works. You paste a writing sample, and Acta turns it into a voice description. That description is written in plain language, it's inspectable, and you can edit it. It stays with your template, so every piece you generate from that template draws on the same description.

Then you add to it. You answer questions about your experience and perspective. You save topic notes and stories. You choose a perspective and a tone. You set preferred and avoided terms. After a draft arrives, you review it, edit it, or ask for a revision.

That's a thoughtful design. The description is something a person can actually read, and if it says your writing is "warm and a little irreverent" when you'd say "dry and precise", you fix the sentence and move on. The stories and topic notes carry something a measurement can't: your actual experience, the things only you would know. And the avoided-terms list is a blunt, useful tool.

What the published material doesn't describe is a measurement. Acta Score is on every plan, but it isn't presented as a voice-fidelity measure, and no method is published. So when a draft comes back, you judge whether it sounds like you. You're the instrument. Some people are very good at that, and some are not, because the habits that make a voice recognisable are the ones you can't see in your own prose. Nor does anything in Acta's pages mention an API or an MCP server, so the voice description lives inside Acta.

How ScriptGrain handles voice

ScriptGrain starts from a different premise. It doesn't ask you to describe your voice; it measures one from writing you've already published.

The result is a profile of 45 attributes in 8 layers: lexical, syntactic, tone and register, rhetorical, punctuation and format, function words, content patterns, and quirks and cadence. Some of those attributes are the ones you'd expect a person to name, such as formality on a 0 to 10 scale, contraction rate, or whether you open with a hook or a claim. Others are the ones nobody self-reports: average sentence length and its variance, comma density, semicolon and dash habits, confidence versus hedging, paragraph openers, the pronoun mix. The writing voice attributes reference lists them all.

A profile needs at least one sample of 50 or more words. Three or more pieces and about 3,000 words is the recommendation, because more text steadies the measurements. Extraction usually takes under a minute; the median was 39 seconds when it was measured on 2026-09-28.

Then comes the enforcement. Every draft is scored from 0 to 1 against the profile, which is the voice match. On-voice drafts typically land between 0.85 and 0.95. Partial matches sit between 0.5 and 0.8, and a clearly different voice falls under 0.45. The score arrives with per-feature deltas, the draft's value set against the profile's value, so you can see that your sentences ran long or your contractions dropped away. The method is published in the voice measurement framework, and that's deliberate: a number you can't inspect is just a vibe.

Polish then revises a draft toward a target score, 0.9 by default. Drafts are written with the profile as a constraint, and the app learns from the edits you save. And the profile reaches ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Cursor, Meta Muse and any MCP client through the MCP server and the REST API, read live each time. It's never a pasted prompt.

The same job in each tool

Take one job. A founder wants a 900-word post on why her team dropped a planning ritual, and she wants it to sound like the three posts she already has on her blog.

In Acta, she pastes one of those posts as the sample. Acta writes its description, perhaps something like "direct, first person, sceptical of process for its own sake", and she reads it, trims a phrase, and adds two stories about the ritual at its worst. She sets the perspective to first person, the tone to plain, and lists two words she'd never use. The draft comes back. She reads it, fixes a paragraph that sounds too cheerful, and asks for a revision. Then the same platform schedules it, finds an image and runs the SEO pass. The voice work took some judgement; the rest took almost no effort.

In ScriptGrain, she supplies all three posts. A profile appears in under a minute. The draft is written against it and scored, and say it comes back in the partial band, somewhere between 0.5 and 0.8. The deltas tell her why: sentence-length variance is too low, so the draft reads evenly, and contractions sit under her usual rate. Polish pushes it toward 0.9, and she edits the result and saves her changes, which the app learns from. Then she copies the post into her own CMS, because ScriptGrain doesn't publish it.

So each tool leaves a different job behind. Acta leaves you with judging the voice, and ScriptGrain leaves you with the publishing.

Which one fits which situation

Pick Acta AI when:

You run a content operation and need drafting, scheduling, images and SEO in a single product.
You'd rather read and edit a plain-language description of a voice than study numbers.
Your voice depends heavily on stories, experience and opinions that you want to feed in directly.
You're managing several sites and the site count is what you're buying.

Pick ScriptGrain when:

Consistency matters more than convenience: several writers, or several months, and a voice that has to hold.
You want a score and per-feature deltas that show where a draft drifted, since voice drift is hard to spot by eye.
You already write in ChatGPT, Claude or another tool and want the voice to follow you there through the API or MCP server.
You need separate profiles for separate voices, which Studio (10 profiles, 3 seats) and Agency (unlimited profiles, 10 seats) are built for.

Use both when your publishing home is Acta and your voice standard lives elsewhere. They answer different questions. Acta asks how to get this piece live. ScriptGrain asks whether this piece still sounds like you.

One last point on cost. Acta's voice matching starts on Tribune, so the honest comparison is Tribune against a ScriptGrain plan, not Scriptor against Free. Pricing has the ScriptGrain tiers: Free, £12 a month for Writer, £29 for Operator.

Using ScriptGrain alongside Acta AI

Running both is straightforward, and nothing about it needs a migration.

Build the profile first. Give ScriptGrain your three best published pieces, let it measure them, and keep the profile as the reference for what "on-voice" means. Then generate drafts wherever you like. If you draft in Acta, paste the result into ScriptGrain for a score, read the deltas, and use Polish to close the gap. If you draft in ChatGPT or Claude, connect the MCP server and the profile is read live each time, so the constraint travels with you. The Claude integration shows what that looks like.

You can also check a finished piece before it goes out. The brand voice consistency checker is there for exactly that step, and free writing style analysis is a fair way to see the countable part of a voice before you commit to anything.

A few habits help. Keep Acta's voice description and your ScriptGrain profile roughly in agreement, because if one says "formal" and the other measures a formality of 4, somebody's wrong. Re-measure when your writing changes. And treat the two as a pair of checks: Acta's description catches what you meant, and the score catches what you actually wrote.

If you want the wider field, the AI writing voice tools matrix sets out how the other tools compare. At the end of the day, the choice is whether you need a publishing platform with a voice feature, or a voice measurement that follows you into whatever you already use. Plenty of people need both. Fair enough.

Where Acta AI is stronger

A content and publishing platform (templates, schedules, images, SEO and GEO tools) with voice matching as one feature on its middle and top plans.

The voice description is plain language you can read and edit yourself
Voice matching sits inside a full publishing workflow: templates, schedules, images, SEO and GEO tools
A 14-day Tribune trial with voice matching included and no card

If you want voice matching as one feature inside a broader publishing workflow, with a voice description you can read and adjust by hand, that is a reasonable way to buy it.

Questions

Is ScriptGrain better than Acta AI?

They solve the problem differently. Acta turns a sample into a voice description you can read and edit, plus the choices you make about perspective, tone and terms. ScriptGrain measures 45 attributes including the unconscious ones nobody can self-report: function-word frequencies, clause ordering, punctuation cadence, sentence-length variance, and scores every draft against the measured profile. If you want voice matching as one feature inside a broader publishing workflow, with a voice description you can read and adjust by hand, that is a reasonable way to buy it.

How much does Acta AI cost compared with ScriptGrain?

Acta AI's entry plan is $29/mo (Scriptor, no voice matching), with no free tier. ScriptGrain starts at £12/month (Writer, 1 voice profile) with a free plan: See your own voice profile and try one draft. No card. Acta AI figures read from their pricing page on 30 September 2026.

Does Acta AI learn my writing voice?

Paste a writing sample and Acta writes an inspectable, editable voice description that stays with your template. You then answer questions about your experience and perspective, save topic notes and stories, choose perspective and tone, and set preferred and avoided terms, and review or ask for a revision. Writing-sample analysis is included on Tribune and Imperator. ScriptGrain instead measures 45 style attributes from writing you have already published, and scores every draft against that measured profile.