ScriptGrain vs StyleMimic

ScriptGrain measures a voice on 45 named attributes and shows the difference behind every score; StyleMimic counts a handful of style features and scores drafts against your samples. Both write in a measured style; only ScriptGrain connects that voice to Claude, ChatGPT and other tools through an API and MCP server, on every plan.

The actual difference

StyleMimic counts a handful of style features in the browser and scores drafts against your samples. ScriptGrain measures 45 named attributes across eight layers, publishes its scoring method with the weights and tolerances, returns the per-feature differences with every score, and puts the API and MCP server on every plan including Free, so the same voice works inside Claude, ChatGPT and other tools. StyleMimic's site lists no API or MCP connector.

StyleMimic's free tier is generous, and its paid plans ($9 and $19 a month) are listed but marked as coming, so they cannot be bought yet. ScriptGrain's Writer plan is £12 a month with the API and MCP connector included, and the free plan measures one voice with no card.

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.

Connect ScriptGrain to Claude

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

ScriptGrainStyleMimic
Entry price£12/mo (Writer, 1 voice profile)$9/mo (Starter, listed as coming, not yet on sale)
Free tierYes, See your own voice profile and try one draft. No card.Free account: 5,000 written words a month (1,500 a day), up to 10 saved style profiles, no card; style scans work without an account
Voices on entry plan1 (3 on Operator, £29/mo)Up to 10 saved style profiles on Free, 25 on Starter
How the voice is built45 measured style attributes, extracted from writing you have already publishedYou paste a sample of at least 40 words (a few hundred are recommended). Sentence length, paragraph shape, punctuation habits, vocabulary range and typical openers are counted in your browser; a short AI pass (Google's Gemini models, per its FAQ) describes the qualitative side when the profile is saved. Every draft carries a style-match score checked against your own samples.

StyleMimic figures read from their pricing page on 28 September 2026.

What StyleMimic is built for

StyleMimic is built for speed of entry. Paste 40 words, run a style scan, see a result. No account needed for the scan, no card for the free tier. That's a genuinely low bar, and to be fair, it's the right bar for a lot of people.

Its positioning is broad. It reads a writing style from a short sample and writes posts, emails, comments, newsletters and articles in it. The audience it names is three-fold: individual writers, ghostwriters juggling several clients, and brands with several writers. So the product is shaped around a simple loop. Give it a sample, get a saved style profile, generate drafts, check the drafts against your own samples.

That loop works best when the job is contained. One person, one channel, a few drafts a week. You don't need a measurement framework for that. You need something quick that gets you most of the way there.

And the saved profiles matter. Up to 10 on the free plan means a ghostwriter can keep one profile per client without paying anything. That's a practical detail, not a flashy one, and it's the kind of thing buyers actually use.

How StyleMimic handles voice

The mechanic is stated plainly on its own pages. You paste a sample of at least 40 words (a few hundred is recommended). StyleMimic then measures sentence rhythm, punctuation habits, vocabulary and typical openers. It describes the countable part as "measured, not guessed by AI."

Fair enough. Those are real stylistic signals, and counting them is a sound instinct.

Each draft then shows a "Style match" indicator, checked against your own samples. So you get a verdict on every piece: closer or further from what you pasted in. What you don't get, because it isn't published, is the weighting. The formula behind the indicator isn't on the site, which means you can't see how much sentence rhythm counts against vocabulary, or what tolerance a "good" match allows.

That's not a flaw in the product so much as a design choice. A single indicator is easy to read. The catch is that an indicator alone tells you a draft is off, and leaves you to work out why. If you're an experienced editor, you'll spot it by eye. If you're handing drafts to a team, it's harder.

We also found no API or MCP connector on StyleMimic's site (checked 2026-09-30). So the style match lives in the browser, where the profile was built. Whatever you write in Claude, ChatGPT or another tool sits outside that loop.

How ScriptGrain handles voice

ScriptGrain starts from writing you've already published. Feed it a sample of 50+ words and it builds a profile; three or more pieces and about 3,000 words is the recommendation. Extraction usually takes under a minute (median 39 seconds, measured 2026-09-28).

The profile holds 45 attributes in 8 layers: lexical, syntactic, tone and register, rhetorical, punctuation and format, function words, content patterns, and quirks and cadence. Some are what you'd expect, such as average sentence length and its variance, contraction rate and comma density. Others go further: semicolon and dash habits, formality on a 0 to 10 scale, confidence versus hedging, opening style, argument structure (evidence-first, conclusion-first, narrative), paragraph openers and pronoun mix. The full list sits in the writing voice attributes reference.

Every draft is then scored from 0 to 1 against the profile. That's the voice match. On-voice drafts typically land between 0.85 and 0.95. Partial matches sit at 0.5 to 0.8. A clearly different voice falls under 0.45. The score arrives with per-feature deltas: the draft's value next to the profile's value for each attribute. So a 0.71 isn't a mystery. It might be contractions running low and sentences running long, and you can see both.

The scoring method, weights and tolerances are published in the voice measurement framework. Polish then revises a draft toward a target score (default 0.9), and drafts are written with the profile as a constraint. The app also learns from the edits you save.

The profile itself reaches ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Cursor, Meta Muse and any MCP client through the MCP server and the REST API. It's read live each time, on every plan including Free. It is never a pasted prompt.

The same job in each tool

Take one job. A ghostwriter needs a short newsletter piece for a client who writes in clipped, confident sentences, opens with a claim, and rarely hedges.

In StyleMimic, she pastes a few hundred words of the client's past newsletters, saves the style as a profile, and generates a draft. The Style match indicator shows how close it sits to the samples. Say it reads as a decent match but something feels soft. She edits by eye: cuts a couple of qualifiers, tightens an opening, reruns the check. It's quick. The whole loop stays in one browser tab, and for a one-off piece that's a real advantage.

In ScriptGrain, she builds the client's profile from three or more published pieces. She drafts, either in the app or in Claude with the profile connected over MCP, and gets a voice match score back. Suppose it comes in at 0.74, a partial match by the published bands. The per-feature deltas show the draft hedging more than the profile does and running its sentences longer, with openers that explain before they claim. She knows which two things to fix. Polish can revise toward the 0.9 target, or she can edit by hand and rescore.

Same client, same piece. The difference isn't the first draft. It's what happens when the first draft is wrong. One tool says "close" or "not close." The other says where.

Which one fits which situation

Pick StyleMimic when the job is small and the start needs to be fast. You want a voice-matched draft in minutes, you don't want an account, and the free tier covers your volume. Its free plan gives you 5,000 words a month and up to 10 saved style profiles with no card, which suits an occasional writer or a ghostwriter trialling a workflow. Its paid plans ($9 Starter and $19 Pro a month, as listed on 2026-09-30) are marked "Coming", so they can't be bought yet; word packs from $5 for 10,000 words are the listed route to more volume.

Pick ScriptGrain when the voice has to travel. If you write in Claude or ChatGPT and want the same voice there, the API and MCP server are what make that possible, and they're on every plan. The same goes for accountability: if several writers produce under one brand, or a reviewer needs to say why a draft was rejected, per-feature deltas and a published method give you something to point at. Brand voice work across a team is where that pays off; the brand voice consistency checker shows the idea in practice.

A short list of situations:

And using both makes sense more often than comparison pages admit.

Using ScriptGrain alongside StyleMimic

Nothing forces a choice. StyleMimic is a fast front door: a quick scan, a quick draft, no friction. ScriptGrain is the measured layer behind it. A sensible split is to use StyleMimic for light, fast jobs where the browser is enough, and ScriptGrain wherever the voice has to be checked, explained or carried into another tool.

If you're moving profiles across, don't try to convert one into the other. They measure different things in different ways. Rebuild the profile from the source material instead: take the published pieces you fed StyleMimic, run them through ScriptGrain, and aim for three or more pieces and about 3,000 words so the profile has something to hold on to. That takes minutes, and it means the profile is built from your writing, not from another tool's interpretation of it.

For running both, a simple habit helps. Keep the client or brand's published samples in one place. Build the StyleMimic profile and the ScriptGrain profile from that same pool, so neither drifts from the other. Then score anything important in ScriptGrain before it goes out, and read the deltas. If you want a wider view of how tools in this category differ, the AI writing voice tools matrix lays them side by side, and the ScriptGrain plans are there if you need to see what sits at each level.

One caution. A voice is a moving target. If the author's style shifts, rebuild the profile in both tools, not just one. Otherwise you'll be scoring new writing against an old self, and getting a confident answer to the wrong question.

Where StyleMimic is stronger

An AI writing tool that reads a writing style from a short sample (40 words minimum) and writes posts, emails, comments, newsletters and articles in it, for individual writers, ghostwriters with several clients and brands that want one voice across writers. This page is about stylemimic.com, not the ChatGPT GPTs with similar names. Newsletters are where this matters most. Readers see you every issue, so drift gets spotted fast, and a general-purpose model with a tone description is exactly what produces it. We wrote a separate page on newsletter voice consistency: what degrades across issues, why that costs you more than any single weak draft, and how a measured profile holds the line.

If you want to write a lot for free today, StyleMimic's free tier gives far more words than ScriptGrain's, which includes one free draft, and it needs only a short sample. ScriptGrain asks for more of your writing up front, about 3,000 words for the sharpest read, because it measures more.

Questions

Is ScriptGrain better than StyleMimic?

They solve the problem differently. StyleMimic counts a handful of style features in the browser and scores drafts against your samples. ScriptGrain measures 45 named attributes across eight layers, publishes its scoring method with the weights and tolerances, returns the per-feature differences with every score, and puts the API and MCP server on every plan including Free, so the same voice works inside Claude, ChatGPT and other tools. StyleMimic's site lists no API or MCP connector. If you want to write a lot for free today, StyleMimic's free tier gives far more words than ScriptGrain's, which includes one free draft, and it needs only a short sample. ScriptGrain asks for more of your writing up front, about 3,000 words for the sharpest read, because it measures more.

How much does StyleMimic cost compared with ScriptGrain?

StyleMimic's entry plan is $9/mo (Starter, listed as coming, not yet on sale) (Yearly billing listed at 30% less than monthly. Pro $19/mo, also listed as coming), with this free tier: Free account: 5,000 written words a month (1,500 a day), up to 10 saved style profiles, no card; style scans work without an account. ScriptGrain starts at £12/month (Writer, 1 voice profile) with a free plan: See your own voice profile and try one draft. No card. StyleMimic figures read from their pricing page on 28 September 2026.

Does StyleMimic learn my writing voice?

You paste a sample of at least 40 words (a few hundred are recommended). Sentence length, paragraph shape, punctuation habits, vocabulary range and typical openers are counted in your browser; a short AI pass (Google's Gemini models, per its FAQ) describes the qualitative side when the profile is saved. Every draft carries a style-match score checked against your own samples. ScriptGrain instead measures 45 style attributes from writing you have already published, and scores every draft against that measured profile.

Other comparisons