Writesonic Review: AI Copywriting Tool Put to the Test

What Is Writesonic and Why Does It Matter?

Writesonic is one of the many GPT-3-powered copywriting tools that emerged in 2021, promising to help marketers and business owners generate everything from product descriptions to full blog posts using artificial intelligence. It sits in an increasingly crowded market alongside tools like Jasper (formerly Jarvis), Copy.ai, and Copysmith.

The homepage itself looks polished, with gradient text styling and interactive demos similar to what you'll find on competing platforms. That said, the marketing copy on their own site isn't particularly compelling, which raises an interesting question about whether the team behind Writesonic leans more toward engineering than copywriting. It's a subtle observation, but when you're selling a writing tool, your own writing needs to be airtight.

The Writesonic Dashboard and UI

Once you log in, Writesonic organizes your work into projects, similar to what Copy.ai offers. The interface presents a grid of large tiles for different template categories: digital ads, writing tools, social media copy, website copy, e-commerce copy, video copy, and more. If you've used Jasper, the layout will feel immediately familiar.

The template library is reasonably comprehensive, covering everything from Facebook ads to keyword extractors, with a "more coming soon" section hinting at future expansion. Navigation is straightforward, and getting started with any template takes just a few clicks. Where things get less impressive is in the finer details of the user experience, which we'll get into shortly.

Product Description Quality

Testing Writesonic's product description generator with a fictional membership community called "Profitable Tools Insiders," the results were genuinely impressive. Given only basic characteristics like "learn to build a website" and "start an e-commerce business," the AI produced descriptions that went well beyond simple rephrasing.

One standout output described the community as being for "entrepreneurs, affiliate marketers, and online business owners who want to help you turn your side gig into a full-time income." The fact that it inferred "affiliate marketers" as a target audience from such minimal input shows real sophistication in how GPT-3 interprets context. Another output correctly positioned the product as a community rather than a course, demonstrating that the AI can make reasonable assumptions about product format.

The usual GPT-3 caveat applies here: you'll find made-up specifics like "12-week online training course" that need to be caught during proofreading. The AI confidently fabricates details, so treat every factual claim as something that needs verification.

UX Gaps: Saving, Sharing, and Exporting

This is where Writesonic starts to fall behind the competition. There's no one-click copy button for individual outputs. You can select text and copy it manually, but competitors make this much easier. The bookmark feature requires you to enter a title and description before saving, which adds unnecessary friction to what should be a single-click action.

All outputs are automatically saved to a usage history page, but you can't remove bad outputs from that page or flag favorites without going through the full bookmark flow. Export options are limited to plain text files only. By comparison, Copysmith offers CSV, PDF, and text exports, while Copy.ai provides CSV. Writesonic's shareable link feature was slow to load during testing and initially appeared broken before eventually displaying results.

The collaboration features also lag behind. With Copysmith, team members can vote outputs up or down, making it easy to reach consensus on copy. Writesonic's shared links only allow bookmarking with notes, and you can't edit text before sharing. These are small details individually, but they add up to a noticeably less polished workflow.

AIDA Framework Results

The AIDA (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action) framework is a classic copywriting structure, and Writesonic does produce outputs in the correct format with all four sections present. However, the quality reveals some limitations.

The Attention headlines across all five outputs were nearly identical variations of "Are you interested in starting an online business?" or "Do you want to start a business but don't know where to start?" There was almost no creative variation. A stronger tool would explore different angles like addressing fears, highlighting results, or challenging assumptions rather than defaulting to the same question format five times.

The call-to-action sections all followed a "click this ad now" pattern, which is functional but uninspiring. None of the CTAs were particularly enticing or creative. To be fair, generating compelling CTAs has been a weakness across all GPT-3 tools tested in this series, but the lack of variety in Writesonic's outputs makes the problem more noticeable. Copysmith held a slight edge in AIDA output quality overall.

Long-Form Article Writing: The Step-by-Step Process

Writesonic's standout feature is its AI Article Writer, which walks you through a structured process: generate article ideas, write an intro, create an outline, then produce the full article. It's similar to what Copysmith offers but with some notable differences in execution.

Step one generates article title ideas from a topic. Given "create a sales page for an online course," the tool produced 10 headlines, but roughly half were nearly identical variations like "How to Create a Sales Page for Your Online Course" versus "How to Create a Sales Page for an Online Course." The lack of meaningful variation is a recurring theme with Writesonic.

Step two is where things get frustrating. Rather than generating intro paragraphs for you (as competing tools do), Writesonic asks you to write the intro yourself. There is a separate intro generator template available elsewhere in the platform, but it's not integrated into the article workflow. This feels like an oversight since the whole point of an AI writing tool is to reduce the amount of manual writing required.

Article Outlines and Content Generation

The outline generation step produced five options of varying quality. Some outlines focused too heavily on technical setup rather than persuasive copywriting techniques, which missed the intent of the article topic. The best outline covered practical sales page elements like using bullet points, testimonials, screenshots, timers, and bundle offers.

A significant limitation here is that you can't edit outlines before selecting one. Copysmith allowed inline editing at each step, letting you nudge the AI's direction as you progressed. Writesonic locks you into choosing from what's generated, which means you're more dependent on getting a good output on the first try.

Once you select an outline, the full article generation costs one credit per two sections. A 10-section article runs five credits and takes roughly three to four minutes to generate. The output appears in a basic text editor with proper heading hierarchy (H1 for the title, H2 for sections), which is a nice detail for SEO purposes.

Article Quality and the Fake Quote Problem

The generated article was a mixed bag. Some sections contained genuinely useful, well-structured advice, while others missed the point entirely. The opening paragraph talked about making sure your course content is high quality, which completely sidestepped the article's actual topic of building an effective sales page.

One particularly tricky issue: the AI fabricated a detailed quote attributed to "Justin Marlin," complete with specific advice about creating video portfolios for courses. The quote sounded convincing and professional. The problem? Justin Marlin doesn't appear to be a real person. Googling both the name and the quote text returned no results. This is a serious concern for anyone planning to publish AI-generated content, as fabricated quotes attributed to non-existent experts could damage your credibility.

The regeneration feature is a welcome addition. You can regenerate individual sections for free during the beta period, which helps you iterate toward better output without burning additional credits. The export options include both text and Word document formats, an improvement over the text-only option available elsewhere in the platform.

Plagiarism Test Results

Running the full 1,581-word article through Copyscape returned zero plagiarism matches, which is the expected result for GPT-3-generated content. The AI creates original text rather than copying from existing sources, so plagiarism generally isn't a concern with these tools. The check cost $0.17 through Copyscape.

While plagiarism isn't the issue, factual accuracy absolutely is. As demonstrated by the fabricated Justin Marlin quote, GPT-3 will confidently present invented information as fact. Every claim, statistic, quote, and proper noun in AI-generated content needs manual verification before publishing.

Writesonic Pricing Breakdown

Writesonic offers two plan categories: Marketing plans (full template access) and Writing plans (blog-focused tools only). At the time of review, a 55% discount was active across all plans.

The Marketing plans start at $11.25 per month (annual billing) for 75 credits on the Starter tier, scaling up to a Business plan at $200 per month for 1,200 credits. Without the discount, the Business plan would run $449 monthly. A pay-as-you-go option starts at roughly $0.50 per credit, with the per-credit cost decreasing as you buy in bulk.

The Writing plans are worth considering if you only need blog content. The top-tier Writing plan offers 2,000 credits for $180 per month, compared to 1,200 credits at $200+ on the Marketing side. You lose access to AIDA frameworks, PAS formulas, and ad copy templates, but if long-form content is your primary need, the Writing plan delivers more output per dollar.

Final Verdict: Improved but Still Playing Catch-Up

Writesonic has come a long way from its earlier iterations. When first tested months prior, the outputs were frankly unusable. The current version produces genuinely useful product descriptions and passable long-form content, which represents significant progress.

However, it's still trailing the competition in several key areas. The duplicate output problem is the most pressing issue: getting five nearly identical results when you're paying per credit feels wasteful. The team acknowledges this with their screenshot-and-contact-support policy, but that's a band-aid solution rather than a fix. Basic UX features like one-click copy, inline editing during the article workflow, and functional link sharing all need attention.

For the price, Writesonic isn't a bad option, especially with the discount. But if you're choosing between the GPT-3 writing tools available right now, Copysmith offers a more polished experience with better collaboration features, and Jasper (which was reviewed separately in this series) remains the benchmark. Writesonic is worth watching as it continues to improve, but it's not quite ready to be a top recommendation.

Watch the Full Video

Prefer watching to reading? Check out the full video on YouTube for a complete walkthrough with live demos and commentary.