Buyer worksheet
AI Writing Tool Buyer Scorecard
Use this scorecard to compare AI writing tools on the things demos hide: draft quality, editing burden, workflow fit, SEO usefulness, team adoption, pricing confidence, and whether you would still recommend the tool with zero commission attached.
Last updated: May 2026
How to use it
Run the same real task through each tool
Do not compare tools on random prompts. Use the same real workload across two or three shortlisted tools: a blog outline, a sales email, a landing-page draft, or an SEO brief. Score the output later, not in the heat of the demo.
Keep the prompt constant
Use the same source notes, prompt, and target outcome across each shortlisted tool.
Score the cleanup honestly
Count how much editing, fact-checking, and tone repair the draft still needs.
Choose the buyer-first winner
If the winner only makes sense because of commissions, the worksheet should force a rethink.
Scoring rubric
Score each shortlisted tool from 1 to 5
| Criterion | What to ask | Scoring rule | What 1 and 5 look like |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-draft quality | How usable is the raw draft before heavy rewriting starts? | Score 1-5 based on how close the output gets to publishable structure and clarity. | 1 = unusable without a rewrite. 5 = publishable with light line edits. |
| Editing burden | How much cleanup is still required for tone, facts, and flow? | Score 1-5 where 5 = minimal cleanup needed and 1 = near-total rewrite. Higher is better. | 1 = heavy tone, fact, or structure repair. 5 = quick polish only. |
| Workflow fit | Does the tool fit the actual job: blog posts, marketing copy, SEO briefs, or team workflows? | Score 1-5 based on whether the tool matches the main recurring use case, not occasional edge cases. | 1 = awkward fit for the real job. 5 = built for the workflow you actually repeat. |
| Brand control | Can the tool keep voice and positioning reasonably consistent across outputs? | Score 1-5 based on how much trust you have in the tone staying on-brand. | 1 = voice drifts constantly. 5 = tone stays reliable with light steering. |
| SEO usefulness | If search traffic matters, does the tool actually help with research, structure, or optimization? | Score 1-5 only on real SEO workflow help, not generic claims about rankings. | 1 = generic output with no real search help. 5 = materially improves research, structure, or optimization. |
| Team adoption | Would the rest of the team actually use this without extra friction? | Score 1-5 based on rollout simplicity, collaboration fit, and day-two usage likelihood. | 1 = people will avoid it. 5 = easy to roll out and likely to stick. |
| Pricing confidence | Does the price still make sense once usage expands beyond a single low-volume test? | Score 1-5 based on whether the annual cost still feels justified after realistic usage. | 1 = cost breaks once usage is real. 5 = price still feels justified at team scale. |
| Commercial honesty | Would you still choose this tool if there were no affiliate payout attached at all? | Score 1-5 only if the recommendation still feels reader-first and defensible. | 1 = only defensible because of payout. 5 = you would recommend it with zero commission. |
Decision rule
Use the scorecard to make a real decision
- • If a tool cannot reach at least 4/5 on editing burden, do not standardize on it just because the feature sheet is broad.
- • If two tools finish within 3 total points, prefer the one with the higher editing-burden score and stronger pricing confidence.
- • If commercial honesty scores below 4/5, do not recommend the tool as your winner.
- • The final pick should be the tool you would still defend if affiliate payouts disappeared tomorrow.
Copy-paste worksheet
Use this grid instead of rebuilding the worksheet from scratch
Copy this into your notes, spreadsheet, or brief doc, then score two or three realistic finalists side by side.
| Criterion | Tool A | Tool B | Tool C | Notes | |---|---:|---:|---:|---| | First-draft quality | | | | | | Editing burden | | | | | | Workflow fit | | | | | | Brand control | | | | | | SEO usefulness | | | | | | Team adoption | | | | | | Pricing confidence | | | | | | Commercial honesty | | | | | | Total score | | | | | Decision summary - Winner: - Why it won: - Biggest tradeoff: - Would I still choose it with zero commission attached?
Start the evaluation
Apply the worksheet to a real shortlist or comparison
Start with a ranked shortlist or a head-to-head comparison, then run the same brief through two or three realistic finalists. The point is not to confirm the loudest feature sheet - it is to find the tool you would still choose after the cleanup work and pricing tradeoffs are obvious.
Commercial note: outbound links may route to vendor homepages now and can be swapped to approved tracked partner links later without another page rewrite.
Turn the worksheet into a recommendation
Need a decision-ready brief instead of a scored scratchpad?
The Research Agent Brief Kit is a $89 pack with a comparison matrix, scoring sheets, and recommendation templates. The free worksheet helps you score tools. The kit helps you turn those scores, screenshots, pricing notes, and tradeoffs into a brief you can actually share or act on.