Cage Match: AutoCrit vs. ProWritingAid Chapter Analysis
(Beth Turnage Blog) Analysis of Two Industry Giants (And a Nod to Hand Analysis)
What happens when you pit two of the biggest names in AI manuscript analysis against each other? I put Chapter 4 of my manuscript through both AutoCrit and ProWritingAid to see how they’d evaluate the same content. The results were illuminating.
But first, let me show you what old-fashioned analysis using human metrics looks like. Using my multi-genre plot checklist—a tool I’ve refined over 11 years of ghostwriting—I let Claude AI have it. I choose Claude because at the current time, it has more understanding of nuance and subtext than other AI models.
“Manual” Analysis Results:
Story Structure: Strong ✓ (Clear conflict, escalating tension, hooks)
Character Development: Excellent ✓ (Both protagonists compelling and multi-dimensional)
Pacing: Effective ✓ (Good balance of action, dialogue, internal conflict)
Genre Appropriateness: Perfect ✓ (Noir conventions properly employed)
Romantic Tension: Building ✓ (Subtle attraction vs. professional duty conflict)
Overall Human Assessment: Ready for submission with minor polish.
Now let’s see how the machines did.
Round 1: AutoCrit’s Technical Knockout Attempt
Where AutoCrit Landed Clean Hits:
Deep POV Analysis – AutoCrit correctly flagged several instances where Rik makes observations beyond realistic scope:
Jessick’s emotional state (“whatever played behind those steady eyes”)
Reading “recognition” vs “suspicion” in Jessick’s gaze
Detailed awareness of others’ positions and reactions
Timeline Tracking – Provided logical sequence of events and identified key plot threads effectively.
Character Consistency – Accurately noted potential contradictions, like Rik’s sobriety claims versus temptation thoughts.
Where AutoCrit Swung and Missed:
Genre Blindness – AutoCrit doesn’t recognize noir conventions where:
Heightened character awareness is expected
Intuitive insights about others are stylistic choices
“Deep POV violations” are actually genre-appropriate techniques
Voice Misunderstanding—Flagged Rik’s detailed observations as “overly stylized” when they’re perfect for a sardonic, observant rock star character.
Relationship Dynamics—Missed that Jessick’s “contradictory” behavior (professional yet subtly responsive) is intentional character development showing internal conflict.
Round 2: ProWritingAid’s Surprising Stumble
While PWA’s full manuscript analysis was exceptional, but their single-chapter analysis? Surprisingly weak.
PWA’s Major Blind Spots:
Complete Romance Miss—Treated this as pure crime thriller, ignoring the crucial romantic/sexual tension between Rik and Jessick that drives the scene.
Genre Confusion—No recognition this is M/M romantic suspense, leading to fundamental misunderstanding of character dynamics.
Missing Key Beats—Didn’t notice:
Jessick’s reaction to the rope (crucial BDSM recognition scene)
Phone number exchange (relationship development)
Power dynamic setup between cop and suspect
Shallow Character Analysis – Described Jessick as merely “mysterious” rather than recognizing his complex internal conflict about attraction vs. duty.
What PWA Got Right
Craft Assessment—Correctly identified strong voice, pacing, and dialogue quality
Scene Function—Understood this was effective setup and character introduction
Atmospheric Recognition—Grasped mood and tension elements
The Verdict: Context Is King
AutoCrit Accuracy Rating: 6.5/10—Technically competent but contextually limited. Good at spotting potential issues but can’t distinguish between actual problems and intentional stylistic choices.
ProWritingAid Accuracy Rating: 4/10 – Surprisingly poor for single-chapter analysis despite their excellent full-manuscript capabilities. Completely missed the genre and core relationship dynamics.
“Manual Analysis:” 9/10 – Claude’s Human-like understanding of genre conventions, character development, and story purpose, as requested in the manual form, proved superior.
What This Reveals About Auto-Crit and PWA Tools
The Context Problem: PWA excelled with full manuscript context but failed with isolated chapters. AutoCrit maintained consistent (if limited) analysis regardless of scope.
Genre Recognition Gaps: Both tools struggled with romantic suspense conventions, defaulting to generic fiction rules rather than understanding genre-specific techniques.
Pattern Recognition Limits: Without full story context, AI tools miss relationship arcs, character development patterns, and thematic elements that drive reader engagement.
The Bottom Line for Writers
If agencies are using these tools to pre-filter submissions (and evidence suggests some are), writers face a troubling reality: your manuscript’s fate might depend entirely on which AI tool happens to evaluate it.
AutoCrit might flag your noir hero’s intuitive insights as technical errors. ProWritingAid might completely miss that you’re writing romance. Both could recommend changes that would actually weaken your story’s genre appeal.
The real winner? A Human or Human Criteria Based analysis that understands genre, recognizes authorial intent, and evaluates whether techniques serve the story’s purpose.
In our next post, we’ll dive deeper into the specific feedback each tool provided and what it means for the future of manuscript evaluation.
What’s your experience with AI analysis tools? Have you noticed similar disconnects between what the AI suggests and what actually works for your genre?
Image from Dall-e.