Comparison
Auctor vs Sudowrite
This is less a feature fight than a philosophy fork. Sudowrite is built to generate fiction — it drafts scenes, describes, and expands for you. Auctor is built to edit fiction — it critiques, questions, and refines what you wrote. Both use the same underlying technology; they point it in opposite directions.
At a glance
| Auctor | Sudowrite | |
|---|---|---|
| AI's job | Editor: critique, pacing feedback, tighten/expand passages you select | Co-writer: drafts scenes, continues prose, brainstorms and describes |
| Who holds the pen | You. Every suggestion shows the original and waits for your accept/discard | Shared — the tool is designed to produce prose |
| AI transparency | Every AI-touched sentence labelled; disclosure report on export | No equivalent labelling of AI-written text |
| AI connection | Your own OpenAI / Gemini / Claude / Grok / DeepSeek account, or a local model — even on your own phone | Bundled models, metered by subscription credits |
| Where your manuscript lives | Local files on your computer | Their cloud (web app) |
| Price | Free; AI beta key also free (you pay only your own provider, or nothing with a local model) | Monthly subscription with word/credit limits |
Choose Sudowrite if…
- You want AI to produce prose — first drafts, scene expansion, "write the next 300 words".
- You're comfortable with your manuscript living in a web app.
- Speed of output matters more to you than provable authorship.
Choose Auctor if…
- You want to write every word yourself — and want a tireless editor beside you while you do.
- You care about being able to prove what's yours: publishers and readers increasingly ask.
- You want to choose (and own) the AI connection, including fully local models that never see the internet.
- You want the writing tool itself to be free.