According to G2's analysis of 3,450+ verified Proofreading category reviews collected over the past 24 months, only 55% of reviewers who answered G2's AI usage question say they've used AI features in their proofreading tool, compared to 74% in the broader AI Writing Assistant category and 58% in Plagiarism Checker. Grammar and spell-check were among the first AI-powered features any writing tool ever shipped.
Current state of AI usage within proofreading software - Proofreading software aims to reduce uncertainty surrounding grammar and spelling, tone, and phrasing. However, now that AI has been increasingly introduced into these products, trust in the suggestions varies.
Some buyers do not register that they are using AI in their proofreading tool at all, unlike in newer categories like AI writing assistants, where AI is the primary selling point. Here's what the G2 Data reveals about where proofreading software has earned buyer trust in 2026, and where a category built on one of AI's oldest use cases is still catching up.
Trust is still being built in proofreading software AI capabilities. G2 Data shows a real adoption gap: among 1,070+ verified Proofreading category reviewers who answered G2's AI usage question between October 2025 and September 2026, 55.2% said yes, they've used AI features in their tool; 29.3% said no; and 15.6% weren't sure. That trails the 74% adoption rate in the broader AI Writing Assistant category and the 58.5% rate in Plagiarism Checker. The gap is visible across categories.
Grammarly, which accounts for 1,000+ of the category’s 1,070+ responses, aligns with the proofreading category average with its AI adoption rate of 55.1%. This shows the trust gap isn’t a small-vendor problem; it’s the category’s dominant player setting the norm. Grammarly's review tagging on G2 supports this.
On G2, reviewers can select multiple categories when writing a review of a product, and 87% of Grammarly’s 14,0000+ all-time verified G2 reviews are tagged under the Proofreading experience specifically, versus 65% tagged AI Writing Assistant and 19% tagged Plagiarism Checker. Buyers ultimately do not consider Grammarly as an AI product first, but rather as a secondary addition to its proofreading capabilities.
Familiarity may be working against these tools. Reviewers who have relied on rules-based grammar and spell-check for years do not always register newer AI-assisted rephrasing or tone suggestions as "AI features" at all, even when they use them daily. That's a distinctly different dynamic from AI Writing Assistants, a category where buyers expect AI at the center of the product.
Partly. G2 data shows enterprise buyers as a distinct, meaningful segment. Of Grammarly’s 14,000+ all-time reviewers, 12% identify as enterprise (1,000+ employees), compared to 52% and 32% for small business and mid-market, respectively, whose priorities skew toward style governance rather than grammar accuracy. For the enterprise segment, G2 reviews focus on style guide customization, brand voice enforcement, and CMS or publishing workflow integration.
G2 data shows individual and prosumer writers want everyday reliability and multi-platform support from proofreading software, not deep customization. Small-business and individual reviewers, who make up the majority of Grammarly’s 14,000+ all-time G2 reviews, consider whether a tool works consistently in Gmail, Slack, Google Docs, and browsers over feature depth.
G2 star ratings back this up: LanguageTool (4.4 stars, 45 reviews) and ProWritingAid (4.5 stars, 49 reviews) both post strong ratings despite far smaller review bases than Grammarly's, suggesting satisfaction in this segment tracks consistency more than feature breadth.
Increasingly, yes. G2 data suggests plagiarism detection and tone analysis are becoming mandatory features rather than differentiators. The 58.5% AI adoption rate in the separate Plagiarism Checker category is close enough to Proofreading's 55.2% that buyers appear to be evaluating these capabilities together, not as separate purchase decisions.
Products built around content quality beyond grammar, such as PerfectIt (4.8 stars, 164 reviews), which focuses on style consistency for professional publishers, and INK (4.8 stars, 169 reviews), which pairs proofreading with SEO content scoring, both out-rate Grammarly's 4.7 stars, even with a fraction of the review volume.
Academic proofreading software and automated proofreading tools represent the top trends in proofreading tools and software in 2026. Common questions surrounding this software in 2026 focus on the separation of academic proofreading software and software that is more generalized, as well as the role of automation. Academic proofreading tools are more specialized than generic proofreading software and focus more on voice and consistency throughout the documents being proofread.
Academic writing is significantly different from how other organizations or users write, which is why the growth in specialized tools is seen as a common trend for proofreading software.
Based on G2’s Proofreading Software category grid scores
The difference between proofreading software and a basic checker is that a basic grammar checker flags spelling and grammar errors. Proofreading software, per G2's category definition, goes further to add contextual thesaurus suggestions, sentence rephrasing, and custom style guide support across content types and departments.
G2 reviews suggest general-purpose AI proofreading software handles standard grammar and clarity well. However, academic use cases like citation formatting and discipline-specific style guides typically still need a specialized tool or human review layered on top.
Generally, proofreading software cannot meet regulatory affairs compliance standards on its own. G2 reviewers in regulated industries describe proofreading software as useful for catching mechanical errors, but compliance-critical language still goes through a dedicated regulatory or legal review step before publication.
Most describe these tools as accelerating the editing pass, not replacing it, particularly for high-stakes or brand-governed content, according to G2 reviews. Enterprise buyers specifically cite the need for human sign-off.
Often, yes. G2 data shows enterprise buyers prioritize style guide enforcement and CMS integration, while individual and small-business buyers prioritize everyday reliability and multi-platform support. These needs are different enough that some enterprise-focused platforms, like Writer and Markup AI, aren't even categorized as general proofreading software on G2.
Proofreading software has solved the problem it was built for, but that hasn't translated into the same AI trust buyers extend to newer AI writing categories. Many buyers are potentially not registering that they are even using AI in these proofreading products. The vendors that close that gap will make their AI-assisted suggestions visibly explainable, not just accurate.
Explore this G2 blog on AI writing assistants as well →