Corrector App vs Relativity
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | Corrector App | Relativity |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Web App | Product |
| UnfragileRank | 26/100 | 32/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes plain text input against a rule-based grammar engine (likely LanguageTool) to identify and highlight spelling errors, grammar mistakes, and punctuation issues across 34 language variants. The system processes text server-side (processing model unverified) and returns inline corrections with clickable alternatives, allowing users to accept or reject suggestions without modifying the original text structure. No neural language model involvement is documented despite marketing claims of 'AI corrections'—the underlying engine appears to use statistical and rule-based pattern matching rather than transformer-based models.
Unique: Supports 34 language variants (including regional English variants, Asian languages, and Arabic) through LanguageTool integration, substantially exceeding Grammarly's documented language coverage. The free tier removes all paywalls and feature gates, making multilingual correction accessible without subscription costs or account creation.
vs alternatives: Outperforms Grammarly and Hemingway Editor in multilingual scenarios (34 variants vs. ~10) and eliminates subscription friction, but sacrifices context awareness and style analysis that premium tools provide through neural language models.
Implements a click-to-accept correction UI pattern where users view highlighted errors inline and select from alternative suggestions without leaving the text editor. The system preserves original text structure while allowing granular acceptance/rejection of individual corrections. Implementation details (client-side vs. server-side rendering, debouncing strategy, state management) are undocumented, but the workflow suggests either server-side analysis with client-side rendering or hybrid processing with caching.
Unique: Provides immediate inline correction suggestions without requiring browser extension installation or document upload, reducing friction compared to Grammarly's extension-based workflow. The textarea-based interface is stateless and requires no account creation, enabling anonymous usage.
vs alternatives: Faster time-to-first-correction than Grammarly (no extension installation) but lacks persistent correction history and document management that premium tools provide.
Supports grammar and spelling correction across 34 language variants including 6 English regional variants (US, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand), 18 European languages, 6 Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, Tagalog, Tamil, Khmer), Arabic, and Persian. Language selection is manual via dropdown menu; no auto-detection is documented. Each language variant uses language-specific rule sets (likely from LanguageTool's language modules) to identify region-specific spelling conventions, grammar patterns, and punctuation rules.
Unique: Covers 34 language variants including regional English dialects and Asian languages, substantially exceeding Grammarly's documented language support (~10 languages). The breadth of coverage is unusual for free grammar-checking tools, suggesting LanguageTool's open-source language modules are leveraged directly without custom model training.
vs alternatives: Outperforms English-centric tools (Hemingway Editor, Grammarly) in multilingual scenarios but lacks neural language model sophistication for nuanced corrections in any single language.
Claims to provide explanations for identified errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation) to help users understand why a correction was suggested. The documentation states this capability exists but provides no implementation details, examples, or technical approach. It is unclear whether explanations are generated dynamically, retrieved from a rule database, or templated based on error type. This capability is UNVERIFIED and may be marketing language without substantive implementation.
Unique: Claims to provide error explanations alongside corrections, a feature that differentiates from basic spell-checkers but is undocumented and unverified. If implemented, this would support learning-oriented use cases beyond simple correction.
vs alternatives: Unknown—insufficient documentation to compare explanation quality or comprehensiveness against Grammarly or other tools.
Provides unlimited grammar and spelling corrections across all 34 language variants without requiring account creation, subscription payment, or feature gates. The entire feature set (error detection, suggestions, explanations) is available at no cost. No premium tier, API pricing, or enterprise licensing is documented. The business model and revenue strategy are undocumented, suggesting either venture-backed sustainability, LanguageTool sponsorship, or undisclosed monetization.
Unique: Completely free with no documented premium tier, account requirement, or usage limits—unusual for SaaS grammar-checking tools. Eliminates financial and friction barriers to entry, making multilingual correction accessible globally without subscription costs.
vs alternatives: Removes all paywall friction compared to Grammarly (freemium with limited corrections) and Hemingway Editor (one-time $19 purchase), but sacrifices data persistence, integrations, and advanced features that paid tools provide.
Accepts plain text input via a web-based textarea element with a hard maximum of 15,000 characters per submission. The character limit is enforced in the UI (users cannot paste or type beyond the limit). Text is submitted for server-side analysis after language selection. No document upload, file import, or drag-and-drop functionality is documented. The textarea is stateless—no draft saving, auto-save, or session persistence is mentioned.
Unique: Simple, stateless textarea-based interface with no account creation or file upload complexity. The 15,000-character limit is enforced in UI, making the constraint explicit and preventing user frustration from silent truncation.
vs alternatives: Simpler and faster to use than Grammarly (no extension installation) but less capable than desktop tools (no document support, no format preservation, no batch processing).
Documentation claims mobile app support for iPhone and Android, but no app store links, download URLs, or technical details are provided. It is unclear whether this refers to responsive web design (mobile browser access) or native mobile applications. The claim is UNVERIFIED and may be marketing language without substantive implementation. No mobile-specific features (offline mode, push notifications, voice input) are documented.
Unique: Claims mobile app support but provides no verifiable details—suggests either responsive web design or undocumented native apps. The vagueness suggests mobile may be a secondary priority or future roadmap item.
vs alternatives: Unknown—insufficient documentation to compare mobile experience against Grammarly or other tools.
Requires users to manually select a language variant from a dropdown menu before submitting text for analysis. The dropdown lists 34 language variants (English regional variants, European languages, Asian languages, Arabic, Persian). No auto-detection of language is documented. Selection is mandatory—text cannot be analyzed without explicit language choice. The dropdown is stateless—language selection does not persist across sessions.
Unique: Explicit language selection via dropdown supports 34 variants without requiring account creation or language detection ML. The manual selection approach is simple but creates friction compared to auto-detection.
vs alternatives: More transparent than auto-detection (user controls language choice) but less convenient than tools like Grammarly that detect language automatically.
+2 more capabilities
Automatically categorizes and codes documents based on learned patterns from human-reviewed samples, using machine learning to predict relevance, privilege, and responsiveness. Reduces manual review burden by identifying documents that match specified criteria without human intervention.
Ingests and processes massive volumes of documents in native formats while preserving metadata integrity and creating searchable indices. Handles format conversion, deduplication, and metadata extraction without data loss.
Provides tools for organizing and retrieving documents during depositions and trial, including document linking, timeline creation, and quick-search capabilities. Enables attorneys to rapidly locate supporting documents during proceedings.
Manages documents subject to regulatory requirements and compliance obligations, including retention policies, audit trails, and regulatory reporting. Tracks document lifecycle and ensures compliance with legal holds and preservation requirements.
Manages multi-reviewer document review workflows with task assignment, progress tracking, and quality control mechanisms. Supports parallel review by multiple team members with conflict resolution and consistency checking.
Enables rapid searching across massive document collections using full-text indexing, Boolean operators, and field-specific queries. Supports complex search syntax for precise document retrieval and filtering.
Relativity scores higher at 32/100 vs Corrector App at 26/100. However, Corrector App offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Identifies and flags privileged communications (attorney-client, work product) and confidential information through pattern recognition and metadata analysis. Maintains comprehensive audit trails of all access to sensitive materials.
Implements role-based access controls with fine-grained permissions at document, workspace, and field levels. Allows administrators to restrict access based on user roles, case assignments, and security clearances.
+5 more capabilities