Free tools • privacy-aware

Find the best free Grammarly alternatives for your workflow

A practical, privacy-focused guide to free grammar and style tools. Get curated alternatives by goal (grammar, readability, editorial workflows), clear privacy notes, concrete setup steps for common apps, and comparison prompts you can run on your own drafts.

See side-by-side comparisons More writing guides

Use-case organization

Grouped by primary need

Pick tools for grammar, readability, editorial workflow, or IDE prose linting

Privacy-first options

Clearly flagged

Local/self-hostable or desktop-first tools called out for sensitive text

Actionable prompts

Ready to run

Comparison and evaluation prompts to test tools on your own writing

Which alternative should you try first?

Quick decision guide

Choose by primary goal, not brand. If you want a privacy-first or self-hostable option, consider open-source linters. For readability-focused editing, pick a lightweight editor. For long-form editorial workflows, use a tool with batch checks and export options. Use the checklist below to pick a candidate and then run the comparison prompts on a representative sample of your text.

Grammar & style: Browser extensions + desktop apps for inline checks
Readability & clarity: Focused editors that highlight sentence-level issues
Academic & technical: Tools that preserve citations, formulas, and ignore code blocks
IDE integration: Linters and plugins for docs, docstrings, and markdown

Options to try today

Curated list: free alternatives by primary use

Below are widely used free (or freemium) alternatives grouped by the most common needs. Each item includes a short note on where it runs and flags for privacy or offline capability.

LanguageTool

Grammar, punctuation, style suggestions across many languages. Runs as browser extension, Google Docs add-on, and desktop client. Privacy note: open-source core and self-host option available—suitable where data residency matters.

Good for multilingual checks and configurable rule sets
Self-hosting available for local processing

ProWritingAid (free tier)

Detailed style reports and consistency checks. Works as a browser plugin and desktop app with a free tier for lighter use.

Strong reports for long-form editing
Free tier limits features—use prompts to compare output quality

Hemingway Editor

Readability-focused editor that highlights complex sentences and passive voice. Web version is quick for drafts; a paid desktop app can run locally.

Best for tightening prose and improving readability
Use for a second-pass after grammar checks

Slick Write / Typely

Lightweight, browser-based editors that flag grammar and sentence structure issues without heavy onboarding.

Fast checks for short-form content and email
Minimal setup—good for students and bloggers

Microsoft Editor (free tier)

Built into Microsoft Edge and available in Office apps with a free grammar/spelling tier.

Convenient for users already in Word or Outlook
Cloud processing—review Microsoft privacy docs for sensitive drafts

Vale (prose linter)

Open-source, local-first linter for prose. Integrates into VS Code, CI pipelines, and static site workflows. Ideal for technical docs, style guides, and Markdown repositories.

Runs locally and can be added to CI to enforce style
Highly configurable rule sets and ignore lists

Where your text is processed matters

Privacy and offline choices

If drafts contain sensitive or confidential text, prioritize tools that support local processing, self-hosting, or a desktop-only workflow. Open-source linters (LanguageTool, Vale) and desktop apps that advertise local processing reduce cloud exposure. Always check the tool’s privacy policy and whether extensions send full-text to remote servers by default.

Self-hostable: LanguageTool and Vale can be run on your infrastructure
Local desktop: prefer editors that explicitly state local processing
Browser extensions: assume cloud processing unless offline mode is documented
Data minimization: look for options to disable telemetry and analytics

Install and configure in 5–10 minutes

Setup: step-by-step for common environments

Concrete setup steps for the most common writing ecosystems. Tailor ignore lists and disabled rules for your domain (code, citations, product names).

Chrome/Firefox extension

Install the extension, sign in if required, and open extension settings.

Allow extension permissions only for sites you use for drafting.
Add project-specific terms to the ignore or dictionary list.
Turn off automatic corrections if you want to review every suggestion.

Google Docs

Enable the add-on (if available) or use the extension. For collaborative editing, use comment suggestions rather than auto-replace.

Use comment-mode to keep track of suggested edits
Configure rule exclusions for citations, formulas, and marked code blocks
Save a copy and run a local/desktop check for highly sensitive content

Microsoft Word

Install the add-in or use built-in Editor features. Prefer 'track changes' when multiple reviewers are involved.

Use tracked changes + comments for editorial transparency
Review grammar settings to avoid over-aggressive rewording

Mobile keyboard

Install the keyboard app and limit permissions; consider keyboard only for non-sensitive messaging.

Avoid entering confidential drafts on mobile keyboards that sync to the cloud
Use local clipboard managers and offline apps for private notes

IDE / VS Code

Install a local linter (e.g., Vale) as an extension and add a .vale folder to the repo.

Configure rule sets and ignore blocks for code fences and YAML frontmatter
Add linting to CI to catch prose issues before publishing

Reusable pre-publish checks

Practical workflow templates

Three short, repeatable workflows you can adopt for email, blog, and academic drafts.

Email quick-check (5 steps): run browser grammar check → apply Hemingway readability pass → read aloud → remove AI suggestions that change intent → send
Blog pre-publish (5 steps): local grammar pass → style report (ProWritingAid/LanguageTool) → editorial review with track changes → final readability pass → publish
Academic revision (6 steps): grammar check (preserve citations) → passive-voice and clarity pass → highlight citation gaps → reference manager sync → human peer review → final format check

Prompt cluster — copy these into each tool to compare outputs

Comparison prompts you can run on your text

Use consistent, representative sample text (one paragraph for short-form, a 500–800 word draft for long-form) and run these prompts to evaluate usefulness, privacy handling, and tone preservation.

Compare two tools: "Compare LanguageTool vs ProWritingAid for blog posts: list 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses for each, recommend which to use for short-form vs long-form content."
Privacy check prompt: "Summarize data-handling differences between three free grammar tools and identify which offer local/offline checking or self-hosting options."
Academic edit prompt: "Edit this paragraph for clarity, passive voice removal, and adherence to formal academic tone; highlight suggested citation spots."
Conciseness rewrite: "Rewrite the following 300-word section to be 25% shorter while preserving technical accuracy and key terms."
Tone adjustment: "Turn this friendly blog paragraph into a more formal newsletter paragraph suitable for an executive audience."
Multilingual support probe: "List which free tools support Spanish, French, and Portuguese, and what corrections they typically miss for non-native writers."
Integration test: "Explain step-by-step how to enable a grammar extension in Google Docs and configure it to ignore specific terms or code snippets."
Workflow automation: "Create a 5-step pre-publish checklist that combines a free grammar tool, a readability pass, and a final human review for blog posts."
IDE/editor prompt: "Show example config for a prose linter that flags passive voice and run-on sentences inside Markdown files in a VS Code workspace."
Plagiarism triage: "Outline a process using free resources to screen for potential plagiarism, including when to escalate to paid checks or manual review."

Decide quickly and consistently

Quick-check checklist: keep vs discard AI suggestions

A short checklist to evaluate automated suggestions and keep your authorial voice intact.

Does the suggestion change the intended meaning? If yes, discard or edit cautiously.
Is the suggestion stylistically appropriate for the audience (academic vs conversational)? If no, reject.
Does it introduce technical errors or change domain-specific terms? Reject.
If a suggestion improves clarity without changing nuance, accept and document the change in edits.
For sensitive drafts, prefer tools with local processing or manual edits.

FAQ

How do free alternatives compare on privacy and data storage?

Privacy varies: some tools process text in the cloud by default (browser extensions and web editors), while open-source tools like LanguageTool and linters such as Vale support local or self-hosted options. Check each tool’s privacy policy and settings: look for options to disable telemetry, enable offline/desktop modes, or run a self-hosted instance when working with sensitive drafts.

Can I use these free tools inside Google Docs and Microsoft Word natively?

Yes—many tools offer Google Docs add-ons or browser-extension workflows that work inside Docs, and Microsoft Editor or add-ins integrate with Word. For sensitive or collaborative documents, prefer comment/suggestion modes rather than automatic in-line replacements, and review third-party add-on permissions before enabling them.

Which free options work best for academic citations, formulas, and technical terminology?

Use tools that let you configure ignore lists and rule sets so citations, BibTeX keys, and inline formulas are not altered. Vale (local linter) and LanguageTool (configurable rules) are good starting points because you can tailor checks to preserve domain-specific syntax. Always run a final human review focused on accuracy of citations and technical terms.

Are there reliable tools that run entirely offline or can be self-hosted?

Yes. Vale is designed as a local prose linter for CI and editors. LanguageTool offers a self-hostable server (open-source core). Desktop-only editors or paid desktop builds of readability tools can also avoid cloud processing—confirm local mode with the vendor and test offline behavior before using them for sensitive material.

How do these alternatives handle non-native English phrasing and common ESL errors?

Many free tools catch basic grammar and common ESL patterns, but their accuracy varies by language model and rule coverage. LanguageTool supports multiple languages and has configurable rules for common ESL issues. For nuanced ESL feedback, combine a grammar checker with human review or a tutor who understands typical L1 interference for your language pair.

What’s the best free workflow for editing a long-form article before publishing?

A recommended free workflow: 1) Run a local grammar pass or browser check for obvious errors; 2) Apply a readability pass (Hemingway or similar) to tighten sentences; 3) Run a style report for consistency (ProWritingAid or LanguageTool free features); 4) Human editorial review for structure and factual accuracy; 5) Final pre-publish check in the actual CMS with links and metadata verified.

Do free tools offer customization of rule sets, ignore lists, or team styles?

Some do. LanguageTool and Vale are designed for customization; you can add dictionaries, ignored terms, and custom rules. ProWritingAid and other freemium tools offer limited customization in free tiers. For team-wide style enforcement, prefer local linters or enterprise tooling that supports shared configs.

How should I evaluate accuracy without buying premium plans—what tests to run?

Use the comparison prompts in this guide on representative samples: short emails, a blog paragraph, and a long-form section. Compare outputs for meaning preservation, over-editing of voice, handling of technical terms, and false positives. Also check privacy behavior and integration quality in your actual workflow (Docs, Word, IDE).

Can I integrate free grammar checks into my CMS or Git-based publishing pipeline?

Yes. Use local linters (Vale) in your CI pipeline to flag issues in Markdown or HTML. For CMS like WordPress, lightweight plugins or pre-publish checks can help, but evaluate plugin privacy and performance. Automating checks in Git workflows catches prose issues before deployment.

When should I keep an AI suggestion and when should I revert to manual phrasing?

Keep suggestions that improve clarity without changing intent and that align with your tone and domain accuracy. Revert or edit suggestions that alter technical meaning, remove necessary hedging in academic writing, or change voice in creative pieces. Use the quick-check checklist in this guide to make consistent decisions.

BlogMore writing guides and tool roundups.
Tool comparisonsSide-by-side evaluations of writing tools.
Texta pricingExplore Texta plans for team monitoring and integration (where applicable).
About TextaHow Texta approaches privacy and tooling for teams.
IndustriesSee recommended workflows by industry and use case.