Loading…
Operators reach for three things first. Here is where each one lands on what decides whether a creative survives review — our reasoning shown, so you can check it.
| AngleVerdict | ChatGPT | Free checkers | In-house / lawyer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cites the exact rule that gets you rejected | Every finding names its provision | No regulator corpus to cite from | Matches words, not clauses | Yes, but slow |
| Per-market, per-vertical regulator corpus |
| Generic, no corpus |
| One-size-fits-all |
| Depends who you hire |
| One-click rewrite that keeps the hook | Built in | Only if you prompt it | No | Not their job |
|---|
| Current Meta-policy snapshot | Versioned, current | Training cut-off, not a versioned snapshot | Sometimes | No |
|---|
| Flags when a rule changes under a live winner | Rule-change tracking | No | No | Only if you re-pay |
|---|
A general assistant has no regulator corpus to cite from and no versioned platform-policy snapshot. A free checker matches words rather than clauses. A lawyer gives you both, but not at the speed or the price of every creative. This is built for that one job: the cited clause and the fix, before you spend.
Our own structural comparison of what each option is designed to do — not a measurement of anyone else’s accuracy. Product names belong to their owners.