Most headline analyzers count your words.
This one tells you who won't buy.
Paste a B2B headline. Three decision-makers read it and tell you where they stopped — as a sentence, not a score.
A headline doesn't fail because it lacked a power word.
It fails because the person reading it couldn't tell what you replace, didn't believe the claim, or couldn't see themselves in it. None of that is visible in a word count.
"Emotional value 32%. Add a power word. Your headline is 68 characters — aim for 55. Score: 71/100."
"Head of IT, 120 employees: Doesn't say what it replaces. I can't tell if this sits next to our HR system or takes it over."
One of those you can act on before lunch. The other one you can only obey.
Objections, not a verdict.
That's deliberate. A score on a single headline has no yardstick — there is nothing that makes a 6.4 good or bad. So the free check hands you the part you can act on: the sentences where they stopped.
- • Three of the six roles
- • One objection each, plus what they needed instead
- • All three read in a single pass
- • All six roles, each read independently of the others
- • Against a fair rival version, blind and in randomised order
- • Which gives you a verdict that holds: which version carries further
- • Ads, landing pages, subject lines — not just headlines
Six roles who disagree with each other.
That's the point. What reassures IT (deep integration) worries Procurement (lock-in). What sells Finance (consolidation) frightens the team that has to migrate. A headline all six can live with is rare — and worth knowing about.
Head of IT
Wants to know what this replaces, not what it adds.
Head of People
Fears a promise that lands on them in the next audit.
VP Finance
Is counting whether you overlap with something already paid for.
Business Systems
Is estimating whether the migration eats their next two quarters.
Procurement
Is looking for the exit clause before the business falls in love.
VP RevOps
Wants an effect this quarter, not a nine-month rollout.
The free check runs three of them, in a single pass. The full committee — each role read independently — plus the comparison and the rewrite loop live in the Claude Code plugin.
It's an opinion with a method, not a verdict.
These personas are constructed from category knowledge about how mid-market B2B software gets bought. They are not your customers, and they have not met your product. Where we have a quotable public source behind an objection we show it; where we don't, we show nothing rather than invent a citation.
Treat a lost round as a prompt to look again, not as proof. And if your page already has traffic and conversions, stop simulating — your own numbers beat any of this.
Want the full committee?
Six roles instead of three, ad and landing page copy, the rewrite loop in Claude Code, and the API. Everyone on the list gets a key and the pricing for comment before it's fixed.
You're on the list.
We'll get in touch as soon as there's something to show. If you need something concrete in the meantime, just reply to the confirmation email.
Before you paste something in
How is this different from other headline analyzers?
Most of them score your words. They count power words, measure character length, and return an emotional value percentage — which tells you something about the sentence and nothing about the buyer. This one puts your headline in front of B2B decision-makers with a job to do and reports what stopped them. The output isn't a score, it's an objection you can act on.
Why don't I get a score?
Because a score on a single headline has no yardstick. There is nothing that makes a 6.4 good or bad. A verdict that holds needs a comparison: the paid run writes a market-standard alternative — what an average competent vendor would have written — and asks which one carries further. The free check skips that step and gives you the objections instead, which are the more useful half anyway.
Is it really free? What's the catch?
No signup, no card. The free check runs three of the six roles, reads them in a single pass, and returns objections rather than a verdict. There's a daily limit on the whole tool because each run costs us real model time — if you hit it, it resets the next day. The full committee, the comparison, other asset types and the API are the paid product.
What kind of headlines does this work for?
B2B: ad headlines, landing page headlines, email subject lines, section headers on a product page. It's built around a B2B buying committee, so consumer copy will get judged by the wrong people. Say what you sell in the context field — without it the personas judge language instead of an offer.
Are the personas real people?
No, and no headline analyzer's are. They're constructed from category knowledge about how mid-market B2B software gets bought — six roles that disagree with each other on purpose. Where we have a quotable public source behind an objection, we show it. Where we don't, we show nothing rather than invent a citation.
Does it replace A/B testing?
No, it comes before it. An A/B test needs traffic, which a new headline doesn't have yet. Once you have traffic and conversions, your own numbers are the better answer.