Frase vs Outranking: 2 Graders 2026 (With Templates)

A content grader is software that scores a draft against a SERP so an editor can see which terms, questions, and entities are missing before publish. It is not a CMS, it is not a uniqueness scanner, and it is not a rank forecast. Frase and Outranking are the two graders in this comparison. US Tech Automations sits above both as the ticket layer that blocks a URL when the score, the unique fact, and the human review have not all passed.

TL;DR: Buy Frase if you want a dated entry price at $39/mo yearly and will accept that independent tests used a substitute precision measure because Frase publishes no term list. Buy Outranking if you want an AI SEO writer/optimizer and will treat the $19/mo cell in a third-party table as a roundup number, not official list price. Do not treat either score as a promise the URL will rank. COMPARISON earn rate: 17.8% vs 12.2% according to first-party mix-config (12,514 live pages, 941 COMPARISON pages, counted 2026-08-24).

Who this is for

This page is for SEO editors and agency producers who already draft in a CMS and need one grader in the brief-to-publish loop, plus an honest split between Frase's dated dollar and Outranking's roundup cell.

Red flags: Skip both paid graders if you have a handful of URLs you can edit by hand. Skip Frase if you will treat a substitute precision score as a rank forecast. Skip Outranking if you need a printed official list price in static HTML today.

What the 2026-09-04 fetches actually printed

Frase's public pricing page (HTTP 200) shows Frase entry plan: $39/mo yearly according to Frase (official pricing; $49/mo month-to-month on the same entry plan, as recorded in the 2026-09-04 research wave). ToolVerdict tested Frase on 2026-08-18 and recorded the same cheapest paid plan at $39/mo, with Frase term precision@30: 0.12 according to ToolVerdict (2026-08-18 run; substitute measure because Frase publishes no term list). Content Raptor, also HTTP 200, lists Frase starting at $49/month — that is the month-to-month figure, not a third price. Cite it as Content Raptor's cell, not as a blended average.

Outranking's official site (HTTP 200) confirms AI SEO writing and optimization software; dollar amounts were not in the static HTML of that fetch. theStacc's Content at Scale alternatives table (updated Jul 10, 2026) lists Outranking roundup cell: $19/mo according to theStacc (5 articles/month in that table). Do not treat that table cell as official list price.

This industry is not in the vertical earn-rate table (financial 17.2, logistics 14.6, general_smb 13.8, saas 13.8, accounting 9.5, insurance 8.0, healthcare 8.7, mortgage 5.8). Mix-config neutral default: 10 according to first-party mix-config (2026-08-24). The 10 is not a vertical earn rate. The COMPARISON template still earned 17.8% on the 12,514-page count. That is why this page is a two-product comparison with a proprietary mix column, not a third grader.

If you already compared a grader to the platform layer, keep Clearscope vs the ticket layer in the other tab. AI-visibility buyers should stay on Profound vs Rankability. SaaS editors who still think in Surfer scores should stay on Surfer vs Clearscope for SaaS.

Key Takeaways

• Frase and Outranking are graders/writers. Neither is a uniqueness scanner or a rank forecast.

• Frase's dated entry price is $39/mo yearly ($49/mo month-to-month). ToolVerdict's 2026-08-18 run recorded $39/mo and term precision@30 of 0.12 because Frase publishes no term list.

• Outranking's official HTML in the research fetch did not print a dollar. theStacc listed $19/mo with 5 articles/month. Attribute the cell; do not call it official list price.

• COMPARISON pages earned 17.8% vs a 12.2% site base on 12,514 live pages counted 2026-08-24.

• A content score will rise on two city pages that share a SERP term list. The parking note will not.

• US Tech Automations is the ticket that fails the row when the unique fact is missing — not a third grader.

Weighted criteria

Source: Frase official pricing and ToolVerdict 2026-08-18; theStacc CAS alternatives Jul 10, 2026; mix-config 2026-08-24.

Source: Frase pricing, ToolVerdict, theStacc, mix-config as dated above. Do not blend the $19 cell into an official list price.

Source: worked example on this page; Frase and ToolVerdict as dated above.

Frase profile

Best fit: an editor who wants a SERP-informed brief and a dated self-serve dollar, and who will treat ToolVerdict's precision@30 of 0.12 as a coverage proxy, not a ranking model. Frase is the cheaper public seat in this pair when you use the yearly cell.

Limitations: Frase publishes no term list, so independent testers had to use a substitute measure; a 0.12 precision@30 is not a forecast that the URL will land in the top 10; the grader will happily score two template clones the same if the SERP terms match. Implementation is usually "paste draft, raise the score, send to CMS." Primary evidence: Frase and ToolVerdict's 2026-08-18 run.

Outranking profile

Best fit: a team that wants AI SEO writing and on-page optimization in one product, and that is willing to live with a roundup cell until official HTML prints a dollar. theStacc's $19/mo / 5 articles/month is a planning number, not a contract.

Limitations: official static HTML in the research fetch did not print a dollar; a 5-article cap in a roundup table is a volume ceiling, not a uniqueness gate; an AI writer will fill a template faster than an editor can notice the parking token is still a token. Implementation is generate-or-optimize, then a human. Primary evidence: Outranking and theStacc's CAS alternatives.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations: you only needed one grader and Frase at $39/mo yearly already covers the brief; Outranking (or a stitch) already writes the draft and your CMS requires the unique-fact field; or you have a handful of URLs and a spreadsheet. Skip the ticket layer. Buy the grader.

Glossary for this pair

• Content score / grader: a SERP-overlap number. Not a rank.

• Term precision@30: share of the tester's top-30 terms that appeared in the draft. Used here because Frase publishes no term list.

• Article cap: how many drafts a plan includes. theStacc printed 5/month next to Outranking's $19 cell.

• Unique fact: a detail sibling URLs do not share. Hours, parking, a named endpoint, a SKU attribute.

• Idempotent page id: the CMS key that stops a second run from minting a sibling slug.

• Mix-config earn rate: first-party share of a template in a 12,514-page corpus. Not a vendor ranking.

• Contact vendor: the cell when official HTML does not print a dollar.

• Ticket: a fail-closed check before post_status flips.

Worked grader loop

Worked example: a 96-URL SaaS glossary shipping from one template, each row a "{term} meaning" page, with a 9-day editor SLA, one Frase entry seat at $39/mo yearly (or $49/mo month-to-month), and an optional Outranking run billed as contact-vendor / $19 roundup cell. The editor pastes the draft into Frase, watches coverage rise as terms land, then still rejects 18 of 96 rows because the unique fact was a synonym loop. A Make scenario POSTs the survivor into WordPress as draft and writes the id back to the sheet. The reviewer flips post_status to publish on the 78 that pass. Zapier can retry 5xx and keep the run history. A proposed design at US Tech Automations would require a Frase (or Outranking) score above the team's written bar, a non-empty unique-fact column, and a named reviewer before the CMS flip, with the 96 glossary slugs as the idempotency key. The figures that matter are 96 rows, 78 publishes, 18 rejects, $39/mo, 9 days.

The DIY alternative is the same loop in n8n: fetch the SERP brief, write the draft, POST the CMS, retry, log. Those tools can support run histories, retries, error branches, and audit evidence when configured. You must own observability, idempotency, escalation, access controls, retention, and maintenance. The ticket layer would reuse those events and add the fail-closed unique-fact check. It would not replace Frase or Outranking.

Common mistakes on this pair

Treating $39 and $19 as the same kind of number. One is official yearly pricing. The other is a roundup cell. Attribute both. Blend neither.

Treating precision@30 of 0.12 as a ranking model. ToolVerdict used it because Frase publishes no term list. It is a coverage proxy.

Chasing a score on template clones. Two city pages that share a SERP term list will share a score. The unique fact is the gate.

Buying both graders "to be safe." You need one coverage tool, one CMS key, and one reject path. A second grader is a second invoice.

Assuming Outranking is cheaper because 19 is less than 39. Official HTML did not print 19. theStacc did. Ask Outranking for a quote before you tell finance a dollar.

Template clones share a term list

Software developer median pay: $133,080 according to BLS (May 2024 Occupational Outlook Handbook). Reviewer hours sit next to the $39 cell whether you admit them or not.

The failure mode that actually costs money is not "Frase versus Outranking." It is two city pages, one SERP term list, and a grader that rewards both. Frase will show the missing questions. Outranking will draft toward them. Both numbers can go up while parking, hours, and the named manager stay as tokens. Content Raptor Frase start: $49/month according to Content Raptor (HTTP 200 in the 2026-09-04 wave). That cell matches Frase's month-to-month official figure. It does not buy a uniqueness check.

A 42-location services company that pastes every city draft into Frase until the coverage bar is green has paid $39/mo yearly for a proxy. The proxy is useful. It is not the gate. The gate is 42 unique facts and a human who will fail the 11 rows that still say "conveniently located." Outranking does not change that math. A $19 roundup cell with 5 articles/month only changes how many drafts you can generate before you hit the cap. Five thin drafts are still thin.

Editors who came from Surfer will look for a Content Score. Frase did not publish a term list that ToolVerdict could score the same way, which is why the tester used precision@30 of 0.12. That is a different instrument. Do not convert 0.12 into "worse than Surfer" without the same test on the same keywords. This page does not have that head-to-head. It has one dated Frase run and one Outranking roundup cell.

A publish recipe with either seat

1. Lock the template. One H1 pattern, one unique-fact slot, one CMS key.

2. Pick one grader. Frase if you need the $39 yearly cell. Outranking if you want the AI writer/optimizer and will ask for a quote.

3. Draft in the grader. Raise coverage. Do not publish from the grader.

4. POST to WordPress as draft from Make or n8n. Write the id back. Retry 5xx.

5. Human reads column B. Fail the row if the fact is a synonym.

6. Flip post_status only on passes. Log the rejects.

7. If you need a fail-closed ticket on those events, use pricing. If you do not, stop at step 6.

That recipe is the same at 96 glossary URLs or 400 city URLs. Volume does not change the gates. It only changes how expensive a missing unique-fact column becomes.

What "5 articles/month" actually constrains

theStacc's Outranking cell pairs $19/mo with 5 articles/month. Even if you treat that as a planning number rather than official list price, the cap is a volume ceiling. A programmatic glossary with 96 terms cannot live on 5 articles/month unless most of the work happens outside Outranking. That is a fit signal. Outranking at that cap is a writer for a small editorial calendar, not a pSEO factory. Frase's document caps live on the official pricing page you should refetch at purchase time; this brief does not invent a Frase document number beyond the $39 / $49 pair.

If your calendar is 5 long-form posts a month, Outranking's roundup cell may be the cheaper planning number. If your calendar is 96 glossary URLs, the cap is a disqualifier until the vendor quotes a different plan. Do not solve a cap problem by opening a second grader. Solve it by asking Outranking, or by using Frase's dated self-serve seat, or by stitching a writer you already own.

Questions buyers still ask

Is Frase cheaper than Outranking in 2026?

On official HTML, Frase has a printed entry price of $39/mo yearly ($49/mo month-to-month). Outranking did not print a dollar in the static HTML of the research fetch. theStacc listed $19/mo with 5 articles/month. Until Outranking prints a list price, "cheaper" is not a fair official comparison.

What is Frase's term precision@30?

0.12 on ToolVerdict's 2026-08-18 run, used as a substitute because Frase publishes no term list. It is not a Google rank correlation.

Does Outranking really cost $19/mo?

That figure is a theStacc table cell (Jul 10, 2026), not official list price from Outranking's static HTML. Refetch and ask the vendor before you put $19 in a budget.

Can Zapier replace Frase or Outranking?

Zapier can move the draft and log the run. It cannot score the SERP overlap unless you add a grader. The stitch is a transport layer, not a substitute for either product.

When is a ticket layer the wrong buy?

When you only needed a grader, Frase at $39/mo yearly already covers the brief, and your CMS already blocks empty unique-fact fields. That is an honest skip.

The homepage maps the public product. Dated ticket-layer pricing is on pricing. Bring the grader seat, the unique-fact column, and the CMS key.