Flesch · Fog · SMOG · ARI · 6 scores instant

Readability Checker

Paste any text and instantly see six industry-standard readability scores, word/sentence/syllable stats, and highlighted complex words.

Your text
0 words 0 sentences 0 syllables 0 characters ~0 min read
Highlight
Complex word Passive voice Long sentence Very long sentence
Estimated Reading Level
Enter text to analyze
HardEasy
Flesch Reading Ease
Higher = easier (0–100)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade
US grade level
Gunning Fog
Years of education
SMOG Index
Grade level (3+ sentence)
ARI
Automated Readability
Coleman-Liau
Grade level
Top complex words (3+ syllables)
Enter text to see complex words

Which readability formula should you use?

Different formulas weight different factors — syllable count, word length, sentence length. No single formula is definitive; use them together as a guide.

📊

Flesch Reading Ease

Score 0–100. 60–70 is plain English, 30–50 is college level, under 30 is very complex (legal/technical). Target 60+ for general audiences.

🎓

Gunning Fog

Estimates years of formal education needed. 12 = US high school diploma level. Most newspapers target 8–12. Technical docs often land at 14–18.

🔬

SMOG Index

Specifically designed for health communications. Counts polysyllabic words in 30-sentence samples. Widely used by government and healthcare for patient-facing content.

What the formulas measure

Classic readability formulas count surface features. Flesch-Kincaid uses average sentence length and average syllables per word; the Gunning fog index uses sentence length and the proportion of words with three or more syllables; SMOG counts polysyllabic words across a sample. All produce an approximate US school grade level.

They were developed for specific practical purposes — the US Navy commissioned Flesch-Kincaid to assess technical manuals — and they work reasonably well for their intended use: comparing documents of the same kind and flagging prose that is unnecessarily dense.

The critical limitation is that none of them reads the text. They cannot tell whether a sentence makes sense, whether the argument follows, or whether the vocabulary suits the audience. Text scrambled into random word order scores identically to the original, which is the clearest demonstration of what these measures do not capture.

Where the scores mislead

The syllable-counting proxy for difficulty produces obvious errors. "Aforementioned" is five syllables and widely understood; "bight", "scree" and "quoin" are one syllable each and known to almost nobody. Technical writing full of familiar domain terms scores as difficult while being perfectly clear to its audience.

Optimising for the score directly makes writing worse. Chopping sentences into uniform short fragments to lower the grade level produces choppy, monotonous prose — varied sentence length is what creates readable rhythm, and a document of nothing but eight-word sentences is exhausting. Replacing a precise long word with a vague short one reduces the score and the clarity together.

The formulas also assume connected English prose. Applied to bullet lists, tables, code, headings or text with many abbreviations, they return numbers that mean nothing, since sentence boundaries and syllable counts are not meaningful there.

Using the number as a signal

Treat a score as a prompt to look rather than as a target to hit. A sudden spike in a document's grade level usually points at a genuinely tangled passage worth rewriting; a consistently high score across a piece intended for a general audience is worth investigating.

Common guidance is grade 8 to 10 for general audiences, and plain-language requirements in several jurisdictions set explicit targets for public information — many health literacy guidelines suggest grade 6 to 8 for patient material, and some government accessibility standards reference readability directly.

The changes that genuinely improve clarity are structural rather than statistical: prefer active voice where the actor matters, put the main clause first, replace nominalisations with verbs, define terms on first use, and break long paragraphs at natural boundaries. Reading the text aloud — or having it read to you with the speech tool — surfaces awkwardness no formula detects. The best test remains a reader from the intended audience.

Frequently Asked Questions

What readability score should I aim for?

For general web content: Flesch 60+, grade level 8–10. For marketing copy: grade 6–8. For medical/legal notices: check SMOG ≤ 8 (6th grade health literacy standard). For academic content, higher grade levels are expected.

How are syllables counted?

Syllable counting uses a phonetics-approximate heuristic: count vowel groups per word, with adjustments for silent-e endings and common patterns. It won't match a dictionary perfectly but is accurate enough for score calculations.

What counts as a "complex word" in Gunning Fog?

Words of three or more syllables, excluding proper nouns, compound words formed from simpler words, and -ing/-ed forms of 2-syllable words.

How many sentences do I need for accurate SMOG?

SMOG is technically designed for 30+ sentence samples. The tool shows a result for shorter texts but flags when the sample is too short for SMOG reliability.

Should I write to hit a specific grade level?

No. Optimising the score directly produces choppy, monotonous prose and encourages replacing precise words with vague shorter ones. Use the score to find passages worth examining, not as a target.

Why does my technical document score so badly?

The formulas count syllables as a proxy for difficulty, so familiar domain terms that happen to be long inflate the score. They do not read the text — scrambled word order scores the same as the original.