Readability Scorer
Flesch, Flesch–Kincaid, Gunning Fog, SMOG, Coleman–Liau, ARI and Dale–Chall — every formula implemented exactly as published, on a real tokenizer with a syllable counter and exception dictionary. See the equation behind every number, live as you type.
Paste text on the left and the gauge lights up instantly.
Flesch Reading Ease bands
| Score | Band | Comfortable for | Typical use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90–100 | Very easy | 5th grade | Comics, very simple instructions |
| 80–89 | Easy | 6th grade | Consumer content, conversational copy |
| 70–79 | Fairly easy | 7th grade | Most successful blog posts |
| 60–69 | Standard | 8th–9th grade | The sweet spot for general web content |
| 50–59 | Fairly difficult | 10th–12th grade | Long-form professional articles |
| 30–49 | Difficult | College | Technical documentation, legal summaries |
| 0–29 | Very difficult | College graduate | Academic papers, dense specifications |
Why seven formulas, and which one to trust
No single readability formula is “the right one” — they measure different proxies. Flesch and Flesch–Kincaid lean on syllables per word, so they punish long words; Coleman–Liau and ARI count characters instead, which makes them immune to syllable-counting quirks but blind to genuinely hard vocabulary; Gunning Fog counts “complex” words with exclusions for proper nouns and inflections; SMOG was built for health materials and insists on a 30-sentence sample; Dale–Chall is the only one that asks whether the specific words are familiar, not just short. When all seven roughly agree, trust the composite. When they diverge sharply, that divergence is itself the finding — usually long words in short sentences, or the reverse.
The web has a strong empirical answer to “what should I aim for”: Flesch Reading Ease of 60+ and a grade level of 8–9 for general audiences. That is not dumbing down — it's respecting that people read screens in a hurry, in bad light, in their second language. Technical audiences tolerate grade 10–12 comfortably, but nobody has ever complained that expert content was too easy to read. The fastest levers are mechanical: split any sentence over 25 words, replace three-syllable words where a shorter one carries the same meaning, and break paragraph walls.
Be skeptical of tools that hide the math. Syllable counting is where most readability checkers silently disagree — this one uses vowel-group counting with silent-e, -le and hiatus rules plus an exception dictionary, and the same text always yields the same counts. The formulas are printed next to their scores, so you can verify any number by hand. That determinism matters when readability targets are part of a style guide or contract: a score you can reproduce is a score you can enforce.
Readability is one leg of content quality. Check the topical side — density, placement, phrase repetition — in the Keyword & N-Gram Analyzer, run the whole page through the 85-check SEO audit (it embeds this exact readability engine), and preview how your polished title renders in the SERP preview.
Trusted for Editorial QA
“The only readability tool I've used that prints the formula next to the score. Our style guide mandates grade ≤ 9, and being able to reproduce the number by hand ended every argument with stakeholders. The longest-sentences list is my first stop on every edit.”
“We gate doc PRs on Flesch ≥ 50 and this matches our CI numbers exactly — same tokenizer philosophy, deterministic syllables. The SMOG 'insufficient sample' honesty instead of a fake score tells you everything about how this tool was built.”
“Live scoring while I trim sentences is addictive — watching Fog drop from 14 to 10 as I split clauses. Passive cues labeled 'cue, not verdict' is refreshingly honest, and it still catches 90% of what I'd flag manually.”
“SMOG support with correct 30-sentence handling matters in health writing and almost no free tool does it right. Dale–Chall runs on a compact word list, clearly labeled, so I treat it as directional — everything else matches my reference calculator to the decimal.”
Love using our calculator?
The rest of SEO Forge
Similar Calculators
More tools in the same category
SEO Audit Pro
Paste HTML or fetch a live URL and get a unified 85-check audit — on-page, technical, content, links, images, structured data and security — with weighted scores, a fix-first list and JSON/CSV/Markdown export.
SERP & Social Preview
Pixel-accurate Google SERP preview (desktop + mobile, canvas-measured Arial with query bolding) plus Facebook, X, LinkedIn, WhatsApp and Discord card mockups.
Meta Tags Studio
Build a complete, correct <head>: title and description with live character + pixel meters, canonical, robots directives, Open Graph and Twitter cards — copy one clean block.
Keyword Density & N-Grams
Exact keyword density, a placement matrix (title, H1, first 100 words, URL, alts), keyword proximity, 1–4-gram tables and top-word analysis — computed, not guessed.
Robots.txt Studio
Generate robots.txt with AI-crawler policy presets (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, CCBot…) and test any URL against any file with RFC 9309 longest-match semantics — winning line highlighted.
XML Sitemap Studio
Generate, validate, count and split XML sitemaps against the full protocol: namespace, absolute ≤2,048-char URLs, W3C dates, 50k/50MB limits, freshness histogram and index files.
Often Used Together
Complementary tools for complete analysis
Related Articles
Dive deeper with our expert guides and tutorials related to Readability Scorer
7 formulas from first principles · composite grade · sentence diagnostics · transition & passive cues · live as you type · in-browser · Last reviewed: 2026-07