Comparison
This is the rare comparison where the honest answer is "different instruments, different questions." Swayable measures whether content changes minds, with experimental rigor. PreTestAds predicts whether anyone keeps watching long enough for minds to be changeable. The useful decision is sequencing, not either/or.
Swayable runs randomized controlled trials: real audiences are split into groups that see your content or don't, and the opinion difference between them is causally attributable lift — the gold-standard answer to "did this persuade?" PreTestAds runs a model: AdCortex™, trained on fMRI brain-response data, predicts second-by-second engagement and benchmarks it against 76 public top performers — the answer to "does this hold?" Neither claims the other's question; ours says so in writing.
Trials buy respondents; sample size is the price of confidence, and fielding takes real time (how Swayable quotes are shaped). Prediction has no per-test fieldwork: $49/month for 20 analyses (about $2.45 each), packs from $45, up to 8 free credits, minutes per result. That's not one tool undercutting the other — it's two different cost structures for two different evidentiary standards.
Decisions expensive enough that being wrong costs more than the study, where the question is genuinely causal: hero brand campaigns, public-affairs and advocacy messaging, high-stakes message strategy. RCT evidence survives boardrooms and post-mortems like nothing cheaper can. The campaign-side view: ad testing for political & advocacy teams; the wider field: Swayable alternatives.
Every cut before the trial, and every cut that will never justify one: weekly feed variants, cutdowns, versions of the closing ask, VSL leads. Screening at $2.45 catches the weak hooks a trial would bill study money to discover — a message can't move anyone who scrolled at second three. Rapid-response timelines get scores the same afternoon, on any finished spot, filmed, designed, or AI-generated.
Screen everything for attention → fix or kill the gate-failures → send the survivors with real stakes to trial. Research spend then measures persuasion on content that already earned the watch, and your cost per validated message drops at both ends. It's the same screen-then-field logic as pre-testing vs A/B testing, applied to the most expensive instrument in the stack.
Score a spot in minutes — up to 8 free credits, no credit card, trial budget saved for real contenders.
Test Your Ad Freeor read a live sample report first — no signup
Only partially — they answer different questions. Swayable runs randomized controlled trials that measure whether content changes opinion; PreTestAds predicts whether viewers keep watching at all. Attention is the gate in front of persuasion, so the honest relationship is sequential: screen for attention cheaply, then buy trial-grade persuasion evidence for the creative that already holds.
Because the costs are structurally different. An RCT recruits real respondents into treatment and control groups — sample sizes drive real fieldwork spend per study. A prediction model has no per-test fieldwork, which is how attention screening lands at about $2.45 per test with results in minutes.
No — explicitly not. The published methodology limits the score to predicted attention and engagement. If your decision needs evidence that content moves opinion, that's trial territory, and Swayable is built for exactly that question.