Best Squibler Alternative for Writing Books (2026)
Looking for an AI book writing tool with better prose quality than Squibler? This author-first comparison covers AI output quality, editing workflows, pricing, and everything else you need to decide.
Last updated: Feb 25, 2026 · Based on official product pages/docs and current pricing pages
If your priority is writing and revising serious prose with the best available AI, Type.ai is the clear winner. It uses frontier models (GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet) for genuinely high-quality output, while its inline editing loop keeps you drafting and polishing inside one clean document—not bouncing between project boards and generation screens.
AI quality gap: Type runs on frontier LLMs (GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet). Squibler's AI output is widely noted as inconsistent and often requires heavy rewriting.
Editing workflow: Type keeps rewriting and revision inside the document with inline suggested edits. Squibler spreads features across corkboards, scene cards, and separate generation panels.
Performance at scale: Type handles long documents smoothly and supports offline use. Squibler has reported lag issues on longer projects and is web-only with no offline mode.
Generous usage: Type Pro includes ~2.5 million words/month of AI usage. Squibler's free tier caps at 6,000 words/month; the Pro tier is unlimited but at the same $29/month price point.
Where Squibler is useful
Squibler offers visual project organization (corkboard, scene cards), built-in text-to-image generation, screenplay-specific formatting, and a physical book printing option.
Where Type has the edge
Type delivers significantly better AI output quality, a faster editing workflow, frontier model access, offline support, and a more reliable experience on long manuscripts.
Type.ai vs Squibler comparison table
A side-by-side overview for authors deciding today. We give the edge to whichever tool delivers better results for day-to-day writing and editing.
Category
Type.ai
Squibler
AI model quality
Frontier models (GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet). High-quality drafting, rewriting, and contextual editing.
Proprietary AI. Output quality is inconsistent; many reviewers note it requires extensive editing.
Editing workflow
Inline AI commands and suggested edits inside the document. Accept/reject with keyboard shortcuts.
Separate generation panels, corkboard views, and scene cards. More clicks between writing and editing.
Long-form performance
Stable on long documents. Offline support. Multi-tab editing for working across chapters.
Reported performance lag on longer projects. Web-only; no offline or mobile support.
Trustpilot rating of ~2/5. Reported billing issues and difficult cancellation processes.
Best for
Authors who want the best AI writing quality in a fast, clean editing environment.
Writers who want visual project management and don't mind heavier editing of AI output.
Author-fit calculator
Adjust what matters most in your workflow. The recommendation updates instantly.
Defaults emphasize AI quality, editing flow, and reliability.
AI output quality35%
Editing workflow speed28%
Long-form reliability18%
Visual organization tools10%
Budget / free tier access9%
Type.ai score0.00
Squibler score0.00
Recommended: Type.ai
With the default weighting, Type.ai comes out ahead — mainly because AI output quality and editing workflow carry the most weight for serious book work.
Choose your author profile
Pick the profile closest to you. Each one highlights what matters most for that kind of writer and where each tool fits.
Debut novelist: AI quality and simplicity matter most
First-time novelists need an AI that produces genuinely good prose, not output that needs to be completely rewritten. Type's frontier models deliver significantly higher quality drafts and rewrites, so you spend your time refining rather than starting over.
The inline editing flow means you stay in your manuscript, not jumping between corkboards and generation screens. For a debut author, that focus is the difference between finishing and stalling.
Recommendation: Type.ai
Series author: throughput and quality at scale
Series authors need consistent quality across many chapters and books. Type's ~2.5M words/month of AI usage and stable long-document performance make it the stronger tool for sustained output.
Squibler's visual corkboard and scene cards can help with series-level organization, but if your bottleneck is prose quality and editing speed, Type is the better daily driver.
Recommendation: Type.ai for drafting and editing; Squibler only if visual project boards are essential
Nonfiction author: precision and argument flow
Nonfiction demands clear argumentation, precise rewriting, and heavy revision at the paragraph level. Type's inline suggested edits and AI Brushes were built for exactly this kind of work.
Squibler's strengths are fiction-oriented: story templates, scene cards, and screenplay tools. For nonfiction manuscripts, those features offer little value, while Type's editing-first approach pays off on every page.
Recommendation: Type.ai
Screenwriter: the one area Squibler has specific tooling
Squibler offers screenplay-specific formatting templates with proper scene headings, action lines, and dialogue formatting. If industry-standard screenplay formatting is essential to your workflow, Squibler has dedicated tooling for it.
That said, Type's superior AI quality means your dialogue and scene descriptions will be stronger. Many screenwriters draft in a quality-focused editor and format in a dedicated screenplay tool afterward.
Recommendation: Type.ai for writing quality; Squibler if built-in screenplay formatting is a must
Detailed breakdown for serious authors
AI quality: the most important difference
Type.ai advantage: Type runs on GPT-5 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet — the same frontier models used by professional writers, researchers, and developers worldwide. The result is AI output that actually sounds like good writing: contextually aware, stylistically consistent, and genuinely useful for both first drafts and revision passes.
Squibler limitation: Multiple independent reviews (including Reedsy's 2.5/5 rating) note that Squibler's AI produces "average writing" that is "incapable of the depth of tone a human can write with." Authors regularly report needing to substantially rewrite AI-generated sections, which defeats much of the productivity benefit.
Editing workflow: inline vs. modular
Type.ai advantage: Type's editing model keeps everything in the document. Highlight text, invoke a command or Brush, review inline suggested edits, and accept or reject with keyboard shortcuts (A/R). The loop is: write → command → review → continue. That tight cycle compounds into real productivity over a full manuscript.
Squibler tradeoff: Squibler organizes work across corkboards, scene cards, generation panels, and a separate editor view. This can be helpful for visual thinkers who want to see their project structure, but it introduces more navigation and context-switching between writing and editing.
Long-document performance and reliability
Type.ai advantage: Type supports offline use, multi-tab editing for jumping between chapters, and stable performance on long documents. For authors working on 80,000+ word manuscripts, reliability is non-negotiable.
Squibler limitation: Squibler is web-only with no offline mode and no mobile app. Multiple reviews cite performance lag on longer projects. Squibler did announce infrastructure upgrades in early 2025, but the web-only constraint and lack of offline support remain.
Organization and project management
Squibler strength: Squibler's corkboard view, drag-and-drop scene cards, goal tracking, and timeline features give visual planners a rich organizational layer. If you like pinning index cards to a board, Squibler has genuine appeal here.
Type.ai position: Type takes a document-centric approach with nested folders and multi-tab editing. It's less visually flashy but keeps organization close to the actual writing, which many authors prefer for sustained focus.
Pricing and trust
Type.ai: $29/month (or $23/month annually). Includes ~2.5 million words/month of AI usage, a 14-day free trial, and a 30-day money-back guarantee. Personalized onboarding included. Cancel anytime with no complications.
Squibler: Free tier with 6,000 AI words/month. Pro at $29/month (or $16/month annually) with unlimited AI generation. The free tier is useful for testing but is very limited. Squibler's Trustpilot rating sits around 2/5, with user complaints about unexpected charges and difficult cancellation processes.
What authors actually ask us
I'm looking for a Squibler alternative — what should I try?
If you've been frustrated by Squibler's AI output quality or performance issues, Type.ai is the strongest alternative. It pairs frontier AI models with a clean inline editing workflow that's built for authors who care about prose quality, not just content volume.
What's the best AI writing software for novelists right now?
For most novelists, Type.ai hits the sweet spot: genuinely good AI output, a fast editing loop, and reliable long-document performance. Squibler's visual organization tools are nice, but the AI quality gap means you'll spend more time fixing output than writing.
Is Squibler's free plan enough for writing a book?
Squibler's free tier is limited to 6,000 AI-generated words per month, 15 files, and 1 project with PDF-only export. For anything beyond basic experimentation, you'll need the Pro plan. Type offers a 14-day free trial with full access, which gives you a better sense of what the tool can actually do for a real project.
How this comparison was built
All factual product references are grounded in official pages/docs checked on Feb 25, 2026. Pricing and feature availability can change; always verify on product sites.
Bottom line: choose Type.ai for better AI and a faster writing workflow
If you want an AI writing tool that produces genuinely good prose and stays out of your way while you draft, Type is the stronger choice for most authors.
For most authors, yes. Type's advantage is AI output quality: it uses frontier models (GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet) that produce significantly better prose than Squibler's AI. Combined with inline editing and stable long-document performance, Type is the stronger tool for actually writing and finishing books.
Type runs on GPT-5 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet — the most capable large language models available. These models produce contextually aware, stylistically consistent writing. Squibler's AI has been rated 2.5/5 by Reedsy for output quality, with reviewers noting it produces average writing that requires extensive editing.
Yes. Squibler offers a visual corkboard for project organization, built-in text-to-image generation, screenplay-specific formatting templates, physical book printing, and a free tier. If visual project management or screenplay formatting are central to your process, those are genuine Squibler strengths.
Type.ai is significantly better for nonfiction. Its inline editing, AI Brushes, and suggested edits are ideal for the revision-heavy workflow nonfiction demands. Squibler's strengths are fiction-centric: story templates, scene cards, and screenplay tools offer little for nonfiction authors.
Both charge $29/month on monthly billing. Squibler's annual plan is cheaper ($16/month vs Type's $23/month) and offers a free tier with 6,000 AI words/month. However, Type's $23/month annual plan includes ~2.5M words of AI usage, a 14-day free trial, and a 30-day money-back guarantee. The value per dollar of AI quality is substantially higher with Type.
Type.ai supports offline use, so you can keep writing even without an internet connection. Squibler is web-only with no offline or mobile support, which means you always need an internet connection and a desktop browser to access your work.
Squibler's free tier is very limited: 6,000 AI words/month, 15 files, 1 project, and PDF-only export. For writing a full book, you'll need the Pro plan. Type.ai's 14-day free trial gives full access to all features, which is more useful for evaluating whether the tool fits your actual workflow.
