LYTMS
The page scores itself 6.
“Six superlatives, zero named customers — the page claims trust without a single person who's given it.”
Pull Lytms off the leaderboard entirely, or replace the entry with one that demonstrates the scan's output without that specific finding front and center. The leaderboard proves the tool works — it doesn't need your own brand as the star witness against you.
Get the ship-ready rewrite →The leaderboard is designed to show the tool working — but your own entry leads with a finding that tells every visitor you have no named customers. The output is verbatim and authoritative; readers don't read it as self-deprecating...
Not five scoring areas. Five questions, asked in sequence. The page is judged on how many it answers before the visitor gives up.
The page's only proof is the product demoing itself, and that's a structural trust problem.
▸ Read the full takeCollapseThe Stripe scan, the leaderboard, the competitor breakdowns — every piece of evidence on this page is Lytms analyzing other brands, not a single named customer saying Lytms worked for them. A B2B SaaS buyer evaluating a $49–$499/month intelligence platform will ask the same question they ask every vendor: who else paid for this and what happened? The page has no answer. The business profile confirms this is a launch-stage product, which makes the absence understandable — but the page doesn't compensate for it. If you have even one named customer with a specific outcome ("our rescan after shipping the hero rewrite moved our trial-to-signup rate from X to Y"), that sentence belongs above the fold, not buried or absent. Until then, the page is a product demo dressed as proof, and buyers who've been burned by tools that look sharp but don't deliver will clock the difference.
The page is trying to convert two different buyers with one CTA path, and it's losing both.
▸ Read the full takeCollapseThe hero is built for a self-serve, problem-aware buyer — paste a URL, get a score in two minutes, free. That buyer is a founder or solo marketing lead who wants to act now without a conversation. But the Accelerate tier ("a senior marketing operator runs Lytms for you," "$399 positioning audit," "60-minute working session") is a completely different buyer: a marketing leader at a funded company who wants managed work, not a tool. These two buyers need different pages, different CTAs, and different proof. Right now, the self-serve buyer hits the Accelerate section mid-scroll and has to mentally re-sort what Lytms actually is — a tool or a service. The move is to give Accelerate its own page (the /for/marketing-teams or a dedicated /accelerate URL) and remove it from the homepage entirely, or push it below the FAQ so the self-serve conversion path runs clean from hero to pricing without interruption.
“Six superlatives, zero named customers — the page claims trust without a single person who's given it.”
“Slack delivery on every signal. Your team sees it the moment Lytms does. Bulk CSV exports for ad ops and social calendars, ready to ship.”
“The Accelerate section describes a 'senior marketing operator runs Lytms for you' offer and names a $399 positioning audit entry point, but gives no monthly or engagement price for the full service. Every other tier has a number. This one asks buyers to take a meeting to find out what it costs — a friction pattern that”
Every finding named, quoted, and paired with the rewrite — that’s how Lytms reads a page. Run it on your own site to see all of yours, free.
Hero value, conversion-killing sentences, cliché density, awareness fit, buyer-language gap, competitive differentiation.
Destination coherence, mobile rendering, performance, accessibility.
A live feed of what the category is moving toward, with a drafted response for the moves worth responding to.
Pick one competitor on Pro. Same scoring this page is held to. Same-day alert when they ship a homepage change.
Mine reviews, transcripts, support, social. Ranked, attributed, matched against the homepage.
Accept, edit, ship. An action queue tied to a CMS or copied straight to clipboard.
Lytms reads any B2B homepage the same way — verdict, five scores, every line that costs the visit. Free to run. Full report and drafted rewrites on Pro.
The page names four distinct differentiation angles — buyer-corpus grounding, fair competitor scoring, actionable rewrites, continuous monitoring — and defends none of them.
Each one is a credible reason to choose Lytms over a general AI writing tool or a manual audit, but the page treats them as a feature list rather than a single positional claim. The result is that the page owns no specific word in the buyer's mind. A buyer comparing Lytms to running a ChatGPT prompt on their homepage copy, or to hiring a consultant for a one-time audit, can't extract a clear reason why Lytms wins that comparison. The implied wedge — scoring your messaging against actual buyer language, not vibes — is the sharpest claim on the page, and it appears only in the "02 · Audience" section body copy, not in the hero. Move that specific claim ("the words on your homepage and the words your buyers use to describe you on G2 rarely match — we mine the gap") into the hero subheadline and cut "The marketing intelligence platform for B2B SaaS," which is a category label, not a position.
The page's own score on the leaderboard is 6.1 out of 10, and the finding reads: "Six superlatives, zero named customers — the page claims trust without a single person who's given it." This is the most damaging sentence on the page, and it's self-inflicted.
▸ Read the full takeCollapseA buyer who reads the leaderboard — which the page presents as objective scoring — sees Lytms ranking itself last among five brands and flagging its own credibility gap. The intent is probably to signal honesty and self-awareness, but the execution tells the buyer that the product's own diagnostic has identified a trust problem the page hasn't fixed. Either fix the problem the scan named (add named customers, remove the superlatives) before publishing the leaderboard, or remove Lytms from the leaderboard entirely. Leaving the self-indictment visible while the underlying problem remains is the single fastest way to lose a buyer who was otherwise convinced.