LYTMS
Your hero sells an AI co-pilot; your pricing page never mentions AI once.
“The primary CTA 'Get started - free' has no supporting microcopy — no 'takes 2 minutes,' no 'no credit card required,' no 'install with one command'...”
Add a single line of microcopy beneath the CTA button: 'No credit card. One terminal command.' This closes the commitment-uncertainty gap without redesigning the hero.
Get the ship-ready rewrite →The page never tells a visitor what happens after they click 'Get started - free.' No friction estimate, no setup preview, no time-to-value signal. For product engineers evaluating three tools simultaneously, 'get started' with no context...
Not five scoring areas. Five questions, asked in sequence. The page is judged on how many it answers before the visitor gives up.
The headline "The new way to build products" claims a category shift without naming what PostHog actually is.
▸ Read the full takeCollapseA product engineer landing from a search for "product analytics" or "feature flags" has no confirmation in the first five seconds that they're in the right place — the headline could describe a no-code builder, an AI coding tool, or a project management platform. The subheadline attempts to recover by listing the old way (manual code, analysis, bug diagnosis, dozens of tools) and positioning PostHog as the co-pilot that replaces all of it, but "co-pilot for you and your AI agents to do it all autonomously" is doing too much work for a single sentence and lands as a claim rather than a category. The move: replace the headline with a direct statement of what PostHog is and who it's for — something that lets a product engineer recognize their situation in the first read, before they have to parse the subheadline to understand the category.
The page is fighting itself on what its single strongest claim is.
▸ Read the full takeCollapseThe hero leads with AI co-pilot and autonomous product development. The body's longest section argues for a unified data platform — one source of truth, warehouse plus analytics plus CDP. The pricing section argues for cost (usage-based, no sales calls, 98% free). The "Why PostHog?" section argues for transparency and culture. Each of these is a legitimate differentiation angle; none of them is the same angle. A product engineer reading top to bottom encounters four different reasons to choose PostHog and leaves without a clear answer to "what does PostHog own that no one else does." Amplitude owns depth of behavioral analytics. Segment owns data routing. PostHog's actual wedge — the only platform where analytics, warehouse, feature flags, and session replay share the same data model so you never stitch tools together — appears in the body copy but never becomes the organizing claim the whole page argues for. Pick the one thing and make every section a proof point for it.
“The primary CTA 'Get started - free' has no supporting microcopy — no 'takes 2 minutes,' no 'no credit card required,' no 'install with one command' adjacent to the button. The terminal install command (npx @posthog/wizard) appears later in the body but never connects back to the CTA.”
“The new way to build products | PostHog is the only platform that acts like a co-pilot for you (and your AI agents) to do it all – autonomously .”
“Here are some of our paying customers. (Yes they actually use us, no it's not just some random engineer who tried us out 2+ years ago.)”
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.
Call-to-action clarity, visual weight, offer strength, form friction, CTA-to-page match.
Hero value, conversion-killing sentences, cliché density, awareness fit, buyer-language gap, competitive differentiation.
Proof architecture, named-customer recognition, imagery authenticity, claim-vs-evidence gaps.
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 social proof section is doing the opposite of what named proof does.
▸ Read the full takeCollapse"VCs love them. Product engineers love them." is a claim about the type of person who uses PostHog, not evidence that real companies get real results from it. The parenthetical — "Yes they actually use us, no it's not just some random engineer who tried us out 2+ years ago" — is self-aware about the problem (logo soup with no depth) but doesn't solve it; it just flags the problem with a joke. The page has a customer section but no named customer, no quoted outcome, no "Stripe's data team cut their analytics stack from four tools to one" — the kind of specific claim that makes a product engineer think "that's my situation." Move at least two named customers with a one-sentence outcome each above the first feature section; the current social proof placement and format earns no trust.
The "Shameless CTA" section at the bottom — fake urgency, "1 left at this price," "$0 off your first order," the floppy disk joke — is a tonal bet that will land differently depending on who reads it.
▸ Read the full takeCollapseFor a developer who's been on the page for four minutes and is already sold, it's a funny closer. For a product engineer who scrolled past three feature sections and still isn't sure what PostHog's core claim is, it reads as the brand avoiding the hard work of making a real case. The risk isn't that the humor is wrong for the audience — PostHog's voice is genuinely developer-native and the irreverence is earned elsewhere — the risk is that the joke section is the last thing a skeptical visitor reads before leaving, and it gives them nothing to hold onto. Move the final CTA surface to a direct restatement of the strongest claim with a clear action; keep the humor inside the page, not as the page's closing argument.