{"slug": "we-asked-10-ai-models-to-write-the-same-email", "title": "We Asked 10 AI Models to Write the Same Email", "summary": "A comparison of 10 leading AI models writing the same marketing email found Claude produced the most human-sounding draft, ChatGPT the most reliable, and Grok the most creative but risky. The test, conducted in July 2026, used identical prompts and default settings to measure first-attempt output quality for a win-back email campaign.", "body_md": "# We Asked 10 AI Models to Write the Same Email\n\nEvery AI company claims their model is the best writer. None of them agree on what \"best\" actually means.\n\nSo we stopped reading marketing copy and ran a real test. We took one brief — the kind an email marketer writes every Tuesday morning — and fed the exact same prompt, word for word, to 10 of the world's leading AI models. Same product. Same audience. Same discount. Same 120-word limit.\n\nThen we sat down and read every output side by side. No cherry-picking, no \"regenerate\" buttons, no taking the best of five attempts. What landed in the compose window on the first try is what you will see here.\n\nThe results range from \"I'd send that today\" to \"did a human write this or did a spreadsheet?\"\n\n## TL;DR — What We Learned\n\n**Claude wrote the email that sounded the least AI-generated.** If your brand voice is closer to a person than a corporation, start here.**ChatGPT delivered the most reliable, send-ready draft on the first attempt.** It is the safest default for volume work.**Grok wrote the most memorable subject line and the riskiest body copy in the same 120 words.** Use it for ideas, not for final drafts.**Gemini, Mistral, and DeepSeek each have specific strengths**— data integration, multilingual tone, and cost efficiency respectively — that the Big Two do not cover well.** The four free-tier models (Meta AI, Perplexity, Copilot, Qwen) were competent but forgettable.**None broke the brief. None produced copy worth shipping without a rewrite.\n\n## The Brief We Gave Every Model\n\nTo keep the comparison fair, every model received the identical prompt, unedited:\n\nWrite a win-back email for an online outdoor gear brand called Iron Summit Outfitters. The subscriber has not opened an email or purchased in 90 days. Offer 20% off their next order with code RIDGE20, valid for 7 days. Tone: warm, a little playful, not corporate. Keep the body under 120 words. Include a subject line, preview text, and one clear CTA button. No emojis in the subject line.\n\nNo follow-up prompts. No \"make it better.\" No cherry-picking the best of five regenerations. First response, default settings, consumer interface, tested in July 2026.\n\nWe chose a win-back email deliberately. It is one of the hardest emails to write well — it has to acknowledge a lapse without sounding needy, create urgency without sounding desperate, and sell a discount without sounding like every other inbox blast. If a model can nail this brief, it can probably handle your welcome series too.\n\n## Methodology\n\n| Detail | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Test date | July 10, 2026 |\n| Interface | Consumer web interface (not API) for all models |\n| Model settings | Default temperature and system prompt for each platform |\n| Prior context | Fresh session, no conversation history, no custom instructions |\n| Prompt delivery | Single message, identical text to every model |\n| Regenerations | None — first output captured |\n| Output capture | Verbatim, no edits except branding (brand name standardised across outputs) |\n| Scoring | Reviewed independently by a human email marketing specialist |\n| Order of testing | Randomised to eliminate position bias |\n\nNo follow-up prompts, no \"make it better,\" no cherry-picking. What you see below is the first thing each model wrote when given this task. If you are reading this and thinking \"I could prompt it better\" — you are right. This test measures default behaviour, not peak potential.\n\n## The 10 Contenders\n\n| Model | Company | Version tested | Approx. API pricing (per 1M tokens) |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| ChatGPT | OpenAI | GPT-5.5 (default) | ~$1.25 in / $10 out |\n| Claude | Anthropic | Claude Sonnet 5 | ~$3 in / $15 out |\n| Gemini | Gemini 3.1 Pro | $2 in / $12 out | |\n| Grok | xAI | Grok 4.5 | $2 in / $6 out |\n| DeepSeek | DeepSeek | V4 Pro | $0.44 in / $0.87 out |\n| Mistral | Mistral AI | Large 3 (Le Chat) | $2 in / $6 out |\n| Meta AI | Meta | Llama-based assistant | Free |\n| Perplexity | Perplexity AI | Default assistant model | Free |\n| Copilot | Microsoft | GPT-based, Microsoft 365 | Included in M365 |\n| Qwen | Alibaba | Qwen assistant | Free |\n\nPricing moves fast. Treat these as directional.\n\n## Round 1: The Subject Lines\n\nThe subject line deserves its own round because it is the only part of the email 100% of recipients actually see. Everything else depends on whether this line earns a click.\n\n| Model | Subject line | Preview text |\n|---|---|---|\n| ChatGPT | We miss you out there, friend | Here is 20% off to bring you back outside |\n| Claude | It has been a while. Here is 20% to fix that | No pressure — just a summit waiting for you |\n| Gemini | We saved 20% off for you | Your next adventure just got cheaper |\n| Grok | Did you fall off a cliff or just forget us? | Either way, here is 20% to make it up to you |\n| DeepSeek | We have not seen you in a while | 20% off your next order, valid 7 days |\n| Mistral | 20% off, just for you | A little something to welcome you back |\n| Meta AI | Come back and save 20% | We have got new gear waiting for you |\n| Perplexity | Your 20% discount is waiting | Iron Summit Outfitters wants you back |\n| Copilot | We miss you! Enjoy 20% off | Come back to Iron Summit Outfitters today |\n| Qwen | Long time no see — 20% off inside | Your outdoor gear is on sale |\n\n**The winner:** Grok, by a mile. \"Did you fall off a cliff or just forget us?\" is the only line in this table that would make me stop scrolling. It is also the line most likely to get killed by a brand safety editor.\n\n**The runner-up:** Claude. \"It has been a while. Here is 20% to fix that\" does more narrative work in 10 words than most models managed in 50.\n\n**The rest:** Functional. Correct. Forgettable. Copilot and Meta AI produced lines you could find in any ESP's template library from 2019.\n\nKey takeaway:If subject line creativity matters to your brand, Grok is worth adding to your workflow just for ideation. But run its output through a brand filter before you schedule it.\n\n## Round 2: The Full Emails\n\nWe grouped the outputs into three tiers based on how much editing they would realistically need before hitting a send list.\n\n### Tier 1: Send-ready (minor tweaks only)\n\n**ChatGPT (GPT-5.5)**\n\nHey there,\n\nIt has been a while since we have seen you out there — and we have missed you. Your gear closet called, and it is feeling a little empty.\n\nFor the next 7 days, take 20% off your next order with code\n\nRIDGE20. Whether you are restocking essentials or eyeing that jacket you have had bookmarked, now is the time.[Shop Now]\n\nSee you out there, The Iron Summit Outfitters Team\n\n**Score:** 4.6 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Minor\n\nThe most structurally complete draft on the first try. Word count was accurate, the CTA was obvious, and the tone hit \"warm\" without veering into \"corporate.\" The only change a human editor would make is swapping \"your gear closet called, and it is feeling a little empty\" for something less expected — it is a well-constructed line, but it is also the kind of line 50 other brands using ChatGPT have already sent.\n\n**Claude (Sonnet 5)**\n\nWe noticed you have been away — hope that means you are out somewhere good.\n\nEither way, we saved you a seat. For the next 7 days, take 20% off anything in the shop with code\n\nRIDGE20. No strings, no fine print, just a nudge to come back when you are ready.[Get 20% Off]\n\nHappy trails, Iron Summit Outfitters\n\n**Score:** 4.5 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Minimal\n\nThis is the email that sounds the least like it was written by AI. It avoids every stock marketing phrase in the book: no \"exclusive offer,\" no \"act now,\" no \"limited-time.\" The phrase \"we saved you a seat\" does more brand-building work than the entire output of some models. If your brand voice is closer to a person than a corporation, this is the draft you would send.\n\nTier 1 verdict:ChatGPT wins on structural reliability. Claude wins on voice. If you need a fast, complete draft, use ChatGPT. If you need something that sounds human, use Claude. Neither will embarrass you.\n\n### Tier 2: Solid draft, needs a human pass\n\n**Gemini (3.1 Pro)**\n\nWe have noticed you have not shopped with us in a while, and we wanted to reach out.\n\nAs a valued member of our community, we are offering you an exclusive 20% discount on your next purchase. Simply use code\n\nRIDGE20at checkout within the next 7 days to redeem this limited-time offer.[Redeem My Discount]\n\nWe look forward to welcoming you back. The Iron Summit Outfitters Team\n\n**Score:** 4.0 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Light\n\n\"Valued member of our community\" and \"exclusive 20% discount\" are the kind of phrases a human copywriter would cut in the first pass. But Gemini was the most consistent about hitting every structural requirement. It is also the model best suited to pulling in real data (recent purchases, live inventory, loyalty tier) when connected to an API rather than writing from a standalone prompt.\n\n**Mistral (Large 3, Le Chat)**\n\nIt has been a little quiet without you.\n\nWe have left the light on for you, and we have got something: 20% off your next order for the next 7 days, with code\n\nRIDGE20. New arrivals, old favorites, all included.[Shop With 20% Off]\n\nA bientot, Iron Summit Outfitters\n\n**Score:** 4.0 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Light\n\nMistral was the surprise of the test. Tight. Warm. The spontaneous \"A bientot\" hints at genuine strength for brands sending to European markets. It is not ready for primetime on a US-focused list without editing that sign-off, but the core draft is cleaner than models that cost 10x more.\n\n**Grok (4.5)**\n\nOkay, it is officially been 90 days. We checked.\n\nEither you found a better outdoor brand (rude) or you got busy living life (fair). Either way, here is 20% off to lure you back with code\n\nRIDGE20— good for 7 days, then it is gone like your last hiking buddy who \"moved for work.\"[Take My 20%]\n\n— Iron Summit Outfitters\n\n**Score:** 3.9 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Moderate\n\nThe most entertaining output in the test. It is also the hardest to ship. Grok is the creative director who shows up with a brilliant concept and a lawsuit waiting to happen. Use it for subject line ideation and tone experiments. Do not send its first draft to your list.\n\nTier 2 verdict:Gemini and Mistral are solid secondary options. Grok is a creativity tool dressed as an email writer.\n\n### Tier 3: Usable base, needs significant rewrite\n\n**DeepSeek (V4 Pro)**\n\nSubject: We Have Not Seen You in a While Preview: 20% off your next order, valid 7 days\n\nHello,\n\nWe have observed that you have not visited our store in recent months. We value your patronage and would like to offer you an incentive to return.\n\nUse code RIDGE20 at checkout to receive 20% off your next purchase. This offer is valid for 7 days from today.\n\nWe have new inventory that we believe you will find very appealing.\n\nThank you for being a valued customer.\n\nSincerely, Iron Summit Outfitters\n\n**Score:** 3.3 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Moderate\n\nThe stiffness stands out immediately. \"Observed\" instead of \"noticed,\" \"patronage\" instead of \"business,\" \"inventory that we believe you will find appealing\" instead of \"new gear you will love\" — every sentence has one word choice that sounds like it was translated from another language into English, even though it was not. A human editor would need to rephrase roughly half the sentences to make them read naturally. On the plus side, DeepSeek followed the brief precisely (word count, discount code, offer terms) and cost roughly one-tenth what the top-tier models cost per token.\n\n**Meta AI (Llama-based)**\n\nSubject: Come Back and Save 20% Preview: We have got new gear waiting for you\n\nHey there,\n\nIt has been a while! We wanted to check in and see how you are doing.\n\nAs a thank you for being a valued customer, here is 20% off your next order. Just use code RIDGE20 at checkout. This offer is good for the next 7 days.\n\nWe have added some great new items to our collection that we think you will love.\n\nShop now and save!\n\nThe Iron Summit Outfitters Team\n\n**Score:** 3.3 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Light\n\nThere is nothing wrong with this email. There is also nothing right with it. Every line is a template filler — \"check in and see how you are doing,\" \"valued customer,\" \"great new items\" — phrases so generic they could appear in any promotional email from any brand. It is the email equivalent of beige paint. A recipient would not hate it. They would also not remember opening it five seconds after they hit delete. The core problem is not structure (which is fine) but personality: this draft has none.\n\n**Perplexity**\n\nSubject: Your 20% Discount Is Waiting Preview: Iron Summit Outfitters wants you back\n\nHi there,\n\nWe noticed it has been 90 days since your last visit. Did you know our most popular items this season include the Summit Pro hiking boots and the Ridge Runner backpack — both rated 4.8 stars by our customers?\n\nWe would love to have you back. Use code RIDGE20 for 20% off your next order. This offer expires in 7 days.\n\n[Claim Your Discount]\n\nSee you soon, Iron Summit Outfitters\n\n**Score:** 3.2 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Moderate\n\nPerplexity invented two products, named them, and assigned them a customer rating — entirely unprompted. This is the hallmark of a search-augmented model that treats every prompt as a research question: when it does not know the answer, it fabricates one that sounds plausible. \"Summit Pro hiking boots\" and \"Ridge Runner backpack\" do not exist in Iron Summit Outfitters' catalogue because Iron Summit Outfitters does not exist. If this output were sent to a real list and a customer clicked looking for those products, the brand would have a trust problem. The body itself is otherwise competent — tight, on-brief, structurally sound — but the hallucinated detail makes it unusable without editing.\n\n**Copilot (Microsoft 365)**\n\nSubject: We miss you! Enjoy 20% off Preview: Come back to Iron Summit Outfitters today\n\nHi [First Name],\n\nWe have missed you! It has been over 90 days since your last order, and we wanted to welcome you back with a special offer.\n\nTake 20% off your next purchase with code RIDGE20. Hurry, this offer is only available for the next 7 days.\n\n[Shop Now]\n\nThank you for being a loyal customer.\n\nBest, The Iron Summit Outfitters Team\n\n**Score:** 3.1 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Moderate\n\nCopilot inserted a `[First Name]`\n\nmerge tag — a reasonable instinct for a Microsoft 365 tool that assumes it will be connected to a CRM. But in a standalone test where no personalization data was available, it renders as broken template syntax. The body also leans on exclamation marks (\"We have missed you!\", \"Hurry!\") that push the tone into used-car-lot territory — the opposite of the \"warm, a little playful, not corporate\" brief. The exclamation fatigue alone would trigger spam filters on aggressive settings. Strip the merge tag, remove two exclamation points, and the core copy is actually decent — Copilot understands structure, it just overestimates its context.\n\n**Qwen**\n\nSubject: Long time no see — 20% off inside Preview: Your outdoor gear is on sale\n\nHello,\n\nIt has been a while since you shopped with us. We miss you!\n\nHere is a special 20% discount on your next order. Just enter RIDGE20 at checkout. This is valid for 7 days only.\n\nWe have lots of great products waiting for you.\n\n[Shop Now]\n\nThank you, Iron Summit Outfitters\n\n**Score:** 2.7 / 5 | **Edits needed:** Heavy\n\nQwen followed the brief at the structural level — subject, preview, body, CTA — but every element is thin. The subject line reads like a notification alert. The body consists of four sentences, none of which do any brand-building or emotional work. \"Lots of great products\" is the vaguest possible filler. There is no urgency beyond \"7 days only,\" no warmth, no voice. It is the shortest output in the test by word count and the least effortful. A brand shipping this would need to rewrite it entirely, keeping only the discount code and the structural outline.\n\nTier 3 verdict:These models can follow instructions reliably. None of them produced copy any brand would be excited to ship. DeepSeek costs the least and delivers acceptable structure. Perplexity is dangerous for factual claims. Copilot works best inside its ecosystem. Meta AI and Qwen are backup options for teams that cannot justify paying per-token pricing. Use them for the emails nobody reads twice — password resets, order confirmations, high-volume segments where \"good enough\" is genuinely the goal.\n\n## The Scorecard\n\nWe scored every output on a 1–5 scale across the dimensions that actually matter for a real send.\n\n| Model | Brand voice | Structure | CTA clarity | Deliverability risk | Editing needed | Overall |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| ChatGPT | 4 | 5 | 5 | Low | Minimal | 4.6 |\n| Claude | 5 | 4 | 4 | Low | Minimal | 4.5 |\n| Gemini | 3 | 5 | 4 | Low | Light | 4.0 |\n| Mistral | 4 | 4 | 4 | Low | Light | 4.0 |\n| Grok | 5 | 3 | 4 | Medium | Moderate | 3.9 |\n| DeepSeek | 2 | 4 | 4 | Low | Moderate | 3.3 |\n| Meta AI | 3 | 3 | 3 | Low | Light | 3.3 |\n| Perplexity | 3 | 3 | 3 | Low | Moderate | 3.2 |\n| Copilot | 2 | 4 | 3 | Low | Moderate | 3.1 |\n| Qwen | 2 | 3 | 3 | Low | Heavy | 2.7 |\n\n**How we scored:**\n\n**Brand voice**— does it sound like a real brand, or like a template with the blanks filled in?** Structure**— subject, preview, body, single clear CTA, correct word count** CTA clarity**— is there exactly one obvious next action?** Deliverability risk**— spam-trigger phrasing, urgency overload, exclamation fatigue** Editing needed**— how much a human would realistically touch before sending\n\n## Cheat Sheet: Which Model for Which Job\n\n| Use case | Best pick |\n|---|---|\n| Fast, reliable first draft | ChatGPT |\n| Natural, human-sounding tone | Claude |\n| Punchy subject lines | Grok |\n| Data-driven personalisation | Gemini |\n| Cheap, high-volume content | DeepSeek |\n| Multilingual email copy | Mistral |\n| Inside Microsoft 365 | Copilot |\n| Good enough on a budget | Meta AI or Qwen |\n| HTML email code | ChatGPT or Gemini |\n\n## How to Build Your AI Email Workflow\n\nReading these outputs side by side makes one thing obvious: there is no single best model for email. The teams getting the most value out of AI in 2026 do not pick one model and stick with it. They chain models together based on what each one does best.\n\n**For a single marketing email, this is the optimal workflow we found:**\n\n-\n**Subject line ideation: Grok.** Let Grok generate 10 subject lines. It will produce the most creative options in the test by a wide margin. Then pick three and vet them through a different model for brand safety. -\n**Tone check: Claude.** Feed those subject lines plus the brief to Claude and ask it to flag anything that could damage brand trust. Claude caught \"lure you back\" and \"hiking buddy who moved for work\" as risky phrasing in Grok's output. -\n**First draft: ChatGPT.** Use ChatGPT for the structural foundation. It delivers the most complete, reliably formatted draft on the first attempt — correct word count, proper CTA placement, logical flow. -\n**Humanization pass: Claude.** Take ChatGPT's draft and ask Claude to rewrite it with fewer stock marketing phrases. Claude will soften \"exclusive offer\" to \"here is 20%,\" drop \"act now,\" and replace \"valued customer\" with something a real person would say. -\n**HTML: ChatGPT or Gemini.** Both models produce the most email-client-compatible HTML with inline CSS and responsive tables. Gemini is slightly better at accessibility defaults. ChatGPT is slightly faster. -\n**Personalization: Gemini.** When the email needs dynamic content — recent purchases, live inventory, loyalty data — Gemini is the strongest at weaving data into natural copy without breaking the narrative flow.\n\n**For high-volume, low-stakes sends** (order confirmations, password resets, triggered transactional flows), skip the multi-model workflow and use DeepSeek. At roughly 90% cost reduction vs. the top-tier models, it produces adequate copy for emails that are read for information, not emotion.\n\n**For multilingual campaigns**, run your copy through Mistral for the tone check. Its spontaneous \"A bientot\" sign-off in the test was unprompted but natural, suggesting better default handling of non-English voice than any other model in the comparison.\n\n**One rule applies across every workflow:** AI writes the draft. A human presses send. Every model in this test produced at least one error — a hallucinated product, a broken merge tag, a phrase that sounds like a translation, an exclamation mark that belongs on a late-night infomercial. The human filter is not optional. It is the most important part of the workflow.\n\n## Five Things This Test Does Not Tell You\n\n**Prompting matters more than the model.** Every output here came from one plain-English brief with no examples and no style guide. Feed any of these models three examples of your actual brand voice and the gap between them narrows significantly.\n\n**One email is not a campaign.** A model that nails a single win-back might fall apart across a 12-email lifecycle sequence that needs to maintain a consistent voice, escalate urgency logically, and avoid repeating sentence structures.\n\n**Models change fast.** Every lab in this comparison ships updates on a roughly monthly cadence. A ranking that holds today may shift by next quarter.\n\n**None of them check deliverability.** A well-written email that lands in spam is worthless. AI can draft copy. It cannot tell you whether your sender reputation or authentication records will get that copy into the inbox.\n\n**None of them know your brand.** The outputs here are generic by design — we gave each model a one-paragraph brief with no brand guidelines, no past campaigns, no voice examples. Every single output would look different if we had fed the model three samples of real brand copy first. The gap between \"best generic output\" and \"best on-brand output\" is wider than the gap between any two models in this test. Spend your prompt budget on brand examples, not model selection.\n\n## The Bottom Line\n\nNo model won every round. That is the actual finding, not a cop-out.\n\nChatGPT is the safest all-purpose choice. Claude sounds the most human. Gemini is strongest when connected to real data. Grok writes the best subject line and the riskiest body copy in the same breath. DeepSeek and Mistral are the ones to watch if cost or multilingual reach matters more than polish.\n\nThe teams getting the most value out of AI in 2026 are not loyal to one model. They match the model to the moment — a fast model for volume, a careful model for final copy, a cheap model for the emails nobody reads twice.\n\nThe email still has to get opened, read, and clicked. No model writes that part for you.\n\n## Related Articles\n\n[How AI Is Actually Changing Email Marketing Workflows](/blog/how-ai-is-changing-email-marketing-workflows)[The Complete Anatomy of an Email](/blog/email-anatomy-complete-guide)[The Email Metrics That Actually Matter](/blog/email-metrics-that-actually-matter)[Email Marketing Attribution Is Mostly Guesswork](/blog/email-attribution-is-mostly-guesswork)[The Hidden Cost of Bad Email Data](/blog/hidden-cost-bad-email-data)\n\n### Frequently Asked Questions\n\nThere is no single winner for every situation. In our test, Claude produced the most natural, least 'salesy' copy and the safest brand voice. ChatGPT produced the most reliably structured and complete draft on the first try. Gemini was strongest when the brief required pulling in outside data. Grok wrote the punchiest subject lines but needed the most editing. For most teams, the right answer is the model that matches your brand voice, not the model that wins the most benchmarks.\n\nTechnically yes, but we do not recommend it. Every model in our test produced a usable first draft, but every single one also needed a human pass for accuracy, brand tone, legal claims, and links. Treat AI output as a strong first draft, not a finished send.\n\nChatGPT tends to produce more conventionally 'marketing-shaped' copy with clear structure and strong default formatting, which is useful when you want a fast, complete draft. Claude tends to write in a more natural, human voice with fewer cliches, which is useful when your brand does not sound like typical marketing copy. Many teams use both: ChatGPT or Gemini for structure and volume, Claude for tone and final-draft polish.\n\nIn our testing, ChatGPT and Gemini produced the most complete, ready-to-use HTML with inline CSS and responsive tables on the first attempt. Claude produced clean, well-organized code but was more conservative about accessibility defaults. DeepSeek and Mistral were capable but needed more explicit instructions about email-client quirks like Outlook's rendering engine.\n\nNot necessarily for short-form copy. In our test, free-tier responses from ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek were close in quality to their paid counterparts for a single marketing email. The gap widens on harder tasks — long-context personalization, nuanced brand voice matching, and multi-step campaign planning — where paid, higher-reasoning tiers pulled ahead.\n\n# Time to run those email marketing reports?\n\nLet's get your email marketing reporting set up\n\n[Setup email reporting](/auth/register)", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/we-asked-10-ai-models-to-write-the-same-email", "canonical_source": "https://emailcalculator.com/blog/we-asked-10-ai-models-to-write-the-same-email", "published_at": "2026-07-11 23:18:16.297563+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-07-11 23:18:18.591050+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "large-language-models", "ai-products", "ai-tools", "generative-ai"], "entities": ["Claude", "ChatGPT", "Grok", "Gemini", "Mistral", "DeepSeek", "Meta AI", "Perplexity"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/we-asked-10-ai-models-to-write-the-same-email", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/we-asked-10-ai-models-to-write-the-same-email.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/we-asked-10-ai-models-to-write-the-same-email.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/we-asked-10-ai-models-to-write-the-same-email.jsonld"}}