Wicked Article Creator vs. Kontent Machine

Let me introduce you to…

Wicked Article Creator a.k.a “WAC” and Kontent Machine a.k.a. “KM” are a very powerful and relatively new breed of software. Yup, you guessed it, it’s the “article generator league”.

I wanted to review these 2 together because they are the best choice when you’re looking at means of producing computer generated content. On top of that, I used both so it gives me a great opportunity to compare then side by side.

Kontent Machine Main Interface

Wicked Article Creator Main Interface

For those of you that are not up-to-date, these programs basically download a bunch of articles based on your keyword from various sources and then spin them together on sentence / paragraph level. The output is highly spun and when you add word spinning to that, you get REALLY unique articles that are perfect for tiered linking campaigns. This can be done via built-in spinners.

If you don’t know what article spinning is, read this.

As you can probably imagine, the end result is hardly readable. If you know your way around the software itself you can get a readable article that flows well but it won’t make sense as a whole. It will just look like bunch of unrelated tips / sentences about your topic.

I mean, you can’t really expect college level articles from a software based article generator.

The huge downside is that this kind of readability is expansively traded for uniqueness. This means that you would be a fool to think that these will replace your article writes.

This content should go where it’s supposed to go, on Tiers 1 and above. If you want to be on the safe side, not even in Tier 1. With that being said, you will see that tiered linkbuilding gets a whole lot simpler when you have a dedicated one click content producer. Also these articles works wonders for ranking youtube videos, MNS, web 2.0s and things like that.

So let’s start.

Content Generation

They both have the ability to create loads of content with minimal interaction. All you need to do is enter a keyword and click 1-2 buttons.

Kontent Machine lacks some built-in tools to perform semi-manual spinning but it makes up for it with “Generate Kontent” function; a 1 button automated content creation.

It handles most keywords but when you try something more specific, you end up with “Not enough content” error. This can be solved if you set the settings to scrape broad keywords when it doesn’t find enough content but it won’t make the problem go away entirely.

This problem is especially frustrating if you have stubborn clients that can’t seem to grasp that there just isn’t enough articles on the entire web for keywords like “Where to buy a smoking monkey”.

However, if you’re not too specific, there are loads of options that grant you ability to customize your content to the fullest. You can automatically scrape & insert random pictures, videos, custom paragraphs, choose between phrase / word / character spinning and set the level of randomization. With this you can control the uniqueness <-> readability of your output quite well.

As for the number of words, you can control the number of paragraphs / sentences per paragraph meaning you can produce 200-1000+ word articles without a problem.

If you use heavy spinning and randomization, it is fully capable off producing articles that 100% pass Copyscape. These do not read very well but like I said, it’s meant for search engines, not human eyes.

Here is an example of one of those articles.

Sample Generated Content By KM

On the other hand, WAC has separated content download from the actual article building.

First you enter your keyword and hit “Download“. Then the program will download bunch of articles based on your keyword and stop. This allows you to take the ones that are most relevant to your niche and use only them to create the final spun output. Then you will end up with separated lines from these articles. Here is where the semi-manual spinning part comes in to play.

You can mix and match those lines to get highly unique articles that read well. However, this requires some practice and knowledge so don’t expect to be able to do this properly on the first day.

Alternatively, after downloading the content, you can just select all lines and click “Auto-build”. This is basically the same function as “Generate Kontent”. Even with heavy spinning I haven’t been able to get 100% CopyScape passed articles no matter the settings. However, it doesn’t find more than few results and usually there’s only 2-5% similarity between them.

Here’s an example using heavy spinning just like the sample generated article above:

WAC Automatic Content Generation Preview

Unlike KM, it will create content no matter the keyword.

However, if you go in to specific things that KM has problems with, you might end up with something not so related to your term. However, any content is still better than no content.

The main difference between the two is that WAC scrapes high pr article directories where as KM scrapes search engines for content.

The first option works out better for two reasons:

  1. In order to scrape search engines, you will need proxies. Even tho article directories sometimes ban IPs, you will burn through a lot more proxies if you scrape search engines.
  2. Most of those article directories are not auto-approve. This means that it’s highly unlikely to find already spun articles there. On the other hand, when you’re pulling stuff from web, you have a greater chance of pulling something already spun. And when you try to create a spun article from already spun content the end result is really messy and looks like shit.

The fact that it scrapes high quality article directories is a huge plus but it still can’t  produce 100% CopyScape passed articles with “auto-build” function. However, WAC will build them no matter the keyword while KM will just display an error if you try your luck with some long-tail. Add to that excellent semi-manual spinning tools and you have a winner.

Verditct: WAC wins
WAC – 1 | KM – 0


Both of these tools are really well integrated with other software. What this means is that they can output the content in templates ready to be imported in to various bots. WAC however doesn’t actually output anything, it just arranges the content in boxes from which you can copy – paste. Here is the list of avaliable software templates:

Kontent Machine:

  • Senuke
  • Ultimate Demon
  • Sick Submitter
  • Article Marketing Robot

Aditionally, you can create your own templates so with a bit of practice, you can use it to create content ready for just about any software out there.

Template Builder

Wicked Article Creator:

  • Article Marketing Robot
  • Bookmarking Demon
  • Senuke

While it doesn’t allow you to build custom templates, GSA SER & Senuke are actually directly integrated with WAC. This means that you can pull content from inside the bot. Every time you build your content, you will get a unique ID which you enter in the bot to import everything directly. This is a small but useful time saver. 

Wicked Article Creator Integration

The developers are also working on getting this kind of integration with Ultimate Demon.

However, at the moment KM is generally more integrated with other programs and wins this part since it can be customized to spit out content for anything.

Verdict: KM wins
WAC – 1 | KM – 1

Ease of use

While you can’t expect to buy something and make it work within first 5 minutes, these two come very close to that. Both will create content for you as long as you provide them with a keyword and click a button. Then a few tutorials later, you will know how to tweak all those settings to your liking meaning your content will be even better.

I’d dare to say that KM is just a bit more newbie friendly but they are both really simple to use and you shouldn’t have much problem learning them inside out.

I was able to get a test campaign with both in under 30min of installing the software for the first time.

Verdict: TIED
WAC – 2 | KM – 2


WAC is a $47 one-time fee and KM is $37 / month, the winner is obvious here but I’ll diverge a bit since this topic is quite interesting.

It’s always better to buy something for a one-time fee rather than paying a monthly subscription. Even if it seems cheaper to buy something for $20 / month rather than one time payment of $100, it’s far from it. In case #1, you will actually pay $240 for one year! And it won’t stop, you will continue to pay that much. On the other hand, if you paid a lifetime license for $100, in most cases, you don’t have to pay a single cent after that.

Let’s also look at this from a different perspective.

If you buy a lifetime license, you more or less own the software. If you pay for that license on a monthly basis, you’re leasing it. You don’t own it and if you stop paying you will no longer be able to use it.

For most people this is common sense but I have talked with too many people that don’t get this.

Verdict: WAC wins
WAC – 3 | KM – 2


Even tho WAC is a winner, it’s mostly due to the one time fee as oppsed to monthly subscription model of konent machine.

Both of these will satisfy most of your average content generation needs. However, if you’re a more advanced user that pays attention to details, you have probably figured out that they each have a slightly different role.

Kontent machine is a bit more newbie-friendly, favors 1-click content creation and it can be integrated with almost everything.

On the other hand, WAC is slightly more suited for advanced users or those that plan to use it with GSA / Senuke (and soon Ultimate Demon).

Nevertheless, these are only small differences and like I said, unless you’re a very very demanding user, both will provide you with adequate content one click content for your link building campaigns. Even tho Wicked article creator is a winner, it’s by a margin and mostly due to the fact it is a one time fee as opposed to kontent machine which is on a monthly subscription.

Note that you shouldn’t take anything you read for granted and that this is just my opinion. What’s good for me doesn’t necessarily have to be good for you. Your best bet is to try it out for yourself. KM has a trial and I’m pretty sure WAC has a 30-day money back guarantee so you should definitely test them out for yourself:

Kontent Machine (7-day trial avaliable)
Wicked Article Creator

Well that’s about it, let me know in the comments what you think about these two brilliant pieces of code.

Related posts:

8 thoughts on “Wicked Article Creator vs. Kontent Machine

  1. Thanks for this comparison, I was thorn between those 2 for a while and finally decided to go with wicked article creator after reading this. It’s funny that in the end it came mostly down to pricing lol.

  2. WAC has now integrated Ultimate Demon and Magic Submitter as well as revamped the interface. 3.3 is also coming. And it’s currently $42 for lifetime, no further fees (even though in the members section there is a “choice” between monthly and yearly, which James Vick, the developer, told me was a hold over from another script and doesn’t apply).

    John, what makes the upgrade so much better? It’s $67 for me, more than the program itself :)

    • Yes, it’s even better than before! Not to mention the price is now a real no-brainer. As far as the upgrade goes, I’m yet to test it myself but the fact that you can produce more readable content while keeping the uniqueness is awesome. It makes all-automation linkbuilding much more effective. On top of that, with the upgrade you can build articles directly from their database which should radically speed up the process.

      My favorite thing tho is the teaser for the GSA multi-project builder and hopefully it will get implemented really soon. The same day they release that is the same day they will get the extra $67 from me. :)

      I’d say the update itself isn’t worth the price they’re asking but since the software itself is already dirt-cheap for what it does, you can’t really blame them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>