Readers interested in finance are particularly discerning. They understand what a basis point is, verify yield data against the source, and will find a truly stale data point. This is the benchmark for any financial article. Readers will not trust the argument before it meets this threshold.
We hand this project off to writers who read filings, central bank statements and rate sheets for a living. They date each figure they use and note their source because in this field an undated figure is a liability sitting on your site.
In this case, usefulness relies on specificity. An audience of finance professionals understands that diversification is important and that rates change the price of bonds. The style that your audience can’t get elsewhere is the writer who has read the original document, has seen the footnote and can interpret that for one particular audience in a specific sector of the market. Writing that is too general is finance writing is largely ignored by the people who matter the most.
Generated finance copy states figures without a date. It will tell a reader what the ten-year yields, or what a contribution cap is, with no year attached and no source behind it. By the time anyone notices it is wrong, it has been sitting under your masthead for months.
Context takes time and effort. Prior to drafting, the writer determines the background the reader may have, what happened in the interim following the last adequate summary of the topic, and which admissible points, of maybe two or three in number, will be central to the argument. Everything else is extraneous and will be removed. The explanation proceeds logically from there.
As a result, you have a piece ready to go through your own review rather than one that starts an argument with it. The sources are listed with links, anything the writer could not confirm is flagged instead of smoothed over, and where the subject touches regulated ground we write it expecting your compliance people to read it before it publishes.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical financial article | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| News-led piece | 900 | $90 | $0.90 | $90.90 |
| Standard article | 1,500 | $150 | $1.50 | $151.50 |
| In-depth feature | 2,500 | $250 | $2.50 | $252.50 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Anything from 100 words up. Because you pay by the word you are never buying padding to fill a package tier.
Yes. Tell us the volume and cadence and we keep the same writer on the account so the voice stays consistent. The rate does not change with volume.
Yes, and does usually improve the piece. Send the deck, send the dataset or send the analyst note, and explain what can be published. The writer will use it and attribute it the way you request, and will confirm all the other things you have not yet verified.
No, we produce explanation, analysis, and reporting, not personalized recommendations. Articled is not a financial adviser, and nothing we publish is advisory. If your piece is that close to the line, it should be reviewed by your in-house specialists before publication.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Most finance writers take the metaphorical pizza slice route. Our piece explained the math slowly and correctly, using the actual numbers we charge. Compliance signed it off, and they made zero changes. That has not happened in the three years during which I have done this job.
Explaining compound interest to those who left school at sixteen is difficult and this mainly tackles the issue. I requested and was given one worked example with real numbers. I wanted three, so I made two adjustments. Your definition of APR is the most comprehensible I have come across in any context.
The first brief we received was too general. The writer noted this rather than trying to understand it himself. We did a twenty-minute call. Obviously frustrating that it was needed, still useful that this happened, as the finalized procedures reflect the way the warehouse operates. This includes the different procedures the night shift performs.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees