I am still learning to use them both but I would have to say ACW mostly because WAC doesn't work half the time. Like in the current release proxies aren't working it seems like every release has bugs, sometimes major ones. It can take a while for them to release a fix too.
Having said that, they are both a good value for the one time fee.
KM is pretty much set and go. Not a ton of settings just quick and easy to get some content. WAC actually allows for much more control over what you want, but with that comes a little bit more learning curve.
ACW - It just works and the developer is here replying to feature requests and questions. Been using it for many months now and exporting it as a GSA SER template and works great. Right now 20 article sources, and hopefully more will be added soon. To be fair, I have not tested KM nor WAC. But ACW just works so i have not needed to look for something else. @collywobbles will help you with any questions you have.
WAC is like an engineer -- it's capable and versatile, but doesn't seem very popular because it feels nerdy. Its interface is bit clustered and can be overwhelming at first sight, and among other things, it imports from non-standard proxy file format, which Amit, its owner, has promised me a fix sooner or later.
Being an engineer myself, looking is secondary so long as I can get my job done quickly. And WAC has been serving me well even without using proxy these days. There is nothing ACW can do that WAC can not -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but the reverse is definitely not true.
how you can say that if you haven't tried ACW, i have WAC and its a mess... with a lot of trial and error you can reach the goal of learning the software and getting some results but that is a lot of wasted time... now i use it but took me like 1 week or more to learn it, reading the forum on BHW looking for vital things that they are not explained anywhere you have to find out by yourself... but i will switch to ACW next week.
I've recently purchased ACW and I'm impressed. I've not used WAC though so can't compare. Collywobbles is on this forum and offers great support/ updates so that's why I went for ACW (+ the lifetime licence @$47)
i am not very active as i already have to handle so many users from GSA,UD and MS fields. Also LAIO etc. etc. But i will agree that WAC has a steep learning curve and quite rightfully has bugs every release (but they are mostly in settings and proxies). I am sorry but they will be fixed soon.
As users might have noticed right now there is a quick access option to just enter a keyword and then select GSA and it will build everything for you. I built it for power and realized very late that the ease to work has been compromised. I am working to correct it but will take time. You can see previous version video of how WAC worked with GSA :
I will do a much better version of video. But the best part for GSA is the multi-project manager which is coming soon. It can create 100s of projects (different keywords from different niche) within 5-6 minutes of time. It will help those a lot who target different websites. But more on that when i sort out my website properly
I've used WAC and i can say that it really needs a lot of work. The user interface changes constantly and the documentation needs a total rewrite. It really sucks when you don't get an explanation of what the user interface controls do because the developer is constantly changing things.
I agree with others on here that its a steep learning curve. Way too many features with don't appear to work and are just stubs for a feature later.
Clearly, WAC needs better release cycles and testers to flush out bugs. At times, there are far too many that exist (and it shows) that should have been caught before release. Seriously, wacadmin, you need to hire testers before you release your software and fix your bugs before you work on more features..
>>> Seriously, wacadmin, you need to hire testers before you release your software and fix your bugs before you work on more features..
I totally agree. WAC is full of bugs...always!, The wacadmin needs to properly fix the bugs before releasing it to public. It's a complete shame to market a program full of bugs like this.
Also the lines mode used in GSA SER module in the WAC quick access menu will get you some junk content in your project. Yes , I mean it ...lines mode is garbage!. Paragraph mode is good but it's not used in the GSA SER module and that makes preparing the GSA SER project through WAC a pain in the neck.
Comments
Having said that, they are both a good value for the one time fee.
I tried both and decided to stay with WAC, which gives more control at the sentence level. Plus WAC has built-in GSA SER auto-fill integration.
Being an engineer myself, looking is secondary so long as I can get my job done quickly. And WAC has been serving me well even without using proxy these days. There is nothing ACW can do that WAC can not -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but the reverse is definitely not true.
No other softwares for foreign lng can do that.
I agree with others on here that its a steep learning curve. Way too many features with don't appear to work and are just stubs for a feature later.
Clearly, WAC needs better release cycles and testers to flush out bugs. At times, there are far too many that exist (and it shows) that should have been caught before release. Seriously, wacadmin, you need to hire testers before you release your software and fix your bugs before you work on more features..
software and fix your bugs before you work on more features..
I totally agree. WAC is full of bugs...always!, The wacadmin needs to properly fix the bugs before releasing it to public. It's a complete shame to market a program full of bugs like this.
Also the lines mode used in GSA SER module in the WAC quick access menu will get you some junk content in your project. Yes , I mean it ...lines mode is garbage!. Paragraph mode is good but it's not used in the GSA SER module and that makes preparing the GSA SER project through WAC a pain in the neck.