How good is my English? Upload a recording for AI scoring of fluency, intonation, rhythm, pace, and clarity.
Select the AI model for audio analysis. Different models may have different capabilities.
Record audio directly from your microphone
English Speaking Assessment is a comprehensive AI-powered evaluation tool designed specifically for language learners seeking detailed feedback on their oral English performance. Unlike basic pronunciation checkers, this tool provides institutional-quality assessment across seven critical criteria: fluency, intonation, rhythm, pace, intelligibility, discourse organization, and sociolinguistic appropriateness. It evaluates how well speakers maintain smooth, continuous speech, use natural pitch variation and prosody, apply appropriate word and sentence stress patterns, speak at an appropriate rate, articulate clearly for listener comprehension, organize ideas logically with cohesive devices, and use contextually appropriate language and register. The assessment aligns with established language learning frameworks and provides scores on a 1-5 scale (Weak to Excellent) for each criterion, making it valuable for ESL students, English language learners preparing for exams, professionals improving workplace communication, and anyone seeking structured feedback on their speaking skills.
Upload your English audio sample and the AI evaluates performance across seven analytic criteria. For fluency, it assesses smooth speech flow, minimal fillers, natural pauses, and sustained coherence. Intonation analysis examines pitch variation, question/statement patterns, expressiveness, and natural prosody. Rhythm evaluation looks at word and sentence stress, stress-timed rhythm characteristics, and natural linking between words. Pace assessment measures speaking rate (typically 110-150 WPM for natural speech), even pacing, and flexibility to adjust for complexity. Intelligibility evaluation examines clarity of pronunciation, articulation, word boundaries, and how easily listeners can understand. Discourse organization analysis looks at logical sequencing, cohesive devices, clear structure, and topic maintenance. Sociolinguistic appropriateness assesses register choice, politeness conventions, cultural awareness, and context-appropriate language use. For each criterion, you receive detailed analysis with specific examples from your recording, observed strengths with concrete examples, areas for improvement with actionable recommendations, and a score from 1-5 with justification. The tool concludes with an overall assessment summary synthesizing performance across all criteria and providing actionable next steps for improvement.
Upload a recording of yourself speaking English and you get a structured assessment across seven criteria: fluency, intonation, rhythm, pace, intelligibility, discourse organization, and sociolinguistic appropriateness. Each is scored 1 to 5 with examples pulled from your actual recording, plus concrete next steps, so it reads like an examiner's report rather than a single grade.
Not officially, and it doesn't pretend to. The criteria overlap heavily with what those exams rate (fluency, pronunciation, coherence), so the feedback is directly useful prep, and weak criteria here will be weak in an exam room too. But band conversion is calibrated to official rubrics and trained human raters; treat this as diagnosis, not a predicted score.
Anything that gets you speaking continuously for two to three minutes: describe your work, retell something you read, answer a practice exam question. Spontaneous speech beats reading aloud because fluency, discourse organization, and self-correction only show up when you're composing in real time. A monologue works; a conversation excerpt works too.
Whether your speaking rate helps or hurts comprehension. The assessment references the 110 to 150 words-per-minute band where English typically sounds natural, then looks at evenness, whether you slow down for complex ideas, and how smooth your transitions are. Both extremes cost intelligibility: racing through gets flagged as much as long effortful crawls.
Strong on the measurable criteria (pace, fillers, pronunciation clarity, structure) and necessarily more approximate on sociolinguistic appropriateness, which depends on context the audio may not carry. Recording quality matters too: a noisy clip degrades the intelligibility read. Use it as a frequent, consistent practice examiner between rarer sessions with human teachers.
Work one criterion at a time; they respond to different practice. The next-steps section names your weakest areas with specific recommendations (filler replacement for fluency, stress drills for rhythm, connective phrases for discourse organization). Re-record on a similar topic after a couple of weeks of targeted practice and compare per-criterion scores, not the overall impression.
Audio translator. Upload a voice memo, call, or clip in any language and AI transcribes and translates it — a…
Are they being sarcastic? Upload audio for AI to check if words match tone and flag sarcasm or irony.
What's the sentiment of this audio? Upload a conversation for AI tracking of positive and negative shifts.
How will listeners react? Upload audio and AI predicts emotional responses and flags impact moments.
Do I sound stressed? Upload a voice clip and AI reads stress, cognitive load, and focus indicators.
Are they lying? Upload audio for AI scanning of hesitations and pitch shifts that may signal deception.