For one person, two people, a household or a team
Hard conversations. Better terms.
OnBetterTerms helps people understand each other, work through disagreements and say the difficult thing more clearly — gathering each person’s account independently, and never deciding who won.
Free, no card. Works on your own — inviting anyone is optional.
You
Guide
Independent Perspectives
Two perspectives. Neither gets to rewrite the other.
Both accounts are written before either is read. Not as etiquette — the product will not show you theirs until yours is in, because the moment you read their version, your own quietly reorganises itself around it.
You write yours first
They write theirs, unread
Then both, at once
- You agree the date matters and that neither of you wants to cancel.
- You disagree about what was said, not about what either of you wanted.
- One thing to settle first: how plans get confirmed, not this plan.
Once both are in, they appear together — and what comes back summarises each position, names the points you already agree on, and separates what is actually disputed from what was simply seen differently.
Two people can remember the same evening differently without either of them lying. Most arguments are that, and treating it as a dispute about facts is what makes them last.
You don’t need to agree on what happened to agree on what happens next.
Some tools will tell you who was right. This one does not score, tally or declare an outcome — not as a policy the model is asked to follow, but because a verdict would just become the next thing to argue about.
Bring your context
You have explained this before. Don’t start over.
Every new chat begins from nothing — who everyone is, what happened in March, what you have already tried. If you have spent months explaining that to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or Grok, export it and bring the parts that matter.
- See every conversation in the file before anything is written.
- Choose them one at a time, or by date. Nothing is all-or-nothing.
- It arrives private, and there is no option to import into a space someone else can read.
- Changed your mind? Undo removes everything that import created.
Works with exported files from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Grok, this product’s own export, or plain text — and reads an unfamiliar export by its shape. Nothing is connected to your accounts.
| Conversation | Messages | Started | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Money conversation prep | 42 | Mar 2026 | |
| Talking to my sister | 18 | Feb 2026 | |
| Rewriting my CV | 96 | Feb 2026 | |
| Holiday planning row | 11 | Jan 2026 |
Privacy you can see
Three levels. You pick one every time you write.
Not a settings page you visited once. The level is on screen while you type, and it decides what the other person can ever see.
Used in sessions you do together, and in anything you both look at. This is the only level that ever reaches them.
Yours. Your guide can use it to help you. You can share a specific item later if you decide to, one at a time.
Never quoted, summarised, counted in a total, or hinted at. Excluded from shared figures before they are calculated, not filtered out afterwards.
Private context can shape the advice you get without ever appearing in it — used to steer what your guide suggests to you, never repeated, attributed, or hinted at. How that is enforced in the code.
Before
You rated this: too long
After
Adapts to you
Ratings say what you liked. Outcomes say what helped.
Rate a reply and the next one changes — length, directness, whether it asks questions or hands you options. That is the easy half.
The half that matters comes later. After something has played out you answer a few short questions on your own: did it feel resolved, did you feel heard, what do you want to remember. An approach can be gratefully received and still leave the argument exactly where it was, and only the debrief knows the difference.
It adapts to you rather than being retrained by you — nothing you write changes the underlying model. Your preferences and outcomes are yours, visible on the page that lists everything it remembers, and invisible to anyone you share a space with.
What you brought, and what you have written since.
Suggestions shaped to how you take them in.
The conversation you actually had.
Whether it resolved, and whether you felt heard.
More of what worked for you, less of what did not.
Two people, two guides
Your guide never briefs the other person.
You each have your own. It knows your history and what has worked for you, and a session you do together is built by a separate path that cannot read any of it — not a filter that could be misconfigured, a route that never loads it.
Their guide says
Your guide says
Check-ins
21
Your average
6.8/ 10
Direction
Trending upSunday evenings score lowest, and have done for six weeks.
Private check-ins
A number and a sentence, when you have ten seconds.
Over weeks this is what turns into something useful: which days are harder, what tends to come before a bad stretch, what has actually improved.
Private unless you say otherwise, and below five check-ins it says there is not enough yet rather than drawing a line. A trend through three points is a picture of nothing.
Why not just use a chat window?
For a one-off question, do. General assistants are good at the question in front of them. What they cannot hold is a second person, a boundary between what you would say out loud and what you would not, and whether last month’s suggestion actually worked.
Who it is for
Not only couples.
A space holds one relationship. Whether anyone else is in it is up to you.
Plan a hard conversation, work out what actually bothered you, or keep a private record of how things are going. Nobody has to be invited, ever.
Partners, but also friends, siblings, co-parents, roommates or business partners. Each of you gets your own private guide, plus sessions built only from what you have both shared.
More than two in one space, for the arrangements that involve everybody — money, chores, visits, who agreed to what. Private stays private for each person in it.
A disagreement with a colleague, or an expectation nobody actually agreed to. A communication tool, not an HR system — nothing is reported to anyone.
Before, during, after
A disagreement has a life longer than the row.
Most of the damage is done before it starts and after it ends — in how it gets raised, and in whether anything actually changed.
Before
Say it however it comes out, pick what you actually want from saying it — to be understood, to set a limit, to reach a decision — and get a version you could send. You edit it, you keep it or you do not, and nothing reaches anybody until you deliberately share that one thing.
The part that works when the other person never joins. Plenty of people only ever use this.
During
Both accounts first, then one issue at a time with the rest explicitly parked rather than dropped. If it is escalating rather than settling, it says so and stops rather than coaching through it.
After
A short debrief, answered separately — what was actually resolved, what was not, whether you felt heard. Neither of you sees the other’s answers. What you agreed to try can become a goal with a name on it and a date, and a check-in later on whether it held.
Which is the point: the same argument four times is four arguments, unless something between them is different.
The goal is not to get good at talking to this.
It is to get through the conversation with the person. Nothing here asks you back daily, there is no streak to keep, and a check-in meant to take ten seconds takes ten seconds.
A tool for hard conversations that quietly became the easier place to have them would have failed at the only thing it is for.
Start with whatever you already have.
Free, no card, and you can delete everything — including anything you imported — at any time.