Piperic
similar sites
‹ ProfileAI ReportTools

Sites similar to magicfailing.com

Magic Failing · ranked by shared content topics & relevance
65match
magicalfable.com
Magical Fable
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature
64match
magicalalienwitch.com
Magical Alien Witch
2 shared topicsfiction
64match
monbookmagic.com
monbook-magic-pages
2 shared topicsfiction
64match
dinagiven.com
Dina Given - Embracing magic - Battling darkness
2 shared topicsfiction
63match
knowyourneed.com
Need For Magic : A Social Psychology Novel
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature
63match
eshyacharya.com
Eshy Acharya – Spreading Magic & Love
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature
63match
essencesparkles.com
Big Feelings. Bright Ideas. Everyday Magic.
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature
63match
cailinwrites.com
Home - Cailin Barrett-Bressack
2 shared topicsfiction
63match
especbooks.com
eSpec Books – Books… The Magic We Make
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature
62match
bcfiolaauthor.com
Mingling Bloods
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature
62match
monicafairviewbooks.com
Monica Fairview
2 shared topicsfiction
62match
oceanicfiction.com
Oceanic Fiction
2 shared topicsfiction
62match
richarddooling.com
Richard Dooling
2 shared topicsfiction
62match
hhubbardauthor.com
Haydn Hubbard - Romantic Fantasy Author
2 shared topicsfiction
62match
magicalausten.com
Magical Austen – Where Jane Austen's Magic is Real
2 shared topicsfiction
62match
magic-tree.com
magic-tree: sex, shopping and bacteria
2 shared topicsfiction
62match
anordinaryfaith.com
An Ordinary Faith
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature
62match
lyriahnam.com
LYRIAHNAM.COM - Author of Mythic Fantasy, Science Fiction Lite, and Reimagined Fairy tales
2 shared topicsbooks-and-literature

How the match score works

Each match is a 0–100 similarity score — the higher it is, the more two sites resemble one another. It’s computed automatically from our own crawl data (never from what a site says about itself) by combining several independent signals, so a high score means several of them point the same way:

No single signal decides the result — they’re blended together. Treat the score as a way to rank candidates rather than an absolute percentage; the chips on each result show which signals contributed.