Tero vs Maccy: which clipboard workflow fits?
Tero is a Maccy alternative when an earlier copy also needs correction, translation or another supported action; Maccy is the more focused choice when your main task is finding and reusing a copy. Neither choice makes the other workflow wrong. Compare retention, action needs and privacy before switching.
Checked
| Workflow | Tero | Maccy |
|---|---|---|
| History | Local, 7 days unpinned; 100 entries / 30 MB | Focused local copy history |
| Pins and search | Up to 20 pins; content/type/app search | Pins and keyboard search |
| File conversion | Supported images/documents; no media transcoding | Use a separate converter |
| Text actions | Correction/translation; online AI limits | Use a separate writing tool |
| Reminders | Reviewed Apple Reminders actions | Use a separate planning tool |
| Price | Free; Pro €8.99/month or €89.90/year | Free direct download; check store pricing |
What Maccy does well
Maccy concentrates on keeping clipboard history close to the keyboard. Its official project describes searching earlier copies and choosing an item to copy or paste again. That focus is useful for a person who spends the day moving short pieces of information between apps and wants a predictable route back to an earlier item.
Consider an address and a reference number. You copy the address, copy the reference, then discover that the next field asks for the address again. A history utility solves that interruption by recovering the earlier copy. The quality of the workflow depends on finding the correct item and putting it into the correct field, rather than the number of unrelated actions available afterward.
Maccy’s official distribution includes a free direct route and an open-source repository. Its keyboard-oriented design and local storage make it worth evaluating for a focused history setup. Read the current official instructions for shortcuts, pins and clearing behavior. The details of selecting, copying and pasting matter when you repeat the task dozens of times each day.
The focused scope is also a useful decision boundary. If you are happy with your editor, converter and planning apps, a separate clipboard utility can complement them. You do not need to move every task into one product to gain the practical benefit of recovering copies. Keep the surrounding workflow that already works for you.
Test with harmless text before relying on it for important details. Copy two distinct sentences, search for the first, and paste it into a blank note. Then test the destination app you actually use. A successful demonstration in one field does not establish how another app will handle formatting, links or unusual clipboard content.
Where Maccy stops
Maccy’s product focus is clipboard history. A comparison should not count the absence of a broader selection-action workflow as a defect in a tool designed to retrieve copies. It does mean that a recovered paragraph may move into your usual editor or translation tool for the next task, and a selected document may move into a converter.
Imagine a support reply that is almost ready but has two spelling mistakes. Finding the old copy solves the recovery problem. Correcting it solves a separate writing problem. If those are frequently linked in your work, evaluate the handoff between the history and the writing tool. If you paste most recovered text unchanged, the handoff may be irrelevant.
For selected files, keep the same distinction. A clipboard entry referring to a file is not a promise that the utility can transform that file. Check the converter you would use next, its accepted formats and its treatment of originals. A file you moved or deleted may no longer be usable through an old reference, regardless of how recognizable that entry looks.
Privacy should be evaluated by action. Local clipboard storage is a different claim from offline text correction. A tool may preserve history locally while another app receives the paragraph you choose to process. Map the path for the specific task instead of inferring that every stage is local because the history itself is local.
There is also a cost question. If your needed workflow is free history and your existing apps already do the rest, adding a paid AI plan may not help. Decide which repeated step you would remove before switching. A clear reason such as “I correct recovered drafts several times a day” is more useful than a general desire for additional productivity features.
Where Tero differs
Tero combines local clipboard history with contextual actions for selected text and supported files. Open its panel with nothing selected and choose Clipboard to browse saved entries. Select an entry and open Actions, or press Command-K, to see actions appropriate to it. Text results appear in a reading card so you choose where to use them.
For a draft you are already editing, select the passage and open Tero with Command-Backslash. A supported writing field can receive a checked replacement, while a reading surface gets a result card. This starts from the current selection rather than requiring the passage to be recovered from history first. Review the result before copying, replacing or sending it.
Tero’s local history has explicit limits: seven days for unpinned entries, 100 entries and 30 MB overall, and up to 20 pins. Pins remain after a restart and still use the history budget. Those constraints are central to the comparison. A person who needs an extensive archive should not mistake this working-history model for unlimited retention.
Supported selected-file actions include image resizing and specific document conversions. Office conversion needs LibreOffice installed locally. Tero does not currently transcode audio or video, and it does not turn Windows executables into Mac apps. Read the features and limits before treating a broad file-action label as support for a particular format.
Free includes local tools plus three AI recommendation requests and three AI actions each UTC day. Pro is €8.99 monthly or €89.90 yearly including tax, with a larger shared allowance. History stays local; choosing an online action sends the content needed for that action. Use the clipboard history guide for native macOS alternatives and the Tero clipboard manual for exact behavior. Choose the route that removes a real repeated step while keeping storage, review and cost requirements clear.
Questions about Tero vs Maccy: which clipboard workflow fits
Is Tero a direct replacement for Maccy?
It can cover local history and reuse, but Tero has its own retention and pin limits and adds selection-based actions. Choose by your workflow rather than expecting identical behavior.
Which is the free option?
Maccy offers free direct distribution. Tero has a Free tier with local tools and daily AI limits; Pro is optional.
Does Tero send my clipboard history to AI?
Stored history stays local. Selecting an online AI action sends the content required for that action, which is a separate choice.