was identical to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was identical to" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that two things are exactly the same or have no differences. Example: "The results of the experiment were identical to those obtained in previous studies."

✓ Grammatically correct

Science

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

"It was identical to that".

The New York Times

"It was identical to my idea.

The Guardian - Film

It was identical to Mr Ziauddin's document.

The Economist

"Al is entering a situation that was identical to mine.

The New York Times - Sports

Otherwise, it was identical to Natasha's: four incisors.

The New Yorker

The first was identical to the one Mr. Rodriguez faced.

The New York Times

Thus, Shaka was identical to Dainichi, and Sannō to Amaterasu.

Encyclopedia Britannica

It was identical to one in the album.

The New York Times - Arts

His spinal break was identical to Christopher Reeves.

Forbes

The amended version was identical to the 115th's HR 820.

Duke University

"It was my friend's and was identical to mine.

BBC

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "was identical to" to clearly and concisely convey that two things are exactly the same, avoiding ambiguity. This phrase works well in both formal and informal contexts, depending on the surrounding vocabulary.

Common error

Avoid repeating "was identical to" multiple times in a short passage. Instead, use synonyms like "was the same as" or rephrase the sentence to maintain readability and prevent monotony.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was identical to" functions as a comparative expression, indicating that two or more items or concepts shared the same characteristics in the past. As Ludwig AI confirms, this phrase is grammatically correct and widely used. Many examples are showing the usage in different fields.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Science

39%

News & Media

33%

Wiki

7%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

2%

Academia

2%

Formal & Business

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was identical to" is a grammatically sound and frequently used expression that conveys complete equivalence between two or more things. Ludwig AI confirms its correctness and wide applicability. It's versatile enough for various contexts, ranging from scientific reports to news articles, though it should be used judiciously to avoid redundancy. When aiming for diversity, alternatives like "was the same as" or "was indistinguishable from" can be employed. Its robust presence across authoritative sources underscores its reliability and makes it a valuable addition to any writer's toolkit.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

was exactly the same as

Adds emphasis to the equivalence, highlighting the precision of the match.

was the same as

Emphasizes the lack of difference between two things, focusing on their equivalence.

was a perfect match to

Highlights the suitability or compatibility between two items.

was indistinguishable from

Focuses on the inability to perceive any differences between the two items.

was equivalent to

Highlights the functional or qualitative equivalence, often used in technical contexts.

was a carbon copy of

Implies a perfect replication, often used informally.

corresponded exactly to

Emphasizes a precise alignment or agreement between two things.

was a mirror image of

Suggests a reversed but otherwise identical form.

was alike in every respect to

Highlights that the similarity extends to all aspects and details.

was tantamount to

Indicates that something is virtually equal to something else, often used in formal or legal contexts.

FAQs

What can I say instead of "was identical to"?

You can use alternatives like "was the same as", "was exactly the same as", or "was equivalent to" depending on the context.

Is it correct to say "is identical to" instead of "was identical to"?

Yes, "is identical to" is correct when referring to a current state, while "was identical to" refers to a past state. The choice depends on the tense of the sentence.

How formal is the phrase "was identical to"?

The phrase "was identical to" is suitable for both formal and informal contexts. Its formality largely depends on the surrounding vocabulary and the overall tone of the writing.

What's the difference between "was identical to" and "was similar to"?

"Was identical to" means there were no differences, whereas "was similar to" implies there were resemblances but not a complete match.