implicavsimplicabaWhich spelling fits?

Which to use

“implica” and “implicaba” are a confusable Spanish pair: similar on the page, but distinct in meaning, check the gloss before you choose.

#2,506
“implica” frequency rank
#19,445
“implicaba” frequency rank
21951
confusion score

Side-by-Side Comparison

Feature implica implicaba
Definition Tercera persona del singular (él, ella, ello; usted, 2.ª persona) del presente de indicativo de implicar. Primera persona del singular (yo) del pretérito imperfecto de indicativo de implicar.

Where the eye mixes implica and implicaba

Muted = shared; highlighted = the visual trap. They share 7 letters in sequence.

7 ch
implica
9 ch
implicaba

Visual trap between implica and implicaba

A purely visual mix-up. implica ([ĩmˈplika]) and implicaba ([ĩmpliˈkaβ̞a]) are said differently, so reading them aloud is the quickest way to catch the wrong one. On the page they stay close: they differ by 2 extra letter(s) - “implica” sits inside “implicaba”. Our composite confusion score for this pair is 21951, derived from the frequency rank of both members and their visual similarity.

implica is recorded at frequency rank #2,506, classified as averb, pronounced [ĩmˈplika]. implicaba is at rank #19,445, tagged as averb, pronounced [ĩmpliˈkaβ̞a].

Glosses for this pair are partially populated in our dataset, but the full side-by-side definitions above should still guide you to the right choice.

With a confusion score of 21951, this pair ranks #252,611 of 323,831 scored Spanish confusable pairs - a relatively easy-to-tell-apart pair.

Orthographic DNA of implica vs implicaba

Shared letters: acilmp. Private to "implica": -. Private to "implicaba": b.

"implica" · 7 letters · shape VCCCVCV  ·  "implicaba" · 9 letters · shape VCCCVCVCV

Known mistypes of this pair

  • implicaimlpica · immplica · impilca · implcia · impliac · implicca · impllica · impplica
  • implicabaimlpicaba · immplicaba · impilcaba · implciaba · impliacba · implicaab · implicabba · implicava

Frequently Asked Questions

Is swapping "implica" for "implicaba" ever safe?
No. They are said differently ([ĩmˈplika] versus [ĩmpliˈkaβ̞a]) and carry different meanings; reading the sentence aloud is usually enough to catch the wrong one.
Frequency check: "implica" vs "implicaba" - which ranks higher?
"implica" is the more common of the two: it sits at frequency rank #2,506 in our Spanish list, against #19,445 for "implicaba". The two are close in frequency, so neither is a safe default; check the meaning rather than guessing.

What to do next

Eye-level mix-up between "implica" and "implicaba" is sorted above. Next: full entries or other pairs that share a letter shape.

  • Full dictionary entry for "implica" with definition, IPA, and generated misspellings. Word entry
  • Full dictionary entry for "implicaba" - compare definitions side by side with the headword page. Word entry
  • This pair ranks #252,611 of 323,831 scored Spanish confusable pairs in this corpus vintage. Corpus statistics
  • "implica" and "implicaba" also get mixed up with nearby pairs, the highest-scored neighbour is "implica vs imprima". Nearby pair
  • Recorded mistypes exist for at least one side of this pair, useful when a spell-checker or OCR lands on the wrong form. See mistypes

Confusion rank #252,611 of 323,831 scored Spanish pairs, corpus vintage 2026-09-03, not spelling advice.

Source: Wiktionary (via kaikki.org) Structured Wiktionary extract

Source: FrequencyWords open word-frequency list