The Keats heuristic suggests that people find aesthetically pleasing expressions more accurate than mundane expressions. We test this notion with antimetabolic statements. Antimetabole is a stylistic phenomenon in which at least two words are repeated in reverse order, following an A-B-B-A pattern (e.g., “all for one and one for all”). Across four studies (N = 797), we show that antimetabolic statements (e.g., “Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.”) are judged as more accurate than semantically equivalent non-antimetabolic statements (e.g., “Success is getting what you wish. Happiness is wanting what you receive.”). Furthermore, we evaluate fluency as a potential mechanism explaining the observed accuracy benefit afforded to antimetabolic statements. To this end, we find that antimetabolic statements are perceived as more aesthetically pleasing and elicit quicker accuracy judgments compared to non-antimetabolic statements. Nevertheless, accuracy judgment response times and aesthetic preferences failed to correlate with judgments of accuracy, casting doubt on fluency as the mechanism driving the accuracy benefit afforded to antimetabolic statements. Overall, the current work demonstrates how stylistic factors bias assessments of truth, with information communicated using aesthetically pleasing stylistic devices (e.g., antimetabole) being perceived as more truthful.