This study introduces an approach to providing corrective feedback to L2 learners termed analogy-based corrective feedback that is motivated by analogical learning theories and syntactic alignment in dialogue. Learners are presented with a structurally similar synonymous version of their output where the erroneous form is corrected, and they must decode the analogy-based feedback to understand the correction. A quasi-experimental classroom-based study was conducted with upper secondary Swedish EFL learners (N = 49) to investigate the effectiveness of corrective feedback varying in mode (inductive exemplar-based or deductive rule-based) on English subject-verb agreement. Explicit correction, metalinguistic, and analogy-based corrective feedback, all explicitly providing evidence of error and including reformulation prompts, were assessed by timed and untimed grammaticality judgment and sentence completion tasks in a between-groups pretest, posttest, delayed posttest design with a control group. Results indicate significant delayed gains for all feedback types on the untimed grammaticality judgment task for ungrammatical items. No clear advantage was seen for rule-based or exemplar-based CF. Descriptive statistics indicate different trends over successive testing times, where analogy-based feedback often led to lowest performance on the immediate posttest but showed improvement on the delayed posttest, unlike the other two CF types.