AI Humanizer BenchmarkDetectors / Originality.ai
Best for Originality.ai
In the October 2026 cycle, Originality.ai scored 363 outputs from the 11 humanizers in the benchmark and caught 99 (27.3%), the 4th-most of the seven detectors. The test set has no human-written text, so false positives are not measured here.
Highest average Originality.ai human-likelihood this cycle: WriteHuman (99.8), UndetectedGPT (96.7) and CleverHumanizer (93.8).
A paid AI and plagiarism checker used by publishers, SEO teams and content teams before content goes live.
How we read its score: Reports AI probability; inverted (human = 1 - ai).
11 humanizers × 33 prompts = 363 outputs · run October 1, 2026 · methodology v1.1.0
Humanizer ranking against Originality.ai
Sorted by the average human-likelihood Originality.ai gave each tool's 33 outputs: its bypass rate against Originality.ai. Eight of the 11 tools had 80% or more of their outputs passed by Originality.ai. The top three had 33, 32 and 31 of 33 passed. In September 2026, UndetectedGPT ranked first.
| Rank | Humanizer | Penalties | Last tested | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 99.8 | 75.06 | -4.0 | ||
| 2 |  UndetectedGPTundetectedgpt.ai | 96.7 | 88.12 | none | |
| 3 | 93.8 | 68.06 | -9.0 | ||
| 4 | 92.2 | 80.74 | none | ||
| 5 | 89.1 | 83.87 | none | ||
| 6 | 88.2 | 78.23 | -1.0 | ||
| 7 | 85.5 | 78.33 | -1.0 | ||
| 8 | 82.9 | 80.20 | none | ||
| 9 | 62.7 | 64.52 | -4.0 | ||
| 10 | 3.8 | 33.60 | -12.0 | ||
| 11 | 0.0 | 41.60 | -4.0 |
11 humanizers · 7 detectors · scores out of 100, higher is better. Click a column to sort; hover a penalty for the breakdown.
Pass rate on Originality.ai vs the other detectors
In October 2026, every humanizer's pass rate on Originality.ai was within 30 points of its rate on the other detectors.
| Humanizer | Passed Originality.ai | Passed the other 6 | Difference | Cycles 30+ pts lower |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% 0/33 | 20% 40/198 | −20.2 | 0 of 2 | |
| 3% 1/33 | 11% 21/198 | −7.6 | 0 of 2 | |
| 64% 21/33 | 61% 121/198 | +2.5 | 0 of 2 | |
| 85% 28/33 | 82% 163/198 | +2.5 | 1 of 2 | |
| 100% 33/33 | 96% 191/198 | +3.5 | 0 of 2 | |
| UndetectedGPT | 97% 32/33 | 89% 177/198 | +7.6 | 0 of 2 |
| 91% 30/33 | 78% 154/198 | +13.1 | 1 of 2 | |
| 94% 31/33 | 81% 160/198 | +13.1 | 0 of 2 | |
| 88% 29/33 | 74% 147/198 | +13.6 | 0 of 2 | |
| 94% 31/33 | 80% 159/198 | +13.6 | 1 of 2 | |
| 85% 28/33 | 70% 139/198 | +14.6 | 0 of 2 |
Passed means a human-likelihood of 0.50 or higher. The other six detectors' verdicts on the same outputs are pooled. Difference is the pass rate on Originality.ai minus the pooled rate, in percentage points; negative means Originality.ai was harder for that tool.
Originality.ai compared with the other AI detectors
All seven detectors scored the same 363 outputs in October 2026. Originality.ai gave the same verdict as Winston AI most often (86.2% of outputs) and as GPTZero least often (64.2%).
| Detector | Caught | Catch rate | Change since Sep 2026 | Unique catches | Same verdict as Originality.ai |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 203 of 363 | 55.9% | +11.3 | 64 | 64.2% | |
| 145 of 363 | 39.9% | −19.6 | 13 | 78.5% | |
| 125 of 363 | 34.4% | −12.4 | 8 | 86.2% | |
| 99 of 363 | 27.3% | −30.3 | 0 | – | |
| 95 of 363 | 26.2% | +1.9 | 7 | 82.9% | |
| 71 of 363 | 19.6% | −1.7 | 1 | 82.9% | |
| 67 of 363 | 18.5% | +1.4 | 1 | 85.1% |
Change is in percentage points of catch rate. Unique catches are outputs a detector caught while every other detector passed them. Same verdict is the share of outputs where the detector and Originality.ai both caught or both passed the output.
Outputs only Originality.ai caught
In October 2026, Originality.ai caught no output that all six other detectors passed.
Originality.ai catch rate by writing type
In October 2026, Originality.ai caught blog post outputs most often (36%) and academic essay outputs least often (18%).
| Writing type | Originality.ai | Other 6 detectors |
|---|---|---|
| Academic essay | 18% 12/66 | 23% 91/396 |
| Application essay | 27% 18/66 | 43% 171/396 |
| Blog post | 36% 24/66 | 32% 126/396 |
| Business email | 24% 8/33 | 53% 104/198 |
| Marketing copy | 35% 23/66 | 29% 114/396 |
| Discussion board | 21% 7/33 | 27% 54/198 |
| News article | 21% 7/33 | 23% 46/198 |
The last column pools the other six detectors' verdicts on the same outputs. By prompt, Originality.ai caught the most tools on Listicle blog · GPT-5.6 Terra (6 of 11) and the fewest on Product description · Claude Sonnet 5 (1 of 11).
Originality.ai by month
| Month | Humanizers | Caught | Catch rate | Avg human-likelihood | Rank by catches |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 2026 | 11 | 99 of 363 | 27.3% | 72.2 | 4 of 7 |
| September 2026 | 11 | 209 of 363 | 57.6% | 42.2 | 2 of 7 |
Rank 1 is the detector that caught the most outputs that month.
Using these results to pick a humanizer
The ranking on this page uses Originality.ai only. It does not account for the other six detectors, for how well a rewrite keeps the original meaning, or for readability. A tool can pass Originality.ai while changing facts or reading poorly. The Overall column above and the leaderboard cover those.
Results can shift between cycles as detectors and humanizers update, so check which cycle a figure comes from, and each tool's history on its own page.
Before relying on a tool, run a sample of your own text through it, check the output in Originality.ai, and compare it with your original for changed facts or dropped citations.
Frequently asked questions about Originality.ai
Can Originality.ai detect humanized AI text?
Some of it. In October 2026, Originality.ai caught 99 of the 363 humanized outputs it scored (27.3%), the 4th-most of the seven detectors in the benchmark. The test set has no human-written text, so how often Originality.ai flags human writing is not measured here.
Can Originality.ai be bypassed?
Often. In October 2026, 264 of the 363 humanized outputs (72.7%) passed Originality.ai as human. Eight of the 11 humanizers had at least 80% of their outputs passed.
What is the best AI humanizer for Originality.ai?
By Originality.ai alone, WriteHuman: it had the highest average human-likelihood from Originality.ai in October 2026 (99.8 out of 100), and Originality.ai caught 0 of its 33 outputs. The leaderboard ranks tools on all seven detectors plus meaning and readability.
Which writing types does Originality.ai catch most often?
Blog post outputs, at 36% in October 2026. Academic essay outputs were caught least often, at 18%.
How do you test Originality.ai?
Each month, every humanizer rewrites the same 33 AI-written texts on its default settings, and Originality.ai scores every rewrite. Each result is converted to a human-likelihood from 0 to 1, as described above. A score below 0.50 counts as caught.
Raw test data
A JSONL file with one row per test from the October 2026 cycle. Each row has the text Originality.ai scored and the score it returned. To check a result, paste a row's text into Originality.ai and compare.
Other detectors
Related
How scores are computed
See the full methodologyOverall score formula
How often the rewritten text is classified as human by the detector panel.
How closely the rewrite preserves the original text's meaning.
Whether the output is clear, fluent, natural writing.
Whether performance holds across all seven writing types or varies widely between them.
Penalties (right) subtract from the composite, and the result never goes below zero.
Possible penalties
- Identical to input
The text came back essentially unchanged; no meaningful rewriting occurred.
-2.0-10.0 - Refusal
The tool declined to process the text, typically due to its own content filter.
-1.0-10.0 - Meaning drift
The rewrite departed substantially from the original's meaning.
-1.0-10.0 - Length inflation
The output ran far longer than the input, diluting the AI signal with added words rather than removing it.
-1.0-10.0 - Length deflation
The output ran far shorter than the input; content was dropped rather than rephrased.
-1.0-10.0
Maximum possible total penalty: -50.0 (off 100).