Skip to content
October 2026 results: WriteHuman holds #1, StealthGPT jumps to #2. Read the analysis →
HumanizerBench

Head to head · October 2026 cycle

Grammarly vs SupWriter

SupWriter finished 1.5 points ahead of Grammarly in the October 2026 cycle, 62.75 to 61.29, ranking #11 against #14 in a field of 14. SupWriter scored higher on 5 of 6 detectors and 3 of 6 writing categories. Grammarly came out ahead on readability (72.2 vs 49.2), meaning preservation (85.5 vs 77.5) and academic essay prompts (61.8 vs 57.4).

61.29 /100
overall score
#14 /14
rank ▼ 2
+1.46
SupWriter leads →
Detectors
0 – 5 (1 tie)
Categories
3 – 3
Components
3 – 2
62.75 /100
overall score
#11 /14
rank ▼ 6

30 prompts · Last tested · Methodology v1.3.0

Score components

What the overall score is made of: bypass rate weighs 42%, meaning preservation 32%, readability 16%, consistency across categories 10%. Output-quality penalties come off the total. How scoring works →

Bypass rate SupWriter by 11.9
38.1 50.0
Meaning preservation Grammarly by 8.0
85.5 77.5
Readability Grammarly by 23.0
72.2 49.2
Consistency Grammarly by 2.8
93.6 90.8
Penalties fewer is better SupWriter by 3.0
−3.0 None

Detector by detector

Share of each tool's outputs that a detector classified as human-written. SupWriter took 5 of 6, with 1 tied.

GPTZero SupWriter by 6.0
3.0 8.9
Originality.ai SupWriter by 3.1
52.4 55.5
Copyleaks SupWriter by 20.0
58.2 78.2
Winston AI SupWriter by 11.9
71.6 83.5
ZeroGPT SupWriter by 30.2
43.7 73.9
Pangram Even
0.0 0.0

Writing categories

Category score per writing context: bypass credit only for real rewrites, blended with the category's own meaning preservation and readability. Small categories swing; the prompt count is shown on each row. How category scores work →

Academic Essay Application Essay Blog Post Marketing Copy Discussion Board News Article Academic Essay: Grammarly 61.8 · SupWriter 57.4 Application Essay: Grammarly 62.3 · SupWriter 59.4 Blog Post: Grammarly 56.8 · SupWriter 62.0 Marketing Copy: Grammarly 57.7 · SupWriter 58.4 Discussion Board: Grammarly 50.1 · SupWriter 57.6 News Article: Grammarly 68.0 · SupWriter 64.4
Grammarly SupWriter Outer ring = 100
Academic Essay 6 prompts Grammarly by 4.4
61.8 57.4
Application Essay 6 prompts Grammarly by 3.0
62.3 59.4
Blog Post 6 prompts SupWriter by 5.1
56.8 62.0
Marketing Copy 6 prompts SupWriter by 0.7
57.7 58.4
Discussion Board 3 prompts SupWriter by 7.5
50.1 57.6
News Article 3 prompts Grammarly by 3.6
68.0 64.4

Head-to-head history

Overall score in every cycle both tools were tested. SupWriter has finished ahead in 2 of 2 shared cycles.

50 60 70 80 September 2026 October 2026 September 2026: SupWriter 72.80 (#5) September 2026: Grammarly 60.35 (#12) October 2026: SupWriter 62.75 (#11) October 2026: Grammarly 61.29 (#14) 61.3 62.8
Grammarly SupWriter
Cycle Grammarly SupWriter Margin
October 2026 61.29 #14 62.75 #11 → 1.5
September 2026 60.35 #12 72.80 #5 → 12.4

Where each one wins

Every measure above that one tool won outright, largest margin first within each group.

Grammarly

6 wins
  • Readability Score 72.2 vs 49.2
  • Meaning preservation Score 85.5 vs 77.5
  • Consistency Score 93.6 vs 90.8
  • Academic Essay Category 61.8 vs 57.4
  • News Article Category 68.0 vs 64.4
  • Application Essay Category 62.3 vs 59.4

SupWriter

10 wins
  • Penalties Score None vs −3.0
  • Bypass rate Score 50.0 vs 38.1
  • ZeroGPT Detector 73.9 vs 43.7
  • Copyleaks Detector 78.2 vs 58.2
  • Winston AI Detector 83.5 vs 71.6
  • GPTZero Detector 8.9 vs 3.0
  • Originality.ai Detector 55.5 vs 52.4
  • Discussion Board Category 57.6 vs 50.1
  • Blog Post Category 62.0 vs 56.8
  • Marketing Copy Category 58.4 vs 57.7

Same prompt, both outputs

Both tools were given this AI-written passage in the October 2026 cycle. Below it is what each one returned. This prompt was picked by a fixed rule, not by how the tools scored.

Personal Statement · Application Essay · written by gemini-3-8-flash · 336 words

My fascination with Human-Computer Interaction began not in a computer lab, but while watching my grandmother struggle to use a telehealth application during a medical emergency. The technology to save her life was there, but the interface alienated her. In that moment of panic, poor contrast, ambiguous icons, and convoluted navigation transformed a lifesaving tool into an impenetrable wall. This experience cemented my conviction that the most advanced technology is entirely futile if it fails to account for human emotion, cognitive limits, and diversity.

Throughout my undergraduate studies, I sought to understand both sides of this equation—the technical constraints of software and the psychological realities of the user. In my coursework and independent projects, I found myself consistently drawn to the friction points where user intent clashed with algorithmic execution. While collaborating on a mobile application for local transit, I realized that writing efficient code was only half the battle; conducting user interviews, mapping user journeys, and redesigning the information architecture were what actually made the tool viable. Technology, I realized, should adapt to the messiness of the human experience, not force humans to adapt to the rigidity of machines.

I want to pursue a graduate degree in Human-Computer Interaction to bridge the gap between computational power and human empathy. I am particularly eager to explore how emerging paradigms—such as voice interfaces, multimodal AI, and ambient computing—can be designed to be accessible rather than exclusive. As artificial intelligence becomes deeply woven into the fabric of daily life, the need for thoughtful, ethical, and inclusive interaction design has never been more urgent.

Your program offers the ideal interdisciplinary environment for me to deepen this inquiry. By combining rigorous user research methodologies with cutting-edge technical prototyping, I hope to investigate how adaptive interfaces can empower underserved populations, including the elderly and digitally illiterate. Ultimately, I do not just want to build systems that work; I want to design intuitive, equitable experiences that make technology feel less like an obstacle and more like an effortless extension of human capability.

Show the full input

389 words (input 336)

I first became interested in Human-Computer Interaction not in a computer laboratory but when I saw my grandmother having difficulty using a telehealth application during a medical emergency. Although the technology needed to save her life was available, the interface caused her to feel alienated. At that time of panic, the poor contrast, the unclear icons, and the complicated way of navigating turned what should have been a life-saving tool into an insurmountable barrier. It was then that I firmly decided that even the most advanced technology is of no use if it doesn't take into account human emotions, cognitive limitations, and diversity.

During my time as an undergraduate I was interested in understanding both aspects of this equation—the technical limitations of software and the psychological aspects of the user. In my courses and in my own projects I was repeatedly attracted to the areas where user intent conflicted with how the algorithm carried out its functions. When I was working on a mobile app for local public transportation I came to the conclusion that while writing efficient code was only half the problem, it was actually the user interviews, the mapping of user journeys, and the redesign of the information architecture that made the tool workable. I realised that technology should be adapted to the messy nature of the human experience rather than requiring people to adjust themselves to the inflexibility of machines.

I would like to obtain a postgraduate degree in Human-Computer Interaction in order to fill the gap between computational power and human empathy. I am especially interested in looking at ways in which emerging paradigms—like voice interfaces, multimodal AI, and ambient computing—can be designed to be accessible rather than exclusive. Since artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly integrated into everyday life, the need for careful, ethical, and inclusive interaction design has never been greater.

The program provides the perfect interdisciplinary setting for me to carry out this line of inquiry. I intend to examine how adaptive interfaces can enable underserved groups, such as the elderly and those who are not digitally literate, by combining strict user research methods with advanced technical prototyping. My goal is not merely to create systems that function but to design intuitive and fair experiences so that technology doesn't seem like an obstacle but rather like a natural extension of human ability.

Show the full output
  • GPTZero0.00caught
  • Pangram0.00caught
  • Winston AI0.96passed
  • ZeroGPT0.60passed
  • Copyleaks0.00caught
  • Originality.ai0.67passed

Passed 3 of 6 detectors.

Every Grammarly run in October 2026 →

342 words (input 336)

The fascination with Human-Computer Interaction began not in a lab but when I saw my grandmother struggling with a telehealth app during an emergency. The interface design made it difficult to save her life with existing technology. At that moment of panic, I could not read the GPS because of insufficient contrast, unclear icons and complicated navigation. My experience showed that no matter how advanced technology is, it amount to nothing if it did not factor in human emotion, brain capacity and diversity.

During my undergraduate degree, I wanted to familiarise myself with this equation software limitations and the psychological reality of the user. Throughout my studies and independent projects, I became fascinated with friction points that arose between user intent and algorithmic execution. While my teammate and I were working on a mobile application for local transit, I observed that writing efficient code was not enough. Analyzing user interviews, mapping user journeys, and redesigning the information architecture was what made the tool viable. I understood that technology should be messy and should help the human around it become messy as well.

I want to study for a graduate degree in human-computer interaction to bridge the gap between “what” computers can do and “how” we may design them to act in an agency (manner). I am eager to discover ways to design the new paradigms, which include voice interfaces, multimodal AI and ambient computing, to be accessible rather than exclusive. As artificial intelligence becomes a part of daily life and become a necessity, the interaction design must be thoughtful, ethical design and inclusive.

Your program offers the best interdisciplinary setting for me to further this inquiry. Through rigorous user research methodologies coupled with advanced technical prototyping, I hope to explore how adaptive interfaces can empower disadvantaged groups, including the elderly and digitally illiterate individuals. In the end, I don’t just want to build functioning systems; I want to create experiences that are intuitive and equitable. I want users to not feel as if they are battling technology, but rather utilising it effortlessly.

Show the full output
  • GPTZero0.00caught
  • Pangram0.00caught
  • Winston AI0.96passed
  • ZeroGPT0.80passed
  • Copyleaks1.00passed
  • Originality.ai0.13caught

Passed 3 of 6 detectors.

Every SupWriter run in October 2026 →

Each chip is one detector's score for that output, from 0 (AI) to 1 (human). A score of 0.50 or higher counts as a pass and shows green; below that the detector caught it and the chip shows red.

Questions people ask

Is Grammarly better than SupWriter?

SupWriter finished 1.5 points ahead of Grammarly in the October 2026 cycle, 62.75 to 61.29, ranking #11 against #14 in a field of 14. SupWriter scored higher on 5 of 6 detectors and 3 of 6 writing categories. Both tools ran the same 30 prompts, scored by the same 6 detectors, under methodology v1.3.0; every input, output and verdict is published.

Which bypasses AI detectors better, Grammarly or SupWriter?

SupWriter posted the higher bypass rate, 50.0 vs 38.1, and scored higher on 5 of 6 detectors. SupWriter led on GPTZero, Originality.ai, Copyleaks, Winston AI and ZeroGPT.

Do Grammarly and SupWriter keep the original meaning?

Grammarly preserved meaning better, 85.5 vs 77.5 on our 0–100 similarity scale. On readability, Grammarly rated higher, 72.2 vs 49.2. Penalties this cycle: Grammarly −3.0, SupWriter None.