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

Head to head · October 2026 cycle

Stealth Writer vs Super Humanizer

Super Humanizer finished 1.6 points ahead of Stealth Writer in the October 2026 cycle, 67.58 to 65.98, ranking #7 against #8 in a field of 14. Super Humanizer scored higher on 1 of 6 detectors and 4 of 6 writing categories. Stealth Writer came out ahead on ZeroGPT (90.7 vs 68.0), Winston AI (99.4 vs 77.9) and Copyleaks (96.7 vs 83.3).

65.98 /100
overall score
#8 /14
rank ▼ 6
+1.60
Super Humanizer leads →
Detectors
4 – 1 (1 tie)
Categories
2 – 4
Components
2 – 3
67.58 /100
overall score
#7 /14
rank ▲ 4

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 Stealth Writer by 9.4
71.3 61.8
Meaning preservation CIs overlap Super Humanizer by 5.0
71.6 76.6
Readability Super Humanizer by 14.9
41.8 56.6
Consistency Stealth Writer by 4.2
94.6 90.4
Penalties fewer is better Super Humanizer by 2.0
−3.0 −1.0

CIs overlap marks a gap that sits inside both tools' published 95% confidence intervals for that component; it may not survive another cycle.

Detector by detector

Share of each tool's outputs that a detector classified as human-written. Stealth Writer took 4 of 6, with 1 tied.

GPTZero Super Humanizer by 5.7
40.9 46.6
Originality.ai Stealth Writer by 4.9
99.9 95.0
Copyleaks Stealth Writer by 13.3
96.7 83.3
Winston AI Stealth Writer by 21.5
99.4 77.9
ZeroGPT Stealth Writer by 22.7
90.7 68.0
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: Stealth Writer 66.8 · Super Humanizer 67.4 Application Essay: Stealth Writer 66.1 · Super Humanizer 64.4 Blog Post: Stealth Writer 68.3 · Super Humanizer 70.3 Marketing Copy: Stealth Writer 57.4 · Super Humanizer 55.4 Discussion Board: Stealth Writer 54.2 · Super Humanizer 66.0 News Article: Stealth Writer 55.4 · Super Humanizer 70.7
Stealth Writer Super Humanizer Outer ring = 100
Academic Essay 6 prompts Super Humanizer by 0.6
66.8 67.4
Application Essay 6 prompts Stealth Writer by 1.7
66.1 64.4
Blog Post 6 prompts Super Humanizer by 2.0
68.3 70.3
Marketing Copy 6 prompts Stealth Writer by 2.0
57.4 55.4
Discussion Board 3 prompts Super Humanizer by 11.8
54.2 66.0
News Article 3 prompts Super Humanizer by 15.2
55.4 70.7

Head-to-head history

Overall score in every cycle both tools were tested. Stealth Writer has finished ahead in 4 of 5 shared cycles.

50 60 70 80 90 June 2026 July 2026 August 2026 September 2026 October 2026 June 2026: Super Humanizer 64.75 (#11) June 2026: Stealth Writer 84.47 (#1) July 2026: Super Humanizer 54.13 (#11) July 2026: Stealth Writer 68.07 (#4) August 2026: Super Humanizer 55.86 (#10) August 2026: Stealth Writer 69.83 (#3) September 2026: Super Humanizer 60.97 (#11) September 2026: Stealth Writer 75.39 (#2) October 2026: Super Humanizer 67.58 (#7) October 2026: Stealth Writer 65.98 (#8) 66.0 67.6
Stealth Writer Super Humanizer
Cycle Stealth Writer Super Humanizer Margin
October 2026 65.98 #8 67.58 #7 → 1.6
September 2026 75.39 #2 60.97 #11 ← 14.4
August 2026 69.83 #3 55.86 #10 ← 14.0
July 2026 68.07 #4 54.13 #11 ← 13.9
June 2026 84.47 #1 64.75 #11 ← 19.7

Where each one wins

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

Stealth Writer

8 wins
  • Bypass rate Score 71.3 vs 61.8
  • Consistency Score 94.6 vs 90.4
  • ZeroGPT Detector 90.7 vs 68.0
  • Winston AI Detector 99.4 vs 77.9
  • Copyleaks Detector 96.7 vs 83.3
  • Originality.ai Detector 99.9 vs 95.0
  • Marketing Copy Category 57.4 vs 55.4
  • Application Essay Category 66.1 vs 64.4

Super Humanizer

8 wins
  • Penalties Score −1.0 vs −3.0
  • Readability Score 56.6 vs 41.8
  • Meaning preservation Score 76.6 vs 71.6
  • GPTZero Detector 46.6 vs 40.9
  • News Article Category 70.7 vs 55.4
  • Discussion Board Category 66.0 vs 54.2
  • Blog Post Category 70.3 vs 68.3
  • Academic Essay Category 67.4 vs 66.8

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 claude-sonnet-5-5 · 379 words

Technology shapes nearly every moment of our lives, yet it often fails the people it is meant to serve. I first understood this when I watched my grandmother struggle to use a banking app. She was intelligent, capable, and determined, but the interface assumed knowledge she had no reason to possess. Tiny icons, unlabeled menus, and confusing error messages left her feeling that she was the problem. I realized then that she wasn't failing the technology; the technology was failing her. That moment set me on a path toward human-computer interaction.

Since then, I have looked for opportunities to bridge the gap between people and the systems they use. In my introductory programming courses, I enjoyed writing code, but I found myself most energized when I asked what happened after the code was finished: who would use it, in what context, and with what frustrations? When I volunteered to redesign my university club's website, I interviewed members, observed how they searched for information, and tested prototypes with them. Seeing a once-confusing event registration process become something people could complete in under a minute was deeply satisfying. It showed me that thoughtful design is not decoration; it determines whether a tool empowers or excludes.

I am drawn to HCI because it unites disciplines I care about: psychology, design, engineering, and ethics. It asks technical questions alongside human ones. How do we build systems that are accessible to people with disabilities? How can we design AI tools that are transparent and trustworthy? How do we create technology that respects attention and wellbeing rather than exploiting them? These questions grow more urgent as interfaces move beyond screens into voice, gesture, and immersive environments.

I want to study HCI formally to gain rigorous research methods, deepen my understanding of cognition and behavior, and learn from faculty who are shaping the field. I am eager to collaborate with peers from diverse backgrounds, because good design depends on many perspectives.

My long-term goal is to work on inclusive technologies, whether in research or industry, that make people feel capable rather than confused. I want to build systems that meet people where they are, so that no one else feels the way my grandmother did. Studying HCI is the next step toward making that vision real.

Show the full input

428 words (input 379)

Nearly every activity in our lives is influenced by technology, which all too frequently fails to serve the very people it was designed to help. Back then when I observed my grandmother's difficulty in using a banking application, I got a glimpse of this. She was bright and able and resolute but the interface took for granted knowledge she didn't need to have. She was left feeling that she was to blame because of the very small icons, menus that weren't labeled, and confusing error messages. At that moment I knew she wasn't the problem with the technology, it was the technology with her. This experience set me on a course toward the field of human/computer interaction.

So, I have been searching for chances to connect people and processes since then. In my first few years of teaching introductory programming, I really liked coding but was really energised by asking students: When your code is complete who will be using it, how and what needs would they have? I designed the new website for my university club and interviewed some of the group, watched them navigate searching for information and tested prototypes with them. It was so satisfying to see an event registration process which was crazy in their minds made so easy to be completed in less than one minute. It taught me that “design thinking” is not just for show — it can either enable or discourage.

I became interested in HCI because it is a field that brings together STEM related fields that I'm passionate about — psychology, design, engineering, and ethics. Inquires about technical matters and human ones. How to make systems accessible for persons with disabilities? What are suitable designs to ensure transparency and trustworthiness of AI products? How to make technologies that do not compromise attention and wellbeing but honor them? Meanwhile, as interfaces shift from screens to voice, gestures and immersive interfaces, the need for these questions becomes more pressing.

I am interested in taking formal classes in HCI to learn some strong research techniques, to better understand cognition and behavior, and to learn from experts in this field. I love working with other people with different views as many viewpoints equal good design.

My ultimate vision is to engage in inclusive technology development, either as researchers or as practitioners in the tech industry, where people feel empowered, not confused! I would like to create systems that engage people where they are, not let my grandmother feel this way. The study of HCI is the next step towards realising that vision.

Show the full output
  • GPTZero0.00caught
  • Pangram0.00caught
  • Winston AI1.00passed
  • ZeroGPT1.00passed
  • Copyleaks1.00passed
  • Originality.ai1.00passed

Passed 4 of 6 detectors.

Every Stealth Writer run in October 2026 →

376 words (input 379)

Technology influences our daily lives more and more, but it hasn't always worked as intended. My 'a-ha moment' came when I watched my grandma, smart and curious and trying, use a banking app. Small icons, undefined menus, errors with no guidance.

She didn't have the knowledge the app seemed to expect.

It wasn't her technology wasn't her failure; my failure, her failure. This was the first time I caught a glimpse of what human-computer interaction could become.

Since then I have been seeking to close that distance-between people and their tools. I loved the intricacies of writing code for introductory programming classes but was most invigorated by then asking: after I had finished writing, who was going to use it, and how, and what would make it difficult for them? When I volunteered to re-build the website of a university club, I interviewed users and observed their interaction with information and tested prototypes. Witnessing a registration system that was previously baffling to the point of not registering, and that people could execute in under a minute, was hugely satisfying: design is not dressing, but the difference between power and barriers.

What's attracted me to HCI is that it intersects with disciplines I love: human-computer interaction, design, engineering, and morality. HCI raises technical and human issues. How do we design systems that everybody can use?

How do we ensure our AI systems are open, trustworthy tools?

How can we design technology that enhances our attention and wellbeing rather than hijacking them? Our challenges have become even more clear as interfaces are shifting from screens to voice and gesture and the immersive world.

My formal education in HCI would provide me with stronger research methods, enhanced insight into cognition and behaviour and mentorship from the best minds in the field. I want to be part of a vibrant community of researchers from the widest range of backgrounds, for good design is collaborative.

My bigger-picture goal is to build inclusive technology, through research or industry, that make everyone feel competent instead of overwhelmed. I want to develop systems that are in the same space as the user, so that others never end up feeling like my grandma. Learning HCI is the next step toward bringing that goal to life.

Show the full output
  • GPTZero0.00caught
  • Pangram0.00caught
  • Winston AI1.00passed
  • ZeroGPT0.83passed
  • Copyleaks1.00passed
  • Originality.ai1.00passed

Passed 4 of 6 detectors.

Every Super Humanizer 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 Stealth Writer better than Super Humanizer?

Super Humanizer finished 1.6 points ahead of Stealth Writer in the October 2026 cycle, 67.58 to 65.98, ranking #7 against #8 in a field of 14. Super Humanizer scored higher on 1 of 6 detectors and 4 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, Stealth Writer or Super Humanizer?

Stealth Writer posted the higher bypass rate, 71.3 vs 61.8, and scored higher on 4 of 6 detectors. Stealth Writer led on Originality.ai, Copyleaks, Winston AI and ZeroGPT; Super Humanizer led on GPTZero.

Do Stealth Writer and Super Humanizer keep the original meaning?

Super Humanizer preserved meaning better, 76.6 vs 71.6 on our 0–100 similarity scale, though the confidence intervals overlap. On readability, Super Humanizer rated higher, 56.6 vs 41.8. Penalties this cycle: Stealth Writer −3.0, Super Humanizer −1.0.