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

Head to head · October 2026 cycle

SupWriter vs Undetectable.ai

Undetectable.ai finished 8.4 points ahead of SupWriter in the October 2026 cycle, 71.18 to 62.75, ranking #3 against #11 in a field of 14. Undetectable.ai scored higher on 6 of 6 detectors and 4 of 6 writing categories. SupWriter came out ahead on penalties (None vs −5.0), blog post prompts (62.0 vs 58.1) and news article prompts (64.4 vs 61.4).

62.75 /100
overall score
#11 /14
rank ▼ 6
+8.43
Undetectable.ai leads →
Detectors
0 – 6
Categories
2 – 4
Components
1 – 4
71.18 /100
overall score
#3 /14
rank ▲ 3

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 Undetectable.ai by 24.6
50.0 74.6
Meaning preservation CIs overlap Undetectable.ai by 1.7
77.5 79.2
Readability Undetectable.ai by 14.8
49.2 63.9
Consistency Undetectable.ai by 2.1
90.8 93.0
Penalties fewer is better SupWriter by 5.0
None −5.0

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. Undetectable.ai took 6 of 6.

GPTZero Undetectable.ai by 76.1
8.9 85.0
Originality.ai Undetectable.ai by 33.3
55.5 88.7
Copyleaks Undetectable.ai by 9.7
78.2 87.9
Winston AI Undetectable.ai by 15.0
83.5 98.5
ZeroGPT Undetectable.ai by 9.8
73.9 83.8
Pangram Undetectable.ai by 3.5
0.0 3.5

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: SupWriter 57.4 · Undetectable.ai 69.0 Application Essay: SupWriter 59.4 · Undetectable.ai 76.4 Blog Post: SupWriter 62.0 · Undetectable.ai 58.1 Marketing Copy: SupWriter 58.4 · Undetectable.ai 71.5 Discussion Board: SupWriter 57.6 · Undetectable.ai 69.4 News Article: SupWriter 64.4 · Undetectable.ai 61.4
SupWriter Undetectable.ai Outer ring = 100
Academic Essay 6 prompts Undetectable.ai by 11.7
57.4 69.0
Application Essay 6 prompts Undetectable.ai by 17.0
59.4 76.4
Blog Post 6 prompts SupWriter by 3.9
62.0 58.1
Marketing Copy 6 prompts Undetectable.ai by 13.0
58.4 71.5
Discussion Board 3 prompts Undetectable.ai by 11.7
57.6 69.4
News Article 3 prompts SupWriter by 3.0
64.4 61.4

Head-to-head history

Overall score in every cycle both tools were tested. They have finished ahead 1 time each across 2 shared cycles.

50 60 70 80 September 2026 October 2026 September 2026: Undetectable.ai 71.75 (#6) September 2026: SupWriter 72.80 (#5) October 2026: Undetectable.ai 71.18 (#3) October 2026: SupWriter 62.75 (#11) 62.8 71.2
SupWriter Undetectable.ai
Cycle SupWriter Undetectable.ai Margin
October 2026 62.75 #11 71.18 #3 → 8.4
September 2026 72.80 #5 71.75 #6 ← 1.0

Where each one wins

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

SupWriter

3 wins
  • Penalties Score None vs −5.0
  • Blog Post Category 62.0 vs 58.1
  • News Article Category 64.4 vs 61.4

Undetectable.ai

14 wins
  • Bypass rate Score 74.6 vs 50.0
  • Readability Score 63.9 vs 49.2
  • Consistency Score 93.0 vs 90.8
  • Meaning preservation Score 79.2 vs 77.5
  • GPTZero Detector 85.0 vs 8.9
  • Originality.ai Detector 88.7 vs 55.5
  • Winston AI Detector 98.5 vs 83.5
  • ZeroGPT Detector 83.8 vs 73.9
  • Copyleaks Detector 87.9 vs 78.2
  • Pangram Detector 3.5 vs 0.0
  • and 4 more

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

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 →

364 words (input 336)

I first became interested in Human-Computer Interaction when my grandmother had a medical emergency and had to use a telehealth application to call for help. Despite the technology being there to save her life, the interface ended up alienating her in a moment of high panic. The contrast was too low, the icons were unclear, and the navigation was confusing. It was a life or death situation and the technology, which was certainly advanced enough, was not able to assist her. It was clear to me that the most advanced technology in the world is completely useless if it does not also take into account the human experience.

Through a variety of coursework, as well as independent projects, I have become familiar with both the software and the human aspects of interactive systems. While completing a mobile application for local transportation, I witnessed the balance of efficiently written code and completing user interviews and making user journey maps as well as redesigning the information architecture in order to make the most viable and effective tool for the user. Technology needs to adapt to the complexity of the human experience and not vice versa.

My desire to complete a graduate degree in Human-Computer Interaction comes from a place of wanting to tap into technology’s power and in turn fill a void in utilizing human emotions in order to create more meaningful interactions with technology. Many new interfaces are emerging such as voice interfaces, multimodal human-computer interaction and AI in ambient environments, many of which are inaccessible to the average user. In a near future where AI will dominate much of the interactions we have with technology on a daily basis, interaction design that is thoughtful, ethical and above all inclusive of human diversity is imperative.

The HCII program will provide the perfect balance of user-centered research methods and advanced technical development to explore how adaptive interfaces can support underserved users such as the elderly and those who are digitally literate but not proficient. My hope is to design systems that are so intuitive that users will not even realize that they are using technology, and in doing so, empower them to reach their full potential.

Show the full output
  • GPTZero0.68passed
  • Pangram0.00caught
  • Winston AI1.00passed
  • ZeroGPT0.91passed
  • Copyleaks1.00passed
  • Originality.ai1.00passed

Passed 5 of 6 detectors.

Every Undetectable.ai 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 SupWriter better than Undetectable.ai?

Undetectable.ai finished 8.4 points ahead of SupWriter in the October 2026 cycle, 71.18 to 62.75, ranking #3 against #11 in a field of 14. Undetectable.ai scored higher on 6 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, SupWriter or Undetectable.ai?

Undetectable.ai posted the higher bypass rate, 74.6 vs 50.0, and scored higher on 6 of 6 detectors. Undetectable.ai led on GPTZero, Originality.ai, Copyleaks, Winston AI, ZeroGPT and Pangram.

Do SupWriter and Undetectable.ai keep the original meaning?

Undetectable.ai preserved meaning better, 79.2 vs 77.5 on our 0–100 similarity scale, though the confidence intervals overlap. On readability, Undetectable.ai rated higher, 63.9 vs 49.2. Penalties this cycle: SupWriter None, Undetectable.ai −5.0.