Detect AI
detect AI is a freemium AI detector, humanizer and content generator with sentence-level scoring, bundled free writing tools, and iOS, Android and browser apps.
A sentence-level AI detector that works, bolted to a humanizer and a generator that both failed to produce a single line in testing.
Should you use detect AI?
A fast sentence-by-sentence check of whether a block of text reads as raw, unedited AI writing.
You actually need the humanizer or generator to run , or you want proof behind the 99.9% accuracy claim.
Free gives 5,000 detector words a month. Humanizing and the generator need Premium at $15.99/mo , billed yearly.
The result heading reads "Likely AI-Generated" even over a 1% human score, so the label can fight the number.
Key features & how they perform
Rated from hands-on testing where the tool ran, and documented behaviour where runs failed.
Sentence-level AI detector
Splits a result into per-sentence scores with every triggering line shaded, and read obvious AI text correctly in my test.
AI humanizer
Meant to rewrite flagged text to read human. Across three attempts on free it returned an error or froze without producing a line.
Content generator
Writes blog and marketing copy aimed at passing detectors. In testing it stalled at 95% on "Fine-tuning expressions" with no output.
Free writing tools
Bundles a paraphraser, translator, summarizer, grammar checker and readability checker alongside the detector.
Uploads & bulk checking
Accepts pasted text plus TXT, DOC and PDF files, and claims to handle large or bulk documents in one pass.
Apps & extension
Runs on the web with iOS and Android apps and a browser extension, so a check is not tied to the main site.
Feature ratings blended from hands-on testing and the tool's documented behaviour where a run could not complete.
Four tasks on detect AI, and only one finished
I ran the detector, the humanizer and the generator on the free plan. The detector worked; the other two never returned a line. Every result is from my own runs on 2 November 2026.
The detector reads obvious AI writing well
I started with a clean AI sample to see how the detector handled text that should be easy to catch.
I generated the sample with an outside AI writer, then pasted that output into the detector.
"Write a 200-word blog intro about the benefits of drinking green tea every morning."
The score came back at 91% AI. The panel split the text sentence by sentence and counted 7 AI sentences against 3 human ones, with the slider near the AI end and every flagged line shaded.
A human passage scored low, but the label fought the number
Next I pasted a passage written well before 2026, long before any current AI writer existed. The detector scored it 1% AI and counted 9 human sentences against 4 flagged ones.
That is the correct call. The trouble sits in the line above the score, which still read "Probability Of Text Likely AI-Generated" at 1%. The heading never switches to match a low result, so a human passage ends up under a label that says the opposite.
The humanizer stalled, then failed
The humanizer runs on its own budget of 250 words a month on the free plan. I pasted the same green tea intro, which came to 188 words.
The progress screen said the job could take up to 30 seconds. It sat at 95% for more than two minutes with no movement.
When I refreshed the page, everything cleared: my text was gone and the word count had already dropped. So I tried a second route, clicking Humanize straight from the detector result, which returned an error that read "Humanizing failed. Please try again."
A third attempt opened a popup warning that I was almost out of monthly words, with an Upgrade button, while the bar froze at 0%.
The generator froze at the same spot
I moved to the content generator and entered the same brief I had used for the detector sample.
"Write a 200-word blog intro about the benefits of drinking green tea every morning."
The processing screen climbed to 95%, showed "Fine-tuning expressions", and stopped.
Detect AI pricing
Figures taken from the official detect ai pricing page, which shows annual-billing prices.
| Plan | Price | What's included |
|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | 5,000 words a month · 500 words per request · basic AI detection · basic AI humanizing · 7-day results history · standard support |
| Premium Popular | $15.99 /mo | 20,000 words a month · 1,000 words per request · advanced AI detection · advanced AI humanizing · generator access · forever results history |
| Pro | $28.99 /mo | 40,000 words a month · 2,500 words per request · advanced detection and humanizing · generator access · forever history · priority support with a dedicated manager |
Pricing is accurate as of 2 November 2026 and was captured from the official detect ai website. Plans, prices and word limits change often, so check the official detect.ai pricing page for the current figures before you subscribe.
Pros & cons
Specific strengths and limits of the tool and the AI-detection category, not generic filler.
✅ Pros
- Detector, humanizer and generator sit in one workspace with a one-click Humanize from any result
- Targets the major engines by name: ChatGPT, GPT-4, Gemini and Claude
- Bundles free side tools: paraphraser, translator, summarizer, grammar and readability checkers
- Accepts pasted text plus TXT, DOC and PDF uploads, and claims bulk-document checking
- Available on iOS, Android and as a browser extension, not just the website
- Saves a history of past scans you can reopen later
⛔ Cons
- The "99.9% accuracy" headline comes with no published methodology, test data or outside validation
- Its humanizer sells detector-proof text, yet independent category tests show leading detectors still catch rewrites
- No AI text detector, this one included, is reliable enough to serve as proof of authorship
- Detection and humanizing are explained only as "proprietary technology", with no method disclosed
- The bypass-detection use case can breach school, publisher and journal rules for anyone who leans on it
Compiled from detect ai's official site, its public claims and independent reporting on AI detectors and humanizers, since dedicated user reviews are still sparse · paraphrased, not quoted
detect AI alternatives
| detect aiReviewed | Pangram | QuillBot | Grammarly | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our Score | 4.2/10 | 7.2/10 | 6.5/10 | 6.4/10 |
| Core tools | Detect, humanize, generate | Detect only (text and images) | Detect, humanize, paraphrase | Detect, humanize, grammar |
| Free tier | 5,000 detector words a month | 20 text checks a day | 125 humanizer words, limited | Grammar plus 100 AI prompts a month |
| Detector reliability | Caught raw AI, label contradicts the score | Research-grade, lowest false positives | Weak, scores shift between runs | Weak, passes its own humanized text |
| Humanizer | Failed to run in testing | None | Yes, 125 words free | Yes, tends to formalise casual text |
| Best for | A quick sentence-level AI spot-check | Integrity offices defending a flag | Rewording and tightening a draft | Fast grammar and spelling fixes |
| Standout strength | Sentence-by-sentence detector breakdown | Lowest verified false-positive rate | Word-level paraphrase control | Real-time grammar across apps |
Who Should Use detect.ai, and Who Should Avoid It?
The detector is the one part that worked in testing. The humanizer, the generator and the accuracy claim are where this tool falls down.
Who Should Use detect.ai?
Best suited for these workflows
Quick AI Spot-Checks
Paste a block of text and get a per-sentence read on whether it looks machine-written, with the triggering lines marked.
People Who Read the Number
The score itself is sound in the clear cases; you just have to ignore a heading that does not update for human text.
Casual, Low-Volume Checking
A small monthly word budget fits the occasional check rather than daily, heavy use across long documents.
Who Should Avoid detect.ai?
Consider an alternative if you need
A Working Humanizer or Generator
Both failed to return any output across my tests, so do not pay in expecting either one to run.
Integrity or Compliance Decisions
No detector is accurate enough to prove authorship, and the 99.9% claim here has no published proof behind it.
Anyone Trying to Dodge Detection
Bypassing detectors can breach school, journal and publisher rules, whatever the tool promises about it.
Users Who Trust the Red Label
A human passage still sits under a "Likely AI-Generated" heading, which misleads at a glance.
Our Recommendation
detect.ai is usable as a quick AI spot-checker if you read the percentage and not the heading. The humanizer and generator did not work in my testing, so treat them as unproven rather than features you are paying for. Before buying anything beyond the detector, run your own test on the exact tool you need and confirm it actually returns output.
detect.ai scorecard
Rated against what an AI detector, humanizer and generator bundle is actually built to do.
| Dimension | Verdict | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Result breakdown & clarity Sentence-level scoring and shading | Good |
7.0
|
| AI detection accuracy Reading obvious AI and human text | Average |
6.5
|
| Feature breadth Detector, humanizer, generator, extras | Average |
6.5
|
| Ease of use Signup, pasting, running a check | Average |
5.5
|
| Detector label accuracy Heading matching the actual score | Weak |
4.0
|
| Transparency Methodology behind the accuracy claim | Weak |
3.0
|
| Free plan usefulness What actually works before paying | Weak |
3.0
|
| Processing reliability Jobs completing without stalling | Weak |
2.5
|
| Humanizer performance Returning a usable rewrite | Weak |
2.0
|
| Content generator Producing requested copy | Weak |
2.0
|
| Scrutool Score Equal-weight average of all 10 dimensions |
4.2
|
A working detector strapped to tools that never ran
There is one good thing here. The detector reads obvious AI text well, scores a passage sentence by sentence, and shades the lines that triggered the result, which is genuinely useful for a quick spot-check. Everything else got in the way. The result heading reads "Likely AI-Generated" even over a 1% human score, so the label contradicts the number for anyone skimming. The humanizer failed across three separate attempts, returning an error or freezing without a single rewritten line. The generator stalled at 95% on the same wall with no output. The headline 99.9% accuracy is offered with no methodology or outside proof, and the whole bypass-detection pitch runs into school and publisher rules anyway. If you want a fast, free read on whether text looks machine-written, the detector will do it, as long as you trust the percentage and not the heading. For anyone who needs the humanizer, the generator, or a detector verdict they can defend, a more reliable tool is the better call.
Discussion
Join the discussion and share your perspective.