AIToHuman hands out a working rewriting tool with no account and no cap on how often you use it, which is unusual enough to weigh before replacing it. The walls people hit are the 300 word ceiling per conversion, a scoring feature that returns a bare number, and nothing kept on your behalf afterwards.
Paste some text or load the example to estimate AI likelihood.
Rather than take the marketing on trust, I sent text to AIToHuman's own endpoint on 16 August 2026.
A POST to aitohuman.com/api/humanize returned HTTP 200 in 2.9 seconds with a rewritten passage in a humanizedText field. The product is not a shell. It is a live service that does what it says, quickly.
The output in that probe was imperfect in a way worth reporting plainly. My input ended with the clause "thereby enabling broader adoption across diverse markets". The rewrite came back as "have made such systems viable markets.:" with a stray colon after the full stop, and with the sense of the clause altered rather than preserved. That is one sample and not a verdict. It is the sort of thing to watch for in your own text before trusting any rewrite unread.
There is a second endpoint. aitohuman.com/api/detect accepts an input_text field and returned {"aiScore":6} for the passage I submitted. That tells you the shape of the built-in checker: one integer, no confidence band, no sentence-level breakdown, no explanation of what drove it. The About page calls it "a built-in detector" for verifying your own output, and as a convenience inside a rewriting flow that is reasonable. It is not a reporting tool.
The site carries the title tag "AI Text Converter - Free No Signup | AIToHuman" and the on-page line "Keep your ideas. Fix the delivery. Paste your text and get a version that sounds human. No sign-up or usage caps required."
Free terms are stated on the homepage: "300 words per conversion. Unlimited conversions with no account required." The input counter reads "0 / 300 words". There is no paid tier at all. /pricing returns 404 and nothing on the site sells an upgrade.
The controls are more detailed than most free tools bother with. Output language runs to roughly 41 options, including regional English variants, four Spanish variants, French, German, Italian, both Portuguese variants, Dutch, Russian, both Chinese scripts, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, Hindi, Turkish, Vietnamese and Thai. Alongside sit a Creativity Level slider defaulting to 60 percent, a Context Preservation slider defaulting to 90 percent, an Emotional Tone selector, a Formality toggle, and switches labelled "Preserve Intent" and "Human Natural Mistakes".
The operator is named. The footer reads "© 2026 AIToHuman. All rights reserved. CoreAI LLC", and the About page credits Niraj Khatiwada, described there as "AI Builder | Australia". The domain has been registered since April 2018 and the Terms of Service carry a last updated date of January 2026.
Performance claims on the site are the vendor's own and I do not repeat them as fact: "95%+ pass rates consistently across every major AI detector", per detector figures of 96, 94 and 97 percent, "2.4M+ Texts analyzed in testing", and "Results in under two seconds". On that last one my single timed request took 2.9 seconds end to end, which is close.
Its terms are unusually candid. They state "We can't guarantee that every piece of humanized text will pass every detector", and tell students directly: "If you're a student, check your school's AI policy before using any AI tools (including this one)." On data, the terms say "Once you close the page, we don't keep copies."
Start here, because for many people the honest answer is to stay.
It costs nothing and asks for nothing. No account, no email, no card, no cap on conversions. If you rewrite short passages occasionally there is no argument for paying anyone, us included. The 300 word ceiling is the only thing between you and an indefinitely free tool.
Its language coverage is far broader than ours. Roughly 41 output languages against our English-only detector is not a close comparison, and if you work in Spanish, Arabic, Hindi or Japanese, that alone may settle it.
Its controls are finer grained than what we offer. Separate sliders for creativity and context preservation, plus tone and formality, give you more say over output than a single rewrite button does.
It keeps nothing, and for some people that is the feature rather than the drawback. If you would rather no service held a copy of your draft, a tool with no account and a stated policy of not retaining text is doing exactly what you want. We save scan history for signed-in users, which helps when you need a record and does not when you do not.
And the disclaimers are honest. A tool that tells students to check their institution's policy, and admits it cannot guarantee results, is being straighter than the category norm.
The 300 word ceiling. Per conversion, not per day. Anything article length must be broken up and stitched back together, which is where tone drifts and repetitions creep in.
A single number is hard to act on. {"aiScore":6} gives a score and nothing else. If you need to know which sentences drove it, or hand a result to an editor, a bare integer will not carry that conversation.
Nothing is saved. By design, and stated in the terms. If you later need to show what you checked and when, no record exists anywhere.
There is no paid tier. No revenue means no support commitment and no uptime obligation. A fair trade for free, but a real consideration if this sits inside a workflow you depend on.
Published content is thin. The blog carries one post, dated 11 May 2026. That says nothing about whether the tool works, but it leaves little documentation to lean on.
TextSight is built the other way round. Detection is the product and everything else hangs off it.
The box above runs the live detector. Without an account you get 3 checks a day, pooled across the AI Detector and the Document Detector, capped at 1,000 words with a 25 word minimum. A free account raises that to 60 checks a day at up to 5,000 words and saves every scan to Scan History. Saved history is not a paid feature: any signed-in user gets it, free plan included. Starter allows 200 checks a day; Pro and above are unlimited.
Results come back as one of three bands rather than a raw score: under 30 is "likely human-written", 30 to 69 is "mixed signals", 70 or above is "likely AI-generated". Sentence-level analysis and PDF export begin at Starter, with file upload, URL scan and bulk scan. The Chrome extension and REST API begin at Pro. Teams and branded reports begin at Business.
Plans run Starter $9.99 a month or $7.49 annually, Pro $19.99 or $14.99, Business $39.99 or $29.99, Enterprise $79.99 or $59.99, annual billing being 25 percent below monthly.
The limitation you need before switching: our detector is an English-only ensemble built on DeBERTa, RoBERTa and ELECTRA, with a known tendency to produce false positives on writing by people using English as a second language. If either describes your work, AIToHuman's 41 language list is a genuine advantage over us and no feature comparison changes that.
/pricing returns 404, and the homepage states "300 words per conversion. Unlimited conversions with no account required."/api/detect endpoint returned a single integer, {"aiScore":6}, for the passage I submitted on 16 August 2026. There is no sentence-level breakdown or confidence band in that response.All checked 16 August 2026, all on aitohuman.com unless stated.
text field returned HTTP 200 in 2.9 seconds with a humanizedText response.input_text field returned {"aiScore":6}.The deeper head-to-head: feature table, where GPTZero wins, where TextSight wins, and migration steps.
Read the comparePerplexity, burstiness, and transformer scoring explained, so you can read any detector's verdict critically.
Read the guideWhy detectors over-flag ESL and formal writing, and how sentence-level evidence helps you defend real work.
Read the guideThe full ranking with detection approach, pricing, and use-case fit side by side.
See the rankingStart with TextSight's free tier. No card, no signup, no commitment. Your first scan in about six seconds, with the evidence shown line by line.
Honest comparisons vs other tools.