Most people looking for a Detecting AI alternative want one of three things: a checker that is not bundled with a rewriting engine, a clearer read on what the score means, or a tool that fits a workflow rather than a browser tab. Here is what the options publish about themselves, including us.
Paste some text or load the example to estimate AI likelihood.
Detecting AI is a detection suite rather than a single checker. Its footer describes the site as one that "unites 40+ AI tools in one platform" and lists an AI Checker, Fact Checker, Plagiarism Checker, AI Humanizer, Readability Checker, Essay Grader and AI Voice Detector, plus three APIs, MCP endpoints, a Chrome extension, and Moodle and Zapier integrations (detecting-ai.com, checked 16 August 2026).
The published plans are short. The Free plan is listed at "$0/month" with a "5,000 character limit per check", "Up to 100 detections per day" and "No support included". The annual plan is listed at "$7/month" with "Charged Annually: $84", carrying a "Limited Time - 50% off" label. The monthly plan is listed at "$14/month". Both paid tiers list a "160,000 character limit per check" and "Unlimited detections per day"; the annual tier lists 12,000 plagiarism checker credits and the monthly tier lists 1,000. Payments run through Paddle, per the pricing FAQ (detecting-ai.com/pricing, checked 16 August 2026).
Two of the company's own claims are worth quoting rather than paraphrasing, because they are marketing statements and not benchmark results. Its FAQ states the tool "has been tested on over 1 billion human-written and AI-generated texts" and "achieves up to 98% accuracy with one of the lowest false positive rates in the industry". A separate homepage block states "95%+ accuracy". We have not tested those figures and neither has anyone on a shared public benchmark, so treat them as the vendor's position (detecting-ai.com, checked 16 August 2026).
If you need languages other than English, it is the stronger pick of the tools on this page. Its FAQ states the detector "works across multiple languages, including English, Spanish, German, Arabic, French, Portuguese, and more", while noting that "detection is most accurate in English". A homepage section claims "support for 50+ languages". Every other tool compared below, ours included, is published as English-only. If your submissions arrive in Spanish or Arabic, no amount of pricing comparison makes an English-only classifier the right answer.
It is also the only option here that puts detection, plagiarism, fact checking, readability and essay grading behind one login. For a teacher who wants one tab instead of five, that consolidation is a real feature, and $84 a year for the annual plan is not a large budget line.
Its Moodle integration matters too. If your institution grades inside Moodle, a detector that reaches into the LMS beats a better classifier that does not.
And if you are on the free plan and it is working, stay. One hundred checks a day at 5,000 characters covers most individual teaching loads without spending anything.
Three things, in our experience of the searches that reach this page.
The first is the rewriting engine sitting next to the detector. Detecting AI's paid plans list "Huma: Advanced rewriting engine (undetectable & unlimited)" as an included feature (detecting-ai.com/pricing, checked 16 August 2026). Institutions buying a detector for integrity work often do not want a tool marketed on evading detection in the same subscription, whatever the merits of either half.
The second is scoring transparency. Detecting AI's homepage offers V1, V2 and V3 model selectors and states that its FAQ approach "combines our own advanced detection engine with checks across other widely used detectors such as GPTZero, Originality.ai, and ZeroGPT". If you need to explain to a student what produced a number, a blended score across third-party engines is harder to defend than a single stated model.
The third is fit. A browser tool is fine until you have forty PDFs, an API to call, or a report to attach to a case file.
| Tool | What it is | Free tier, as published | Paid entry, as published | Languages, as published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detecting AI | Detection suite with rewriting, plagiarism, grading | $0/mo, 5,000 chars per check, up to 100 checks/day | $7/mo billed annually at $84; $14/mo monthly | Multiple, "most accurate in English" |
| GPTKit | Standalone detector | 2,048 characters per request for guests, 5 requests/min | $5/mo Personal, $36/yr | "Currently English is supported" |
| BrandWell AI Detector (was Content at Scale) | Free tool inside a GTM platform | Free, 2,500 character box | Detector itself is free | "just for the English language" |
| Ahrefs AI Content Detector | Free lead-generation tool in an SEO suite | Free, 2,048 characters | Detector itself is free | English shown in the tool |
| GLTR | Academic research demo, not a product | Free, no account | None, and no support | English, GPT-2 only |
| TextSight | Detector plus workflow tooling | 3 checks/day anonymous at 1,000 words; 60/day at 5,000 words with a free account | Starter $9.99/mo, $7.49 annual | English only |
Our detector is an English-only ensemble of DeBERTa, RoBERTa and ELECTRA. It has a known false-positive bias against writers who learned English as a second language, which is the single most important thing to know before you use any classifier in a disciplinary process. Detecting AI's published multi-language support is a genuine advantage over us for non-English work, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
What we do differently is the output and the plumbing. Scores land in three bands: under 30 reads "likely human-written", 30 to 69 reads "mixed signals", and 70 or above reads "likely AI-generated". The box needs at least 25 words. Anonymous checks are capped at 3 a day pooled across the AI Detector and the Document Detector, at up to 1,000 words. A free account raises that to 60 checks a day at up to 5,000 words.
Paid tiers add the things a browser box cannot do. Sentence-level analysis and PDF export start at Starter, $9.99 a month or $7.49 on annual billing, with 200 checks a day. Pro, $19.99 or $14.99 annual, removes the daily cap and adds a Chrome extension, scan history and a REST API. Business, $39.99 or $29.99 annual, adds teams and branded reports. Enterprise is $79.99 or $59.99 annual. File upload, URL scanning and bulk scanning are available across the paid range.
Compared on price alone, Detecting AI's $84 annual plan undercuts our Starter annual at roughly $90 a year. If your requirement is a cheap unlimited-ish checker with a plagiarism credit pool attached, that comparison ends there and it ends in their favour.
Language coverage decides this. Non-English submissions point to Detecting AI. English-only cohorts with a documented process point to a tool that exports a report and shows sentence-level detail. Whichever you pick, do not let a percentage be the evidence on its own; the ESL false-positive problem is real across the category.
You are usually checking your own drafts, in English, in volume. That means an API or bulk upload, which rules out the free browser boxes quickly.
Stay free. Detecting AI's free plan, GPTKit's guest allowance and the Ahrefs box all cost nothing, and our anonymous box costs nothing. Paying for a detector you use four times a month is not a decision anyone needs to make.
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.