These two tools sit on opposite sides of the same problem. StealthGPT is a stealth-writing generator. Its job is to produce or rewrite text so it reads as human to external AI detectors, and the whole product is shaped around hiding AI authorship. TextSight is an AI detector. Its job is to tell you whether a draft reads as AI-generated, show you which sentences flag and why, and help you improve the writing honestly. So this is not really a feature race between two rivals. It is a choice between two jobs. Do you want to hide AI, or do you want to find it and fix the underlying writing? This page lays out where StealthGPT fits, where TextSight fits, and why the honest framing is a category difference rather than a head-to-head.
A short table first. Read it as a category comparison, not a feature race: one tool detects AI, the other hides it. The narrative sections below go deeper on each row.
| What it does | TextSight | StealthGPT |
|---|---|---|
| Category | AI detector with a rewrite tool for honest improvement | Stealth-writing generator built to hide AI authorship |
| Core job | Find AI-shaped writing and help you fix it | Produce text that reads as human to detectors |
| Standalone AI detector | Yes, sentence-level with per-line rationale | Pass/fail check on its own output, not a classifier |
| Sentence-level evidence | Yes, colour-coded per sentence with reasons | No, it returns rewritten text rather than evidence |
| Authenticity Score | Yes, on every scan | No |
| Public detection methodology | Yes, published methodology page | No |
| Free tier (no signup) | 3 scans/day, no card for first scan | Paid product past a small trial |
| Pricing model | Flat subscription, detector + rewrite bundled | See StealthGPT pricing page (changes often) |
| Rewrite tool framing | Improve writing honestly, preserve voice | Evade external detectors |
| Defensible in editorial / classroom review | Yes, evidence and score you can explain | No, evasion framing is hard to defend |
| Best fit | Writers, editors and teachers who need to know what reads as AI and improve it | Users whose only goal is stealth output |
"Win" markers reflect our reading of which tool fits the honest-writing job, not a third-party audit.
Three things StealthGPT does better than TextSight if the only job is generating stealth text. Acknowledging them is the point of writing this page in the first place.
StealthGPT does one thing and tries to do it well. Take an AI draft, run it through the tool, ship a version that reads as human to most external detectors. The product surface is small and the workflow is a couple of clicks. For a user whose only job is "make this pass" and who does not need any detection or evidence, the focused product is quicker to operate than a detector with a rewrite tool attached.
StealthGPT's rewrites go further than many tools in restructuring sentences and swapping vocabulary to lower external detector scores. The trade-off is voice. Heavy rewrites read less like the original writer and more like a generic edited paragraph, which matters in editorial or client work but not when the output is only going through a single one-pass check. If raw score reduction is the only thing you care about, that aggressive rewrite delivers it.
If you are pasting a single draft, running one pass and shipping it, StealthGPT's workflow has fewer screens than a detector that also lets you review evidence and improve a draft. No scan, no per-sentence reasons, just paste, rewrite, copy. For a user who does not want any of that surrounding context, the lean product is the right shape, and TextSight's workflow would be more than they need.
If you fit those patterns and you genuinely do not need a detector score or sentence-level evidence, the rest of this page is informational rather than persuasive. StealthGPT is the tool for that single job.
For freelancers, agencies, SEO teams, editors and students who need a tool that holds up in client or institutional review, here is where TextSight beats StealthGPT on the work that matters.
TextSight ships a standalone AI detector with sentence-level highlights, per-line evidence and a published methodology page describing the rhythm, structure and vocabulary signals the model scores. StealthGPT's detection feature exists as a validation step inside the AI rewriter, designed to confirm that the rewrite passed, not as a calibrated audit tool. For workflows that need a defensible score to show an editor, a compliance lead or a client, the difference between a real detector and a proxy check is the difference between a credible answer and a marketing claim.
TextSight's rewrite tool is part of a detector. Its job is to help you revise the sentences that read as AI-shaped while keeping your own voice, not to push a number down at any cost. StealthGPT is the opposite by design: its whole purpose is to make text read as human to detectors. That is the right framing if evasion is the goal and the wrong one if the writing still needs to read like the person who started it. For editors and clients who read the final draft alongside the brief, keeping the writer's voice matters more than beating a checker.
Every TextSight scan returns a sentence-by-sentence colour map with a short rationale per line covering rhythm, vocabulary patterns, paragraph cadence and sentence-length variance. You can fix the specific sentences that read as AI-shaped instead of rewriting the whole draft blind. StealthGPT does not surface comparable per-sentence evidence because it is a stealth-writing generator and not an audit tool. For an editor reviewing a flagged draft with the writer, that evidence turns a guessing match into a concrete edit list.
Detectors that lean on word-level predictability tend to over-flag formally-taught English from non-native writers, because that writing often reads as more predictable. TextSight weights sentence rhythm and clause structure as primary signals, which separate more cleanly from vocabulary choice, so the goal is fewer wrongful flags on honest ESL drafts. StealthGPT does not solve this. As a stealth generator it rewrites whatever it is given without scoring whether the source was a non-native writer being unfairly flagged.
TextSight's free tier gives you 3 scans a day with no card and no signup for the first scan, and it does not expire. StealthGPT is a paid product past a small trial. For ongoing evaluation, occasional student use, or a writer who just wants to check a draft now and then, the permanence is the real differentiator. The detector and the rewrite tool live in one flat subscription, which a stealth generator does not offer because it does not ship a real detector at all.
The difference shows up most clearly on the second draft and on the review. Worth understanding before you pick.
StealthGPT is built around a single target: produce text that reads as human to external detectors. It restructures sentences and swaps vocabulary to do that, and its internal check exists to confirm the output cleared the bar. There is no public methodology describing how it scores, which is normal for a stealth product but means there is nothing to cite when someone asks you to defend the writing.
TextSight scores sentence rhythm, clause structure, paragraph cadence and reliance on a small set of high-frequency AI vocabulary as separate signals, with the weighting documented on the methodology page. The rewrite tool is framed around authenticity rather than evasion: it helps you revise the sentences that read as AI-shaped while keeping your voice. Every scan and every rewrite returns enough evidence to explain the result to an editor, a teacher or a client.
Take a paragraph of AI-written text. Run it through a stealth tool and you get back a rewrite whose only goal was to lower a detector score, with no record of what changed or why. Run the same paragraph through TextSight and you get a highlight strip showing which sentences read as AI-shaped and a short reason for each, so you can rewrite those lines yourself in your own voice. One path optimises for a number. The other optimises for writing you can stand behind.
TextSight Starter is $9.99 monthly or $7.49 monthly on annual billing, with the detector and the rewrite tool in the same subscription. StealthGPT is a separate category and its pricing changes often, so check its pricing page directly rather than a figure here. The point is that you are not buying the same thing: one subscription detects and improves writing, the other generates stealth text.
Billed $89.88/year, Save $30
Billed $179.88/year, Save $60
Billed $359.88/year, Save $120
Yearly billing saves 25% on every TextSight tier. StealthGPT prices its stealth-writing product separately and changes tiers often, so check their pricing page directly. View full pricing →
This comes down to which job you have. Use this picker to match the tool to the work you actually do.
These tools serve opposing goals, so most people pick one. If your aim is honest writing rather than evasion, the detector side is the one that fits.
The honest pick depends on the job. Three concrete profiles, three concrete answers.
Outline written by hand, body drafted with help from a chatbot, light human edit before posting. The question is whether the post still reads as machine-written. TextSight is the tool for that: scan the draft, see which sentences flag and why, revise those lines in your own voice, rescan. A stealth generator answers a different question. It does not tell you what reads as AI, it just rewrites text to slip past a check, which is the wrong tool when the goal is to understand and improve your own writing.
Some drafts started as AI-assisted outlines, then got hand-edited. Each delivery goes through a client review that compares the final draft to the brief and expects the writer's voice on the page. TextSight is the fit. Detection on every draft plus sentence-level evidence shows exactly which lines to revise so the writing reads as the writer's own. A stealth rewrite optimised to lower a detector score tends to introduce a flat, generic tone that fails a brief-versus-draft comparison even when it clears a checker.
Drafts written by hand with light AI-assisted research. Wants a sanity-check scan before submission and, occasionally, help revising a paragraph that reads machine-shaped. TextSight is the right shape: the permanent free tier covers most weeks, and the sentence-level highlights keep the edit targeted at the lines that actually flag. The evasion framing of a stealth generator is the wrong tool for academic work, where the goal is honest, defensible writing rather than beating a detector.
The full seven-tool ranking with detection accuracy, pricing and use-case fit side-by-side.
See the ranking →The other score-reduction-first AI rewriter compared, with calibrated rewrites and detector coverage in detail.
Read the compare →How the TextSight AI rewriter differs from a score-reduction-first rewriter, mode by mode, with sample scores.
Read the guide →Full tier breakdown for Free, Starter, Pro and Business. Annual billing saves 25%.
See pricing →Start with TextSight's free tier. No card, no signup, no commitment. Your first scan in about six seconds.
Honest head-to-heads with other detectors and humanizers.