WriteHuman is a bypass tool that lives in your browser. The flagship surface is a Chrome extension students install once and call from any Google Doc, Notion page or Gmail draft with a right-click to rewrite the selected text so it reads as human to detectors. It is fast. The problem is durability. Bypass rewrites are tuned to dodge today's detectors, and detectors retrain specifically to catch them, so a draft that reads clean this month can flag next month even though you never touched it, and the file usually still sits in an inbox or a learning management system waiting to be re-scanned. TextSight takes the durable path. It is a real AI detector that shows you, sentence by sentence, what reads as AI-generated and why, so you can improve the writing itself. This page is the honest cut: a bypass rewrite that can expire versus honest improvement that holds up when the next detector update lands.
A compact table first. Read it through one lens: which result still holds up after detectors retrain. Sections below unpack each row, including where WriteHuman's in-browser rewrite genuinely wins.
| What matters | TextSight | WriteHuman |
|---|---|---|
| Core job | Detect AI and help you improve the writing | Rewrite text to read as human to detectors |
| Durability after detectors retrain | Holds up; the writing itself is improved | Can expire; a clean rewrite may later flag |
| Standalone AI detector | Yes, sentence-level with per-line reasons | None at all |
| See why text reads as AI | Yes, per-sentence reason on every scan | No, you just get a rewrite |
| Public detection methodology | Yes | No |
| Free tier (no signup) | 3 scans/day, no card for first scan, permanent | Small preview, then paid |
| REST API | Yes, on Business for detection + rewrite + bulk | No API, consumer extension only |
| In-browser rewrite in place | Scans the page, opens results in the app | Yes, rewrites the selection inline |
| Best fit | Writers, editors and teams who want a result that lasts | Students who want a fast in-Chrome rewrite |
"Win" markers reflect our reading of which tool fits the durable, honest-writing job, not a third-party audit. Check WriteHuman's pricing page before subscribing.
Four spots where WriteHuman beats TextSight on the workflow it was built for. Calling them out up front is the whole point of an honest compare page.
This is the real differentiator. WriteHuman's flagship surface is a Chrome extension that students install once and then trigger from any text field on the open web: a Google Docs paragraph, a Notion block, a Gmail draft, a Canvas LMS reply. Highlight, click Advanced, watch the selection rewrite in place. TextSight ships a Chrome extension too, but it scans pages and pipes selections into the TextSight tab; it does not replace text inline on the host page. For a writer whose entire day happens inside Chrome, the in-flow rewrite saves a tab switch on every paragraph, and the saved seconds compound.
This is the core reason most users pick WriteHuman, and it is not marketing. The product has been recommended in student writing forums, Discord servers, and Reddit threads since the early Turnitin-AI-detection era. For users whose entire workflow is paste an AI draft, run an AI rewriter, submit, that established community trust is real value. TextSight is younger and positions for a different buyer, so the recommendation flywheel in student forums is not in our favour today.
WriteHuman's onboarding is paste-and-run with almost no surface area. For a user who already knows what an AI rewriter does and just wants to rewrite a paragraph in 20 seconds, the focused UI beats a multi-surface product on raw speed-to-first-output. TextSight's free path lands on the detector first, with the AI rewriter surfaced after the calibration scan, which is the right shape for the calibration workflow but adds a step for the pure rewrite use case.
"WriteHuman" is one of the more searched AI rewriter brand names in writing forums and student groups. If a peer or community recommends it by name, brand recognition is real marketing value. TextSight is younger and competes on substance, sentence-level evidence, and bundle math rather than name recall. For solo writers and students whose peers already know the name, the recognition shortcut matters in the choice.
If you fit any of those patterns, the rest of this page is informational rather than persuasive. WriteHuman is the tool for the job.
Five gaps in WriteHuman's product shape that matter for editors, SEO teams, classrooms, agencies running API pipelines and students who want a result that does not unravel later.
This is the heart of it. WriteHuman tunes its rewrites to dodge today's detectors, and detectors retrain specifically to catch those patterns. So a draft that reads clean today can flag after a future update, and because the file usually still lives in a learning management system or a client's inbox, a later re-scan can surface it. TextSight does not play that game. It shows you what reads as AI-shaped and why, so you improve the writing itself. That result holds when detectors change, because the goal was never to slip past one.
WriteHuman ships no detector. There is no pane that scores arbitrary text, no public methodology, no API. It rewrites and hands the result back. That leaves you with no way to see whether the rewrite will survive a downstream check from Turnitin, GPTZero, Originality or any institutional pipeline. TextSight is a detector first, so you can scan a draft, see exactly which sentences read as AI-shaped, and act on real evidence instead of hoping a rewrite was enough.
The same inline rewrite that makes WriteHuman fast also strips the evidence. You get a rewritten paragraph and the original is gone, with no per-sentence reasons and no record of what changed. For a writer iterating across revisions, that opacity is a real cost. TextSight returns a sentence-level highlight strip with a short reason per line, so you can fix the specific sentences that flag and keep the rest of your draft intact.
WriteHuman's copy and channels lean on student bypass framing, the "beat the detector" pitch. That is exactly the framing a teacher, a journal editor or a procurement committee treats as a red flag, and a draft that was run through a bypass tool is harder to defend if it is ever questioned. TextSight's framing is the opposite: detect, understand, and improve. It is built to be defensible rather than to be hidden.
WriteHuman is a consumer extension with no API. There is no bulk path and no server-to-server option, so a content-ops pipeline or a research workflow simply cannot use it. TextSight Business at $39.99 monthly ships a documented REST API with detection, the rewrite tool, bulk endpoints and per-key usage caps. That is the line between a consumer tool and one a team can build on, and only TextSight is on the professional side of it here.
The form factor decision drives every downstream difference. Worth holding in mind before pricing.
WriteHuman's product is a browser extension. Install once, then right-click any text inside Chrome to rewrite it so it reads as human to detectors. The extension talks to a thin backend and returns the rewritten prose into the host page. There is no detector view on any tier, no public methodology, no API and no batch upload. The entire surface is highlight, click, replace. That is a fast fit for a student editing a single essay, and the wrong shape for anyone who needs to know whether a draft holds up or to run anything programmatically.
TextSight is a web app. Paste or upload a draft, get a sentence-level detection map with a per-line reason and an overall Authenticity Score, then improve the sentences that flag. The Chrome extension scans the current page or selection and opens the result in the app rather than silently replacing host-page text. The flow is built for writers, editors and reviewers who want to see the evidence before they change anything. The trade-off is one extra step compared to an in-place rewrite, and the result is one that holds up rather than one tuned to dodge a single check.
A student writing a take-home essay highlights a paragraph in Google Docs, right-clicks, picks WriteHuman Advanced, and the paragraph is rewritten in place inside the doc. Three seconds, zero tab switches, no detector to consult. The same student in TextSight pastes the paragraph into the web app, sees a sentence-level highlight strip showing which two sentences still read AI-shaped after the first rewrite, edits those two by hand, and ships. WriteHuman is faster on the click. TextSight is more accurate on the result because the evidence is visible. Different jobs for different writers.
WriteHuman prices its bypass tool separately and can change tiers, so check its pricing page directly rather than a figure here. TextSight's stack is wider because the detector is bundled at every paid level, so what you are really comparing is a Chrome bypass rewrite against a detector plus a rewrite tool with unlimited scans on Pro, in one subscription.
Billed $89.88/year, Save $30
Billed $179.88/year, Save $60
Billed $359.88/year, Save $120
Annual billing saves 25 percent on every TextSight tier. WriteHuman is a Chrome bypass tool with no detector and no API; check their pricing page directly for current rates. TextSight Pro at $14.99 on annual billing buys the detector, the rewrite tool and unlimited scans in one subscription. View full pricing →
This comes down to whether you want a fast result now or a result that still holds up later. Use this picker to match the tool to your day.
If you ever do rewrite a draft elsewhere, the durable move is to run it through TextSight's detector afterward and clean up the sentences that still read machine-shaped, so the result holds up later rather than just today.
The honest pick depends on the timeline you care about. Three concrete profiles, three concrete answers.
Drafts a take-home essay over a Sunday afternoon, then has 20 minutes to make it read clean before submission. WriteHuman is the fast option: highlight each paragraph, rewrite in place, submit. The honest follow-up is the durability problem. The essay then sits in the learning management system, where it can be re-scanned later after detectors improve, and a bypass rewrite that read clean on submission day can flag weeks afterward. TextSight is the safer move here: scan the draft, see which sentences read as AI-shaped, and revise them yourself so the writing is genuinely your own and stays that way.
Mixes AI-assisted outlines with hand editing and needs every delivery to read as the writer's own work under whatever check the client runs. TextSight is the fit. One subscription buys unlimited detection scans, sentence-level evidence to find the lines that actually flag, and a rewrite tool to fix those lines while keeping the voice. WriteHuman has no detector to confirm anything, no batch path for a stack of drafts, and a delivered bypass rewrite that read clean at handoff can still fail the client's own check later.
A mix of original work, ESL writing and suspected AI submissions. TextSight is the clear fit. The whole job is transparent detection with sentence-level evidence, and that supports a fair conversation about a flagged draft. WriteHuman is structurally unusable for this: no detector at all, no bulk path, no API, and a bypass-focused product is the wrong vendor to bring into a department conversation. The permanent free tier also keeps the per-reviewer cost low.
The full six-tool AI rewriter ranking with output quality, pricing and use-case fit side-by-side.
See the ranking →The other score-reduction-first AI rewriter head-to-head. Maximum mode, annual billing math, and where each wins.
Read the compare →How the TextSight AI rewriter differs from a paraphraser, mode by mode, with sample scores.
Read the guide →Full tier breakdown for Free, Starter, Pro and Business. Annual billing saves 25%.
See pricing →WriteHuman has no detector on any tier. TextSight's free tier scans 3 drafts a day with sentence-level evidence in roughly six seconds. No card, no signup, no commitment.
Honest head-to-heads with other detectors and humanizers.