HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / Grubby vs BypassGPT

September 2026 review · same 50 texts

Grubby vs BypassGPT

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, Grubby and BypassGPT rewrote the same 50 English texts. Grubby cleared all 5 detectors on 18 of them; BypassGPT on 0. The difference is mostly GPTZero: on 19 samples Grubby passed it where BypassGPT failed, and the reverse never happened. On ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were close to even.

Per-sample agreement

Per-sample agreement, September 2026. Counts are out of the 50 shared samples, computed at the 50% human-score threshold. Margin counts the samples only one tool passed, higher count first.
DetectorPassed more oftenMarginBoth passedNeither passed
Pangram 4.0Grubby18 to 0032
GPTZero 2026-09-13-baseGrubby19 to 0283
Originality.ai turboGrubby17 to 1320
ZeroGPT defaultTied0 to 0500
Winston AI 5.0Tied0 to 0500
All 5 detectorsGrubby18 to 0032

Every count is computed from scores.csv at build time, not transcribed. “Neither passed” counts the texts that defeated both tools; on Pangram that was 32 of 50 here.

Quality and output discipline

Quality and output discipline, September 2026.
MeasureGrubbyBypassGPT
72%22%
46%2%
98%94%
94%78%
1.111.12
00
00
AcademicEnhanced
Websitegrubby.ai bypassgpt.ai

On per-sample quality scores, Grubby scored higher on 41 samples, BypassGPT on 2, and the two tied on 7. Grubby’s output was shorter on 25 of 50 samples; mean length ratios were 1.11 and 1.12, or 11% longer than the input and 12% longer than the input respectively.

Where each one outperforms the other

Grubby

  • Pangram: passed 18 of 50 against 0, including 18 samples where BypassGPT failed, against 0 the other way.
  • GPTZero: passed 47 of 50 against 28, including 19 samples where BypassGPT failed, against 0 the other way.
  • Originality.ai: passed 49 of 50 against 33, including 17 samples where BypassGPT failed, against 1 the other way.
  • Winston AI: tied at 50 of 50 but on a higher mean human score, 99.3% to 98.0%. It passed 0 samples where BypassGPT failed.
  • Factual consistency: 72% against 22%.
  • Naturalness: 46% against 2%.
  • Syntax integrity: 98% against 94%.
  • Stance preservation: 94% against 78%.
  • Length: shorter output on 25 of 50 samples, which matters under a word limit.

BypassGPT

  • Originality.ai: passed 1 sample where Grubby failed, even though it was detected more often overall, passing 33 to 49.
  • ZeroGPT: tied at 50 of 50 but on a higher mean human score, 97.2% to 96.0%. It passed 0 samples where Grubby failed.

Grubby vs BypassGPT FAQ

Is Grubby better than BypassGPT?

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, Grubby cleared all 5 detectors on 18 of the 50 shared samples and BypassGPT on 0. On ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were within 6 points of each other. Quality ran 41 samples to 2, with 7 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, Grubby or BypassGPT?

Grubby. In September 2026, Grubby passed Pangram on 18 of the 50 shared samples and BypassGPT on 0. On 18 samples Grubby passed where BypassGPT failed; the reverse never happened. Both failed on 32.

Which humanizer changes the text less?

Grubby. It scored higher on per-sample quality on 41 of 50 samples, against 2. Grubby’s outputs averaged 1.11× the input length and passed factual consistency on 72%; BypassGPT’s averaged 1.12× and passed on 22%. On stance preservation the split was 94% to 78%. Grubby produced the shorter output on 25 of 50 samples.

More comparisons