HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / StealthGPT vs Ryne

September 2026 review · same 50 texts

StealthGPT Super vs Ryne

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super and Ryne rewrote the same 50 English texts. StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 of them; Ryne on 0. The difference is mostly Originality.ai: on 49 samples StealthGPT passed it where Ryne failed, and the reverse never happened.

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 4.0StealthGPT35 to 0114
GPTZero 2026-09-13-baseStealthGPT45 to 041
Originality.ai turboStealthGPT49 to 001
ZeroGPT defaultStealthGPT18 to 0311
Winston AI 5.0StealthGPT36 to 0131
All 5 detectorsStealthGPT46 to 004

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 4 of 50 here.

Quality and output discipline

Quality and output discipline, September 2026.
MeasureStealthGPT SuperRyne
68%44%
72%80%
98%98%
96%94%
1.041.07
00
00
Super, production outputAggressive, beast mode
Websitestealthgpt.ai ryne.ai

On per-sample quality scores, StealthGPT scored higher on 14 samples, Ryne on 9, and the two tied on 27. StealthGPT’s output was shorter on 30 of 50 samples; mean length ratios were 1.04 and 1.07, or 4% longer than the input and 7% longer than the input respectively.

Where StealthGPT outperforms Ryne

StealthGPT

  • Pangram: passed 46 of 50 samples, against 11 for Ryne.
  • GPTZero: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 4 for Ryne.
  • Originality.ai: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 0 for Ryne.
  • ZeroGPT: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 31 for Ryne.
  • Winston AI: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 13 for Ryne.
  • Factual consistency: kept facts accurate in 68% of outputs, against 44% for Ryne.
  • Stance preservation: preserved the source’s stance in 96% of outputs, against 94% for Ryne.
  • Length: shorter than Ryne on 30 of 50 samples, which matters under a word limit.

Ryne

  • Pangram: failed 39 of 50 samples, 35 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • GPTZero: failed 46 of 50 samples, 45 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Originality.ai: failed 50 of 50 samples, 49 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • ZeroGPT: failed 19 of 50 samples, 18 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Winston AI: failed 37 of 50 samples, 36 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Factual consistency: introduced factual errors in 56% of outputs.
  • Stance preservation: distorted the source’s stance in 6% of outputs.
  • Length: longer than StealthGPT on 30 of 50 samples, so more to cut under a word limit.

StealthGPT vs Ryne FAQ

Is StealthGPT better than Ryne?

Yes. In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 of the 50 shared samples and Ryne on 0. Quality ran 14 samples to 9, with 27 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, StealthGPT or Ryne?

StealthGPT Super. In September 2026, StealthGPT Super passed Pangram on 46 of the 50 shared samples and Ryne on 11. On 35 samples StealthGPT passed where Ryne failed; the reverse never happened. Both failed on 4.

Which humanizer changes the text less?

StealthGPT Super. It scored higher on per-sample quality on 14 of 50 samples, against 9. StealthGPT Super’s outputs averaged 1.04× the input length and passed factual consistency on 68%; Ryne’s averaged 1.07× and passed on 44%. On stance preservation the split was 96% to 94%. StealthGPT produced the shorter output on 30 of 50 samples.

More comparisons