September 2026 review · same 49 texts
StealthGPT Super vs WriteHuman
In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super and WriteHuman rewrote the same 49 English texts. StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 45 of them; WriteHuman on 32. The difference is mostly Pangram: on 14 samples StealthGPT passed it where WriteHuman failed, and the reverse happened on 1. On GPTZero, Originality.ai, ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were close to even.
Per-sample agreement
| Detector | Passed more often | Margin | Both passed | Neither passed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangram 4.0 | StealthGPT | 14 to 1 | 31 | 3 |
| GPTZero 2026-09-13-base | WriteHuman | 1 to 0 | 48 | 0 |
| Originality.ai turbo | Tied | 1 to 1 | 47 | 0 |
| ZeroGPT default | WriteHuman | 1 to 0 | 48 | 0 |
| Winston AI 5.0 | WriteHuman | 1 to 0 | 48 | 0 |
| All 5 detectors | StealthGPT | 14 to 1 | 31 | 3 |
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 3 of 49 here.
Quality and output discipline
| Measure | StealthGPT Super | WriteHuman |
|---|---|---|
| 68% | 22% | |
| 72% | 49% | |
| 98% | 98% | |
| 96% | 65% | |
| 1.04 | 1.02 | |
| 0 | 0 | |
| 0 | 0 | |
| Super, production output | API default | |
| Website | stealthgpt.ai | writehuman.ai |
On per-sample quality scores, StealthGPT scored higher on 35 samples, WriteHuman on 2, and the two tied on 12. WriteHuman’s output was shorter on 26 of 49 samples; mean length ratios were 1.04 and 1.02, or 4% longer than the input and 2% longer than the input respectively.
Where StealthGPT outperforms WriteHuman
StealthGPT
- Pangram: passed 45 of 49 samples, against 32 for WriteHuman.
- Factual consistency: kept facts accurate in 68% of outputs, against 22% for WriteHuman.
- Naturalness: read fluently in 72% of outputs, against 49% for WriteHuman.
- Stance preservation: preserved the source’s stance in 96% of outputs, against 65% for WriteHuman.
WriteHuman
- Pangram: failed 17 of 49 samples, 14 of which StealthGPT passed.
- Factual consistency: introduced factual errors in 78% of outputs.
- Naturalness: had awkward or clunky phrasing in 51% of outputs.
- Stance preservation: distorted the source’s stance in 35% of outputs.
StealthGPT vs WriteHuman FAQ
Is StealthGPT better than WriteHuman?
Yes. In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 45 of the 49 shared samples and WriteHuman on 32. On GPTZero, Originality.ai, ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were within 6 points of each other. Quality ran 35 samples to 2, with 12 ties.
Which humanizer is best for Pangram, StealthGPT or WriteHuman?
StealthGPT Super. In September 2026, StealthGPT Super passed Pangram on 45 of the 49 shared samples and WriteHuman on 32. On 14 samples StealthGPT passed where WriteHuman failed; the reverse happened on 1. Both failed on 3.
Which humanizer changes the text less?
StealthGPT Super. It scored higher on per-sample quality on 35 of 49 samples, against 2. StealthGPT Super’s outputs averaged 1.04× the input length and passed factual consistency on 68%; WriteHuman’s averaged 1.02× and passed on 22%. On stance preservation the split was 96% to 65%. WriteHuman produced the shorter output on 26 of 49 samples.
More comparisons
- StealthGPT vs Grubby
- StealthGPT vs Rephrasy
- StealthGPT vs Undetectable.ai
- StealthGPT vs RewriteAI
- StealthGPT vs HIX Bypass
- StealthGPT vs Humbot
- StealthGPT vs BypassGPT
- StealthGPT vs Ryne
- WriteHuman vs Grubby
- WriteHuman vs Rephrasy
- WriteHuman vs Undetectable.ai
- WriteHuman vs RewriteAI
- WriteHuman vs HIX Bypass
- WriteHuman vs Humbot
- WriteHuman vs BypassGPT
- WriteHuman vs Ryne
- Full September 2026 leaderboard: all 10 tools, 96.8% down to 23.6%