HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / WriteHuman vs BypassGPT

September 2026 review · same 49 texts

WriteHuman vs BypassGPT

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, WriteHuman and BypassGPT rewrote the same 49 English texts. WriteHuman cleared all 5 detectors on 32 of them; BypassGPT on 0. The difference is mostly Pangram: on 32 samples WriteHuman 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 49 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 4.0WriteHuman32 to 0017
GPTZero 2026-09-13-baseWriteHuman22 to 0270
Originality.ai turboWriteHuman17 to 1310
ZeroGPT defaultTied0 to 0490
Winston AI 5.0Tied0 to 0490
All 5 detectorsWriteHuman32 to 0017

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 17 of 49 here.

Quality and output discipline

Quality and output discipline, September 2026.
MeasureWriteHumanBypassGPT
22%22%
49%2%
98%94%
65%78%
1.021.12
00
00
API defaultEnhanced
Websitewritehuman.ai bypassgpt.ai

On per-sample quality scores, WriteHuman scored higher on 22 samples, BypassGPT on 10, and the two tied on 17. WriteHuman’s output was shorter on 37 of 49 samples; mean length ratios were 1.02 and 1.12, or 2% longer than the input and 12% longer than the input respectively.

Where each one outperforms the other

WriteHuman

  • Pangram: passed 32 of 49 against 0, including 32 samples where BypassGPT failed, against 0 the other way.
  • GPTZero: passed 49 of 49 against 27, including 22 samples where BypassGPT failed, against 0 the other way.
  • Originality.ai: passed 48 of 49 against 32, including 17 samples where BypassGPT failed, against 1 the other way.
  • Winston AI: tied at 49 of 49 but on a higher mean human score, 99.8% to 98.0%. It passed 0 samples where BypassGPT failed.
  • Naturalness: 49% against 2%.
  • Syntax integrity: 98% against 94%.
  • Length: shorter output on 37 of 49 samples, which matters under a word limit.

BypassGPT

  • Originality.ai: passed 1 sample where WriteHuman failed, even though it was detected more often overall, passing 32 to 48.
  • ZeroGPT: tied at 49 of 49 but on a higher mean human score, 97.2% to 94.8%. It passed 0 samples where WriteHuman failed.
  • Stance preservation: 78% against 65%.

WriteHuman vs BypassGPT FAQ

Is WriteHuman better than BypassGPT?

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, WriteHuman cleared all 5 detectors on 32 of the 49 shared samples and BypassGPT on 0. On ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were within 6 points of each other. Quality ran 22 samples to 10, with 17 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, WriteHuman or BypassGPT?

WriteHuman. In September 2026, WriteHuman passed Pangram on 32 of the 49 shared samples and BypassGPT on 0. On 32 samples WriteHuman passed where BypassGPT failed; the reverse never happened. Both failed on 17.

Which humanizer changes the text less?

WriteHuman. It scored higher on per-sample quality on 22 of 49 samples, against 10. WriteHuman’s outputs averaged 1.02× the input length and passed factual consistency on 22%; BypassGPT’s averaged 1.12× and passed on 22%. On stance preservation the split was 65% to 78%. WriteHuman produced the shorter output on 37 of 49 samples.

More comparisons