HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / StealthGPT vs BypassGPT

September 2026 review · same 50 texts

StealthGPT Super vs BypassGPT

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super and BypassGPT rewrote the same 50 English texts. StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 of them; BypassGPT on 0. The difference is mostly Pangram: on 46 samples StealthGPT 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 4.0StealthGPT46 to 004
GPTZero 2026-09-13-baseStealthGPT21 to 0281
Originality.ai turboStealthGPT16 to 0331
ZeroGPT defaultBypassGPT1 to 0490
Winston AI 5.0BypassGPT1 to 0490
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 SuperBypassGPT
68%22%
72%2%
98%94%
96%78%
1.041.12
00
00
Super, production outputEnhanced
Websitestealthgpt.ai bypassgpt.ai

On per-sample quality scores, StealthGPT scored higher on 44 samples, BypassGPT on 0, and the two tied on 6. StealthGPT’s output was shorter on 38 of 50 samples; mean length ratios were 1.04 and 1.12, or 4% longer than the input and 12% longer than the input respectively.

Where StealthGPT outperforms BypassGPT

StealthGPT

  • Pangram: passed 46 of 50 samples, against 0 for BypassGPT.
  • GPTZero: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 28 for BypassGPT.
  • Originality.ai: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 33 for BypassGPT.
  • Factual consistency: kept facts accurate in 68% of outputs, against 22% for BypassGPT.
  • Naturalness: read fluently in 72% of outputs, against 2% for BypassGPT.
  • Syntax integrity: stayed grammatically clean in 98% of outputs, against 94% for BypassGPT.
  • Stance preservation: preserved the source’s stance in 96% of outputs, against 78% for BypassGPT.
  • Length: shorter than BypassGPT on 38 of 50 samples, which matters under a word limit.

BypassGPT

  • Pangram: failed 50 of 50 samples, 46 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • GPTZero: failed 22 of 50 samples, 21 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Originality.ai: failed 17 of 50 samples, 16 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Factual consistency: introduced factual errors in 78% of outputs.
  • Naturalness: had awkward or clunky phrasing in 98% of outputs.
  • Syntax integrity: had grammar or punctuation errors in 6% of outputs.
  • Stance preservation: distorted the source’s stance in 22% of outputs.
  • Length: longer than StealthGPT on 38 of 50 samples, so more to cut under a word limit.

StealthGPT vs BypassGPT FAQ

Is StealthGPT better than BypassGPT?

Yes. In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 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 44 samples to 0, with 6 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, StealthGPT or BypassGPT?

StealthGPT Super. In September 2026, StealthGPT Super passed Pangram on 46 of the 50 shared samples and BypassGPT on 0. On 46 samples StealthGPT passed where BypassGPT 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 44 of 50 samples, against 0. StealthGPT Super’s outputs averaged 1.04× the input length and passed factual consistency on 68%; BypassGPT’s averaged 1.12× and passed on 22%. On stance preservation the split was 96% to 78%. StealthGPT produced the shorter output on 38 of 50 samples.

More comparisons