HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / StealthGPT vs HIX Bypass

September 2026 review · same 50 texts

StealthGPT Super vs HIX Bypass

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super and HIX Bypass rewrote the same 50 English texts. StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 of them; HIX Bypass on 1. The difference is mostly Pangram: on 45 samples StealthGPT passed it where HIX Bypass 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 4.0StealthGPT45 to 014
GPTZero 2026-09-13-baseStealthGPT16 to 1330
Originality.ai turboStealthGPT18 to 1310
ZeroGPT defaultHIX Bypass1 to 0490
Winston AI 5.0Tied1 to 1480
All 5 detectorsStealthGPT45 to 014

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 SuperHIX Bypass
68%18%
72%6%
98%96%
96%66%
1.041.11
00
00
Super, production outputLatest
Websitestealthgpt.ai hixbypass.com

On per-sample quality scores, StealthGPT scored higher on 43 samples, HIX Bypass on 1, and the two tied on 6. StealthGPT’s output was shorter on 35 of 50 samples; mean length ratios were 1.04 and 1.11, or 4% longer than the input and 11% longer than the input respectively.

Where StealthGPT outperforms HIX Bypass

StealthGPT

  • Pangram: passed 46 of 50 samples, against 1 for HIX Bypass.
  • GPTZero: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 34 for HIX Bypass.
  • Originality.ai: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 32 for HIX Bypass.
  • Winston AI: higher mean human score than HIX Bypass, 97.7% against 96.4%, with both passing 49 of 50 samples.
  • Factual consistency: kept facts accurate in 68% of outputs, against 18% for HIX Bypass.
  • Naturalness: read fluently in 72% of outputs, against 6% for HIX Bypass.
  • Syntax integrity: stayed grammatically clean in 98% of outputs, against 96% for HIX Bypass.
  • Stance preservation: preserved the source’s stance in 96% of outputs, against 66% for HIX Bypass.
  • Length: shorter than HIX Bypass on 35 of 50 samples, which matters under a word limit.

HIX Bypass

  • Pangram: failed 49 of 50 samples, 45 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • GPTZero: failed 16 of 50 samples, 16 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Originality.ai: failed 18 of 50 samples, 18 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Winston AI: lower mean human score than StealthGPT, 96.4% against 97.7%, with both passing 49 of 50 samples.
  • Factual consistency: introduced factual errors in 82% of outputs.
  • Naturalness: had awkward or clunky phrasing in 94% of outputs.
  • Syntax integrity: had grammar or punctuation errors in 4% of outputs.
  • Stance preservation: distorted the source’s stance in 34% of outputs.
  • Length: longer than StealthGPT on 35 of 50 samples, so more to cut under a word limit.

StealthGPT vs HIX Bypass FAQ

Is StealthGPT better than HIX Bypass?

Yes. In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 of the 50 shared samples and HIX Bypass on 1. On ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were within 6 points of each other. Quality ran 43 samples to 1, with 6 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, StealthGPT or HIX Bypass?

StealthGPT Super. In September 2026, StealthGPT Super passed Pangram on 46 of the 50 shared samples and HIX Bypass on 1. On 45 samples StealthGPT passed where HIX Bypass 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 43 of 50 samples, against 1. StealthGPT Super’s outputs averaged 1.04× the input length and passed factual consistency on 68%; HIX Bypass’s averaged 1.11× and passed on 18%. On stance preservation the split was 96% to 66%. StealthGPT produced the shorter output on 35 of 50 samples.

More comparisons