HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / StealthGPT vs Humbot

September 2026 review · same 50 texts

StealthGPT Super vs Humbot

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super and Humbot rewrote the same 50 English texts. StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 of them; Humbot on 0. The difference is mostly Pangram: on 46 samples StealthGPT passed it where Humbot 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-baseStealthGPT19 to 1300
Originality.ai turboStealthGPT15 to 1340
ZeroGPT defaultHumbot1 to 0490
Winston AI 5.0Humbot1 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 SuperHumbot
68%22%
72%0%
98%98%
96%70%
1.041.12
00
00
Super, production outputAdvanced
Websitestealthgpt.ai humbot.ai

On per-sample quality scores, StealthGPT scored higher on 46 samples, Humbot on 0, and the two tied on 4. StealthGPT’s output was shorter on 36 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 Humbot

StealthGPT

  • Pangram: passed 46 of 50 samples, against 0 for Humbot.
  • GPTZero: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 31 for Humbot.
  • Originality.ai: passed 49 of 50 samples, against 35 for Humbot.
  • Factual consistency: kept facts accurate in 68% of outputs, against 22% for Humbot.
  • Naturalness: read fluently in 72% of outputs, against 0% for Humbot.
  • Stance preservation: preserved the source’s stance in 96% of outputs, against 70% for Humbot.
  • Length: shorter than Humbot on 36 of 50 samples, which matters under a word limit.

Humbot

  • Pangram: failed 50 of 50 samples, 46 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • GPTZero: failed 19 of 50 samples, 19 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Originality.ai: failed 15 of 50 samples, 15 of which StealthGPT passed.
  • Factual consistency: introduced factual errors in 78% of outputs.
  • Naturalness: had awkward or clunky phrasing in 100% of outputs.
  • Stance preservation: distorted the source’s stance in 30% of outputs.
  • Length: longer than StealthGPT on 36 of 50 samples, so more to cut under a word limit.

StealthGPT vs Humbot FAQ

Is StealthGPT better than Humbot?

Yes. In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, StealthGPT Super cleared all 5 detectors on 46 of the 50 shared samples and Humbot on 0. On ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were within 6 points of each other. Quality ran 46 samples to 0, with 4 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, StealthGPT or Humbot?

StealthGPT Super. In September 2026, StealthGPT Super passed Pangram on 46 of the 50 shared samples and Humbot on 0. On 46 samples StealthGPT passed where Humbot 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 46 of 50 samples, against 0. StealthGPT Super’s outputs averaged 1.04× the input length and passed factual consistency on 68%; Humbot’s averaged 1.12× and passed on 22%. On stance preservation the split was 96% to 70%. StealthGPT produced the shorter output on 36 of 50 samples.

More comparisons