HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / WriteHuman vs Humbot

September 2026 review · same 49 texts

WriteHuman vs Humbot

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, WriteHuman and Humbot rewrote the same 49 English texts. WriteHuman cleared all 5 detectors on 32 of them; Humbot on 0. The difference is mostly Pangram: on 32 samples WriteHuman 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 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-baseWriteHuman19 to 0300
Originality.ai turboWriteHuman14 to 0341
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.
MeasureWriteHumanHumbot
22%22%
49%0%
98%98%
65%70%
1.021.12
00
00
API defaultAdvanced
Websitewritehuman.ai humbot.ai

On per-sample quality scores, WriteHuman scored higher on 21 samples, Humbot on 7, and the two tied on 21. WriteHuman’s output was shorter on 41 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 Humbot failed, against 0 the other way.
  • GPTZero: passed 49 of 49 against 30, including 19 samples where Humbot failed, against 0 the other way.
  • Originality.ai: passed 48 of 49 against 34, including 14 samples where Humbot failed, against 0 the other way.
  • Winston AI: tied at 49 of 49 but on a higher mean human score, 99.8% to 97.4%. It passed 0 samples where Humbot failed.
  • Naturalness: 49% against 0%.
  • Length: shorter output on 41 of 49 samples, which matters under a word limit.

Humbot

  • ZeroGPT: tied at 49 of 49 but on a higher mean human score, 96.7% to 94.8%. It passed 0 samples where WriteHuman failed.
  • Stance preservation: 70% against 65%.

WriteHuman vs Humbot FAQ

Is WriteHuman better than Humbot?

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, WriteHuman cleared all 5 detectors on 32 of the 49 shared samples and Humbot on 0. On ZeroGPT and Winston AI the two were within 6 points of each other. Quality ran 21 samples to 7, with 21 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, WriteHuman or Humbot?

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

Which humanizer changes the text less?

WriteHuman. It scored higher on per-sample quality on 21 of 49 samples, against 7. WriteHuman’s outputs averaged 1.02× the input length and passed factual consistency on 22%; Humbot’s averaged 1.12× and passed on 22%. On stance preservation the split was 65% to 70%. WriteHuman produced the shorter output on 41 of 49 samples.

More comparisons