HumanizerEval

Leaderboard / Compare / WriteHuman vs RewriteAI

September 2026 review · same 49 texts

WriteHuman vs RewriteAI

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, WriteHuman and RewriteAI rewrote the same 49 English texts. WriteHuman cleared all 5 detectors on 32 of them; RewriteAI on 12. The difference is mostly Pangram: on 20 samples WriteHuman passed it where RewriteAI failed, and the reverse happened on 1. On 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 4.0WriteHuman20 to 11216
GPTZero 2026-09-13-baseWriteHuman7 to 0420
Originality.ai turboWriteHuman6 to 1420
ZeroGPT defaultWriteHuman6 to 0430
Winston AI 5.0WriteHuman2 to 0470
All 5 detectorsWriteHuman21 to 11116

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 16 of 49 here.

Quality and output discipline

Quality and output discipline, September 2026.
MeasureWriteHumanRewriteAI
22%54%
49%40%
98%100%
65%94%
1.021.09
02
00
API defaultAPI default, passages of up to 280 words (300-word API limit)
Websitewritehuman.ai rewriteai.com

On per-sample quality scores, WriteHuman scored higher on 7 samples, RewriteAI on 26, and the two tied on 16. WriteHuman’s output was shorter on 32 of 49 samples; mean length ratios were 1.02 and 1.09, or 2% longer than the input and 9% longer than the input respectively.

Where each one outperforms the other

WriteHuman

  • Pangram: passed 32 of 49 against 13, including 20 samples where RewriteAI failed, against 1 the other way.
  • GPTZero: passed 49 of 49 against 42, including 7 samples where RewriteAI failed, against 0 the other way.
  • Originality.ai: passed 48 of 49 against 43, including 6 samples where RewriteAI failed, against 1 the other way.
  • ZeroGPT: passed 49 of 49 against 43, including 6 samples where RewriteAI failed, against 0 the other way.
  • Winston AI: passed 49 of 49 against 47, including 2 samples where RewriteAI failed, against 0 the other way.
  • Naturalness: 49% against 40%.
  • Length: shorter output on 32 of 49 samples, which matters under a word limit.

RewriteAI

  • Pangram: passed 1 sample where WriteHuman failed, even though it was detected more often overall, passing 13 to 32.
  • Originality.ai: passed 1 sample where WriteHuman failed, even though it was detected more often overall, passing 43 to 48.
  • Factual consistency: 54% against 22%.
  • Syntax integrity: 100% against 98%.
  • Stance preservation: 94% against 65%.

WriteHuman vs RewriteAI FAQ

Is WriteHuman better than RewriteAI?

In the September 2026 HumanizerEval review, WriteHuman cleared all 5 detectors on 32 of the 49 shared samples and RewriteAI on 12. On Winston AI the two were within 6 points of each other. Quality ran 7 samples to 26, with 16 ties.

Which humanizer is best for Pangram, WriteHuman or RewriteAI?

WriteHuman. In September 2026, WriteHuman passed Pangram on 32 of the 49 shared samples and RewriteAI on 13. On 20 samples WriteHuman passed where RewriteAI failed; the reverse happened on 1. Both failed on 16.

Which humanizer changes the text less?

RewriteAI. It scored higher on per-sample quality on 26 of 49 samples, against 7. WriteHuman’s outputs averaged 1.02× the input length and passed factual consistency on 22%; RewriteAI’s averaged 1.09× and passed on 54%. On stance preservation the split was 65% to 94%. WriteHuman produced the shorter output on 32 of 49 samples.

More comparisons