We’re all living in a digital fever dream.

Between ChatGPT ghostwriting half the internet and freshman students submitting essays that sound suspiciously like TED Talks, it’s getting harder to know what’s real and what’s…generated. And while I would love to believe my ex’s emotionally intelligent apology text was sincere, I ran it through an AI detector and — shocker — it wasn’t.

But seriously, AI content is everywhere, and most of it is good enough to pass as human if you’re skimping on your caffeine.

So, whether you’re a teacher trying to sniff out a term paper that feels a little too fluent or a marketer vetting freelancers who write like a robot with a concussion, now you need tools that can actually tell the difference, and quickly.

We tested the best AI detectors of 2025 — some really impressive, some totally useless — and here’s what made the cut.

AI Detector is the cool, competent sibling in a family of try-hards. You don’t have to sign up, you don’t have to download anything, and you don’t have to pretend you know what “perplexity” means.

You paste the text, hit “Detect AI,” and within seconds you get a detailed breakdown of how machine-y your copy is, complete with a percentage score and sentence-by-sentence analysis. It’s fast, intuitive, and genuinely useful whether you’re a content strategist, professor, or just suspicious of your friend’s suspiciously articulate dating profile.

What makes AI Detector stand out is its range. It doesn’t just scan for GPT-3 or 4 — it also flags content written by Claude, Gemini, and other models that most detectors pretend don’t exist. There’s even a humanizer tool that lets you rewrite flagged content to sound more human — perfect if you’re working with AI but don’t want to get caught in the act. That’s right, it’ll help you cheat the test it just gave you. You didn’t hear it from us.

Compared to every other tool we tried, it’s the most consistent, fastest, and surprisingly nuanced when it comes to mixed-origin text (part AI, part human). It’s basically the narc with a heart.

Grammarly’s like that friend who’s always correcting your grammar in group texts — annoying, sure, but usually right. And now, it’s also raising an eyebrow at your writing like, “Hmm… did you actually write this?” The AI detection tool is built right into the Grammarly app, so if you’re already using it to fix your dangling modifiers and overly intense adjectives, you’ll see a little alert pop up when your text starts to sound suspiciously synthetic.

It won’t give you a forensic breakdown or point to specific sentences like the other tools on this list, and it doesn’t know if it was written by GPT or Claude or your friend’s ChatGPT plugin named “Cheryl.” But for basic detection without interrupting your flow, it’s honestly kind of perfect. It’s not the one you’d bring to court, but it’s the one quietly judging your Google Docs in the background — and usually, that’s enough.

Originality.AI is like that uptight but brilliant TA who actually cares about the integrity of your midterm essay. Built with academics and publishers in mind, it’s one of the few tools on the market that doesn’t just detect AI — it also checks for plagiarism in one seamless scan. It’s a paid tool, yes, but if you’re in a high-stakes environment where false positives are better than missing a cheater, it’s worth the subscription.

In our tests, it consistently flagged GPT-3 and GPT-4 content with an impressive 94% accuracy rate. What’s more, it offers team management tools, batch uploading, and shareable reports, which makes it ideal for departments or institutions dealing with a large volume of student work. The UI is clean, the results are detailed, and the false positive rate is relatively low, especially for longer-form content.

Where it occasionally stumbles is with paraphrased or hybrid content. Sometimes it reads an obviously human-written piece as “suspect” because of certain sentence patterns or topic density. But in an academic context, caution usually wins out over leniency. If you’re in higher ed and tired of guessing whether that 2,000-word essay on metaphysics was really written by a freshman, this is your guy.

GPTZero doesn’t charge a dime, doesn’t require a login, and still manages to deliver sentence-by-sentence detection with visual cues that feel like a teacher’s red pen, if the pen had an algorithm. It was literally created by a Princeton student for educators, and while it’s evolved since its viral launch, it’s still free and shockingly good for a no-cost tool.

In our testing, it handled straight-up AI content well, especially from GPT-3 and early GPT-4 models. The results dashboard is clean, color-coded, and actually useful for non-techy users. You paste the text, it flags suspicious sections based on “perplexity” and “burstiness” (linguistic markers of robotic writing), and you get an instant sense of whether that student paper was written by a real person or a caffeinated chatbot.

That said, GPTZero’s biggest advantage — its accessibility — comes with trade-offs. It doesn’t perform as strongly on newer models like Claude or on heavily edited AI text. And while the UX is great, there’s no downloadable report or plagiarism check. But honestly, for a tool that costs less than a stale bagel, it punches way above its weight.

If you’re just trying to spot-check a paragraph before it goes live or double-check a freelancer’s tone, Writer.com’s AI Content Detector is perfect. It’s stupid simple: paste text, hit “Analyze,” and boom — instant score telling you whether the content reads as human or synthetic. No login, no tutorial, no existential dread (okay, maybe a little).

It’s not as detailed or as advanced as other options on this list. There’s no sentence-by-sentence breakdown, no support for mixed-language content, and no visibility into what model it’s actually detecting. But for speed and simplicity, it wins. It’s especially useful in newsroom, agency, or startup settings where speed > nuance.

We wouldn’t recommend it for high-stakes content checks, like academic submissions or legal writing, but for day-to-day editorial use or social content, it’s surprisingly handy. Think of it like a vibe check for your copy. Not deep, but effective.

Copyleaks is the enterprise workhorse of AI detectors. It’s not just scanning for machine-written content — it’s checking for plagiarism across academic databases, web sources, and internal libraries. It’s used by government agencies, universities, and Fortune 500 companies for a reason.

It offers one of the most sophisticated dashboards on the market, complete with similarity indexes, AI probability heatmaps, and team-level reporting. There’s a learning curve, but once you’re in, it’s powerful. If you’re managing a large volume of content, like admissions essays, agency output, or branded copy, Copyleaks earns its keep.

Sapling flies under the radar, but it’s one of the few detectors that performs well on non-English content. Built as a writing assistant for business teams, it includes a surprisingly capable AI detector baked into its grammar and tone tools.

It’s designed to be especially useful for customer support managers vetting auto-generated replies or chatbot content in multiple languages. While it’s not built for longform content, its real-time integrations and speed make it great for quality control in fast-paced environments.

Winston AI is the honor student in the room — polite, precise, and academically inclined. What sets it apart is how well it performs with scanned documents and handwritten-to-text conversions, thanks to its built-in OCR support.

It flags AI-written essays quickly and correctly, while also offering a readability score and humanization suggestions. Teachers and tutors will especially appreciate its classroom-friendly reports and side-by-side visual breakdowns. It’s not flashy, but it is incredibly effective where it counts.

AI content is no longer a novelty — it’s the norm. And whether you’re building syllabi, editing blog posts, reviewing resumes, or just trying to decode the suspiciously perfect text your friend’s boyfriend sent at 2 a.m., you need an AI detector that’s fast, accurate, and future-proof.

After testing the top tools of 2025, AI Detector stood out as the most consistent and best overall performer. It’s fast — lightning fast. It’s smart — able to sniff out not just ChatGPT, but also newer models like Claude and Gemini, which many competitors still ignore. It’s intuitive — no steep learning curve, just paste your text and get your results. And maybe most importantly in the current arms race of human vs. bot, it offers a rewriting tool that helps you “humanize” flagged content without the awkwardness of rewriting from scratch.

Our goal was to simulate the kind of messy, inconsistent, very-human behavior that AI detectors should be able to flag — and also the kind they routinely get wrong.

First, we gathered a batch of fresh AI-generated text from ChatGPT-4, Claude, and Gemini. We asked each model to write essays, cover letters, Reddit-style rants, even birthday toasts (which, fun fact, GPT is weirdly good at). Then we got human with it — rewrote chunks, added slang, threw in spelling errors, and used tools like Quillbot to paraphrase whole paragraphs beyond recognition.

We also used real human writing: old college papers, Substack entries, poetry, and blog posts that were 100% organic and occasionally unhinged.

Each detector was tested across:

We scored them on accuracy, false positives, false negatives, ease of use, speed, and transparency — aka, whether the tool told us why something was flagged instead of just wagging its digital finger.

Bottom line: if a detector let a robot essay skate by or flagged a real person just for using a semicolon, we took notes. The tools that survived? They earned their spot.

They’re good, but not omniscient. Most top detectors hover around 90–95% accuracy for GPT-3 and 4, according to Cornell University. But paraphrased or hybrid content throws a wrench in the works, especially if it’s been human-edited.

Some can. AI Detector does a decent job of differentiating between ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. But many tools just say “This looks AI-ish” without naming names. Think of it like a scent trail, not a fingerprint.

Only if they evolve alongside them. As LLMs get smarter, detectors need regular training on the outputs. Tools that aren’t actively updated (hi, random Chrome extensions) are basically paperweights.

Mostly, no, and this is worth noting. Nearly all detectors are trained on English-language data. Anything multilingual or heavily idiomatic may either pass through clean or get flagged unfairly.

Nope. They’re tools, not judges. Think of them as bloodhounds — you still need human judgment, especially in academic or legal contexts. Use them as part of a broader strategy, not your only line of defense.

For over 200 years, the New York Post has been America’s go-to source for bold news, engaging stories, in-depth reporting, and now, insightful shopping guidance. We’re not just thorough reporters – we sift through mountains of information, test and compare products, and consult experts on any topics we aren’t already schooled specialists in to deliver useful, realistic product recommendations based on our extensive and hands-on analysis. Here at The Post, we’re known for being brutally honest – we clearly label partnership content, and whether we receive anything from affiliate links, so you always know where we stand. We routinely update content to reflect current research and expert advice, provide context (and wit) and ensure our links work. Please note that deals can expire, and all prices are subject to change.