Originality.ai 3.0: still the accuracy leader?
Six months of testing across 1,200 fresh documents.
Every major detector, tested by hand against the same 10,000-document benchmark. No vendor influences these scores, and the methodology is fully documented.
| Tool | Balanced accuracy | False positives | Evasion resistance | Speed | From |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proofademic Top pick | 1.4% | High | Fast | $12/mo | |
| Originality.ai 3.0 | 2.1% | High | Fast | $15/mo | |
| GPTZero | 4.7% | Medium | Fast | $10/mo | |
| Turnitin | 5.2% | Medium | Medium | Institutional | |
| Copyleaks | 6.0% | Medium | Fast | $8/mo | |
| Sapling | 7.4% | Low | Fast | Free tier |
Scores from the State of AI Detection 2026 benchmark (n=10,000). "Evasion resistance" measures accuracy retention under humanization. Prices indicative, May 2026.
Six months of testing across 1,200 fresh documents.
The two tools academia relies on, compared directly.
Where it shines, where it stumbles, and how to read its scores.
Each tool runs against an identical, held-out set of human- and AI-written documents spanning multiple registers and languages. We measure balanced accuracy, false positives on known-human text, and retention under paraphrasing and humanization.
Full methodology →