It can be a challenge to work with content written by a variety of writers. In some cases, you won’t even know if a writer has used AI to create parts of a piece of content.
In many cases, it is obvious that the content was generated by AI. Sometimes, though, the content is written in such a way that it is hard to tell whether a human actually wrote it.
That’s where AI content detectors can be useful.
This tool isn’t meant to be used to ‘detect’ AI-generated content and then ‘catch’ people using it. Rather, it is another layer of checks that can be included in the general content-checking process. So, for example, if a piece of content is flagged by a detector, it can be checked in more detail to see whether it is actually of value.
Below is a list of the 8 AI Content Detection Tools I reviewed in detail, the best uses for each, and how they can fit into a content workflow.
The following sections review and compare the eight tools that the author of this article tested for this article. Each section includes information about how the author used each tool, how he thinks they can be used in a content workflow, and why he would or would not use each in a variety of situations.
1. GPTZero
Best for: Overall AI content detection
GPTZero is the best tool for detecting AI-generated content.
GPTZero detects AI-written content and scores it. The result of the GPTZero content check is available immediately. In addition to a simple pass or fail, the score for the entire document, as well as a score for each sentence, is available. For me, this is really important. I can see whether a section of a piece of work was written by AI and then investigate further if required. In addition to checking content, GPTZero supports a range of file types, including DOCX, PDF, and images.
That sentence-level information is important to me.
This means I can check for articles written by a freelancer for high AI content detection. But I want to know what parts of the article were written by the freelancer. Are the introductions to the articles too generic? Are there a few paragraphs in the articles that sound overly like other “AI-written” content that I have read before? Or is the content written in a style that the detection software finds to be unusual for human-written content?
GPTZero recognizes human, AI, and mixed writing. This means that if you write an article for work, use AI to write the first paragraph, and then write the rest yourself, GPTZero recognizes that.
That’s one of the reasons I’d put it at the top of my list.
I like to investigate as an SEO expert rather than be given numbers and then have to decide what to do with them when the content has been written by different people.
My pick: GPTZero is the best for general content review.
2. Originality.ai
Best for: SEO agencies and publishing teams
Originality.ai feels like a natural fit for SEO.
Another very important feature for an SEO agency is plagiarism checking. Most other tools for detecting AI-generated content only offer AI detection. Another important feature offered by Originality.ai is a check of content quality. This can be checked for pasted text, uploaded files, and even files uploaded via URL.
This is useful for content teams because much of the content that will be published is already published. Therefore, the ability to check a URL is very useful for detecting AI-generated content.
Another major reason to choose Originality.ai is that it supports **AI Allowance**, i.e., content that has been partly written by AI. In particular, articles written by humans, checked for grammar and spelling by AI, and then partially rewritten by AI for better readability will not be rated as if they were written entirely by AI.
Much closer to the reality of how content is actually written.
I wouldn’t classify content written by a writer who uses AI to brainstorm, check grammar, and reword a few sentences in an article for SEO as entirely written by AI for SEO.
My pick: If I were managing a large SEO or publishing operation, Originality.ai would be one of the first platforms I’d evaluate alongside GPTZero.
3. Copyleaks
Best for: Larger teams and multilingual content
Copyleaks is another option to consider when looking for the best AI detection software for large content operations.
This platform supports detection of AI-generated content in 30+ languages, including English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, and many more. This would make it a great tool for International businesses and for SEO agencies that work with websites in multiple markets.
This would be a good option for an international business or agency with websites across multiple markets.
In addition to offering a browser extension, Copyleaks recently added support for Google Docs integration and Learning Management System (LMS) integration, enabling full detection of AI-generated content within a system. This is provided via an API, enabling full integration into a system.
In seconds, not days, you can set up an AI detection tool for your content team.
My pick: Copyleaks makes the most sense to me for larger organizations, multilingual content operations, and teams that need integrations.
4. Winston AI
Best for: Editors and publishers
Winston AI: Better for actual content review (as opposed to trying to determine whether or not a piece of writing was created by AI).
The main feature of Winston AI is detecting AI-written documents and checking for plagiarism in academic and professional writing. Winston AI also has AI-based browser detection and document analysis. The Winston AI Chrome extension can be used to check text on websites and even in the field.
I could use an AI detector for editorial purposes when reviewing content for publications.
This tool is great for quickly checking whether an article was written by AI, rather than spending hours going through each and every article you receive.
Winston AI is great for content verification. This means that instead of checking for AI-generated content, you can use Winston AI as part of a larger set of checks for written content.
That’s how I’d use it.
My pick: Winston AI for the reasons above. I think it is a good option for editors, publishers, and people and teams who review content regularly.
6. Sapling AI Detector
Best for: SEO teams and user-generated content
Sapling is unique among this list of AI Detectors in that its AI Detector uses are listed for educators, SEO practitioners, user-generated content reviewers, and more.
This makes Sapling an interesting option for the SEO/content workflow I have been considering.
Sapling also reports the overall probability that a given piece of text was written by AI. This can also be reported for each sentence in the text, and even for each section. This allows the most likely sections of text written by AI to be highlighted. There is also an API for Sapling’s detector.
I also wanted to point out that Sapling outlines the Detector’s limitations. A false positive and a false negative can occur. This means that shorter articles or very generic articles may not be detected as well as longer articles with more complex language.
This detector has clear limitations on Sapling’s website, which it outlines, and also notes the potential for false positives and false negatives. He specifically notes that Sapling’s detector is not very good at detecting AI-generated content that is very short or “very generic in nature”.
I have seen how easily an AI detector can be overinterpreted.
This would be my pick for detector needs for SEO, user-generated content, etc. Sapling is now providing an API for its detector.
7. QuillBot AI Detector
Best for: Quick checks
I have used QuillBot for a long time for online writing and content creation.
For simple checks of larger amounts of written content (e.g., bulk written articles), I can use QuillBot’s AI Detector to scan through written content for signs of AI writing. I can scan written content of up to 1,200 words per scan for free without signing up for an account, and I can also upload a bulk amount of written content to scan for signs of AI writing.
The Detector can also distinguish between content written 100% by AI and content written 100% by humans but then ‘polished’ by AI writing tools to tidy up the worst parts of human-written content.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important.
If an article was written 100% by AI, then that would be one thing to consider. However, if a human wrote an article and then used an AI writing tool to ‘tidy up’ a few very badly written sentences, that is a completely different situation and should be viewed differently.
This score will not be used to decide whether to accept or reject written work produced by freelance writers and/or third-party agencies. This score will be used as a secondary verification tool.
My pick: Good for quick checks, especially when I don’t need a full enterprise content-review workflow.
8. ZeroGPT
Best for: Simple, straightforward checks
I wouldn’t use ZeroGPT for much. It’s not that bad for very simple checks.
ZeroGPT is a simple tool for checking whether something was written using basic checks.
For a casual check, that can be enough.
I have seen some SEO workflows use the above tools to review content written by a freelancer or agency for your SEO work.
AI detection tools are not 100% accurate. They can sometimes incorrectly report that something has been written by AI (false positive) and other times incorrectly report that something hasn’t been written by AI (false negative). It’s therefore very important to use an AI detection tool with caution and as part of a broader process for detecting AI-written content. As previously mentioned, Sapling’s AI detector should not be used as the sole means to determine whether or not something has been written by AI.
I would use ZeroGPT for a simple screening of content, then conduct a more in-depth review using one of the other tools above for serious content-review work.
My pick: Useful for straightforward checks, but I’d want a more detailed tool for serious content-review work.
Which AI Content Detector Would I Choose?
AI Content Detectors: Top Picks for Written Content (8 Detectors Compared)
For me, the shortlist would look like this:
Tool Best suited for
GPTZero Overall content review
Originality.ai SEO and publishing teams
Copyleaks Enterprise and multilingual content
Turnitin Academic institutions
Winston AI Editors and publishers
Sapling SEO and user-generated content
QuillBot Quick content checks
ZeroGPT Simple AI detection
GPTZero for the win (for me and for my SEO/content team’s needs).
I wouldn’t use the score to definitively say who wrote the article; rather, it would give me an indication of whether I should read it more closely. The sentence-level analysis and mixed-content classification make GPTZero more useful to me than a percentage score alone.
And that’s really how I’d recommend using any of these tools.
