I tried the best AI humanizers to save your time and money.

In this post, I will show you my results after running these tools through extensive tests and AI detectors.

Let’s start!

Disclaimer: This article is reader-supported. If you choose to pay for the tools listed in this article, I might earn a small commission at no cost to you.

The Top 3 Picks

It’s a long post, so here’s a quick key takeaways section.

Here are the top 3 tools:

🥇 1. ChatGPT

ChatGPT was the most accurate AI humanizer based on my tests.

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Score: This tool got a 72.06% average human score on my tests.
Highlights: It completely fooled Originality AI and QuillBot AI detectors. Even Undetectable.ai had trouble with it.

However, the sample size is small, and the gap to the next tool wasn’t big.

🥈 2. Walter Writes AI

The second-best AI humanizer I tried is Walter Writes AI.

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	7%	100%	100%	49%
Casual Blog	83%	100%	100%	50%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	36%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	100%	99%
Total Average	22.5%	100%	100%	58.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 70.31%

Score: This tool got a 70.31% average human score on my tests.
Highlights: It completely fooled Originality AI and QuillBot AI detectors. Even Winston AI had some trouble with it.

🥉 3. Grubby AI

The third-best content humanizer is called Grubby AI.

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	100%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	1%	99%	100%	20%
Creative Writing	9%	94%	100%	40%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	22%	99%
Total Average	3%	98.25%	80.5%	64.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 61.65%

Score: This tool got a 61.65% average human score on my tests.
Highlights: It completely fooled Originality AI and mostly fooled QuillBot.

However, none of the AI detectors I tried were reliable.

Most of them produced human-like content just half of the time.

To prove that, I ran some extensive experiments.

Let’s jump into the list of the AI humanizers, and let me show you some numbers to back up my claims.

The Setup: How I Tested the AI Humanizers

Here’s how I tested the AI content detectors.

I started by creating 4 pieces of AI-generated text. I then ran those through some of the best AI detectors (find below).

In an ideal AI detector, it should give me a human score of 0%, which means the content is entirely AI-written. However, there’s no perfect AI detector. That’s why most of the numbers aren’t exactly 0%, but close.

Here are the human scores I got from these tools for my 4 AI-generated content pieces:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	0%	0%	10%
Casual Blog	0%	0%	0%	33%
Creative Writing	0%	0%	0%	33%
Technical Expl.	1%	1%	0%	31%
Overall Average	0.5%	0.25%	0%	26.75%

The average human score was 6.88%.

In other words, the AI thinks 6.88 % of the content is human-written, and 93.12 % is AI-generated.

This number, 6.88 %, is what we’re going to compare the tools with.

If the score is significantly above 6.88%, that suggests that the AI humanization tool did at least something.

However, if the AI humanizers work, they should get that number close to 100%.

Now that we have a reference point, let me show you my results as I ran the four content pieces through all the AI humanizers and then the AI detectors.

1. ChatGPT

ChatGPT needs no introduction, so let’s not waste our time there.

The Results

To test ChatGPT as an AI content humanizer, I did the following:

I wrote 4 AI-generated text samples.
I humanized each sample with ChatGPT.
I scanned the humanized texts with AI detectors.
I summed up the scores.

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

Based on the above table:

Winston AI spotted that the content is mostly AI.
Originality AI was completely fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled, too.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t too convinced.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 72.06%.

That’s well above the 6.88% mark that we got when we did not use any AI humanization in the process.

But that’s relatively bad. I’d love to see this number very close to 100%. Preferably 99% or more.

However, this result suggests that ChatGPT creates content that’s just a bit over half human-like and a bit less than half AI-like. Which is terrible. Yet it still made it to the top.

Pricing

You can try ChatGPT for free.

It’s free for a limited quota. If you didn’t use it anywhere else but humanization, I bet you wouldn’t need a paid plan.

However, here’s a quick breakdown of the pricing.

Free — $0/month

Access to GPT-4.1 mini
Limited access to GPT-4o, OpenAI o4-mini, and deep research
Limited file uploads, data analysis, image generation, and voice mode
Code editing in the ChatGPT desktop app for macOS
Use custom GPTs
Web browsing enabled

Plus — $20/month

Everything in Free
Extended limits on messaging, uploads, analysis, and image generation
Standard & advanced voice mode with video and screensharing
Access to GPT-4.5 preview, GPT-4.1, and multiple reasoning models
Access to OpenAI o3, o4-mini, o4-mini-high
Create and manage custom GPTs, projects, and tasks
Early access to new features

Pro — $200/month

Everything in Plus
Unlimited access to all reasoning models, including GPT-4o
Unlimited use of advanced voice, video, and screensharing
Access to OpenAI o3-pro (more compute power)
Extended access to deep research
Access to the Sora video generation
Research previews of the Operator and Codex agent

ChatGPT — How Good Does the Text Sound?

But now, let’s talk about how good the text sounds.

Because passing the AI detector score is one thing.

But getting the text to look like something that a human would produce is another.

Here’s what I discovered about ChatGPT when I used it to humanize my AI content:

Readability: Very good. Text usually flows naturally, with clear sentence structure and smooth transitions.
Tone: Neutral by default, sometimes a bit formal or “helpful,” but you can adjust it with prompts (e.g., “Make it casual,” “Write like a blog post”).
Naturalness: Strong. Most output feels human-like, though some phrases still sound a little too polished or generic (“As an AI language model…” or “It is important to note…”). If you’ve analysed a lot of AI writing or seen it frequently, you might be able to spot AI in it.
Clarity: Excellent overall. It almost always makes sense and stays on topic.

Weak Spots:

Can over-explain or repeat points in longer outputs.
Sometimes slips into vague filler sentences to hit word count.
If you push for heavy rephrasing to beat detectors, the meaning can get diluted.

Also, one huge missing part of all AI-written content is the lack of visuals. Yes, the AI can create visuals, but not ones that would be useful. If you review a product, create a how-to guide, or whatever it is, you should never just write.

In fact, writing is just a small part of the process.

That’s why I never use AI detectors or AI writers. For me, writing just takes an hour or two, while the legwork of doing the research, taking images, and whatnot takes most of the time.

In this sense, it doesn’t even matter if you use AI to write or not; it’s not a big timesaver either way.

Other Features

Needless to mention, ChatGPT is useful for many other tasks, such as writing, creating images, editing images, and even conversing with it, much like a phone call.

But to be honest, the humanization simply doesn’t work. At least not well enough to call it reliable.

2. Walter Writes AI

Walter Writes AI is an AI humanizer that makes AI-generated content sound more human.

It’s easy to use. Sign up, add some AI text, and click “Humanize”.

It will give you a humanized version of your AI-generated text:

But does this work? Is it able to fool AI detectors? Let’s see!

The Results

To test Walter Writes AI humanizer, I did the following:

I wrote 4 AI-generated text samples.
I humanized each sample with Walter AI.
I scanned the humanized texts with AI detectors.
I summed up the scores.

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	7%	100%	100%	49%
Casual Blog	83%	100%	100%	50%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	36%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	100%	99%
Total Average	22.5%	100%	100%	58.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 70.31

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

Based on the above table:

Winston AI spotted that the content is mostly AI.
Originality AI was completely fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled, too.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t too convinced.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 70.31%.

That’s well above the 6.88% mark that we got when we did not use any AI humanization in the process.

But that’s still bad.

This means the tool was able to humanize text just 7 out of 10 times. This is way too unreliable.

The number should be somewhere between 99.5% and 100% to justify using it, but it’s just 70%…

Walter Writes AI vs. ChatGPT

Because Walter Writes AI humanizer performed so poorly, I wanted to see if ChatGPT could do any better.

So I repeated the same process I did with Walter Writes AI. But this time, I asked ChatGPT to humanize my 4 text samples.

Then I fed the ChatGPT-humanized content to the AI detectors.

Here are the scores I got:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

In other words:

Winston AI spotted that the content is mostly AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled, too.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 72.06%.

Notice that with Walter AI, we only got a score of 70.31%.

In other words, ChatGPT did a better job at humanizing AI content than Walter Writes AI.

Better yet, ChatGPT is free.

If you use Walter Writes AI, you only get 300 words of free AI humanization.

Long story short, I’d use ChatGPT over Walter Writes AI.

Pricing

Starter — €6/month (10,000 words)

500 words/request
Bypasses AI detectors
Human-like, plagiarism-free text
Built-in AI detector
20+ languages, watermark removal

Pro — €10/month (55,000 words)

1,200 words/request
All Starter features
More words, better value

Unlimited — €25/month (Unlimited words)

1,700 words/request
All Pro features
No word cap, best for heavy use

How Good Does the Text Sound?

But now, let’s consider how well the text sounds or reads.

Readability: Very good. The text is clear and flows well.
Tone: Friendly tone of voice. It often feels like something a decent editor would write.
Naturalness: Strong. It avoids robotic repetitions and reads smoothly, though it can sometimes insert slight formality.
Clarity: Good — messages are concise and easy to follow.

Weak Spots:

On deeper topics, it may simplify too much, losing nuance.
Tone options can sometimes shift output too much — basic tone is good, enhanced sometimes feels overly polished.

Also, the same applies to what I said with ChatGPT (and will say about every other AI humanizer). The text is just text. That’s the easy part. Anyone can write text. It’s the legwork that takes the time. Taking images, demonstrating workflows, and so on. Those are the things that matter.

So whether AI detectors work or not, it doesn’t really matter. It’s meaningless to me.

Nonetheless, this is how I find Walter Writes AI.

If you believe in AI humanization/detection, it’s a decent tool, but nowhere near perfect.

Other Features

Walter Writes is not just an AI humanizer; it also has several other cool features.

Here’s a list of them:

Built-in AI detector to scan your text before and after humanizing
A plagiarism checker to spot copied content right in the tool
SEO optimization to tweak tone and structure for search engines
Multi-language support including English, Spanish, French, Chinese, and German
Three humanization modes: Simple, Standard, and Enhanced
Fast processing that returns results in seconds
Customizable styles and tone so you can adjust the voice
Free trial so you can test before you pay
API access to connect Walter with other apps and workflows

3. Grubby AI

Grubby AI is an AI humanizer that makes AI-generated content sound more human.

This tool lets you upload PDFs, copy-paste text, and try sample text pieces if you’re just curious.

To use Grubby AI, sign up, insert some AI-written text, and click “Humanize”.

It will give you a humanized version of your AI-generated text:

But does this really work? Let me share my results.

The Results

To test Grubby AI humanizer, I did the following:

I wrote 4 AI-generated text samples.
I humanized each sample with Grubby AI.
I scanned the humanized texts with AI detectors.
I summed up the scores.

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	100%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	1%	99%	100%	20%
Creative Writing	9%	94%	100%	40%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	22%	99%
Total Average	3%	98.25%	80.5%	64.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 61.65%

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

Based on the above table:

Winston AI wasn’t fooled at all.
Originality AI was completely fooled.
QuillBot was mostly fooled.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t too convinced.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 61.56%.

That’s well above the 6.88% mark that we got when we did not use any AI humanization in the process.

That score of 61.56% is still very bad, though. It essentially means you can’t trust the Grubby AI humanization tool at all. It creates AI-like content almost half of the time based on my results.

It should be somewhere between 99.5% and 100% to justify using it, but now it’s just a touch above 60%.

Also, the free plan is ridiculous. You can humanize one short text sample for free, and then you’re already prompted to pay… Crazy!

Long story short: Grubby AI doesn’t work.

Grubby AI vs. ChatGPT

Because Grubby AI humanizer performed so badly, I wanted to try if ChatGPT was a better humanizer.

So I repeated the same process I did with Grubby AI. But this time, I asked ChatGPT itself to humanize my 4 text samples. Then I fed the ChatGPT-humanized content to the AI detectors.

Here are the content scores:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

From this table, we see that:

Winston AI flagged the content as mostly AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled, too.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 72.06%.

Notice that with Grubby AI, we only got a score of 61.65%.

In other words, ChatGPT did a significantly better job at humanizing AI content than Grubby AI.

Notice that ChatGPT is also free. You can do this an unlimited number of times there.

To put it short, I’d use ChatGPT over Grubby AI all day.

Pricing

Free — $0/month (300 words/month)

300 words/input
Simple Mode only
Bypasses AI detectors
Error-free, human-like text
Plagiarism-free rewrites
No credit card needed

Essential — $3.99/month (7,500 words)

500 words/input
All Free features
Same core tools, more words

Pro — $8.99/month (30,000 words)

1,500 words/input
Adds Standard & Enhanced Modes
Most popular plan

Unlimited — $14.00/month (Unlimited words)

2,500 words/input
All modes unlocked
Best for heavy usage

How Good Does the Text Sound?

But then, let’s talk about how good the text sounds.

Readability: Good. Sentences are punchy and easy to scan — great for online content.
Tone: Casual and conversational. It feels like a person talking, not a robot lecturing.
Naturalness: Strong(ish). It avoids stiff phrasing and keeps a fluid, human rhythm.
Clarity: Clear and direct. It doesn’t get lost in fluff or filler.

Weak Spots:

Can be too casual or edgy — might not suit formal contexts.
On more complex ideas, it can oversimplify or drop nuance.

But as I said, this tool doesn’t work reliably enough to be used in real-world applications. I don’t believe in AI humanizers or AI detectors.

Other Features

On top of AI humanization, here are some other features that Grubby AI offers:

Removes ChatGPT-style patterns (“watermarks”) for a more natural tone
This tool lets you choose a tone to match your style
One-click humanization for instant results
Supports over 30 languages, works across devices and browsers
Aims for 99%+ human score on detectors like GPTZero, Turnitin, Originality.ai
Protects against false positives from detection tools
Keeps the original meaning intact while rewriting
Helps optimize content for SEO and content guidelines
Offers freemium plan (300‑5,000 words/month) plus tiered paid plans
Speeds up editing by saving hours of manual rewriting
Promises secure, confidential handling of your text

4. GPTHuman

GPTHuman is an AI humanizer that makes AI-generated content sound more human.

It’s easy to use. First, sign up.

Choose Humanizer from the dashboard.

Then add some text to the left and click “Humanize”. You will see the AI-humanized version of the text on the right.

But does this work? Is a tool like this able to fool the best AI detectors?

Let me share my results.

The Results

To test the GPTHuman AI humanizer, I did the following:

I wrote 4 AI-generated text samples.
I humanized each sample with GPTHuman AI.
I scanned the humanized texts with AI detectors.
I summed up the scores.

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	6%	100%	100%	31%
Casual Blog	3%	100%	100%	40%
Creative Writing	0%	98%	100%	33%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	100%	50%
Overall Average	2.88%	99.5%	100%	38.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 60.72

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

Based on the above table:

Winston AI identified that the content is still AI-generated.
Originality AI was completely fooled.
QuillBot was fooled, too.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t too convinced.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 60.72%.

That’s well above the 6.88% mark that we got when we did not use any AI humanization in the process.

However, that number is still bad. You can’t trust the GPTHuman AI humanization tool at all. It creates AI-like content nearly half of the time.

I’d like to see the number between 99% and 100%.

GPTHuman AI vs. ChatGPT

Because GPTHuman AI humanizer performed so badly, I wanted to try if ChatGPT was a better humanizer.

So I repeated the same process I did with GPTHuman AI. But this time, I asked ChatGPT itself to humanize my 4 text samples. Then I fed the ChatGPT-humanized content to the AI detectors.

Here are the content scores:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

From this table, we see that:

Winston AI flagged the content as mostly AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled, too.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled, too.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 72.06%.

Notice that with GPTHuman AI, we only got a score of 60.72%.

In other words, ChatGPT did a significantly better job at humanizing AI content than GPTHuman.

Notice that ChatGPT is also free. You can do this an unlimited number of times there.

To put it short, I’d use ChatGPT over GPTHuman all day.

Pricing

Starter — $10/month (15,000 words)

500 words/output
GPTHuman AI Humanizer
Shield Guard + AI detector
Plagiarism-free, human quality
ChatGPT watermark removal
50+ languages
AI detector bypass guarantee

Advanced — $25/month (50,000 words)

1,000 words/output
All Starter features
Better word limits, same tools

Pro — $40/month (120,000 words)

2,000 words/output
Same features as Advanced
Higher volume for heavier users

Plus — $55/month (250,000 words)

2,000 words/output
Max word count tier
Full access with the highest limits

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Then, let’s consider the readability of GPTHuman-written text.

Here’s what I discovered:

Readability: High. Text flows smoothly and is easy to follow.
Tone: Adaptable. You can choose casual, academic, creative, or professional; each style comes through clearly.
Naturalness: Good. It avoids robotic patterns, though at times it can feel a bit generic in mid-tone modes.
Clarity: Good. Sentences are clear, and meaning stays steady.

Weak Spots:

“Balanced” mode can feel middle-of-the-road — neither warm nor sharp.
Occasional reuse of phrases across outputs.
In highly technical writing, it may generalize too much.

Also, as I said many times in this post already, text is just text. Anyone can produce it. Before AI, you could hire someone to do that for $10. These days, you can do it essentially free. But the problem is the legwork. That’s what takes time.

Don’t waste time on AI detection or humanization. It just doesn’t work well enough.

Other Features

Here are the core features of GPTHuman:

Offers a free trial (1000 word credits) and paid plans up to 250,000 words/month
This tool allows you to paste or upload content for humanizing
Adjustable tone and mode, including “Balanced” and “Enhanced”
Displays three scores: Stealth, Readability (Flesch–Kincaid), and Similarity to original
One‑click “Re‑humanize” to refine results
Built‑in AI detector with sentence‑level highlights to flag AI‑style sections
Can also generate human‑like content from scratch as undetectable AI
Supports over 80 languages
Fast results for SEO or academic use

5. Claude AI

Claude AI is a ChatGPT rival that can create text in a very similar style to ChatGPT. That’s why I wanted to see if it could also do AI content humanization as good as ChatGPT.

I did these tests with this prompt.

It’s the same one I’ve used with ChatGPT when I tried to use ChatGPT as a text humanizer.

If you want to run the same tests, feel free to sign up for Claude.

Then insert the prompt into the chatbox and copy-paste some AI-generated text for it.

Now, let’s see if Claude can humanize AI-written content better than ChatGPT (or other top AI humanization tools).

The Results

To test the Claude, I did the following:

I wrote 4 AI-generated text samples.
I humanized each sample with Claude AI.
I scanned the humanized texts with AI detectors.
I summed up the scores.

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	59%	0%	50%
Casual Blog	1%	100%	100%	99%
Creative Writing	1%	100%	91%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	50%
Overall Average	0.75%	89.5%	72.75%	74.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 59.38%

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

Based on the above table:

Winston AI wasn’t fooled.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot wasn’t too convinced.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t too convinced either.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 59.38%.

That’s well above the 6.88% mark that we got when we did not use any AI humanization in the process.

But that’s still bad, though. It’s not the best tool on the list, not even close. And even the best ones fail quite drastically.

You can’t trust Claude for content humanization. It creates AI-like content nearly half of the time.

Claude AI vs. ChatGPT

As an obvious comparison, we have to compare the numbers between the Claude AI detector scores and the ChatGPT AI detector scores.

I repeated the same process I did with Claude AI. But this time around, I asked ChatGPT itself to humanize my 4 text samples. Then I fed the ChatGPT-humanized content to the AI detectors.

Here are the ChatGPT AI content detector scores:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Here:

Winston AI flagged the content as mostly AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 72.06%.

Notice that with Claude AI, we only got a score of 59.36%.

That said, ChatGPT did a significantly better job at humanizing AI content than Claude.

To put it short, I’d use ChatGPT over Claude all day.

Pricing

Free — $0/month

Web, iOS, Android access
Code generation and data visualization
Write, edit, and analyze text/images
Web search enabled

Pro — $17/month (or $20 billed monthly)

All Free features
More usage
Claude Code in the terminal
Unlimited Projects
Research access
Google Workspace integration
Remote tool/context support
Advanced Claude models
Better for complex thinking

Max — from $100/month

All Pro features
5x–20x more usage than Pro
Higher task output limits
Early feature access
Priority during peak traffic

Claude AI — How Good Does the Text Sound?

Readability: Good. Writing is well-structured and easy to follow.
Tone: Warm and conversational. It often feels like someone is taking the time to explain things kindly and in a natural tone of voice.
Naturalness: Strong. It doesn’t sound robotic and offers gentle phrasing that reads like a caring human.
Clarity: Decent. It talks about ideas clearly, especially in complex topics.

Weak Spots:

Can over-explain or feel overly thorough — might slow down shorter, punchier content.
Its polite style may feel too mellow or indirect for audiences expecting direct voice.
A more formal tone might cause problems with a casual brand voice.

And as I mentioned before, it’s not about text. No tool on this list can actually save your time or money because it’s the legwork that takes time. Not the writing. Anyone can write.

Other Features

This tool is similar to ChatGPT. It’s not just an AI humanizer tool, but it does a whole lot more.

Here’s a list of the core features and functions of it:

“Human-like” personality that feels warm, engaging, and intuitive
Deep reasoning with a step-by-step thought process
Generates interactive quizzes, games, and logic flows
Handles large documents (hundreds of pages) with precision
Memory feature keeps context across chats for smoother flow
Multi-modal: processes images, code, and documents
Two modes: instant replies or extended deep thinking
Hybrid tool use and web search (on paid plans)
“Thinking summaries” that explain how it reached answers
Integrates with tools via open Model Context Protocol (MCP)

6. DeepSeek AI

DeepSeek AI is a ChatGPT rival that can create text in a very similar style to ChatGPT. It took the world by storm since it was developed “overnight” and could do all the same things as ChatGPT.

That’s why I wanted to see if it could also do AI content humanization as good as ChatGPT.

I did these tests with this prompt. It’s the same one I’ve used with ChatGPT when I tried to use ChatGPT as a text humanizer.

If you want to run the same tests, feel free to sign up for DeepSeek.

Then insert the prompt into the chatbox and copy-paste some AI-generated text for it.

You probably would expect to see results similar to ChatGPT, right? After all, these tools are similar.

Let’s find out!

The Results

To test the DeepSeek, I did the following:

I wrote 4 AI-generated text samples.
I humanized each sample with DeepSeek AI.
I scanned the humanized texts with AI detectors.
I summed up the scores.

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	0%	43%	47%
Casual Blog	0%	98%	100%	99%
Creative Writing	0%	98%	100%	41%
Technical Expl.	0%	64%	100%	43%
Overall Average	0%	65%	85.75%	57.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 52.06%

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

Based on the above table:

Winston AI identified that the content is still AI-generated.
Originality AI was not convinced either.
QuillBot was mostly fooled, but even that gave some hints of AI.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t convinced.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 52.06%.

That’s well above the 6.88% mark that we got when we did not use any AI humanization in the process.

However, this doesn’t make it a good AI humanizer, since it gives you AI-like results half of the time.

As I stated before, this number should be between 99% and 100% to be reliable.

DeepSeek AI vs. ChatGPT

As an obvious comparison, we have to compare the numbers between the DeepSeek AI detector scores and ChatGPT AI detector scores.

I repeated the same process I did with DeepSeek AI. But this time around, I asked ChatGPT itself to humanize my 4 text samples. Then I fed the ChatGPT-humanized content to the AI detectors.

Here are the ChatGPT AI content detector scores:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Here:

Winston AI flagged the content as mostly AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled
QuillBot was completely fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 72.06%.

Notice that with DeepSeek AI, we only got a score of 52.06%.

In other words, ChatGPT did a significantly better job at humanizing AI content than DeepSeek.

To put it short, I’d use ChatGPT over DeepSeek all day.

Pricing

Chatbot — Free

Unlimited usage
Access to DeepSeek V3 and R1 models
No subscription or login needed

API — Pay-as-you-go (USD) deepseek-chat (V3):

Input: $0.07/1M tokens (cache hit), $0.27 (miss)
Output: $1.10/1M tokens
Off-peak: $0.035 (hit), $0.135 (miss), $0.55 output

deepseek-reasoner (R1):

Input: $0.14/1M tokens (hit), $0.55 (miss)
Output: $2.19/1M tokens
Off-peak: $0.035 (hit), $0.135 (miss), $0.55 output

DeepSeek AI — How Good Does the Text Sound?

Readability: Good. Sentences are clear and structured, even with technical content.
Tone: Slightly formal. Comes across as knowledgeable and conversational, but some chats can be a bit formal too!
Naturalness: Good. It explains reasoning step by step, though it can feel a bit mechanical in logic-focused sections.
Clarity: Good. Especially good at breaking down complicated ideas and code workflows.

Weak Spots:

It leans academic — might feel dry for casual or creative writing.
The detailed reasoning (DeepThink mode) sometimes interrupts the flow for general readers.
In non-technical topics, it might use a logical style that feels out of place, and for someone who has seen it, they can instantly tell it’s AI-written text.

Other Features

DeepSeek is a ChatGPT rival, just in case you missed it. In this sense, it has nothing to do with just AI humanization/detection. Instead, you can do pretty much all the same things you can do with ChatGPT.

Here’s a list of features and functions:

Supports system prompts, JSON output, and function calling for more advanced AI workflows
Strong multi-step reasoning and math skills (e.g., excelled on AIME and MATH-500 tasks)
Offers code generation and debugging tools with a Coder model version
Chatbot handles very long documents — some models support up to 23,000 token context
DeepThink mode explains its thought process step by step
Open-source models (R1, V3) with MIT license, plus API access for developers
Very cost-effective: API and model use is significantly cheaper than mainstream alternatives
High performance with reduced hardware needs (trained on fewer GPUs)
Covers multiple use cases: chat, coding, math, and document generation
Available as a web, Android, and iOS app — no usage limits on the free plan

7. UnAIMyText

UnAIMyText is an AI humanizer that makes AI-generated content sound more human.

It’s easy to use.

You don’t even have to sign up.

Just paste your AI text, choose a humanization level, and click “Humanize.”

It gives you a human-sounding version of your AI text:

But does this work? Is it able to fool AI detectors? Let’s see.

The Results

Here are the results I got from the most popular detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	5	0	59	19
Casual Blog	100	99	100	99
Creative Writing	1	99	100	30
Technical Explanation	1	0	67	23
Overall Average	26.75	49.5	81.5	42.75

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 50.13%

In this table:

0% = definitely AI-written
100% = definitely human-written

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 50.13%.

That’s better than using no humanizer, but still far from perfect or being called a good AI humanizer.

UnAIMyText got human-level results for casual and creative writing, but failed to fool detectors on formal and technical text most of the time.

UnAIMyText vs. ChatGPT

Because UnAIMyText scored only about 50%, I tried the same process with ChatGPT.

Here’s the same table for ChatGPT when I use it to humanize my AI-written content:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

This beats UnAIMyText by a large margin. So this is not even close.

Despite the name UnAIMyText, it does all but UnAI your text.

Even ChatGPT does a better job of humanizing AI content — and it’s free. And it is not even close to being considered a “good” AI humanizer.

It’s at this point alarming to realize how many completely trash tools there are in this small subcategory of AI products already.

Pricing

UnAIMyText is completely free:

No signup needed
Free usage up to 1,000 words per day
Unlimited access to features
No premium or paid plans

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Readability: Good. It makes sentences smooth and conversational.
Tone: Friendly — it fits blogs and informal writing decently.
Naturalness: Decent. It removes robotic phrasing, but can still feel generic in some text.
Clarity: Clear and mostly easy to read.

Weak spots:

Struggles with formal essays and technical writing
Detection results vary greatly depending on the content type
No bulk processing — only one text at a time

Other Features

UnAIMyText isn’t just a simple rewrite tool — here’s what else it offers:

Built-in AI detection so you can see detectability before and after rewriting
Three rewrite levels: Standard, Enhanced, and Aggressive
Multi-language support (English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Japanese, and more)
SEO rewrites that preserve keywords
Works in any browser and device
Instant results, usually in seconds

8. HumanizeAI AI

HumanizeAI is another hyped-up AI humanizer tool. It offers a free no-signup trial, which makes it a good-looking option.

To use it, just head over to their site. You don’t even need to sign up.

Then add some text to the view and hit “Humanize”.

But does this tool actually work? Can a free AI humanizer get the job done? Let’s find out!

The Results

To test the HumanizeAI, I did the following:

I wrote 4 AI-generated text samples.
I humanized each sample with HumanizeAI AI.
I scanned the humanized texts with AI detectors.
I summed up the scores.

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	39%	0%	25%
Casual Blog	0%	99%	100%	32%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	30%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	72%	49%
Overall Average	0.25%	84.5%	68%	34%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 46.19%

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

Based on the above table:

Winston AI wasn’t fooled by this.
Originality AI was mostly fooled, though.
QuillBot wasn’t fooled by this as badly as with others.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t convinced at all.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 46.19%.

That’s well above the 6.88% mark that we got when we did not use any AI humanization in the process.

However, this doesn’t make it a good AI humanizer, since it gives you AI-like results half of the time.

As I stated before, this number should be between 99% and 100% to be reliable.

HumanizeAI AI vs. ChatGPT

Let’s compare HumanizeAI to ChatGPT results. Here are the ChatGPT AI content detector scores:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Here:

Winston AI flagged the content as mostly AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get 72.06%.

Notice that with HumanizeAI AI, we only got a score of 46.19%.

In other words, ChatGPT did a significantly better job at humanizing AI content than HumanizeAI.

To put it short, I’d use ChatGPT over HumanizeAI all day.

Pricing

Lite — $19/month (20,000 words)

500 words per process
All modes/settings
Undetectable by AIs
No weird/random words
Continuous updates
Customer support

Standard — $29/month (50,000 words)

Unlimited words per process
All Lite features
Free re-paraphrasing

Pro — $79/month (150,000 words)

Unlimited words per process
All Standard features
Highest word count tier

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Readability: Good. Sentences are concise and easy to understand in my books. It flows well for most content types.
Tone: Neutral to mildly conversational. It’s adaptable, that is, friendly without being overly casual, with most of my chats.
Naturalness: Strong. To me, it seems this tool keeps a natural reading rhythm well enough for it to look natural and smooth. Without paying too much attention to details, most people would probably not pay attention to it enough to see that it’s AI-written.
Clarity: Good. It keeps the meaning and context clear, even with rewrites.

Weak Spots:

Rewrites can feel generic in Basic mode. Ultra mode adds polish, but sometimes leans slightly formal.
Tone options like Simplify or Expand can change the meaning a bit

Remember, writing is just text. Anyone can do it. None of these tools on this list thus far has impressed me. They just write text in other words. What’s the use of that?

If you have good text, it will remain good. If you have bad text, it will remain bad.

If you add value to the internet, you will add value to the internet. If you don’t add value to the internet, you won’t add value to the internet.

Don’t use these tools! They just don’t work, in my opinion. It’s not because it is unethical. It just doesn’t work.

Other Features

Here are the core features of Humanize AI you might want to know about:

Free to use with unlimited words per session and no login required
Supports multiple languages (English, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Japanese, etc.)
Preserves original meaning and context while rewriting
Compatible with all browsers and devices (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge)
Built‑in AI detector flags robotic patterns and shows AI‑score
Offers two modes (Basic, Ultra/enhanced) for different rewrite depths
Includes a grammar and plagiarism checker alongside a humanizer
Exports results in formats like PDF, DOC, HTML, or plain text
Quick turnaround — humanized output in seconds
It helps you customize the writing tone with modes like Shorten, Expand, Simplify, and Improve Writing
Aims to bypass major AI detectors (GPTZero, Turnitin, Originality.ai)

9. WriteSonic AI Humanizer

Writesonic AI Humanizer is an online tool that makes AI-generated text sound more like a real person wrote it.

It’s simple to use. You just paste your AI text, pick your rewrite settings, and click “Humanize.”

It then gives you a human-sounding version of your content.

But does this work? Is it able to fool AI detectors?

Let’s find out.

The Results

Here are the results I got from the most popular AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	1	0	71	20
Casual Blog	93	82	100	99
Creative Writing	1	99	72	17
Technical Explanation	1	1	58	9
Overall Average	24.0	45.5	75.25	36.25

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 45.25%

In this table:

0% means entirely AI-written.
100% means entirely human-written.

If we add up all the average human scores, we get 45.25%.

That’s better than nothing, but it’s still not great. Not great at all, to be honest.

The number should be somewhere between 99.5% and 100% to really trust it.

Writesonic AI Humanizer vs. ChatGPT

Because Writesonic didn’t score that high, I wanted to see if ChatGPT could do better.

So I repeated the same process with ChatGPT.

Here are the results with ChatGPT when I humanized content with it and fed it through the same AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

If we sum up all the average human scores, we get about 72%.

Notice that with Writesonic, we only got 45%.

In other words, ChatGPT did a better job at humanizing AI content than Writesonic. By a long shot.

Pricing

Basic ($16/mo): 1 user, 1 project, 10 AI Agent generations, 5 articles, 3 site audits, 100 pages per audit, 1 writing style
Lite ($39/mo): 1 user, 1 project (+1 optional), 100 AI Agent generations, 15 articles, 6 site audits, 200 pages per audit, 2 writing styles
Standard ($79/mo): 1 user, 2 projects (+1 optional), Unlimited AI Agent generations, 30 articles, 15 site audits, 750 pages per audit, 5 writing styles
Professional ($199/mo): 2 users, 3 projects (+2 optional), Unlimited AI Agent generations, 40 articles, 40 site audits, 1200 pages per audit, Unlimited writing styles
Advanced ($399/mo): 5 users, 4 projects (+4 optional), Unlimited AI Agent generations, 200 articles, 80 site audits, 2500 pages per audit, Unlimited writing styles

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Readability: Good. The sentences are smoother than raw AI text.
Tone: Casual and friendly. Fine for blogs and social posts.
Naturalness: Decent. It avoids some robotic phrasing but can still feel a little generic.
Clarity: Clear. The meaning usually stays there!

But as I said, this tool doesn’t really work with the detectors, so all this is useless in that sense.

Weak Spots:

The results are inconsistent.
It struggles a lot with formal and technical content.
The rewriting sometimes over-simplifies ideas.

Other Features

Writesonic isn’t just a humanizer. It also has other tools:

Built-in plagiarism checker
Built-in AI detector to see if your text is detectable
SEO optimization tools for blogs and websites
Multi-language support for over 20 languages
Templates for ads, emails, and product descriptions
Fast processing — rewrites are done in seconds
Browser-based, no installation needed

10. NoteGPT AI Humanizer

NoteGPT AI Humanizer is an AI rewriting tool designed to make AI-generated text sound more like it was written by a human.

It’s simple to use. You paste your AI text, pick the rewriting mode, and click “Humanize.”

It will then generate a more natural-sounding version of your text:

It actually says “Passed AI Detector check”.

But did it really do that?

Also, how on earth does this company test the results if they also promote their own AI detector? Shouldn’t it mean that either the AI detector or the humanizer is broken?

Let’s find out what actually happens when I test this across multiple platforms.

The Results

Here are the results that I got from the NoteGPT AI humanizer when I ran it through some popular AI detection systems.

0% means the detector thinks the text is completely AI-generated.
100% means it believes the text is entirely human-written.

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	1	0	100	36
Casual Blog	1	0	100	99
Creative Writing	1	80	100	24
Technical Explanation	1	10	100	44
Overall Average	1.0	22.5	100.0	50.75

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 43.06%

That’s quite a bit higher than the near-0% you’d get without any rewriting.

But that’s still not great.

This means the tool was able to fool some detectors — especially QuillBot, which it completely bypassed every time — but consistently failed with Winston AI and struggled with Undetectable.ai.

The number should ideally be somewhere near 99% if you truly want to avoid detection.

NoteGPT vs. ChatGPT

Since NoteGPT didn’t perform perfectly, I wanted to see whether ChatGPT would do any better.

I repeated the same process, asking ChatGPT to rephrase my samples, and then ran them through the detectors.

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

In other words, ChatGPT did a significantly better job at fooling detection systems.

Plus, it’s free.

Pricing

NoteGPT AI Humanizer offers three main plans:

Pro — $6.92/month
Unlimited — $19.92/month
Pro+ — $13/month

Notice that the platform does more than detect/fool AI detectors. It’s a full-on AI platform with all sorts of tools and features. If you’re not using most of them, it might not be worth the price.

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Let’s talk about the quality of the output itself:

Readability: Decent — NoteGPT produces text that flows more naturally than raw AI output.
Tone: Flexible — supports formal, casual, and creative tones.
Naturalness: Moderate — the tool often removes repetition and adds variety, but sometimes introduces unnatural phrasings.
Clarity: Usually clear, though in technical writing, it may simplify too aggressively.

Weak Spots:

It struggles to fool robust detectors like Winston AI.
The rewriting sometimes goes too far and changes the meaning

As I always say, rewriting text is the easy part. Creating compelling, original content with examples and visuals takes real effort. If you’re serious about bypassing AI detection, NoteGPT is better than nothing, but still far from bulletproof.

Other Features

NoteGPT isn’t just an AI humanizer — here are a few of its additional tools:

Built-in AI detection so you can see how detectable your text is
Plagiarism checking to ensure originality
Multi-language support (English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, and more)
SEO optimization options to improve search performance
Customizable tones and styles
Free trial (limited word count) so you can test it first
API access for bulk rewriting and integrations
A ton of free AI tools for all sorts of use cases

11. The Ghost AI Humanizer

The Ghost AI Humanizer is a rewriting tool that helps you transform AI-generated text into more natural, human-like language.

It’s simple to use. You paste your text, pick your rewriting mode, and click “Humanize.”

Then it generates a cleaner version that aims to fool AI detectors.

However, this tool is very greedy. It only lets you humanize your content once before it already asks for your money for an expensive paid plan.

So before you invest, it’s wise to know if this technology actually even works, right?

Let me show you the results to save your time and money.

The Results

Here are the results of running the AI-humanized content through AI detectors.

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	1	1	0	20
Casual Blog	1	0	100	99
Creative Writing	1	98	100	5
Technical Explanation	1	100	25	40
Overall Average	1.0	49.75	56.25	41.0

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 37.0%

In this table:

0% = definitely AI-generated
100% = definitely human-written

The total combined average across all 16 scores was 37.0%.

That’s way worse than ChatGPT. ChatGPT got a ~72% human score, which is bad itself, but Ghost halved that.

It’s ridiculous that a tool like this says “Bypass AI Detection Guaranteed” when it fails so miserably. The problem here is that you can get a better score by flipping a coin.

The Ghost AI vs. ChatGPT

When I compared The Ghost AI with ChatGPT (which averaged ~72%), The Ghost AI’s 37% was noticeably lower.

Here’s the table of AI scores for ChatGPT-humanized content:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

It helps improve detection scores, but not enough to be fully reliable.

Pricing

The Ghost AI has these pricing plans:

Starter — $9/month

15,000 words per month
500 words per request
Basic rewriting and tone options

Standard — $20/month

60,000 words per month
1,200 words per request
Faster processing and extra rewriting modes

How the Text Reads

Readability: Ok — generates smoother sentences compared to raw AI output.
Tone: Good — formal, neutral, or casual.
Naturalness: Decent — reduces repetitive patterns but sometimes still feels formulaic.

Weak Spots:

Scores are inconsistent across detectors.
Often fails with Winston AI and Undetectable.ai.
In creative text, sometimes introduces awkward phrases.
Not good at all, even the AI detectors that give you a readability score gave it a really bad score.

Other Features

Besides humanizing text, the Ghost AI offers:

Built-in AI detection (so you can see how detectable your content is)
Multi-language support (English, Spanish, French, and more)
SEO optimization for search-friendly rewriting
Plagiarism checking
Adjustable rewrite strength (light, medium, heavy)
Free trial (limited words)

12. DeCopy AI Humanizer

DeCopy AI Humanizer is another tool that promises to rewrite AI-generated text to sound more human.

It’s straightforward to use. You paste your content, pick your tone, and click “Humanize.”

It will then create a rephrased version that should be less detectable by AI detectors.

But does this work? Can it fool the systems that spot AI text? Let’s see.

The Results

Here are the results of running the AI-humanized text through different AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	1	2	0	4
Casual Blog	3	100	100	99
Creative Writing	1	96	35	39
Technical Explanation	3	1	0	24
Overall Average	2.0	49.75	33.75	41.5

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 31.25%

In this table:

0% = definitely AI-generated
100% = definitely human-written

If you add up all 16 scores, you get a combined average of 31.25%.

That’s much lower than ChatGPT’s ~72%.

The results were all over the place.

For example, DeCopy got a 100% human score from Originality AI and QuillBot on Casual Blog content, but nearly 0% on Formal Essay and Technical Explanation.

To put it short, it just simply doesn’t work.

DeCopy AI Humanizer vs. ChatGPT

Because DeCopy wasn’t perfect, I compared it with ChatGPT’s rewriting.

Here are the same results if I used ChatGPT to humanize instead:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

ChatGPT’s average of ~72% still beats DeCopy’s 31.25% combined score by a big margin.

In other words, DeCopy helps, but not enough if your goal is to be undetectable.

Pricing

DeCopy has three plans:

Starter — $9/month

15,000 words per month
500 words per request
Basic humanization and tone adjustment

Pro — $19/month

60,000 words per month
1,200 words per request
All Starter features plus faster rewriting

Unlimited — $49/month

Unlimited words
2,000 words per request
Priority support and advanced paraphrasing

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Let’s look at how the text reads:

Readability: Decent — it improves flow and fixes awkward phrasing.
Tone: Flexible — you can choose casual, formal, or neutral.
Naturalness: Mixed — sometimes the rephrasing still feels robotic.
Clarity: Generally clear, but sometimes oversimplifies ideas

Weak Spots:

Big inconsistency in detection scores.
The rewriting doesn’t always change the structure enough to fool detectors.

Again, rewriting is the easy part. Creating real value — examples, visuals, unique ideas — is what matters most. If your only goal is to avoid detection, DeCopy is a bit better than using nothing at all, but not reliable.

I don’t believe in this technology, and this tool didn’t change it any way or shape or form.

Other Features

DeCopy isn’t just a humanizer — it also has extra tools:

Built-in AI detection so you can check your text before and after rewriting
Plagiarism scanning
SEO optimization options for better search performance
Multi-language support (English, Spanish, German, French)
Different tone and style modes
Fast processing — usually under 10 seconds
Free trial with limited words

14. Koala AI Humanizer

Koala AI Humanizer is an online tool that rewrites AI-generated text to sound more human.

It’s part of the larger Koala AI writing platform.

You paste your text, choose the “Humanizer” tool, and hit “Humanize.”

But does it work? Can it fool AI detectors?

Let’s check the data.

The Results

Here are the results that I got after I put Koala humanized text through the best AI detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	1	100	40	4
Casual Blog	1	0	33	99
Creative Writing	1	88	0	19
Technical Explanation	1	100	0	20
Overall Average	1.0	72.0	18.25	35.5

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 31.19%

In this table:

0% = definitely AI-written
100% = definitely human-written

That adds up to a combined average of 31.19%.

Koala AI Humanizer performed poorly overall.

It managed to fool Originality AI on half the samples, but it failed badly on others.

Also, I don’t like the fact that the “basic” humanization is free and the premium one is only accessible to paying customers.

It’s not because it’s unfair, but this just tells me they don’t want to show the premium one in action because it doesn’t work either.

Koala AI Humanizer vs ChatGPT

Since the score was so low, I compared it with ChatGPT using the same test. ChatGPT scored around 72% — far better than Koala’s 31%.

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

On top of that, Koala AI only lets you try basic humanization in its free plan.

That makes me wonder if the paid version is just as weak. It feels like they limit you so you won’t see how poor it really is, while making it seem that the pricier plans are better.

In reality, all tools should offer free access to their best output, not hide the quality behind a paywall.

Pricing

Koala AI isn’t just the humanizer; it’s part of a full suite, and none of it is fully free:

Essentials: $9/month — 15,000 words & 250 messages per month
Professional: $49/month — 100,000 words & 1,000 messages per month
Boost: $99/month — 250,000 words & 2,500 messages per month

You have to pay to get more than their basic rewrite, and it still doesn’t perform well on humanizing AI.

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Readability: Often awkward. Sentences feel clunky or repetitive.
Tone: Inconsistent. Sometimes neutral, other times flat or unnatural.
Naturalness: Medium. It mostly fails to flow naturally and jumps between styles quite often. Sometimes it sounds decent, though.
Clarity: Acceptable but not the best. Sometimes it works well, but mostly it can be hard to make sense of a few lines.

Weak spots:

It mangles formal and technical text badly
Detector scores are misleadingly low — detectors get fooled, but readers don’t
The free plan hides how weak the humanizer is
The paid version remains underwhelming

Other Features

Koala AI includes more than just the humanizer. It offers:

Full writing tools: blog posts, SEO optimization, outlines, internal links
AI chat (KoalaChat) and image tools
WordPress, Google Sheets, and API integration
Bulk article creation and internal linking automation
Access to GPT‑4o and Claude models
Multi-language support
Free trial credit — 5,000 words to test everything

But the humanizer itself is the weakest link. Karma-wise, it’s frustrating that they only let you sample a poor version for free, as if hoping you’ll pay and still be disappointed.

15. Grammarly AI Humanizer

Grammarly AI Humanizer helps you rephrase AI-generated text to improve clarity, engagement, and tone.

It’s funny they have one of these too! I didn’t know it existed. All I knew was that Grammarly is an AI grammar checker tool. But they’ve capitalized on the AI hype a lot too, even though they were one of the first AI writing tools on the market.

It’s extremely simple to use.

You paste your text into the free humanizer:

It will generate a cleaner, more polished version of your text.

But does this actually make AI text look human?

Can it fool detection systems?

Let’s take a look.

The Results

Let me show you the results of AI detection scores for the AI-humanized pieces of content made by Grammarly.

Here are the results:

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	1	0	37	13
Casual Blog	1	0	0	99
Creative Writing	1	93	66	22
Technical Explanation	1	2	0	15
Overall Average	1.0	23.75	25.75	37.25

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 21.94%

In this table:

0% means the detector thinks the text is fully AI-generated.
100% means it thinks the text is fully human-written.

If we add up all 16 individual scores, we get a combined average of 21.94%.

That’s only slightly better than unedited AI text — far from the ~70–80% range the best tools have. And even those aren’t good because you’d like to see scores very close to 100%, like 99.9% or something.

To put it short, this was a disappointment in an otherwise so good tool.

Grammarly AI Humanizer vs. ChatGPT

Because Grammarly’s rewriting scored so low, I compared it to ChatGPT using the same workflow.

Here are the same results in a similar table you saw before:

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

As you can see from this data, ChatGPT achieved an overall combined average of ~72%, substantially outperforming Grammarly’s 21.94%.

This shows that Grammarly simply isn’t designed as a true AI humanizer — it’s primarily a clarity and grammar enhancer.

Pricing

Grammarly offers three plans:

Free

Basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation checks
Limited AI suggestions

Premium — $12/month (billed annually)

Full sentence rewrites and paraphrasing
Tone adjustments
Formality and clarity improvements
Plagiarism detection

Business — $15/month per user

Everything in Premium
Style guides and team collaboration
Centralized billing
Analytics dashboard

How Good Does the Text Sound?

If we set aside detection and consider readability:

Readability: Good — Grammarly consistently makes sentences cleaner and more engaging, which is good, but the scores are just not going to cut it.
Tone: Adjustable — formal, neutral, or casual.
Naturalness: Strong — it eliminates awkward phrasing and repetitive language.
Clarity: High — messages become concise and precise.

Weak Spots:

It’s simply not meant to fool AI detectors.
The rewriting may be too conservative — many phrases remain similar to the original AI output.

If your priority is avoiding AI detection, Grammarly won’t get you there. Not even close.

Other Features

Grammarly isn’t marketed as an AI humanizer, but includes valuable extras that it’s best known for:

Robust grammar and spelling checks
Plagiarism detection
Vocabulary suggestions
Multi-language support (limited compared to dedicated paraphrasers)
Formality and tone controls
Browser extensions and desktop apps
Free plan to test basic features

If you mainly want clean, polished writing that reads well, Grammarly is an outstanding tool.

But if your goal is to humanize AI-generated text to avoid detection, you’ll need something more specialized.

16. Monca AI

Monica AI is an AI humanizer that takes AI-generated text and rewrites it so it sounds more like a real person wrote it.

It’s easy to use. You paste your text, pick the rewrite style, and click “Humanize.”

It gives you a humanized version of your content.

But let’s see if this works.

The Results

Here are the results from the most popular detectors:

Content Type	Winston AI (%)	Originality AI (%)	QuillBot Detector (%)	Undetectable.ai Detector (%)
Formal Essay	3	1	34	13
Casual Blog	100	99	100	99
Creative Writing	1	100	100	47
Technical Explanation	100	100	100	99
Overall Average	51.0	75.0	83.5	64.5

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 68.5%

0% = definitely AI-written
100% = definitely human-written

This gives a combined average of 68.5%, the second-highest score after ChatGPT.

But here’s the issue:

Monica AI often introduces crazy typos and weird characters that make the text almost unreadable. Those errors probably tricked the detectors into thinking it was human — or at least not AI-generated.

So I would call it cheating because, despite the AI passing the AI detectors, you can instantly see from the text that everything’s not all right with it.

So even though the scores look good, the output quality is so poor that it’s hard to actually use it.

Monica AI vs. ChatGPT

I ran the same test with ChatGPT. Its average came out around 72%.

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

On paper, Monica AI’s 68.5% isn’t too far behind. In fact, with a larger data set, it could easily match ChatGPT or even shoot past it to the top of the list…

However, there’s a big problem why it’s actually at the bottom of the list:

Monica AI’s high score is mostly thanks to messy typos, not natural writing.
ChatGPT’s output was clean, clear, and readable.

So Monica AI tried to fool the AI detectors by writing absolute nonsense. This doesn’t count to me, at least.

If readability matters — and it does — Monica AI falls short, which is why it lands at the bottom despite the detector scores.

Pricing

Monica AI offers these plans:

Free Trial

Limited daily usage
Basic rewrite options

Pro — $9.90/month

5,000 words/month
500 words per request

Unlimited — $24.90/month

Unlimited words
2,000 words per request
Includes image/video tools, AI chat, PDF tools, and rewriting features

How Good Does the Text Sound?

Readability: Poor. The text is full of typos and random characters.
Tone: Inconsistent. Sometimes human-like, often just broken.
Naturalness: Low. Most output feels garbled, not natural.
Clarity: Bad. Some parts don’t even make sense.

Even though the detector scores look promising, the text is often unusable.

Weak Spots:

Frequent typos and glitches
Unreadable output, even if flagged as “human” by detectors
Cannot confidently publish or use the text

Other Features

Monica AI does offer some solid extras:

Built-in AI detector to check text before and after rewriting
SEO-friendly rewriting that keeps keywords intact
Multi-language support (100+ languages, including Spanish, Chinese, Arabic)
Integrated tools: AI chat, image generation, PDF summarizer, translation, keyword tools
Browser extension, desktop, and mobile apps
Plagiarism checker
No signup needed for the humanizer
Free daily credits before needing a paid plan

Improved Prompts for AI Humanizers?

Now that I’ve tested all the tools with basic inputs, I want to see what happens if I carefully create a ChatGPT prompt to better humanize the content.

In this attempt, I told ChatGPT to write just like me, and then I gave it a blog post that I’ve written by hand.

For sure, this shouldn’t fail, right?

I tell the AI exactly what to do and to write like an efficient writer. On top of that, I tell it to use my exact style from my blog post.

So, let’s see the results…

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	1%	59%	30%
Casual Blog	1%	100%	100%	99%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	38%
Technical Expl.	0%	1%	32%	99%
Overall Average	0.25%	50.5%	72.75%	66.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 47.5%

That’s just 47.5% human score on average.

That’s way lower than the random prompt I used with ChatGPT earlier to get a 70 %+ score.

So by improving the prompt, I just made the humanization worse…

Of course, this could just be a bad dice roll, since all AI content is always a bit random.

Be it that or something else, this just confirms how hard AI “humanization” is.

If you try random tools (or prompts) and get a human score less than 99%, you can already tell that this technology doesn’t work.

How AI Humanizers Work (and Why They’re Bad)

So why do all these AI humanizers perform so badly?

Here’s what’s going on.

Most AI humanizers are just wrappers around ChatGPT or similar LLMs. They don’t have some secret sauce or magical anti-detector engine. What they do is:

Take your AI-generated text
Rewrite it with prompt tricks (like “write this like a human”)
Send it to an LLM
Spit it back out with a new coat of paint

That’s it.

Brutally honest, but that’s how it works.

And because they’re still using AI to rewrite AI… it still sounds AI. Simple as that!

AI detectors look for patterns: repetition, unnatural phrasing, perfect grammar, over-clarity, and lack of human randomness. And even with AI-powered humanization, these things often just are there, because as I just said, it’s still AI doing all the writing.

Also, some popular AI humanizers don’t train on actual human writing. They’re just rephrasing. That might fool some detectors part of the time, but not all of them, and not consistently. The issue with this is that the content ends up fooling those detectors, but it sounds like garbage.

Why These Tools Still Exist?

Now you might be wondering… If these AI humanizers don’t work, why are there so many of them?

Simple answer: they sell.

It’s not always about building the best product — it’s about showing up where the demand is.

Right now, “AI humanizer” is a hot search term.

In the US alone, there are over 246,000 searches for “AI humanizer” on Google every month.

That’s probably because students, freelancers, and SEOs are trying to dodge AI detectors.

Nonetheless, when there’s search volume, someone’s going to build a tool around it. Doesn’t matter if it works. If people are searching, someone will sell.

And most users won’t test the results like I did.

They’ll paste in their text, see something slightly rewritten, and just assume it’s “humanized.” That’s good enough for the tool to get signups, upsell a premium plan, and cash in.

So yeah — they know it’s not perfect. But if the demand is there, they’ll build it anyway.

That’s the game.

I don’t hate it because that’s how all business works. You’re pitched a lot of completely useless stuff that doesn’t work. Then that money is collected to develop something that might actually be useful in the future.

Just know that this is how it works.

How to Fool AI Detectors… The Right Way

To fool AI detectors, you don’t need a “humanizer.”

You need to be human.

Sounds boring, generic, and cheesy, right?

But the only way to bypass AI detection is to write stuff that only a human with real experience could write.

Not regurgitated facts.

Not surface-level fluff.

But actual, honest-to-goodness expertise.

Here’s what that looks like:

Personal stories
Real-world insights
Niche details you only know from doing the work
Specifics that ChatGPT can’t fake

Look at some of my blog posts.

Those aren’t masterpieces of writing.

Those get reads because I save my audience’s time and share my results. That’s what actually matters. It’s the experience and expertise.

That kind of content doesn’t pass AI detectors — it makes the internet better. It stands out. It builds trust. It matters.

If you create good content, it doesn’t even matter if it’s written by AI or not. It’s the countless hours of experience and expertise that you share that matter.

Yes, it takes time. It’s not supposed to be easy.

These days, everyone has access to the same AI tools. Don’t write just another post or essay. Not because it’s unethical or cheating. But simply because it just doesn’t work. It doesn’t get you anywhere.

AI Detectors Miss the Point

AI detectors are easy to trick. But if they weren’t, it still wouldn’t solve the bigger issue.

The real problem is that AI-written content sounds AI, no matter what you do.

With humanizers, you’re not getting anything else but an even more AI-like piece of text.

These “humanizer” tools try to game the system. They twist the sentences, break the flow, add randomness — all to push up that “human-written” score.

Sometimes it accidentally works. But most of the time it doesn’t.

Remember, you don’t win by blending in. You win by creating something new! Always add something to the table with your content. If you have nothing new to say, don’t say it. If you don’t know about your topic, don’t write about it. It’s as simple as that.

I Don’t Use AI Humanizers

To be honest, I don’t use AI humanizers. I don’t use AI detectors either.

Not because I’m trying to be some purist, but because they don’t work.

Even if they did, they’d be pointless.

That’s because it’s all about creating useful content.

Even before AI blew up, freelancers were writing blogs on topics they knew nothing about. Just rewrites of rewrites. Zero added value.

Now AI just automates that same task. It’s faster, but still, useless.

Don’t game the system. It just doesn’t work. Google’s smarter than that. Readers are smarter than that. You might fool a detector for a minute, but what’s the point if your content is still bad?

The only real strategy that works — the one that always works — is this:

👉 Write about what you know.
👉 Help people.
👉 Put in the work.

That’s it. That’s the whole playbook.

This Is Ridiculous, Though

It’s funny how much hype there is around AI detectors and humanizers.

You’ve probably seen those startup landing pages that say: “Our AI humanizer is undetectable!”

But then, on the next page, the same company brags, “Our AI detector can’t be fooled!”

Think about that for a second…

If their detector really can’t be tricked, then their humanizer doesn’t work.
Or if their humanizer actually makes AI text undetectable, then their detector is worthless.

This whole market thrives on fear.

Writers are scared their content will get flagged. Companies are scared of getting penalized.

So they buy tools that promise to solve the problem, even though the tools contradict each other by design.

It’s a game of selling umbrellas and hoses at the same time. One creates the problem, the other claims to fix it.

I don’t use AI detectors or AI humanizers. They simply don’t work.

But if you’re a believer in those technologies, I hope you enjoyed this post and found it insightful!

The Setup

Let me quickly show you how I did this experiment and how you can repeat it.

First, I used AI-written posts that you will find below this chapter or here. Those are good because they’re in different writing styles.

I then entered each AI-written text sample into the AI humanizer in question.

This converted the AI-written text sample into a humanized piece of text.

Then I copied each humanized text sample into my clipboard:

And I opened up a bunch of best AI detectors to see if the AI-written, humanized text would pass the detectors.

One of the tools I used was Winston AI. Currently, it’s the best AI detector on the market.

As I scanned the AI-humanized content through the AI detectors, I got scores between 0–100% as to how human the text sounds.

Other tools that I used to detect AI were Originality AI, QuillBot, and Undetectable AI.

Notice that not all of these tools are free.

If you want to try the experiment without paying, perhaps test Undetectable.ai. It lets you humanize 10 samples before asking for a payment. And if it does, just close your window and open it up in incognito again.

Nonetheless, to gather data, I asked ChatGPT to create a table consisting of the test results for each tool through every AI detector.

I asked ChatGPT to create the table in Markdown format, so that’s why the AI detection scores look a bit funky in the table above. You can use that format or any other format you can create tables with on your website.

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	7%	100%	100%	49%
Casual Blog	83%	100%	100%	50%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	36%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	100%	99%
Total Average	22.5%	100%	100%	58.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 70.31%

That’s how you can create a similar experience and share it here too!

Obviously, my data is very limited, and the dataset is small. Ridiculously small to draw any conclusions or reliable comparisons.

However, this random small-sample data is already enough to show the main point of this post, and it’s the fact that those tools don’t work.

If I only saw scores of 100%, then I’d have to do a much broader study on a much wider dataset.

But if I test these tools randomly on a couple of occasions and already get scores much less than 100%, that tells me it’s very, very unlikely that these tools would actually work.

Materials for AI Humanizer Experiment

That’s it for the AI content humanization and my thoughts on it.

To run a similar experiment, let me save you some time by sharing my materials.

The Prompt: ChatGPT Humanizer

Here’s the ChatGPT AI humanization prompt I used in these tests:

Take the following content and rewrite it so it sounds like it was written by a human, not just any human, but one with natural quirks, opinions, emotional undertones, and stylistic imperfections.

Add:

Mild personal anecdotes, observations, or casual asides where appropriate. Vary sentence lengths and structure — mix in fragments, rhetorical questions, even informal phrasing. Use colloquialisms, contractions, and slight inconsistencies in tone or pacing, like a real person would. Occasional humor, uncertainty, or opinion — avoid being perfectly neutral. Avoid repetitive phrases, generic transitions, or robotic patterns.

The goal is to sound like a thoughtful, slightly flawed, expressive human, not a polished AI. Rewrite accordingly.

AI-Written Posts

And here are the four sample AI-generated blog posts:

📄1. Formal Essay (Topic: Climate Change Policy)

Climate change represents one of the most critical challenges facing humanity today.
Rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, and extreme weather events are no longer distant threats
but daily realities. Governments around the world must act swiftly and decisively to implement effective
climate policies. These may include carbon pricing mechanisms such as taxes or cap-and-trade systems,
increased investment in renewable energy sources, and stricter regulations on emissions from
transportation and industry.

Public awareness campaigns can also play a vital role in shifting societal behavior.
Equally important is international cooperation, as climate change transcends national borders and
requires a unified global response. Failure to act could result in irreversible damage to ecosystems,
widespread food insecurity, displacement of populations, and escalating economic costs.

Therefore, climate policy must strike a balance between environmental urgency, economic sustainability,
and social equity to ensure a livable future for generations to come.

2. Casual Blog Post (Topic: A Trip to Lisbon)

I didn’t expect to fall in love with Lisbon, but that’s exactly what happened.
From the moment I stepped off the plane, the city greeted me with warmth, charm, and ridiculously good food.
I spent most of my time wandering through the winding alleyways of Alfama, where laundry hangs from balconies
and the sound of Fado music drifts out of open windows.

One of my favorite moments was watching the sunset from Miradouro da Senhora do Monte —
the sky turning gold over terracotta rooftops. Trams rattle along narrow streets like something out of a movie,
and the people are as friendly as the weather is sunny. Of course, I couldn’t leave without trying
a fresh pastel de nata (or three).

Lisbon has this laid-back energy that makes you feel like you’re meant to slow down.
It’s definitely a place I’ll return to someday.

3. Creative Writing (Scene: Rainy City)

Rain slid off rooftops and hissed against the pavement,
turning the city into a blur of glistening reflections and scattered light.
Mara moved through the quiet streets, her boots splashing through shallow puddles
as headlights shimmered across wet asphalt.

Somewhere above, jazz spilled softly from a second-floor window,
a saxophone solo bending against the rhythm of the storm.
The city felt alive in its stillness — holding secrets in every alley and whispers in the fog.
Under the streetlight, her silhouette stretched behind her like a forgotten memory.

She wasn’t sure where she was going, only that tonight wasn’t meant for staying still.
With every step, the rain seemed to erase just a little more of the past,
washing away the weight she hadn’t realized she was carrying.
In the quiet of the storm, she finally felt something close to free.

4. Technical Explanation (Topic: How Neural Networks Work)

Neural networks are a foundational component of modern artificial intelligence,
modeled loosely after the way neurons work in the human brain.
At their core, they consist of layers of interconnected nodes,
where each node receives input, processes it through an activation function,
and passes the result to the next layer.

The most common type is the feedforward neural network,
which is used for tasks like classification, regression, and pattern recognition.
Training involves a process called backpropagation, where the network adjusts its internal weights
based on the error between its predictions and the actual outcomes.
This adjustment uses an optimization algorithm known as gradient descent.

Over many iterations and data samples, the network improves its performance by minimizing loss.
Neural networks power a range of real-world applications — from facial recognition and voice assistants
to recommendation engines and autonomous vehicles.
Their ability to learn complex patterns makes them incredibly powerful, but also computationally intensive.