Copyleaks

By Minel Gunesoglu, founder. For this page I opened Copyleaks' pricing page and its Terms of Use, the Capterra review record, the r/ChatGPT thread that sits on page one for this product, and the peer-reviewed paper the vendor's own accuracy claim points at, all on 8 August 2026. No document of mine was put through Copyleaks and no detection test of any kind sits behind anything below. Re-checked monthly.

Copyleaks is an AI-text detector bundled with a plagiarism checker, an image detector, a grammar checker and Codeleaks for source code, sold to individuals, schools and enterprises on a single shared credit meter. Two sentences it publishes about that detector are worth setting beside each other before anything else, because between them they decide what a Copyleaks percentage is and is not.

The first is on Copyleaks' AI detector page, read 8 August 2026: "With over 99% accuracy and an industry-low .03% false positive rate, Copyleaks leads the field in trusted detection." The second is in Copyleaks' Terms of Use, last revised 9 September 2025 and read the same day, at section 10.3: a result "shall not constitute an endorsement or determination on the part of Copyleaks regarding whether or not the scanned content, or any part of it, was AI Generated." Both documents are the company's own, both were live on 8 August 2026, and this page quotes them, dates them and links them rather than telling you what to make of the pair.

That is the shape of everything below. This desk runs no detection tests: nobody at it has scanned a document through Copyleaks or through anything else, so no accuracy figure on this page is ours. What is ours is the work of opening primary documents, dating them, and reporting where they disagree with each other and with the pages that summarise them. Three of the five dimensions on our score card carry a number for that reason, and two carry nothing at all. If you arrived here because a percentage was attached to something you wrote, the two clauses quoted further down are the most useful sentences in the whole record, and they come from the vendor.

Copyleaks' Accuracy Claim: a 0.03% False-Positive Rate, and What Two Peer-Reviewed Studies Measured

Copyleaks states its accuracy in three places on one page, in three slightly different forms. The banner reads "99% accuracy backed by independent third-party studies." The body reads "over 99% accuracy, even when it's carefully blended with human writing." The FAQ answer to "How Accurate is Copyleaks AI Detector?" reads: "The likelihood of human-written content being mistakenly labeled as AI-generated is .03%—one of the lowest among AI detectors." All three were read on 8 August 2026, and the .03% figure only renders once the page has been scrolled to the bottom, which is worth knowing if you have ever gone looking for it and not found it.

The same page carries a per-language table. Copyleaks publishes six rows under the heading "Use The AI Detector Across Multiple Languages", surrounded by the claim that it supports "over 30 languages with low false-positive rates for non-native English text."

Read that table with what is missing beside it. The page gives no date for those figures, no sample size and no method. It does not define the two columns beyond the labels above them. And it does not say whether the single .03% quoted elsewhere on the same page is the English row restated, an average across languages, or a separate measurement entirely. Reconciling those on the vendor's behalf would mean inventing a relationship the source does not state, so this page leaves them as the page leaves them: six numbers with no provenance, and one number with no stated relationship to them.

Other false-positive figures for this product circulate on pages that rank for these searches, and they agree neither with Copyleaks nor with each other. Three of them were opened and traced on 8 August 2026, and none is reproduced here, the numbers included. Two sit on one publisher's site, whose own headline product belongs to a category this site does not cite from, review or link to. The third names one of those two as its source, and the figure it attributes does not appear anywhere on the page it links to. What survives that check is the vendor's own number, plus two peer-reviewed papers.

The first is Elkhatat, Elsaid and Almeer, published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity on 1 September 2023 (doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00140-5). It tested five detectors, Copyleaks among them, and found the tool pointing in two directions at once. On GPT-4 output Copyleaks had the highest sensitivity of the five, at 93%. On GPT-3.5 output, in the paper's own word, Copyleaks "struggled" with sensitivity, and the tools as a group "exhibited inconsistencies, producing false positives and uncertain classifications" on the human control samples. The corpus was five AI paragraphs per model and five human control paragraphs, all on one subject: cooling towers in the engineering process. That 93% is a real peer-reviewed measurement and it is also a measurement over a handful of paragraphs about cooling towers, and any page handing you the first half without the second has given you half a result.

The second paper is the one people reach for when they want a verdict on detectors in general, and it is the one that cannot supply a verdict here. Weber-Wulff and colleagues, in the same journal on 25 December 2023 (doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z), ran what the paper calls "one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far" across 12 publicly available tools plus Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck, and concluded that "the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable." Copyleaks is not one of the fourteen. That was verified twice against a full-text capture: a case-insensitive search for the name returns nothing, while every tool the paper does discuss is confirmed present by name. The largest published evaluation in this field does not cover this product, its conclusion is about the fourteen tools it names, and attaching that conclusion to Copyleaks would mean reporting a result nobody measured.

One narrower question the vendor does answer directly, because it is the one a lot of people arrive with. Copyleaks' own FAQ says that Grammarly's "AI-based rewriting features may trigger detection, while basic grammar and spell-check functions typically do not", and that the detector "is designed to distinguish between minor edits and generative rewriting" (read 8 August 2026). That is the vendor describing its own product rather than an independent finding, and no published test of it exists in this record in either direction.

Copyleaks' Accuracy in the Study Its Marketing Page Cites: 1 False Positive in 114, and 100% Down to 50%

Copyleaks' FAQ answers the question "What is the most accurate AI detector?" like this: "According to Cornell University, the answer is Copyleaks AI Detector. In July 2023, a study published on arXiv by Cornell Tech researchers declared Copyleaks AI Detector the most accurate for detecting LLM-generated text." Three separate research records in this pipeline forbade repeating that sentence with its attribution until somebody opened the paper. Somebody opened it on 8 August 2026, and what is there sets out as four facts, in order.

Fact one: the vendor's page credits Cornell Tech researchers. Fact two: the paper is arXiv:2307.07411, submitted 10 July 2023 and later peer-reviewed at IEEE COMPSAC on 2 July 2024, and its abstract does say "CopyLeaks is the most accurate LLM-generated text detector." Fact three: its four authors are listed at the University of Toronto Mississauga, Maranatha Christian University and Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, and the affiliations were read twice, once from the paper's own title block and once from the record of the peer-reviewed version. Fact four: arXiv is operated by Cornell University. There is no fifth fact here and this page does not supply one.

What the paper contains beyond that headline is the part nothing in the current results carries. The authors collected 124 submissions from computer-science students before ChatGPT existed, generated 40 ChatGPT submissions, and ran eight publicly available detectors across both. Text written before the tool existed cannot be AI-written, so every positive on it is by definition a false positive, which makes the design unusually clean. Across 114 of those human submissions Copyleaks returned one false positive: second of the eight tools tested, behind GPTKit's zero, with GPTZero returning 52 on the same 114 submissions. On overall accuracy the same study reads 99.12% on human data and 95.00% on ChatGPT data by its threshold measure, and 99.06% and 94.14% by its weighted measure. The two measures differ in how a borderline document is counted: the threshold measure treats a score as a yes-or-no call at a cut-off, while the weighted measure carries the confidence of each call into the average. That is why one tool produces two different accuracy percentages inside one paper.

The same study, four tables later, measured something else. Ten of the ChatGPT submissions were run through the paraphrasing tool QuillBot and every detector was re-tested, and Copyleaks' accuracy on that AI text fell from 100% to 50% on the threshold measure and from 100% to 39.31% weighted, the second-lowest weighted figure of the eight. Ten submissions is a thin arm and the number should be read as thin. Both halves belong to one study and neither travels alone here: a page printing only the one-in-114 result is repeating the vendor's brochure, and a page printing only the collapse is repeating somebody else's.

The scope belongs in the same breath as every figure above, every time it appears. This is 2023 work, on ChatGPT-era output, on computing-education submissions, in English, with 124 human and 40 AI texts. Copyleaks today advertises detecting GPT-5, GPT-4, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, Llama, Bloom, Rytr and Jasper. The paper cannot speak to any of them, and nothing on this page implies it does.

Copyleaks' Terms of Use on Accuracy: What §10.2 and §10.3 Say a Result Is Not

Copyleaks' Terms of Use sit at copyleaks.com/termsofuse, print "Last revised September 9, 2025" at the top, and were read on 8 August 2026. Section 10 is the part governing the detector, and section 10.1 defines it as software that "scans content provided by the user in order to indicate whether, and assess the probability that, the scanned content is generated, constructed, produced, manipulated, or plagiarized by artificial intelligence (AI) tool ... or human product."

Section 10.2 is headed Disclaimer: "Copyleaks does not provide – and expressly disclaims – any warranty regarding the accuracy of the result provided by the AI Features, which in some cases may incorrectly flag certain content as more likely to be AI-Generated."

Section 10.3 is headed Assessment Tools: "The Features are an assessment tool which does not guarantee whether any given content was AI Generated, and any result provided by the AI Features shall not constitute an endorsement or determination on the part of Copyleaks regarding whether or not the scanned content, or any part of it, was AI Generated."

Section 10.5 handles what follows from a result: "Copyleaks shall in no way be liable for any action taken by you or any third party on the basis of a result provided by the AI Features. You are solely responsible for any inquiry, investigation or other action taken by you on the basis of such result."

Those are quotations, dated and linked, and this page draws no conclusion from them about the company, about its intentions, or about the standing of anything it publishes elsewhere. What they are useful for is narrower and entirely practical. If a number produced by this tool is being treated as settling whether a person wrote something, section 10.3 is the vendor's own statement that the number does not do that, and anyone can check it in the vendor's own contract.

One further clause matters to how the product is scored here rather than to how it reads. The customer-indemnity obligation, in the User Content section, runs to claims "arising out of or related to your User Content, including your failure to obtain the required consents, to comply with applicable laws in connection with such content or violation of any third-party's rights." It names uploaded material: consents, third-party rights, applicable law. Decisions somebody takes because of a detection result are handled separately, in section 10.5, as a disclaimer of the vendor's own liability rather than an obligation placed on the customer. Section 17 is an ordinary all-caps "AS IS" warranty disclaimer of the sort most software contracts carry, and it is noted here only so that nobody later presents boilerplate as a finding.

What Copyleaks' 59.8 Score Rests On, and Why Its Confidence Label Reads Low

Copyleaks' card reads 59.8 out of 100, data collected 8 August 2026, and the number is unusual in one respect: its capability cell converts the lower of two figures the same study produced about the same tool on the same day. Confidence reads low. Low here describes coverage rather than shaky sources, because two of the five dimensions could not be produced from public evidence at all, and a composite averaged over three is labelled as one averaged over three.

Two things about that table deserve saying out loud rather than leaving in a cell. The capability figure converts the degraded condition on purpose, because degraded text is what a working detector actually meets, and 50.0 is therefore the lower of two numbers one study produced about one tool. Beside it sit 100% before that arm, 95.00% and 94.14% across 40 unmodified ChatGPT submissions, and the one-false-positive-in-114 result described above. Publishing 50 on its own would hide that this tool is close to perfect on untouched text and rarely flags human writing. Publishing the false-positive count on its own would hide the other half. The arm behind the 50.0 is ten submissions, which is thin, and that travels with the number wherever it appears.

The blank safety-and-trust cell has a specific cause and it is not the contract. The terms were read and the indemnification position was recorded; what is missing is the other input, a paying-customer trust record large enough to convert. G2 and Trustpilot were attempted four separate times, across three agents and this session, and refused every method, so no rating from either appears anywhere here, including from memory or from somebody else's restatement of them. Reliability is blank for a simpler reason: it needs a controlled repeat run and none has been performed. What each dimension is allowed to be built from is written out separately, along with what a missing cell does to a composite.

One Copyleaks Credit Buys 250 Words: What Personal at $16.99 and Pro at $99.99 Actually Cover

Copyleaks sells four things and only two of them have a published price. Every figure below was read from Copyleaks' pricing page on 8 August 2026, across all four of its views, in a browser session, because the page returns a bot interstitial to any scripted request. That matters more here than it usually would: pages currently ranking for this exact search publish prices for this product that do not match the vendor's, under plan names the vendor does not use.

The unit underneath all of it is the credit, and Copyleaks defines it plainly: "1 credit covers up to 250 words or 1 image." The company's own worked example follows in the next FAQ answer: "100 credits equals up to 25,000 words or 100 images ... this typically equates to about 100 standard pages (at ~250 words per page)." Apply that published rate and a 3,000-word article draws 12 credits, a 50-page thesis at the vendor's own 250 words per page draws 50, and a Personal plan's 100 monthly credits covers roughly eight such articles or two such theses. Those three are arithmetic on the vendor's stated rate rather than figures Copyleaks prints, and they are shown that way so the multiplication stays visible.

One credit meter covers AI detection, plagiarism matching and image scanning together, which the pricing page calls "unified credits". What the page never states is whether a combined text scan, which it says returns AI and plagiarism results "in a single report", draws more from that meter than a single-purpose scan would. The ambiguity is reported here and no multiplier is asserted, because the vendor asserts none. A long-term paying customer described the same thing from the other side: Kalyan K., a writer in information technology and services with one to two years on the product, wrote that "the credit system may be a bit confusing at the beginning" (Capterra, 12 January 2025).

Two mechanics on that page cost money, and both sit inside a collapsed accordion nothing links to. First, plans do not stack: "Switching plans will override your current plan, including any remaining credits. For example, changing from an annual AI-only plan to a monthly AI + Plagiarism plan will forfeit the unused annual credits." Second, refunds require two conditions at once rather than one: "We will only issue a refund if you submitted your request within the first 10 days of your billing cycle and did not scan any pages or use any credits from your account." A single scan closes that door. Renewal is automatic unless cancelled before the next cycle, which the FAQ states directly and which a five-star institutional reviewer nonetheless ran into: Virginia I., a professor in education management, wrote that "a month they reloaded the payment without me requesting it, right now I am looking for how to withdraw from the automatic payment" (Capterra, 4 January 2020, about the plagiarism product).

Education and Enterprise publish no price of any kind on any view of that page. Both offer a "Talk to Sales" button and nothing else, and Enterprise is where API access lives. For a school or a company that means the budget question cannot be answered from public material at all, which is itself budget-relevant.

Copyleaks' Annual Plan Prints 1,200 Credits and the FAQ Calls the Allowance Monthly

The yearly Personal card prints "1,200 unified credits: Scan up to 300,000 words OR 1,200 images". The monthly Personal card prints "100 unified credits: Scan up to 25,000 words OR 100 images". Immediately below both, the FAQ describes the same allowance as monthly, twice: "your monthly scan limit is based on credits", and "if you reach your monthly credit allowance on a Personal or Pro plan, you have two options". The same answer then says the allowance "resets at the start of each new billing cycle", and on an annual subscription a billing cycle is a year.

Money rides on which reading is right. If 1,200 is a yearly total it is exactly the monthly plan's 100 multiplied by twelve, and the annual discount buys a lower price and no additional capacity. If 1,200 is monthly, the annual plan is twelve times the volume at three-quarters of the price. Copyleaks' page does not resolve it, both lines are quoted above as they appear, and neither reading is asserted here. Anyone sizing a real workload against it should get an answer in writing before paying for a year.

Copyleaks' Free Scan Is Measured in Characters, Not Words: 25,000 Without an Account

Copyleaks' free path is real and its unit is unusual, which is where most summaries of it go wrong. The detector page states: "You can scan up to 25,000 characters without logging in, a higher limit than most major AI detection tools." Characters, not words. The paid tier's own worked example uses the same numeral for a much larger quantity of text, "100 credits equals up to 25,000 words", and the two are easy to read as the same allowance when they are not remotely the same allowance.

There are three separate surfaces with three separate ceilings, and no page in the current results separates them:

• The no-login scan on the detector page: up to 25,000 characters.
• The browser extension: minimum 350 characters, maximum 25,000 characters.
• The web platform after signing in: minimum 255 characters, maximum 2,000 pages, with no character maximum stated.

The minimums are not incidental. Copyleaks' own explanation is that "our models need a certain volume of text to determine AI presence accurately. More characters improve detection confidence", which is the vendor stating that a short passage is a weaker input than a long one.

Then there is the number that is not published. Copyleaks says "every new user receives a limited number of free credits to explore our AI and plagiarism detection tools before committing to a paid plan", and the count appears nowhere on the detector page, the pricing page or any other page captured for this review. It is left here as an absence, because three pages currently ranking for these searches each substitute a different number for it and not one of them sources it.

A last pair is worth knowing, reported without resolution because the two documents do not resolve it. The marketing page offers a scan with no login. The Terms of Use say Guest Users, meaning people with no account, "cannot use the Services" and are "forbidden from using the Services for any commercial purpose." Both were read on 8 August 2026. Anyone planning to lean on the free scan for paid work should read the Guest Users clause directly rather than take a summary of it, this one included.

Copyleaks for Institutions: Which LMS Platforms It Integrates With, and an API With No Published Price

The Education view of Copyleaks' pricing page names its learning-management integrations in one sentence: "Integrates with leading LMS platforms (Canvas, Moodle, D2L Brightspace, Schoology, Sakai, Edsby, and Blackboard)". That list is the vendor's, read on 8 August 2026, and it is reproduced here as a statement of what connects to what, not as a setup guide. The same view promises analytics at student, course and institution level, grade and feedback sync back into the LMS, multi-admin permissions and dedicated private-cloud storage, and it names no price for any of it.

Institutions do publish their own documentation for the product, which is a different and more useful kind of evidence than a vendor case study. A sweep of institutional domains on 8 August 2026 surfaced seven universities and colleges carrying their own Copyleaks help pages, among them the University of Illinois Springfield, Utah State University, St. Petersburg College, York University Online, Salt Lake Community College and Azusa Pacific University. Two of those pages were opened and read; the other five are recorded as titles in a result list and nothing is quoted from them. That establishes that institutions deploy it and document it themselves. It is not a customer count, not a market share, and not evidence about accuracy.

The API section is the shortest here because the answer is an absence. Copyleaks publishes no rate card for it on any page captured for this review. The Enterprise view offers "scalable API integration into custom workflows" and a sales contact, the Education view routes API access to the same place, and the pricing FAQ says education and enterprise plans are "custom-tailored" and built with the sales team. For anyone costing detection into a pipeline, the per-unit price cannot be established from public material, and naming that plainly is more use than an invented estimate.

Copyleaks' Data-Privacy Certifications: SOC 2, SOC 3, GDPR, PCI DSS and NIST RMF

Copyleaks states its compliance position in one FAQ answer on the detector page, read 8 August 2026: "At Copyleaks, we prioritize data privacy and compliance." The same answer then names five current certifications, printed as one unbroken run in the page's own source: SOC2 and SOC3, GDPR, PCI DSS, and NIST RMF. The company points readers to its own Compliance and Certifications and Security Practices pages for detail. Neither of those, nor the Privacy Policy, nor the data-processing agreement was opened for this review, so nothing here characterises what any of them contains. The list above is what the vendor states, on the date it was read.

Copyleaks in Canvas at Utah State: the AI Alert Is Not the Number in the Gradebook

Utah State University replaced Turnitin with Copyleaks for plagiarism checking inside Canvas assignments as of 20 July 2023, and says so on its own help pages. That is a dated procurement fact from one named institution and nothing more: a purchasing decision is not a measurement, and it says nothing about whether either product is more accurate than the other. One institution is also not a trend, and what the other six documented deployments used beforehand is unknown.

The operationally useful sentence on that page is a different one. Utah State writes: "Copyleaks performs AI checks. The detailed Copyleaks report includes an alert if possible AI usage is detected. As with Turnitin, AI detection is not currently included in the originality score that appears in Canvas." Its companion article is titled "Accessing AI Detection Feature in Copyleaks" and describes enabling or disabling the feature in a report.

For anyone who has been shown a percentage, that is worth holding onto. At this institution, on the date it documented the change, the number an instructor sees in the gradebook is the originality score, the AI-detection result is an alert inside the detailed report, and whether AI detection runs at all is an instructor-level setting. This is one university's configuration, published by a source with nothing to sell, and other institutions may well have it set up differently. What it establishes is that "the percentage" is not necessarily one number.

Copyleaks' Customer Record: 91 Capterra Reviews, One Vendor Reply, and a Reddit Thread That Runs Both Ways

Copyleaks holds 4.4 out of 5 across 91 reviews on Capterra, with ease of use at 4.6 and customer service at 4.5, on a page stamped "Last updated July 31st, 2026" and read on 8 August 2026. Two facts have to travel with that aggregate. Capterra files this product under Plagiarism Checker Software rather than in any AI-detection category, and its oldest reviews are from January 2020, three years before Copyleaks had an AI detector at all. The 4.4 therefore rates a plagiarism product across part of its sample and a detector across the rest, and the three five-star reviews from January and February 2020 that a most-helpful sort pushes to the top are about plagiarism matching and are not evidence about detection accuracy in either direction.

What the sample does show clearly is where the complaints sit. Ease of use and support both sit above 4.5 while the one-star reviews are about what the AI score means, which is an unusually clean signal from a sample this size and is the reason usability converts to a number here and safety does not.

The most-cited example is dated and named, and its vendor response is part of the record. David B., a history teacher in higher education using the product for less than six months, rated it 1.0 on 26 April 2023, praised the plagiarism checker as "perfect for checking History A-Level coursework!", and then wrote: "I entered some work that a student did 5 years ago (without AI) and it came up with a 65% AI score." Copyleaks replied publicly on the same review the following day, 27 April 2023: "Appreciate the feedback. If possible, are you able to share what you checked for AI content so we can explore further on our end? Also, here's a resource indicating its limitations." The reply carried a link to the vendor's own AI-detector limitations FAQ. Quoting the complaint and dropping the answer would be selecting from the source rather than reporting it, and the answer happens to be the strongest evidence in this record that the company points customers at its own limitations document.

Two more Capterra entries fill in the shape of the negative half. Tracy D., an owner in entertainment on a free trial, wrote on 21 February 2024: "It did not detect the AI and it said human in put was AI" — both error directions in one sentence, spelling as posted. Gabriel A., a manager in an executive office on a free trial, rated it 1.0 on 13 July 2023 and described a specific behaviour: "When a story summary exhibits close similarities, Copyleaks erroneously labels it as" AI, he wrote, "whereas it more accurately falls within the realm of unintentional plagiarism." That observation, rather than the rest of his review, is the checkable part, and it names the same failure mode three separate people describe below.

Why Copyleaks' Reddit Record Splits Between Whole Documents and Single Paragraphs

An r/ChatGPT thread titled "Is Copyleaks an reliable AI detector?" has been running since 25 May 2023 and sits on page one of Google's results for this product's review search. It holds 71 comments, 44 of them substantive, with the newest kept comment dated 1 May 2024, which was 27 months old when the thread was read on 8 August 2026. Nothing in it describes how the product behaves today, every quote below carries its own date, and none of these people reports an outcome: no grade, no accusation and no institutional consequence appears anywhere in the thread. Two comments describing techniques for getting AI text past the detector are excluded here, on the same policy that keeps that whole class of material out of this site's research and every vendor selling it off the citable-source list.

The thread contains both results, sometimes within the same fortnight. A college lecturer wrote on 20 June 2023 that they had "spent all morning feeding essays I wrote and essays students wrote a few years ago, as well as stuff I've generated in ChatGPT myself into CopyLeaks. So far it's 100% accurate. It flags the AI as AI", and in a follow-up the same day: "It's very accurate based on what I've fed it so far. Zero false positives." Against that, on 27 August 2023: "no. it flagged my 2 year old essays as ai. my new essay was also flagged as 80% ai but the only thing i generated was the title." And on 12 April 2024: "I'm a bit late to the party but just uploaded part of my thesis and I says it's 100% AI." That commenter put the result down to a clinical writing style, ending: "so guess I write as AI."

Underneath those accounts sits one technical pattern, reported independently by two people and consistent with a third, and it is the most concrete thing the thread produced. The highest-scoring comment kept from it, dated 2 September 2023, reads: "I tried my old thesis way back in high school (2017). I copied a paragraph and pasted it into copyleaks. It said 80% AI. No, it is not reliable. Unless you put the entire paper into it, it will really give false positives." On 28 April 2024 a second account described the same split from the other end: "I wrote my own word paper and tells me 100%AI. Broke down in paragraphs and rechecked. Pretty much all human." A third, on 24 February 2024, recorded the mirror-image disagreement between tools rather than within one: "Copyleak read mine at 0% AI. My grade from Turnitin flagged it at 12%."

Set that against Copyleaks' own stated minimums, which is the only place in this record where a vendor statement and a user report describe the same mechanism from opposite sides. The company says more characters improve detection confidence and sets a floor of 255 to 350 characters depending on the surface. The thread describes people getting different answers for a paragraph than for the document it came out of. Neither of those is a measurement, both are dated, and this is where they meet. The sample is small and self-selected in the ordinary way, because people who get the result they expected rarely post about it. This is community evidence, it is labelled as such, and it carries no weight in the score.

Copyleaks Alternatives, and Why This Page Names Only One

This section is short by policy rather than by oversight. Searches for alternatives to an AI detector surface a whole product category this site does not cover, cite, review or link to, and that category dominates the results for this particular search. Nothing from it is named here, in either direction.

What can be pointed at is Originality.ai's scored card, another detector with public evidence converted into numbers on this site. Its card is scored from public sources; a written analysis behind it has not published yet, so what sits at that URL is the card rather than a review in the sense this site uses the word. The two cards should not be read as a ranking either: their capability cells come from different studies measuring different things on different corpora, and nothing has been run here that would make them comparable. The AI-detector ledger prints each card's evidence basis and confidence label beside it for that reason. A direct head-to-head belongs on a page of its own, and that page is not written.

Where Copyleaks' 59.8 Score Leaves a Buyer, and Where It Leaves a Flagged Writer

For someone buying the tool, the verdict splits on volume and on how much you are willing to pay up front. Copyleaks is a competent, well-supported product by the account of its own customers, whose ease-of-use and support ratings sit above 4.5 across 91 reviews and whose complaints concentrate almost entirely on what the AI number means rather than on the software around it. At $16.99 a month, or $13.99 on an annual plan, Personal sits in the ordinary range for this category and buys a bundle most single-purpose detectors do not: plagiarism matching, image detection and source-code checking on one meter. Three things belong in the decision and all three live in a collapsed accordion. Switching plans forfeits unused credits. A refund needs both a request inside ten days and a completely unused account. And whether the annual plan's 1,200 credits arrive once a year or once a month is stated nowhere the vendor publishes, which is a question to settle in writing before committing to a year of it.

For a school, a district or a company, the honest answer is that this page cannot cost the decision for you, because Copyleaks publishes no Education or Enterprise price and no API rate card anywhere in public. The integrations are real and documented by institutions rather than only by the vendor, the compliance list is stated, and the price is a conversation.

For the reader this page was mostly written for, the person handed a percentage about something they wrote: the evidence record is genuinely two-sided and this desk will not flatten it. In the peer-reviewed study built on pre-ChatGPT student writing, this tool returned a single false positive across 114 documents, second of the eight tools that study tested. In the same study, on ten submissions the paper degraded before re-testing, its accuracy on AI text halved. A named teacher reported a 65% AI score on five-year-old coursework in 2023 and the company answered him publicly the next day. A named lecturer reported zero false positives across a morning's work three weeks earlier. All of that is 2023 and 2024 evidence about a product that has shipped model updates since, and none of it can tell you what happened to your document. What can be checked today, in the vendor's own current contract, is that Copyleaks says a result "shall not constitute an endorsement or determination" about whether anything was AI-generated, and that the tool "may incorrectly flag certain content." Those are the company's words, dated 9 September 2025, and they are the most useful thing anyone in this position can put in front of somebody holding a number.