Copyleaks is the enterprise and institutional standard for AI detection bundled with a deep plagiarism database, LMS connectors, and SOC 2 procurement story. TextSight is the writer-first tool built around sentence-level highlights, ESL-aware calibration, and a bundled AI rewriter. This page is the honest comparison: where Copyleaks is the right call, where TextSight wins, and what the differences look like once you scan your own content through both.
A short feature table first. The narrative sections below go deeper on each row, with the parts where Copyleaks is genuinely the better call called out clearly.
| Feature | TextSight | Copyleaks |
|---|---|---|
| Primary buyer | Individuals, freelancers, small teams, agencies | Universities, school districts, large publishers, enterprise |
| Free tier (no signup) | 3 scans/day, 5,000 chars/scan, no card | Limited monthly credits, signup required |
| Entry pricing (individual) | $19.99/month Pro flat | $10.99/month for 100 pages (credit-based) |
| Pro annual effective | $14.99/month ($179.88/year) | Credit packs from $10.99/month, scales with usage |
| .edu student discount | $13.99/month (verified .edu) | Institutional licensing for .edu |
| Sentence-level highlights | Yes, colour-coded with per-line "why-flagged" rationale on free tier | Yes, sentence highlights with confidence bands |
| ESL false-positive rate (Indian/Filipino/Chinese student writing) | ~6% (TextSight internal benchmark, 600 ESL essays) | ~16% (TextSight benchmark of Copyleaks on identical sample) |
| True-positive rate (raw GPT-4 + Claude output) | ~91% (TextSight benchmark, n=50) | ~94% (Copyleaks claims higher on SEO content; TextSight benchmark, identical sample) |
| Bundled AI rewriter | Yes: Light / Balanced / Maximum in same product | No, detection-only |
| Plagiarism database matching | Style-based Plagiarism Risk only | One of the largest plagiarism databases in the world (16B+ web pages) |
| REST API | Business $39.99/mo ($29.99 annual): 150K words/month | Mature enterprise API: credit-based, broad rate limits |
| SOC 2 Type II | In audit prep (Q3 2026 expected) | Type II certified |
| SAML / SSO | SAML SSO on Enterprise tier | Mature SAML / SSO with broad procurement support |
| LMS integrations (Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, D2L, Schoology) | None native today, paste-flow only | All five major LMS connectors out-of-box |
| 30+ language detection | English-focused (calibrated for Indian/Filipino/Chinese ESL English) | 30+ languages with native detection |
| Best fit | Individual writers, students, freelancers, small agencies | Universities, K-12 districts, publishers, enterprise procurement |
Prices, features, and benchmark numbers reflect our internal testing + Copyleaks public pricing as of . TextSight is built for individual writers + small teams; Copyleaks is built for institutional + enterprise procurement. The two products solve adjacent problems for different buyers, which is why both columns have multiple "win" markers.
Four things Copyleaks does better than TextSight today. Acknowledging them is the point of writing this page in the first place.
Copyleaks ships with SOC 2 Type II, mature SAML SSO integrations with Okta, Azure AD and Google Workspace, standardised data-processing agreements, and an established legal trail for enterprise procurement. TextSight Enterprise plans offer SAML SSO and custom DPAs, but SOC 2 Type II is still in audit prep with target completion late 2026. If your procurement gate requires SOC 2 today, Copyleaks fits and TextSight does not.
Copyleaks operates one of the largest plagiarism databases in the world with deep coverage of student paper submissions, journal articles, and licensed academic content. Every scan returns AI detection plus plagiarism overlap with per-source citation matches. TextSight provides a plagiarism risk indicator that flags overlap with public web sources but does not access licensed academic databases. For academic-integrity enforcement, this gap is large.
Copyleaks has native LMS connectors for Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, D2L Brightspace, and Schoology, plus documented AI detection in 30+ languages. TextSight has neither today; it is English-first and ships via REST API or the Chrome extension. If your institution runs detection inside the LMS submission flow or scans Spanish, French, German, Arabic, Mandarin or Japanese at production volume, Copyleaks is the right pick.
When an academic-integrity office hears "Copyleaks flagged this submission," the sentence parses without context. The brand has been the institutional default for plagiarism since long before generative AI, and the educator-facing communications, appeal workflow, and report format are mature. TextSight does the same detection job, but it still needs a sentence of context inside a compliance review.
If you fit any of those patterns, the rest of this page is informational rather than persuasive. Copyleaks is the tool for the job.
For freelancers, agencies, SEO teams, and individual students pre-scanning their own essays, here is where TextSight beats Copyleaks on the work that matters.
Every TextSight scan returns a sentence-by-sentence colour map with a short rationale per line: rhythm flat, vocabulary cluster, paragraph cadence, sentence-length variance. You edit the specific sentences instead of rewriting the whole draft. Copyleaks shows sentence highlights too, but the per-line evidence skews toward overlap matches from its plagiarism database rather than AI-signal rationale. For working writers iterating on a draft, TextSight is faster.
Both tools over-flag formally-taught English from non-native writers. We tuned our classifier in 2025 against writing samples from Indian universities, Filipino education programmes, and Chinese postgraduate writing. In our internal testing the false-positive rate on identical-quality essays is roughly 30 to 40 percent lower than Copyleaks. Copyleaks' strength is multi-language breadth; calibration for English ESL writing is not its primary focus.
TextSight Pro is $19.99 monthly or $14.99 monthly on annual billing with unlimited scans. Verified student emails get Pro at $13.99 monthly. Copyleaks Personal is around $10.99 monthly with 100 pages of detection plus plagiarism. Sticker price is close, but TextSight is flat-rate unlimited while Copyleaks scales by page credits. Past roughly 25,000 words a month, the bundle math tips clearly toward TextSight.
Every paid TextSight plan includes the AI rewriter endpoint, so a single workflow can score a draft and request a voice-preserving rewrite in the same tool. Copyleaks does not ship an AI rewriter at any tier; you would buy a second product for that step. For pipelines that need detect plus rewrite, TextSight saves a separate subscription and reduces glue code.
The Business tier ships a REST API at $39.99 monthly or $29.99 on annual billing with detection, AI rewriter, and bulk scanning behind a single key, plus a full audit log of every scan exported as CSV. Copyleaks exposes API on its higher tiers with credit-based throughput; rate limits and audit format come bundled with the contract. For agencies and editorial teams that need defensible evidence and a single SDK to call, TextSight is the cleaner integration.
100-passage internal benchmark scanned through both tools the same day. Copyleaks requires a paid plan, so we used a research subscription on their entry-level credit pack ($10.99/mo) to run the comparison. Methodology + raw CSV at the bottom. Re-tested quarterly.
| Passage type | n | TextSight TPR / FPR | Copyleaks TPR / FPR | Notable gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw GPT-4 output | 25 | 92% TPR | 94% TPR | Copyleaks +2pp TPR on raw AI |
| Raw Claude (Sonnet/Opus) output | 25 | 90% TPR | 92% TPR | Copyleaks +2pp TPR on raw AI |
| Native English human writing | 25 | 3% FPR | 4% FPR | Both clean on native English (within margin) |
| ESL human writing (India/PH/CN) | 25 | 6% FPR | 16% FPR | TextSight 10pp lower FPR |
| Combined (all categories) | 100 | 91% TPR · 4.5% FPR | 93% TPR · 10% FPR | TextSight 5.5pp lower combined FPR |
If you're an institution buying for thousands of students. Copyleaks's 2-percentage-point TPR edge on raw AI plus the mature SOC 2 + SAML + LMS connector stack makes them the right procurement choice. The benchmark gap on raw-AI detection is real, but small. Procurement and integration win.
If you're an individual writer, student, or small team. TextSight's 10-percentage-point lower ESL FPR + free tier + flat $19.99 pricing + bundled AI rewriter makes the product fit better. The 5.5pp overall FPR gap matters more on a small-batch workflow than the 2pp TPR gap.
If you're picking between them. These aren't really competitors. Copyleaks sells to institutions; TextSight sells to individuals. The benchmark is mostly useful to confirm both tools work at category-leading accuracy levels; the deciding factor is who's paying and what the procurement story looks like.
The detection-method gap between TextSight and Copyleaks is smaller than between TextSight and older perplexity-only tools, but it still shapes how each one behaves on edited content.
Copyleaks runs a multi-signal ensemble that combines perplexity, burstiness, semantic embedding analysis, and vocabulary fingerprinting. The classifier is trained on a broad corpus that includes student paper submissions from the plagiarism database, which is a meaningful data advantage on raw AI output across multiple model families. The method is robust on unedited text and pairs naturally with the plagiarism signal in the same scan.
TextSight scores sentence-length variance, clause-structure patterns, paragraph cadence, and how often the document leans on a small fixed set of high-frequency AI vocabulary. Paraphrasers do not fix those signals because they operate at the word level rather than the sentence-architecture level. The trade-off is that rhythm scoring needs at least four or five sentences to lock in; very short snippets are harder for our model than for Copyleaks.
Take a paragraph of raw GPT-4 output. Both tools score it within a few points of each other. Now run it through Quillbot Fluency once. Copyleaks' score on that paragraph typically drops by 15 to 25 points; TextSight's score typically drops by 5 to 15 points. The text reads similarly to a human reader. For workflows that involve any editing pass between draft and detection, that gap matters. For workflows scanning raw submissions, the two tools land close together.
TextSight Pro is $19.99 monthly or $14.99 monthly on annual billing, unlimited scans. Copyleaks Personal is around $10.99 monthly for 100 pages of detection plus plagiarism. Headline pricing looks close at entry; bundle math diverges quickly with volume.
Billed $89.88/year, Save $30
Billed $179.88/year, Save $60
Billed $359.88/year, Save $120
Yearly billing saves 25%. Copyleaks Personal is around $10.99/mo for 100 pages at the time of writing; institutional contracts are custom. View full pricing →
Both detectors are good products built by serious teams. The honest answer is workload-specific. Use this picker to find the tool that fits the work you actually do.
If you decide to switch, the migration takes most teams a half-day. The one calibration step worth doing is re-running a sample so you can re-tune your team's "what counts as AI" threshold.
From the Copyleaks dashboard, open Reports and use the CSV export. You get a list of past scans with their AI scores and plagiarism overlap. Keep it as your baseline; you will compare TextSight scores against it in the next step. If LMS-integrated submissions are part of your workflow, plan to keep those flows on Copyleaks since TextSight does not replace LMS-integrated submission today.
Pick ten typical documents from the Copyleaks export that span the range of scores you saw. Run each through TextSight's bulk upload. TextSight typically scores 5 to 12 points lower on the same edited content because rhythm-based scoring weighs differently from Copyleaks' ensemble signals. If your team used 50 as the threshold on Copyleaks, your TextSight equivalent is closer to 40.
Install the Chrome extension, swap the API key in any internal tooling, and update internal documentation that names the detector. If you publish a public AI policy that mentions Copyleaks by name, update that page. Most teams complete migration in a half-day including calibration.
The full seven-tool ranking with detection accuracy, pricing, and use-case fit side-by-side.
See the ranking →The classroom-detector head-to-head. ESL, perplexity, and bundled AI rewriter compared.
Read the compare →Other tools to consider if Copyleaks does not fit your team or your volume.
Read the guide →Full tier breakdown for Free, Starter, Pro, and Business. Annual billing saves 25%.
See pricing →Start with TextSight's free tier. No card, no signup, no commitment. Your first scan in about six seconds.