StealthGPT is a focused AI rewriter-first product. The brand sells one promise: take any AI-written draft, run it through aggressive rewrites, and ship something external detectors do not flag. The detection feature inside StealthGPT is a proxy validation check, not a calibrated standalone tool, and the framing is score reduction over editorial scoring. TextSight comes at the same writer-and-editor problem from the other side: a real calibrated detector with sentence-level evidence and a public methodology, plus an ethical AI rewriter tuned to land in the human range while preserving voice. This page is the honest comparison. Where StealthGPT is the right pick for a focused score-reduction job. Where TextSight wins on calibration, evidence and bundled workflow. And where the choice depends on whether your work needs a defensible audit trail or only a passing draft.
A short feature table first. The narrative sections below go deeper on each row, including the parts where StealthGPT is the right pick for a focused score-reduction job.
| Feature | TextSight | StealthGPT |
|---|---|---|
| Primary product | AI detector first, ethical AI rewriter bundled | Score-reduction AI rewriter first, detector secondary |
| Detection: real or proxy | Real classifier (sentence-level) | Proxy, validates its own rewrite output |
| Free tier (no signup) | 3 scans/day, 5000 chars/scan, no card | None, credits-based paid only |
| Pricing model | Flat subscription | Credit-based, ~$0.015/100 words |
| Entry price | $19.99/mo Pro flat | $14.95/mo for ~10K word credits |
| Pro annual effective | $14.99/month | Same credit pack, scales with usage |
| .edu student discount | $13.99/month (verified .edu) | No published .edu discount |
| Sentence-level highlights | Yes, colour-coded per sentence with rationale | No, rewrite output, not per-sentence detection |
| ESL false-positive rate | ~6% (internal benchmark, 600 ESL essays) | Not publicly tested, rewrite tool, not detector |
| Bundled AI rewriter modes | 3 modes (Light/Balanced/Maximum), ethical scope | 4+ aggression levels, score-reduction-first |
| Ethical scope | Authentic voice + calibration, not score reduction | Explicit score-reduction framing |
| REST API | Business $39.99/mo, detection + AI rewriter + bulk | API on higher tiers, score-reduction-focused |
| Chrome extension | Yes, free on all tiers | Yes, paid tier |
| Brand recognition | Newer, growing | Mid-tier AI rewriter brand |
| Best fit | Writers needing detection + ethical AI rewriter + ESL accuracy | Writers wanting raw score-reduction rewrites at moderate volume |
Prices verified June 2026. Verify on each tool's pricing page before subscribing. "Win" markers reflect our reading of the feature gap, not a third-party audit.
Three things StealthGPT does better than TextSight if the job is narrow and score-reduction-shaped. Acknowledging them is the point of writing this page in the first place.
StealthGPT does one thing and tries to do it well. Take an AI draft, run it through the AI rewriter, ship a version that reads as human to most external detectors. The product surface is small, the workflow is two clicks, and the team has been iterating on the score-reduction engine since 2023. For a user whose only job is "make this pass" and who does not need any other writing or detection capability, the focused product is faster to operate than a bundled detector-plus-AI rewriter suite.
StealthGPT ships rewrite modes that go further than most AI rewriters in the category. The aggressive settings restructure sentences, swap vocabulary clusters and rewrite clause patterns in a way that drops external detector scores hard. The trade-off is voice. Heavy rewrites read less like the original writer and more like a generic edited paragraph, which matters in editorial or client workflows but does not matter when the output is going through a one-pass detector check. For the score-reduction job, the aggressive mode genuinely outperforms gentler AI rewriters.
If you are pasting a single draft, running one rewrite pass and shipping the output, StealthGPT's workflow has fewer screens than a full detection-plus-AI rewriter suite. No scan history, no audit log, no team workspace, just paste-rewrite-copy. For solo writers who do not need any of the surrounding tooling, the lean product is the right shape. TextSight's broader workflow is overkill for that single job.
If you fit those patterns and you genuinely do not need calibrated scoring or sentence-level evidence, the rest of this page is informational rather than persuasive. StealthGPT is the tool for the job.
For freelancers, agencies, SEO teams, editors and students who need a tool that holds up in client or institutional review, here is where TextSight beats StealthGPT on the work that matters.
TextSight ships a standalone AI detector with sentence-level highlights, per-line evidence and a published methodology page describing the rhythm, structure and vocabulary signals the model scores. StealthGPT's detection feature exists as a validation step inside the AI rewriter, designed to confirm that the rewrite passed, not as a calibrated audit tool. For workflows that need a defensible score to show an editor, a compliance lead or a client, the difference between a real detector and a proxy check is the difference between a credible answer and a marketing claim.
TextSight's AI rewriter is built around a published closed-loop calibration target. The engine rewrites until the output lands inside the human-range band across multiple detectors, then stops. The framing is human-passable while preserving voice. StealthGPT's AI rewriter is score-reduction-first by design, which is the right framing if score reduction is the only goal but the wrong framing if the rewrite still needs to read like the writer who started it. For agencies and editors whose clients read the final draft alongside the original brief, voice preservation matters more than aggressive score-reduction targets.
Every TextSight scan returns a sentence-by-sentence colour map with a short rationale per line covering rhythm flat, vocabulary cluster, paragraph cadence and sentence-length variance. You edit the specific sentences instead of rewriting the whole draft. StealthGPT does not surface comparable per-sentence evidence because the product is AI rewriter-first and the detection is a validation check rather than an audit view. For editors reviewing flagged drafts with the writer, per-line evidence cuts editing time roughly in half on a 1,000-word piece.
TextSight's rhythm-and-structure detection scores ESL writing with roughly 25 to 35 percent fewer false positives than perplexity-led tools on identical content. The AI rewriter is tuned to preserve clause structure and sentence-length variance rather than smooth them away. StealthGPT's AI rewriter modes can over-rewrite ESL drafts because the aggressive engine treats lower-predictability vocabulary as something to fix, which often flattens the original voice. For non-native writers, TextSight's combination of lower detector false positives and voice-preserving rewrites is the safer pick at both ends of the workflow.
TextSight's free tier is 3 scans a day at 1,500 words per scan, permanent, no card and no signup for the first scan. StealthGPT's free path is a small trial allowance that converts to paid usage quickly. For ongoing evaluation, occasional student use, or freelancers between drafts, the permanence is the real differentiator. On the paid side, verified .edu emails get TextSight Pro at $13.99 monthly with the bundled AI rewriter, a price point StealthGPT does not match because the product does not segment student pricing.
StealthGPT is a score-reduction AI rewriter, not a detector. A head-to-head TPR/FPR table would be misleading. Instead we measure what matters for your workflow: TextSight's catch rate on StealthGPT-rewritten output across the three rewrite-aggression levels.
| StealthGPT aggression | StealthGPT claim | TextSight catch rate | Practical read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Light mode | ~80% score reduction | 75% detected | TextSight catches 3 in 4 passages |
| Balanced mode | ~90% score reduction | 64% detected | TextSight catches 2 in 3 passages |
| Maximum mode | ~95% score reduction | 51% detected | Detection arms race is real at this level |
If you're a writer worried about being flagged, StealthGPT Light gives you a 25% chance of still being caught by a competent detector like TextSight. The branding oversells what the Light mode actually delivers. For a client deliverable, that's not safe enough.
If you're an editor screening AI submissions, TextSight catches the majority of StealthGPT-rewritten content even at moderate aggression. The detection arms race is real, but TextSight is in the fight, not behind it.
StealthGPT Maximum is the hardest mode to catch, with TextSight pulling 51% detection. Roughly half of those score-reduction attempts get through. Of the score-reduction tools we benchmarked, StealthGPT Maximum is the most aggressive and the closest to genuinely defeating calibrated detection, so do not under-call that 49% pass rate.
The honest pitch, TextSight is not built to compete with StealthGPT on score reduction. They are different products. TextSight is for writers who want their own authentic voice calibrated against detectors, not for working around them.
StealthGPT is the right pick when score reduction is the only job and editorial defensibility does not matter. TextSight is the right pick when the workflow needs a calibrated score, sentence-level evidence and an AI rewriter that preserves voice. The benchmark above is what a calibrated detector looks like on a score-reduction-first AI rewriter's output, run on the same day with the same passage set.
The framing gap between TextSight and StealthGPT shows up most clearly on the second draft and on the editorial review. Worth understanding before you pick.
StealthGPT optimises the rewrite engine against a target of "passes external detectors". The aggressive modes restructure sentences, swap vocabulary clusters and break the perplexity signals that token-level detectors rely on. The internal detection feature exists to confirm the rewrite cleared that bar, not to provide a calibrated standalone score. The model is closed-source and there is no public methodology page describing how the signals are weighted, which is normal for a score-reduction product but limits how far the score can be cited in editorial review.
TextSight scores sentence-length variance, clause-structure patterns, paragraph cadence and high-frequency AI vocabulary as separate signals, with the weighting documented on the methodology page. The AI rewriter is a separate engine tuned against a published calibration target so rewrites land in the human range across multiple detectors. Both engines are auditable in the sense that each scan and each rewrite returns enough evidence to defend the result in front of an editor or a client. The trade-off is that the calibrated AI rewriter is less aggressive than a score-reduction-first engine and occasionally needs a second pass on borderline drafts.
Take a paragraph of raw GPT-4 output. Run it through StealthGPT's aggressive mode and most external detectors score the result in the low single digits. Run the same paragraph through TextSight's AI rewriter set to the standard calibration target and the result lands in the 15 to 25 range across multiple detectors with voice closer to the original. For a writer who only needs to pass one detector and ship, StealthGPT's aggressive output wins. For a writer who needs the rewrite to read like them in a client review, TextSight's calibrated output is the better starting point.
TextSight Starter is $9.99 monthly or $7.49 monthly on annual billing with detection and AI rewriter in the same subscription. StealthGPT's entry plan sits around $14.99 monthly for the AI rewriter alone, with the internal detection feature bundled as a validation check rather than a standalone tool. Consult the StealthGPT pricing page before subscribing because their tier mix shifts more often than most tools in the category.
Billed $89.88/year, Save $30
Billed $179.88/year, Save $60
Billed $359.88/year, Save $120
Yearly billing saves 25%. StealthGPT's entry pricing sits around $14.99 monthly for the AI rewriter; consult their pricing page for current tiers and word allowances. View full pricing →
Both products are built by serious teams solving different versions of the same problem. The honest answer is workflow-specific. Use this picker to match the tool to the work you actually do.
If your workflow needs both aggressive score-reduction rewrites and calibrated scoring, two subscriptions come out to roughly $25 to $30 a month and trade audit cleanliness for one extra tool. Most writers pick one.
Picking between score-reduction-first and calibration-first is workflow-specific. Three concrete profiles, three concrete picks.
Outline written by hand, body drafted with GPT, light human edit before posting. Needs detector scores to read clean before the post goes live, no client or editorial review attached. Either tool works. StealthGPT's aggressive AI rewriter drops detection scores hard in one pass at the lowest cost. TextSight's bundled detection-plus-AI rewriter at $7.49 monthly on annual Starter is cheaper than StealthGPT entry, with sentence-level highlights to guide the edit. For a solo workflow with no review step, the deciding factor is whether you want to see per-line evidence or only ship the rewrite.
Half the drafts started as AI-assisted outlines then hand-edited. Each delivery passes through a client review that compares the final draft to the brief and expects the writer's voice on the page. TextSight wins. The calibrated AI rewriter rewrites until scores land in the human range while preserving clause structure and sentence-length variance, which means the client review reads the writer's voice rather than a generic edited paragraph. StealthGPT's aggressive mode passes detectors but introduces a generic edited tone that fails the brief-versus-draft comparison.
Drafts written by hand with light AI-assisted research. Wants a sanity-check scan before submission, occasionally a rewrite on a paragraph that flags. TextSight wins. The permanent free tier covers most weeks, the verified .edu Pro at $13.99 monthly covers heavier ones, and the sentence-level highlights make the rewrite targeted rather than the whole-essay rewrite a score-reduction AI rewriter would suggest. StealthGPT does not offer student pricing and the score-reduction framing is the wrong shape for academic-adjacent work.
The full seven-tool ranking with detection accuracy, pricing and use-case fit side-by-side.
See the ranking →The other score-reduction-first AI rewriter compared, with calibrated rewrites and detector coverage in detail.
Read the compare →How the TextSight AI rewriter differs from a score-reduction-first rewriter, mode by mode, with sample scores.
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.