WriteHuman lives in your browser. The flagship surface is a Chrome extension that students install once and then call from any Google Doc, Notion page, or Gmail draft with a right-click. Stealth mode rewrites the selected text in place at roughly $12 a month for 80,000 AI rewriter words flat. There is no detector view of its own, no API tier, and no batch-paste path. TextSight sits at the opposite end of that workflow. A sentence-level AI detector is the centre of the product, a published methodology backs the scores, and three AI rewriter modes (Light, Balanced, Maximum) are bundled inside every paid plan for a calibration workflow rather than an in-flow rewrite. This page is the honest cut: a Chrome-extension AI rewriter aimed at student-facing drafts versus a calibration desk built for editors, freelancers, and compliance leads.
Compact feature grid first. Chrome-extension rewrite versus calibration-desk-on-web. Sections below unpack each row, and the spots where WriteHuman's in-flow rewrite genuinely wins are flagged so the choice is honest.
| Feature | TextSight | WriteHuman |
|---|---|---|
| Primary product | AI detector first, ethical AI rewriter bundled | Chrome-extension-first AI rewriter |
| Detection: real or proxy | Real classifier (sentence-level) | Proxy that validates its own AI rewriter output |
| Free tier (no signup) | 3 scans/day, 5000 chars/scan, no card | Limited free trial, then paid |
| Pricing model | Flat subscription | Flat subscription (cleaner than credit packs) |
| Entry price | $19.99/mo Pro flat | $12/mo for 80K words |
| Pro annual effective | $14.99/month | Same monthly rate (no annual published) |
| .edu student discount | $13.99/month (verified .edu) | Targets students but no .edu discount published |
| Sentence-level highlights | Yes, colour-coded per sentence with rationale | No, AI rewriter output rather than per-sentence detection |
| ESL false-positive rate | ~6% on internal 600-essay ESL benchmark | Not publicly tested, AI rewriter tool rather than detector |
| Bundled AI rewriter modes | 3 modes (Light, Balanced, Maximum) on ethical scope | 2-3 aggression levels, score-reduction-first |
| Ethical scope | Authentic voice plus calibration, not detector workaround | Explicit student-detection-workaround framing |
| REST API | Business $39.99/mo for detection plus AI rewriter plus bulk | No API, consumer Chrome extension only |
| Chrome extension | Yes, free on all tiers | Yes, flagship product |
| Brand recognition | Newer, growing | Niche, student-targeted |
| Best fit | Writers needing detection plus ethical AI rewriter plus ESL accuracy | Students wanting in-Chrome rewrites with predictable monthly cost |
Last verified 2026-06-03 · TextSight numbers from internal 100-passage benchmark · WriteHuman numbers from public site plus Chrome Web Store listing
Four spots where WriteHuman beats TextSight on the workflow it was built for. Calling them out up front is the whole point of an honest compare page.
This is the real differentiator. WriteHuman's flagship surface is a Chrome extension that students install once and then trigger from any text field on the open web: a Google Docs paragraph, a Notion block, a Gmail draft, a Canvas LMS reply. Highlight, click Advanced, watch the selection rewrite in place. TextSight ships a Chrome extension too, but it scans pages and pipes selections into the TextSight tab; it does not replace text inline on the host page. For a writer whose entire day happens inside Chrome, the in-flow rewrite saves a tab switch on every paragraph, and the saved seconds compound.
This is the core reason most users pick WriteHuman, and it is not marketing. The product has been recommended in student writing forums, Discord servers, and Reddit threads since the early Turnitin-AI-detection era. For users whose entire workflow is paste an AI draft, run an AI rewriter, submit, that established community trust is real value. TextSight is younger and positions for a different buyer, so the recommendation flywheel in student forums is not in our favour today.
WriteHuman's onboarding is paste-and-run with almost no surface area. For a user who already knows what an AI rewriter does and just wants to rewrite a paragraph in 20 seconds, the focused UI beats a multi-surface product on raw speed-to-first-output. TextSight's free path lands on the detector first, with the AI rewriter surfaced after the calibration scan, which is the right shape for the calibration workflow but adds a step for the pure rewrite use case.
"WriteHuman" is one of the more searched AI rewriter brand names in writing forums and student groups. If a peer or community recommends it by name, brand recognition is real marketing value. TextSight is younger and competes on substance, sentence-level evidence, and bundle math rather than name recall. For solo writers and students whose peers already know the name, the recognition shortcut matters in the choice.
If you fit any of those patterns, the rest of this page is informational rather than persuasive. WriteHuman is the tool for the job.
Five concrete gaps in WriteHuman's product shape that matter for editors, SEO teams, ESL-heavy classrooms, agencies running API pipelines, and students who want detection rather than detector workarounds.
This is the cleanest gap. WriteHuman is a Chrome extension plus a thin web app, both pointed at a single user typing in a browser. There is no documented REST endpoint, no bulk processing path, no webhook, no server-to-server option on any published plan. If your workflow involves a content-ops pipeline that rewrites 300 drafts a week before they ship to a CMS, or a research team that wants programmatic detection across thousands of student submissions, WriteHuman is structurally the wrong shape. TextSight Business ships a documented REST API at $39.99 monthly with detection, AI rewriter, bulk endpoints, and per-key usage caps. The API tier is the boundary between consumer and professional usage, and only TextSight is on the professional side of that boundary here.
The same in-context rewrite that makes WriteHuman fast also strips evidence. The extension shows a small overlay with a score and an aggression toggle; the host page receives the rewritten text and the original disappears. There is no per-sentence colour map, no rationale strip explaining why a paragraph reads as AI-shaped, and no undo to the original draft inside the extension panel. For a writer iterating across multiple revisions, that loss of evidence matters. TextSight scans return a sentence-level highlight stack with rhythm-flat / vocabulary-cluster / cadence labels per line, so the writer edits the four sentences that actually flag instead of accepting a wholesale rewrite of the whole paragraph.
WriteHuman's product copy and marketing channels (TikTok study-help creators, student-forum referrals, "beat Turnitin" framing) target the K-12 and undergraduate market explicitly. Universities increasingly run detection pipelines as part of academic integrity workflows, and being able to demonstrate a "ran it through an aggressive-rewrite AI rewriter" pattern in metadata is the kind of evidence institutional reviewers now look for. TextSight's calibration positioning is the opposite stance: scan first, edit the rhythms that read AI-shaped, ship the honest draft. For a school administrator, a journal editor, or a publisher's compliance team, the brand framing is a procurement filter before any technical conversation begins.
WriteHuman's Basic plan around $12 monthly buys 80,000 AI rewriter words flat. The Pro tier roughly doubles that for double the price. TextSight Pro at $14.99 monthly on annual billing includes 50,000 AI rewriter words plus unlimited detection scans on top, which is the difference between a single-product subscription and a calibration-plus-rewrite bundle. Students who only rewrite a small handful of essays per term might exhaust WriteHuman's 80K cap on a single 50-page thesis revision; the same usage on TextSight stays under the Starter allowance.
Unlike most AI rewriter tools, WriteHuman does not ship an independent detector view. There is no "score this arbitrary text" pane, no third-party detection API call, no public methodology. The product is an AI rewriter endpoint and nothing else. That works for a student in a single-detector world, but it leaves the writer with no in-tool way to check whether the rewritten draft will survive a downstream check from Turnitin, GPTZero, Originality, or any institutional detector pipeline. TextSight ships a calibrated detector with sentence-level evidence, a published methodology, and a documented benchmark on raw model output, so the calibration loop runs inside one product.
WriteHuman ships no public detector on any tier of the product, so a head-to-head TPR/FPR table is fundamentally misleading: there is no comparable validation loop to invert. What we CAN measure is whether TextSight detects raw WriteHuman-rewritten output across all three aggression tiers.
| WriteHuman mode | n | TextSight detection rate | What WriteHuman claims about its mode | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Light (Standard) | 50 | 80% detected by TextSight | Lightest rewrite pass; WriteHuman's base AI rewriter tier on the Basic plan | TextSight catches most Standard-mode rewrites |
| Balanced (Enhanced) | 50 | 70% detected by TextSight | Enhanced mode, tuned for stronger score reduction on common detectors | TextSight still catches majority |
| Maximum (Advanced) | 50 | 60% detected by TextSight | Advanced mode, most aggressive rewrite, willing to drift further from source voice | Advanced still flagged 6 times out of 10; small-team rewrite engines cannot out-engineer rhythm detection |
| Combined (all modes) | 150 | 70% mean detection rate | 3 aggression levels tested | TextSight catches 7-in-10 rewrites on average |
The reading on the Stealth (Advanced) tier: 60 percent caught is the headline. WriteHuman markets Advanced as the deepest rewrite the extension can do, and TextSight still flagged 6 of 10 outputs at the default 60 percent threshold. The middle Enhanced tier (where the rewrites still read close to source) sits at 70 percent caught. The base Standard tier, which is what runs when a student clicks the extension toolbar with default settings, is caught 80 percent of the time. The Chrome-extension form factor caps how much rewrite the product can apply per click without breaking the host page, and that ceiling shows in the numbers.
For student-facing usage the implication is uncomfortable. A typical college essay flows from a Google Docs draft through Stealth mode then into a Canvas LMS submission box, and the receiving end is usually Turnitin's AI-detection layer plus whatever the instructor pastes into a second detector. Two probability draws, each at roughly TextSight-equivalent calibration, leave Stealth at well below a coin-flip of clearing both. The student-forum lore that WriteHuman clears every detector has not kept pace with how schools actually run detection in 2026.
For freelance writers delivering agency-written drafts, the math is similar but the consequences land on a paying client rather than an academic transcript. A delivered draft that AI rewriter-checks clean on WriteHuman's own panel still has a 60-to-80 percent shot of failing the client's independent detection pass, and a flagged client deliverable is the kind of reputation hit that ends a freelancer-client relationship.
The asymmetry there is no way around: WriteHuman ships only the AI rewriter half of the detect-and-rewrite loop. There is no public detector on any tier of the product, so there is literally no validation loop to invert. We benchmark what we can: TextSight scoring WriteHuman's output. Reversing the table would require WriteHuman to ship a real detector first.
WriteHuman is a tightly-focused Chrome-extension AI rewriter with real product-market fit among students who write inside Google Docs. The rewrite engine is fast and the in-flow UX saves a tab switch on every paragraph. But Stealth caps out around 60 percent caught at the default TextSight threshold, the product ships no detector of its own to validate against, and the entire surface area lives inside a single browser extension with no API tier or batch path. For solo students who want speed and accept the detection risk, the trade may be acceptable. For freelancers, agencies, editors, and institutional buyers who need real detection numbers and a defensible workflow, the gap is structural rather than something WriteHuman can ship its way out of without becoming a different product.
The form factor decision is what drives every downstream difference. Worth holding in mind before pricing.
WriteHuman's product is a browser extension. Install once, then right-click any text inside Chrome to rewrite it via Advanced, Enhanced, or Standard mode. The extension talks to a thin SaaS backend that holds the user's 80,000-word monthly allowance and returns rewritten prose into the host page. There is no detector view on any tier of the product. There is no API. There is no batch upload. The entire surface area is "highlight, click, replace." Strong fit for a student editing a single essay inside Google Docs. Wrong shape for any workflow that needs to score arbitrary text, run programmatically, or live outside Chrome.
TextSight is a web app. Paste or upload a draft, get a sentence-level AI-detection map with per-line rationale and an overall Authenticity Score, then run Light, Balanced, or Maximum AI rewriter modes on the sentences that flag. The Chrome extension scans the current page or the highlighted selection and pipes the result into the web app rather than replacing host-page text. The flow is built for editors, freelancers, SEO leads, and compliance reviewers who need to read evidence before they accept a rewrite. The trade-off is one extra tab switch compared to WriteHuman's in-place replace, and the rhythm-preserving AI rewriter is less aggressive than Advanced on raw score reduction.
A student writing a take-home essay highlights a paragraph in Google Docs, right-clicks, picks WriteHuman Advanced, and the paragraph is rewritten in place inside the doc. Three seconds, zero tab switches, no detector to consult. The same student in TextSight pastes the paragraph into the web app, sees a sentence-level highlight strip showing which two sentences still read AI-shaped after the first rewrite, edits those two by hand, and ships. WriteHuman is faster on the click. TextSight is more accurate on the result because the evidence is visible. Different jobs for different writers.
WriteHuman's pricing is dead simple: flat $12 per month for 80,000 AI rewriter words on the Basic plan, no credit packs, no annual-only discount, no API tier. The Pro tier roughly doubles the word allowance and roughly doubles the price. TextSight's stack is wider because the detector is bundled at every paid level, so the comparison below is "Chrome-extension AI rewriter with 80K words" against "calibrated detector plus AI rewriter with unlimited scans plus 50K AI rewriter words on Pro."
Billed $89.88/year, Save $30
Billed $179.88/year, Save $60
Billed $359.88/year, Save $120
Annual billing saves 25 percent on every TextSight tier. WriteHuman's Basic plan is $12 flat for 80,000 AI rewriter words inside a Chrome extension, with no detector, no API, and no published annual discount. TextSight Pro at $14.99 on annual billing buys the same AI rewriter surface plus unlimited detection scans plus the Chrome extension in one subscription. View full pricing →
Two very different product shapes pointed at two very different users. Use this picker to match the form factor to your day.
Both stacks can coexist when the budget allows. WriteHuman's Chrome extension handles in-line rewrites while drafting; TextSight runs the post-draft detection check and the calibration rewrite on sentences that still flag.
Picking between calibration-first detection and score-reduction-first authenticity is workload-specific. Three concrete profiles, three concrete picks.
Drafts a 1,500-word literature take-home essay in Google Docs over a Sunday afternoon, then has 20 minutes before submission to "smooth it out." Installs the WriteHuman extension, highlights each paragraph, picks Advanced, accepts the in-place rewrite, submits. WriteHuman wins on convenience for this exact flow. The honest follow-up: the school runs Turnitin AI plus a second detector on the receiving end, and the benchmark above shows Stealth lands around 60 percent caught on TextSight calibration. The convenience is real; the detection-clearing guarantee is not.
Mixes AI-assisted outlines with hand editing. Needs every delivery to score under 30 on whatever detector the client runs while keeping the source writer's voice intact. TextSight wins. One subscription at $14.99 monthly on annual Pro buys unlimited detection scans, sentence-level highlights to find the four sentences that actually flag, and a rhythm-preserving AI rewriter for those sentences specifically. WriteHuman has no detector to confirm the rewrite cleared the threshold, no batch path for 30 drafts, and the in-place Chrome rewrite cannot be rolled back if the client pushes back on voice.
Mix of original student work, ESL writing, and suspected AI submissions. TextSight wins, clearly. The whole job is honest detection with sentence-level evidence and ESL-aware scoring, and TextSight ships exactly that. WriteHuman is structurally unusable here: it has no detector at all on any tier, no bulk upload path, no API for an institutional pipeline, and its student-targeted positioning makes it the wrong vendor to bring into a procurement conversation with a dean. TextSight .edu Pro at $13.99 monthly also keeps the per-reviewer budget within department petty-cash range.
The full six-tool AI rewriter ranking with output quality, pricing and use-case fit side-by-side.
See the ranking →The other score-reduction-first AI rewriter head-to-head. Maximum mode, annual billing math, and where each wins.
Read the compare →How the TextSight AI rewriter differs from a paraphraser, mode by mode, with sample scores.
Read the guide →Full tier breakdown for Free, Starter, Pro and Business. Annual billing saves 25%.
See pricing →WriteHuman has no detector on any tier. TextSight's free tier scans 3 drafts a day with sentence-level evidence in roughly six seconds. No card, no signup, no commitment.