Cycling through all six. Tap any point to stop.

Measured on six things

Free AI detector for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini content.

Security

HTTPS is on, but the header probe found 2/12 checklist points: no HSTS, no CSP, no frame protection, no Referrer-Policy, and no SPF or DMARC records. No security page or compliance claim anywhere.

Screenshots

1 / 1

Originality Detector

About this app

Originality Detector is a free, no-signup AI detection tool that analyzes text to estimate whether it was written by a human or generated by AI models like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. With a simple paste-and-check interface, it offers instant results without any registration or usage limits. The tool is designed for students, teachers, writers, marketers, and anyone who needs a quick AI content check. It examines linguistic patterns, sentence structure, and predictability to provide an estimated AI probability score. While not 100% accurate, it serves as a useful first-line screening tool. The platform also educates users about AI detection limitations, including false positives and model variations. As a free alternative to paid services like Originality.ai, it provides accessible AI detection for casual and professional use.

Key features

1Free AI detection with no signup, no account, and no stated usage limits
2Paste-and-check interface returning an estimated AI probability score in seconds
3Detects text from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and other LLMs regardless of which tool was used
4FAQ and Accuracy sections that openly document false positives and model-dependent variance

Target customer profile

Drawn from the product itself, not from a survey.

Demographic

Students and academics

Pain points

Concerned about AI detection on assignments, need to verify originality before submission.

Primary needs

Quick, free AI check to ensure work is not falsely flagged as AI-generated.

Demographic

Content writers and bloggers

Pain points

Need to ensure articles are human-like and avoid AI detection penalties from search engines.

Primary needs

Reliable AI detection to refine and edit AI-assisted drafts before publishing.

Demographic

Teachers and educators

Pain points

Struggle to identify AI-written submissions, require an additional tool to assess writing authenticity.

Primary needs

Easy-to-use AI detector to supplement manual review and guide academic integrity policies.

Scout Review

Written by AI from measured evidence, scored out of 100.

Originality Detector is a free, no-signup AI text checker that does exactly one thing and does it without getting in your way. Paste text, click Check, get an estimated AI probability. No account, no usage cap, no upsell wall. The landing page is template-grade and the copy is SEO-bait, but the core flow is clean and the FAQ honestly documents the limits of AI detection — false positives, model variance, short-sample unreliability. Speed is good on mobile (81/100 Lighthouse, 1.5s LCP) and mediocre on desktop (64/100, 797ms TBT). Accessibility scores 96/100 with one contrast failure. Security is the weak spot: HTTPS only, 2/12 header checklist points, no SPF or DMARC, no compliance claims. Growth rests on a free-and-frictionless wedge that paid incumbents can copy. A competent free screening tool, not a category leader.

Measure by measure

Usability

Paste, click Check, read result — no signup, no usage cap, no onboarding maze. The FAQ and Accuracy sections honestly document false positives, which is more than most detectors do.

Design

Clean single-column paste-and-check layout that gets out of the way, but it's a template-grade landing page: no logo mark, no visual identity, and copy that reads like keyword-stuffed SEO rather than a brand.

Speed

Lighthouse mobile 81/100 with LCP 1.5s and CLS 0 — snappy on phones. Desktop drops to 64/100 with 797ms total blocking time, so the heavier view stutters where the light one doesn't.

Security

HTTPS is on, but the header probe found 2/12 checklist points: no HSTS, no CSP, no frame protection, no Referrer-Policy, and no SPF or DMARC records. No security page or compliance claim anywhere.

Accessibility

Lighthouse a11y audit scored 96/100 — strong automated result. The one failure is a contrast ratio issue, and there's no accessibility statement or WCAG claim to back it up.

Growth

A real, growing problem — AI-written text everywhere — with a specific free/no-signup wedge against paid incumbents. But the wedge is price, and price is the easiest thing for GPTZero or Copyleaks to copy.

Improvement areas

Security headers: only 2/12 checklist points present — no HSTS, CSP, frame protection, Referrer-Policy, SPF or DMARC
Desktop performance: 64/100 Lighthouse with 797ms total blocking time versus 81/100 on mobile
No accessibility statement or WCAG conformance claim despite a strong 96/100 automated audit score
No published accuracy benchmarks, methodology documentation, or model-version transparency

Design & Usability

The design is a paste box, a button, and a result panel — and honestly, that's the right call for a tool whose entire value is 'check this text fast'. No logo mark, no visual identity, and homepage copy that reads like it was written to rank for 'originality ai detector' rather than to sound like a product. But the usability is where it earns its keep: no signup, no usage cap, no onboarding flow to survive. You paste, you click, you get a number. The FAQ and Accuracy sections openly admit detection is an estimate and false positives happen — a level of honesty most competitors bury in a legal page. For a free screening tool, that combination of zero friction and zero pretense is genuinely well-matched to the job.

Speed & Security

Speed is a split verdict: Lighthouse mobile scores 81/100 with a 1.5s LCP and zero layout shift, which is genuinely snappy on a phone. Desktop drops to 64/100 with 797ms of total blocking time, so the heavier view stutters where the light one glides. Security is the weak flank. HTTPS is enforced, but the header probe found only 2 of 12 checklist points — no HSTS, no CSP, no frame protection, no Referrer-Policy, and no SPF or DMARC records on the domain. There's no security page, no SOC 2 or ISO claim, no bug bounty. For a tool where people paste unpublished essays and client drafts, that's a thin posture, and it's the dimension most worth fixing before anything else.

Accessibility & Growth

Accessibility is a genuine strength: Lighthouse scored 96/100, with a single failing audit for insufficient color contrast. No accessibility statement or WCAG conformance claim exists to back the number, but the automated result is strong for a tool this size. Growth is the harder question. The problem is real and growing — AI-written text is everywhere, and detection anxiety is a genuine market. The wedge is specific: free, no signup, no usage limit, explicitly positioned against Originality.ai, GPTZero and Copyleaks. But that wedge is price and friction, and both are trivially copyable by better-funded incumbents. The site itself concedes accuracy is an estimate that varies by model, length and editing — which is honest, but also means the product can't claim a technical edge. It can win casual users; it's hard to see it holding them.

Conclusion

If you need a quick, free sanity check on whether a paragraph smells AI-generated — before you submit an assignment, publish a draft, or send a client deliverable — this does that job with zero ceremony, and the honesty about detection limits is refreshing. If you need defensible, documented accuracy for academic integrity decisions or publisher-grade content review, this isn't the tool: there's no compliance story, no audit trail, and the security headers are thin. Use it as a first-line screen, not a verdict. And if you're the maker: the header configuration is a one-afternoon fix that would meaningfully improve the security posture, and a real accessibility statement would turn a strong automated score into a credible claim.

Suggestions for improvement

Add HSTS, CSP, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy and Permissions-Policy headers — the probe found only 2/12 checklist points present
Publish SPF and DMARC DNS records; their absence makes the domain spoofable and undermines trust for a tool handling unpublished text
Fix the single Lighthouse contrast failure and add a short accessibility statement to back the 96/100 automated score
Cut desktop total blocking time (797ms) — the mobile build is fast, the desktop build isn't, and the gap is fixable

How we score

Alternatives comparison

Named competitors, point by point. Nobody paid to appear here or to be left out.

	Originality Detector	Originality.ai	GPTZero	Copyleaks
Pricing model	Free, no signup, no stated usage limit	Paid subscription; pay-as-you-go credits available	Free tier plus paid plans with detailed analysis	Paid plans aimed at businesses and educators
Signup required	No — paste and check immediately	Yes — account required for scanning	Account required for most features	Yes — account and plan required
Primary audience	Students, teachers, writers, casual users	Content teams, publishers, SEO professionals	Educators and academic institutions	Businesses, educators, enterprise compliance
Plagiarism detection	No — AI detection only	Yes — plagiarism checker included	Limited; focused on AI detection	Yes — core plagiarism plus AI detection
Compliance and security posture	HTTPS only; 2/12 header checklist points; no SOC 2 or ISO claim	Publishes security and compliance information for business use	Education-focused privacy and data handling documentation	Enterprise-grade compliance and data protection claims