QuantumThought
Join Newsletter

Decision snapshot

Fast-read signals for fit, pricing, and trust.

Category
Content Marketing & Copywriting
Best for
ai content detector
Pricing
Freemium
Access
Free plan available

What is this tool?

One pass over a piece of text returns an AI score, a plagiarism check and a fact check, with the sentences behind each result highlighted — which is why publishers, agencies and educators buy it rather than three separate tools. The part that makes the score usable is choosing the detection model to match your own AI-use rule, and Deep Scan showing which passages drove it. What the score is not is a verdict, and the vendor says so itself: its guidance is that a number should not on its own decide an academic-integrity case.

By QT Desk
Read full overview

Every check runs from the same editor and the same credit pool, so the practical question is which checks you tick. An AI check spends 1 credit per 100 words and adding plagiarism doubles it; Pro's 2,000 monthly credits therefore cover roughly 200,000 words of AI-only checking or 100,000 words with plagiarism, and unused subscription credits lapse at month end while top-up credits bought separately last two years. Reports can be shared as read-only links and tagged for a team; Pro keeps them for 30 days and Enterprise for 365. Content Quality Score, a High, Good or Low rating of how an editor is likely to perceive a piece, sits alongside these checks but does not itself test for AI or plagiarism.

Reading the score correctly matters more than the model's headline accuracy. The number is the model's confidence that the whole text is AI-generated, not the share of sentences that are, and the vendor asks for at least 100 words per scan. Its own definition counts AI text that a human edited, and human text heavily edited by AI, as AI, so writers who polish drafts with AI tools should expect flags; even the built-in grammar checker's Fix issues button can raise the AI score. On data handling, the privacy policy lets every account opt out of scan text being used to improve the models, exempts student work from that use, and offers full account and data removal on request, but sets no fixed retention period and names no certifications; text typed into the free on-site detector may be used for training.

Is this right for you?

Quick fit check against how you actually work.

ai content detector
Choose this if
  • You accept or reject copy against a stated AI-use rule and want the detection model to match it, tolerating light AI editing or none at all
  • You want plagiarism, fact and readability checks on the same text in one run instead of re-pasting it into separate tools
  • You draft in Google Docs and may need to show a client or teacher a replay of the document being written
  • You teach on Moodle and want submissions scanned automatically inside assignments, quizzes and forums
  • Your volume justifies Enterprise, where scans can run through the API inside your own editorial system
Consider alternatives if
  • You want to evaluate the full suite before paying, because the vendor states there is no free trial and the free Basic tier covers AI detection only
  • A human-written piece scored as AI would carry real consequences for the writer or student on the other end of it
  • You need programmatic access on a small budget, because API access is listed only on Enterprise at US$136.58 a month on annual billing or US$179 month-to-month
  • You need grammar checking outside United States English or fact checking in another language; the vendor's June 2026 pages state neither is offered
  • You need a fixed data-retention period or a named security certification, which the privacy policy amended June 17, 2026 does not provide

What people say

Aggregate community sentiment, summarized — not native reviews.

Mixed signals

The recurring theme is how far to trust the number. Commenters credit the detector with catching genuinely machine-written text, and the same threads carry independent users reporting their own writing — and in one case public-domain text — coming back with high AI scores. Under an early test video the most-liked comments trade prompt and spelling tricks meant to get past detection, which is worth knowing if the result is being used to vet freelance or student work. A second expectation recurs and is not met: commenters who assumed the whole product could be evaluated without paying found the paid boundary instead.

Key features

What you can actually do with this tool.

Detection models matched to your AI policy

You pick the model per scan: Lite tolerates light AI editing, Turbo treats any AI involvement as AI and suits a no-AI rule, Academic is built for education, and a multilingual model covers 30 languages. That choice is what makes the score usable against a written policy instead of a generic threshold.

Deep Scan explains the flag

Rather than a bare percentage, Deep Scan shows which passages made the text read as AI and suggests edits. For a writer answering a client's query, or a student contesting a result, this is the part of the report you actually send.

Plagiarism against the live web, or your own archive

In the web app matches come from public web content through Google search; in LMS and institutional deployments the check extends to academic journal databases and a private repository of the institution's own submissions.

Fact Checker with a source per claim

Each sentence is checked against fetched web sources and every identified fact comes back with at least one cited URL, title and date, copyable in APA, MLA, Chicago or IEEE. The vendor's own caveats apply: English only, political claims avoided, and it is an aid rather than a final source of truth.

Writer replay in Google Docs

The free browser extension records a document's creation and plays it back character by character, with natural-versus-auto-typing detection, so a writer can demonstrate the drafting process when a score is disputed.

Bulk Scan for whole sites and datasets

Upload a CSV of texts or URLs (up to 6 MB, PDFs excluded), choose up to five checks, and get an email when the batch report is ready. This is how an agency audits an entire client site rather than one post at a time.

Integrations

Tools and platforms this connects with.

Google DocsGoogle ChromeMozilla FirefoxMoodle LMSAPI (Enterprise plan)

Plans & pricing

Pricing tiers and what's included in each.

Basic

Free
  • AI detection only
  • 3 scans/day, renews daily
  • Limit of 2,000 words per scan
  • File upload (docx, pdf, doc)
  • No subscription required

Pro

Starting paid plan
US$12.95/month on annual billing (US$155.4 billed yearly); US$14.95/month month-to-month
  • 2,000 credits per month (1 credit = 100 words), expiring monthly
  • Full site scans
  • Team management and scan tagging
  • Chrome extension premium features
  • 30 days scan history
  • Shareable and downloadable reports
  • Standard support
  • Additional team seats US$9.95/month (US$8.62 on annual billing)

Enterprise

US$136.58/month on annual billing (US$1638.96 billed yearly); US$179/month month-to-month
  • Everything in Pro
  • 15,000 credits per month, expiring monthly
  • API access
  • 365 days scan history
  • Priority support and a dedicated customer success manager
  • Additional team seats US$24.95/month (US$19.04 on annual billing)
Official pricing pagePricing may have changed. Always verify before purchasing.

Frequently asked

Common questions about this tool, answered.

Is there a free trial, and what does the free tier include?

No trial. The vendor states it does not offer one; instead the Basic tier gives three AI-detection scans a day of up to 2,000 words each with no subscription, and up to three daily scans can be run on the site without an account. Plagiarism, fact, readability and grammar checks in the app need Pro or Enterprise credits. The browser extension for Chrome, Google Docs and Firefox is free to install, with its premium features tied to a paid plan.

Is the text I scan used to train Originality.ai's models?

For account holders the policy says all users can opt out of their scan or input text being used to train and improve the models, and that student data is not used for training. The free on-site detector is the exception: the home page says text entered there may be used for training. Scan history is stored for later retrieval or sharing, and complete removal of an account and its data is available on request.

My own writing was flagged as AI. What can I do?

Treat it as a probability to challenge, not a verdict. The vendor's guidance is that a score alone should not decide an academic-integrity case, and one independent commenter described a self-written essay returning 85% AI. Open Deep Scan to see which passages drove the result and what edits it suggests, and if the piece was drafted in Google Docs use the extension's writer replay to show it being typed. One student also found their score differed sharply from a different detector's, so do not expect two tools to agree on the same text.

How it compares

Context for choosing between this tool and alternatives.

Detectors are usually compared on accuracy, which is the wrong axis when the result is going to be disputed. What matters then is what you can show: the model you chose and why, the passages Deep Scan flagged, a Google Docs replay of the piece being typed, a report link the writer can open. Where a flagged piece leads to a conversation with a freelancer or a student, that is the product. Where nobody will ever query the result, it is machinery you are paying for and not using, and throughput and API access are the better basis for the decision.