Phrasly vs StealthGPT

The trials are the same length and cost within a dollar of each other, and they differ in what they are. Phrasly's 3 Day Access is a one-off purchase: $2.00 for 1,000 humanization words at up to 800 words a process, upgradeable early to Unlimited, read 9 November 2026. StealthGPT's is a discounted opening to a subscription: "$1 for 3 days, then $29.99 per month", marked as a limited trial offer, read 9 November 2026, and its terms state purchases are non-refundable with cancellation effective at the end of the paid term.

Both read 9 November 2026. For a reader who wants to see a long document go through, StealthGPT's trial has the larger allowance and the smaller request; for a reader who wants to see three modes on the same paragraph, only Phrasly has modes to show. The direction of the default is the practical difference: Phrasly's trial stops on its own and StealthGPT's continues on its own.

Phrasly, on the two figures that govern long documents. Its Unlimited plan states no monthly cap and a 5,000-word cap per process, read 9 November 2026, so a 4,000-word report is one process and a month of them has no stated ceiling. StealthGPT's Pro plan caps a request at 1,000 words and the month at 50,000, read 9 November 2026, so the same 4,000-word report is four requests, rewritten without sight of each other, and twelve such reports fill the month.

Both read 9 November 2026. The pattern that favours StealthGPT is a short commitment: a buyer who needs a humanizer for one month pays $29.99 and leaves, where Phrasly's only listed term is a year. The pattern that favours Phrasly is length and volume over a year: no monthly cap, a 5,000-word process, and $131.88 against $359.88 for twelve months of StealthGPT Pro at the monthly rate, by the pages' own arithmetic. Price is reported on this site and never scored.

Both pricing pages make detector claims, and both back them with a refund rather than a published method. Phrasly states an average human score of 99.7 percent across its own testing of more than 100,000 documents and refunds the latest payment if any public humanizer's output scores more human than a Phrasly Ultra draft of the same 500-plus words on Pangram, GPTZero, Copyleaks and Originality.ai, read 9 November 2026. StealthGPT's page carries a logo strip claiming to beat every AI detector and a banner for a new model it says beats Pangram, and its terms offer a refund on a screenshot from an accepted detector while excluding any Originality.ai result, read 9 November 2026. The two vendors disagree on whether Originality.ai counts, which is a useful reminder that each guarantee is written by the party that pays it.

This site repeats none of those claims as findings. Weber-Wulff and colleagues tested 14 AI text detectors and found every one below 80 percent accuracy, with accuracy falling further on paraphrased and machine-translated text (Weber-Wulff et al. 2023, International Journal for Educational Integrity, read 9 November 2026). GPTZero, one of the five detectors in this site's panel and one named in both vendors' refund terms, states that its model shields against common evasion methods, paraphrasing among them, and keeps its false positive rate at no more than 1 percent when evaluating AI against human text (GPTZero technology page, read 9 November 2026). A humanizer and the detectors it names are moving targets for each other, and any reading is true for its date.

The published method weights meaning kept at 35 points of 100, errors added at 20, detector pass rate at 30 and limits and access at 15, with two editors rating every output blind. Three of Phrasly's four named detectors sit in the site's panel, so its claim can be lined up against a dated run once one exists; StealthGPT names no modes, so the run records whatever the interface shows. When a run is published, this page gains meaning, error and per-detector fields for both tools. No detector score should be the only evidence in a misconduct case.