On this page
Good for
A free, account-free check that names the phrases it flagged, such as “AI opening” or “Hedging filler”, so you can see why a sentence scored high.
Main limit
In this test it gave the humanizer rewrite (text D) 12/100 and flagged nothing, so a clean result here does not mean the text is human-written. The tool says as much itself.
Free plan facts↑ Contents
| Account needed | No. All three scans ran as a guest; we entered no email. The only pop-up was a cookie banner, which we rejected |
|---|---|
| Limits | The page says “Free with no daily limit” and “Unlimited free checks”. The box shows a 30-word minimum; the text area accepts up to 20,000 characters. We saw no daily-limit message in three scans |
| Time to result | 0.7s, 0.9s and 0.5s, as shown on the page (“Analyzed in 0.7s”) |
| What you get | An overall score out of 100 with a confidence band, a share of words that read as AI, mixed or human, a per-sentence table with named flags, a model breakdown, and Share, Download and Copy buttons |
| Needs an account | “Scan URL” is marked “account” on the page. We did not test it |
| Its own caveat | “Read this as ‘no obvious tells’, never as ‘a human wrote this’. Rewritten text can pass, and formal writing can be flagged.” |
Results↑ Contents
The headline result for each text, default settings. Green means the result matched what the text really is.
| Text | What it really is | Words | Coda One result | Sentences |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Text A | AI-written · education | 109 | 70/100, “Reads like AI in places” | 4 of 5 sentences flagged |
| Text D | Undetectable AI rewrite of A | 122 | 12/100, “No obvious AI tells” | 0 of 7 sentences flagged |
| Text F | Human · Jerome K. Jerome, 1889 | 145 | 9/100, “No obvious AI tells” | 0 of 6 sentences flagged |
One scan per text, so we can’t say how stable these are. Coda One’s score is not a percentage of AI: it is a score out of 100 with a confidence band.
Against other detectors↑ Contents
Coda One passed the rewrite that Sapling, Copyleaks and GPTZero flagged, and agreed with ZeroGPT on it. See the detector comparison.
| Text | Coda One · Nov 5 | Sapling | Copyleaks | GPTZero | ZeroGPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · AI | 70/100 | 99.3% AI | 100% AI | AI 100% | 100% AI |
| D · AI, rewritten | 12/100 | 89.6% AI | 100% AI | AI 100% | 27.6% AI |
| F · Human | 9/100 | 0.1% AI | 0% AI | Human 100% | 0% AI |
One scan per text per tool, on different dates (Oct 8 to Nov 5). Scores use different scales, so compare the verdicts, not the numbers.
Findings & screenshots↑ Contents
- The Undetectable AI rewrite (text D) scored 12/100, “No obvious AI tells”, with 0 of 7 sentences flagged and 100% of words “Reads as human”. Sapling, Copyleaks and GPTZero flagged this same text as AI in our earlier tests; ZeroGPT did not.
- On the AI paragraph (text A) it flagged sentences 2 to 5 and left sentence 1 alone. The top sentence, “In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape…”, read 96% AI with the flags “AI opening” and “AI vocabulary”. Sentence 5 was flagged “GPT-4 closer” at 52%.
- The reasons are phrase-based. The page listed six “common AI phrases”, including “it is important to note”, “In today’s rapidly” and “Ultimately,”. On texts D and F, with no such phrases, the explanation said the score “reflects broader rhythm and vocabulary rather than any single line”.
- The overall 70/100 for text A came with “medium confidence” and the band label “Material AI signal, but still mixed”, so the verdict was softer than the 4-of-5 flagged count suggests.
- The 1889 passage scored 9/100 with nothing flagged. One old, famous human text is a thin control, so read this as one data point.
We did not publish a screenshot of the text A result; its numbers come from the automated browser’s record of the page.
The three texts↑ Contents
Copy any of them to check another detector.
Artificial intelligence has fundamentally transformed the way students approach their academic work. In today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, AI-powered tools offer unprecedented opportunities to enhance learning outcomes and streamline research processes. Furthermore, these technologies enable learners to access personalized feedback, identify knowledge gaps, and develop critical thinking skills more efficiently than ever before. However, it is important to note that the integration of AI in education also presents significant challenges, including concerns about academic integrity and over-reliance on automated assistance. Ultimately, striking the right balance between leveraging AI capabilities and fostering independent thought will be crucial for educators and students alike as they navigate this new era of learning.
Artificial intelligence is changing how students do their schoolwork. With all the new digital tools available, students can learn more easily and get help with their research. These tools can even give students personalized feedback, help them find areas where they need to improve, and make it easier for them to think critically. But we also need to be careful - using AI in education can be tricky. Some people worry that students might cheat or rely too much on computers to do their work. So, teachers and students need to find a way to use AI that helps them learn without doing all the work for them. This will be important as we move forward in this new way of learning.
We were all feeling seedy, and we were getting quite nervous about it. Harris said he felt such extraordinary fits of giddiness come over him at times, that he hardly knew what he was doing; and then George said that he had fits of giddiness too, and hardly knew what he was doing. With me, it was my liver that was out of order. I knew it was my liver that was out of order, because I had just been reading a patent liver-pill circular, in which were detailed the various symptoms by which a man could tell when his liver was out of order. I had them all. It is a most extraordinary thing, but I never read a patent medicine advertisement without being impelled to the conclusion that I am suffering from the particular disease therein dealt with in its most virulent form.
Text D comes from our Undetectable AI review. Text F is public domain (Project Gutenberg #308).
Pros and cons↑ Contents
Pros
- No account, no email, no wall in three scans
- Results in under a second
- Names the flagged phrases and sentences
- Advertised as unlimited for the detector
- Warns that a clean result is not proof of human writing
Cons
- Passed the Undetectable AI rewrite with 12/100 in this test
- Score on the AI paragraph was 70/100 with medium confidence, softer than other detectors
- Phrase-based reasons mean text without stock phrases shows nothing to point at
- URL scanning is marked as needing an account
Visit Coda One ↗ Not an affiliate link.
Method & updates↑ Contents
On Nov 5, 2026 an automated browser opened Coda One’s AI Detector as a guest, pasted each text and ran the check once. We recorded the scores, the sentence flags, the limits and the pop-ups; Jamie C. checked the records and wrote this page. Full method.
Not tested
- Texts B, C and E
- The AI Humanizer and AI Rewriter on the same site. Their pages say “3/day, 300 words, 5 modes” for free use; we did not run them
- Scan URL (marked “account”), Batch mode, file upload and the Chrome extension
- Inputs over 20,000 characters, non-English text and mixed human-and-AI text
- The “General” reading preset was kept; Teacher, Student, Editor and SEO buyer presets were not tried
Update log
- First published.