On this page
Good for
A quick score for a paragraph with no account, plus a per-sentence label you can read without signing up.
Main limit
The free box is truncated to 2,000 characters, and sentence labels in this test were all-or-nothing, so they told us little about which sentences drove the score.
Free plan facts↑ Contents
| Account needed | No. All three scans ran as a guest; we entered no email |
|---|---|
| Input limit | The page says: “The free version is currently truncated to 2000 characters (roughly 400 to 500 tokens).” Paid plans are listed up to 100,000 characters. Our texts were 131 to 170 tokens |
| Time to result | A and D came back almost at once (under about 3 seconds, no timer on the page). F showed a disabled “Checking…” button for several seconds, with red highlighting flickering before the final plain result |
| What you get | An “AI-generation score” percentage, a sentence table with a label per sentence, red highlighting in the box, and a share link that “expires after 3 days” |
| Pop-ups and prompts | A dismissable Chrome-extension toast. A “Continue your review” card pushes “Open the detector dashboard” (an account link). Neither blocked a scan. A stale “Unexpected error” message was on screen when we arrived and cleared on the first scan |
| Its own caveat | “No current AI content detector (including Sapling’s) should be used as a standalone check to determine whether text is AI-generated or written by a human.” |
Results↑ Contents
The headline score for each text, default settings. Green means the result matched what the text really is.
One scan per text, so we can’t say how stable these are. Our Oct 8 scan of text D gave 89.7%; today’s gave 89.6%.
Against other detectors↑ Contents
Sapling sat with Copyleaks, GPTZero and Originality.ai on text D, and apart from ZeroGPT. See the detector comparison.
| Text | Sapling · Oct 19 | Copyleaks | GPTZero | ZeroGPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A · AI | 99.3% AI | 100% AI | AI 100% | 100% AI |
| D · AI, rewritten | 89.6% AI | 100% AI | AI 100% | 27.6% AI · “Most likely human” |
| F · Human | 0.1% AI | 0% AI | Human 100% | 0% AI |
One scan per text per tool, on different dates (Oct 8 to Oct 19).
Findings & screenshots↑ Contents
- The Undetectable AI rewrite (text D) scored 89.6% AI, and all seven of its sentences were labelled “100% AI”. The overall score is lower than the labels: seven “100%” rows do not add up to 89.6%, and the page does not say how the two numbers relate.
- The 1889 passage scored 0.1% AI with every sentence “0% AI”. One old, famous human text is a thin control, so read this as one data point.
- Sentence labels were all-or-nothing in all three scans: 18 sentences, each 100% or 0%. There was no sentence in between to tell us which part of a text looked more machine-like.
- The 1889 passage took several seconds while the AI texts were near-instant. We saw it once and did not test whether that repeats.
We did not publish a screenshot of the text D 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 for the scan
- Flagged the humanizer rewrite that ZeroGPT passed, in this test
- Cleared the 1889 human passage
- Per-sentence labels visible to guests
- States its own limits and says not to use it as a standalone check
Cons
- Free box truncated to 2,000 characters
- Sentence labels were all 100% or 0% here
- Overall score and sentence labels don’t obviously reconcile
- Account and extension prompts around the result
- A stale error message on arrival
Visit Sapling ↗ Not an affiliate link.
Method & updates↑ Contents
On Oct 19, 2026 an automated browser opened Sapling’s AI Content Detector as a guest, pasted each text and ran the check once. We recorded the scores, the sentence labels, the limits and the pop-ups; Jamie C. checked the records and wrote this page. Full method.
Not tested
- Texts B, C and E
- Inputs over 2,000 characters, and the 100,000-character paid limit
- The dashboard, API and browser extension: they need an account or an install
- PDF and Word upload
- Non-English text and mixed human-and-AI text
Update log
- First published. Sapling was first scanned in our Oct 8 comparison; this is its own review.