Is this AI‑generated?

Paste your text and get a score, and with it the error rate we measured for that kind of answer, and if the evidence is too thin to call we tell you that instead of handing you a guess. Free, and there is no signup.

0 words · 0 characters · 150 to 10,000 words

No file chosen yet

needs 150 words

Try a sample:

Private by design. Your text and files are processed in memory and deleted the moment your verdict is delivered — never stored, never used for training, never shared. How we guarantee that

Designed to minimize false accusations, not maximize accusations.

What our verdicts mean

These came out of one run, on August 28, 2026, against a set of documents that had been frozen and held back beforehand, and the times we answered “inconclusive” are counted in rather than left out.

  • When we said likely AI, the text had actually been written by a person 2.1% of the time (14 of 670; statistical upper bound 3.5%). That is the rate to read first if you are the one being scanned, since it is how often this tool would have pointed at you and been wrong.
  • When we said likely human, the text had actually come from AI 16.5% of the time (126 of 764; statistical upper bound 19.3%). Read that one against the set it came from, which we built to be more than half AI and then loaded with text that had been paraphrased on purpose to get past a detector, so a classroom or an inbox will not look like it.
  • We answered inconclusive, and said so instead of guessing, on 5.8% of that evaluation set (88 of 1522).

Measured, not claimed

Every number on this site came out of one evaluation run that we did on August 28, 2026 and then froze, so each figure carries the date and engine version it came from, and it changes when the engine does, which is the same figure you read next month. All of it went up with confidence intervals and the raw counts beside it, including the numbers we would sooner not have had to show you.

See the evidence Why Cobalynx exists

Uncertain? We say so.

On our evaluation set, 5.8% of scans came back “inconclusive”, and that is on purpose, since forcing a verdict when there is not enough to go on is how a writer gets hurt. Telling you we do not know is worth more than a guess with a number next to it, and we refuse texts under 150 words altogether. If a tool has already flagged you, start here.

Why we abstain

Evidence beyond writing style

When the detector looks at how a text is written it is doing statistics, and what comes out is always a guess with an error rate on it. Provenance came attached to the file and you can go and check it for yourself, so Cobalynx reads the Content Credentials (C2PA) and the document metadata as well, and it tells you which of the two you are looking at rather than folding them into one number.

Check a file

Why we built this

We built this because a number out of a piece of software was being used to accuse people of things, and it was very hard to find out what the number meant or how often it was wrong. Anyone putting a number like that in front of a person ought to be able to answer both of those questions, so that is what this site is. You do not have to take our word for any of it, since every figure on this page links to the place where you can check it, and if you find something that does not add up we would like to hear about it.

There are things it cannot do. It cannot prove that a person wrote something, and no other tool can do that either, and it cannot see a watermark in a text where no company put one. What it can do is give you a second opinion with a published error rate behind it, and if you have been accused of something that is a more useful thing to bring to the meeting than a screenshot from a tool that does not say how often it is wrong.

Built and maintained by Roviant S.r.l. · Why Cobalynx

If you came here with something specific in mind

Most people who land on this page have one particular thing in front of them, and the page written for that situation will get you there faster than the general one.

The questions people ask us most

These are the eight questions that come up most, answered the way we would answer them if you asked in person, so the direct answer comes first and the parts we are not sure about are still in there.

How do AI detectors work?

The software looks at things in your writing that you would never notice yourself, like how easy each word would have been for a language model to guess and how even the rhythm of your sentences is, and then it holds what it found up against big piles of writing where the author of each piece was already known (a person or a model). No detector “knows” who wrote your text, since all it can give you is an estimate of how likely it was. What we did at Cobalynx was take that estimate, test it against what had really happened, and print our error rates next to it, so you can see how often we got it wrong. Every step is laid out on the methodology page.

Can AI detectors be trusted?

You can trust them as one piece of evidence, and we would never let one of them stand in for proof. In 2023 a team led by Weber-Wulff put 14 of the popular ones to the test, and not one of them got to 80% accuracy in the conditions they tried. People have pasted the U.S. Constitution into them and been told it was written by a machine. What Cobalynx did differently was put its own error rates out in the open, on the evidence page, so that when you get a verdict from it you will also know how much weight it can take. There is a longer version of this answer in our guide to how accurate detectors really are.

What is a false positive, and what is your rate?

A false positive is when a person wrote something and the software said a machine wrote it, and of all the mistakes this kind of software can make it is the one that does the most damage to the writer. Cobalynx’s false-positive rates are on the evidence page, with the raw counts and the confidence intervals for each confidence band, and we set the thresholds so that a confident wrong accusation will stay as close to zero as we could get it.

Do AI detectors work on short text?

Not reliably, and that goes for every one of them and not only ours. Once you get below 150 words or so there is not enough in the text for a detector to say much about it, so Cobalynx will ask you for a minimum length and will not guess. If what you have is a chat message, a single review or a short email, then what we would do is put several of them together (or paste in the whole transcript) and run that as one text.

What is the most accurate AI detector?

There is no straight answer to that, and we would be careful with somebody who gave you one. How well a detector does depends on how long the text was, what language it was in, which model wrote it and how much a person edited it afterwards, and most of the “most accurate” rankings you will find were put out by the vendors grading their own product. The question worth asking instead is if the vendor has published error rates that a third party could go and reproduce, and if it said what threshold it ran them at. Cobalynx’s are public, with the raw counts and the confidence intervals, on the evidence page, and our list of questions for a detector’s maker is on the why-cobalynx page.

Why was my essay flagged as AI when I wrote it myself?

False positives are real, and they land most often on the kind of writing your teacher asked you for. If your structure was formal, if you ran it through a grammar tool, or if English is not your first language, all of that looks, to the software, like what it was trained to catch, and a flag from it is a hint that a person should look closer. Save your version history and your drafts first, since they are far stronger evidence than a score, and then read our step-by-step guide for people who were falsely accused.

Do you store the text I check?

No. Your text and files are processed in memory and deleted the moment your verdict is delivered — never stored, never used for training, never shared. If load queues your scan, your text is held in memory only while it waits its turn, and once it has been scored the text is gone before you have even got your verdict back. Say you closed the tab and never came back for your result. In that case it is purged by a background timer within five minutes, even if nobody else ever visits. The one thing that is held on to for that short while is the verdict itself, which is the score and the band it falls in, never your words. There is an automated test that proves all of this on every release, so you do not have to take our word for any of it. The privacy page has the whole story, including the little that a website still touches, which in this case is anonymized connection logs, and no cookies and no third-party trackers at all.

Is Cobalynx really free with no signup?

Yes. It is free, there is no account to make, and there is no word count that you have to pay to get past. You paste in your text or you drop in a file, and you get your result. The things it cannot do are short text, guessing from the pixels of a picture, and proving that a person wrote something, and we would rather you knew that before you relied on it.

Read all 29 questions and the answers we gave

What happens when you run a scan

A number you do not understand is not much use to you, and too many people have been handed one, so this is what goes on between the moment you press the button and the moment your result comes back. It happens in 3 steps, and the methodology page goes into each of them in more detail.

  1. Reading. The software reads the writing itself, so the way the words and the sentences were picked and put together, and it reads the whole document rather than the first few paragraphs of it, so putting your own writing at the top of somebody else’s does not change what comes back.
  2. Calibrating. Then the raw scores get held up against what really happened on our evaluation set, which is a pile of texts where we already knew who had written each one, so the probability you see is telling you how often the texts that scored like yours turned out to have been written by AI when we went and counted them.
  3. Then it either tells you, or it tells you it is not sure. When the case is clear you will get a verdict with a probability next to it, and when it is borderline the detector will call it inconclusive and will not guess.

What a score means depends on how much AI text there was in the pile you were looking at in the first place, so the same number can mean one thing in a classroom and another thing in a newsroom. If you want to see what the detector’s error rates would mean at your own rate of AI use, the base-rate explainer will show you.

Read the full methodology

Watermark adapter status

If you were hoping there was a hidden mark in every AI text that a tool could just read off, there is not. A few of the companies that make the models put a watermark in the text and most of them do not, so the list below is who really does, as of the date shown on it, and when one of them ships a way to verify its watermark we wire it in and the row changes.

The detector will never tell you it found a watermark in a text where no company had put one, since there is no way it could do that. How text watermarks work

Provider states as reviewed on August 16, 2026 (served live by the detection service):

Watermark verification adapter status by provider
Provider State What that means today
Google announced SynthID-Text published by Google DeepMind (Nature 2024, open-sourced detector code), and deployed in Gemini — but no public verification API is available for third parties, so no adapter can go live.
Anthropic announced Anthropic announced (Aug 11-14, 2026) that Claude models launched after Aug 2, 2026 watermark their text output; its detection API is announced but not yet public, so no adapter can go live.
OpenAI unavailable OpenAI built a text watermarking method internally (reported 2024) but has not released it or any verification API; pending.
Meta unavailable Meta published watermarking research (e.g. video/audio; Three Bricks for text) but ships no public text watermark verification; pending.
Mistral unavailable No announced text watermarking or verification API from Mistral; pending.
Microsoft unavailable Microsoft backs C2PA for media provenance but exposes no text watermark verification API; pending.
xAI unavailable No announced text watermarking from xAI.