A Copyleaks alternative for people who need an answer, not a platform.
Three named verdicts and a score on every sentence — nothing to buy or configure.
50 free scans a day · 2,500 words per scan · text is scored in memory and never stored
Why this page exists
A platform is the wrong shape for one document
Copyleaks sells integrity software the way institutions buy it: LMS integrations, APIs, admin dashboards, seats, contracts. That is a coherent product for a faculty that needs one vendor across a semester of submissions. It is a poor fit for the far more common case this page is written for — you, one draft, and a decision that cannot wait for procurement. markhuman answers that case: 50 scans a day, 2,500 words each, no account, with a named verdict and a score on every sentence.
We refuse to score fewer than 50 words. Below that length, any detector's output is closer to noise than to evidence. A tool that confidently scores a two-sentence paste is not being generous; it is being unserious. Confidence rises with length, and mixed documents — a model drafted, a person edited — get their own verdict rather than being folded into a plagiarism-plus-AI suite score.
Plagiarism detection and AI detection are different questions. One matches text against a database of sources; the other classifies the statistical texture of the writing itself. Bundling them into one platform report quietly invites one reading: a combined integrity risk. Fully generated text that matches nothing in a corpus is not an edge case, it is the normal case, which is why markhuman answers only the second question, and answers it with sentence-level evidence attached.
We do not publish head-to-head benchmarks against Copyleaks or anyone else, and this page contains no accuracy percentage for either tool. Vendor-measured numbers describe the vendor's own test set, not your document. Short passages, non-native English, and heavily edited drafts are hard cases for the entire field, ours included. Text is scored in memory and never stored.
Two shapes of product
A suite for the institution,
or a report for you
Neither shape is wrong — they serve different buyers. The mismatch happens when an individual with one worrying document ends up evaluating enterprise software, because the search results only offered platforms.
Copyleaks
- Positioned at institutions and enterprises: LMS integrations, APIs, admin dashboards, team seats.
- Bundles plagiarism detection and AI detection into one suite, sold on contracts sized for organisations.
- The buyer is usually a department — the person pasting the text is several steps removed from the purchase.
markhuman
- One question — was this written by a person? — answered in three named verdicts with a score on every sentence.
- No account, no card, no seat licence: paste text and read the report, whether you are a student, an editor, or a team of one.
- Text is scored in memory and never stored, which matters when the document is not yours to upload into a platform.
If your institution already runs Copyleaks, this page is not asking you to rip it out. It is here for the far more common situation: you, one document, and a decision that cannot wait for a licence.
Copied vs generated
Plagiarism and AI are
two different questions
The suite approach bundles them into one report, which quietly invites one reading: a combined 'integrity risk'. But the two scores measure unrelated things, fail in unrelated ways, and routinely point in opposite directions on the same document.
Was this copied?
Plagiarism detection is a database problem: compare the text against existing sources and flag what matches. It says nothing about how the non-matching text came to exist. AI-generated text is usually original in exactly this sense — a model writing fresh sentences matches nothing.
Was this generated?
AI detection is a statistics problem: examine the texture of the writing itself and estimate whether a model produced it. No database is consulted. A hand-written essay stuffed with quotes can flag high for similarity and be entirely human; a fully generated one can score 0% similarity.
markhuman answers the second question only, and answers it thoroughly — because a tool that does one thing can put its entire report behind that one answer. Fully generated text scoring 0% on similarity is not an edge case; it is the normal case, and it is why the two checks must be read separately no matter whose tools you use.
The report
Verdict first,
evidence attached
What replaces the dashboard: a named verdict for the document, and the sentence-level scores that earned it, shaded into your own text.
One document, one verdict
The engine reads the whole text and commits to Human-Written, AI-Assisted, or AI-Generated. The mixed case — a model draft a person reworked, or the reverse — has its own name instead of being averaged into an ambiguous score.
Every sentence shows its score
Each sentence is shaded in place on a four-step strength scale. Two documents with the same verdict can look completely different at sentence level, and the sentence level is where a decision about a specific passage actually gets made.
Nothing to configure
No thresholds to set, no policies to administer, no dashboard to learn. That is not a missing feature — it is the product. The configuration surface of a platform exists for the organisation that bought it, not the person holding the draft.
What we will not claim
No benchmark numbers on this page
We do not publish head-to-head benchmarks against Copyleaks or anyone else, and there is no accuracy figure for either tool on this page — vendor-measured numbers describe the vendor's own test set under the vendor's own conditions, not your document. No detector is perfect. Short passages, non-native English, and heavily edited drafts are hard for the whole field, ours included. A detector's report is evidence to weigh, not proof on its own.
The full account of what the detector can and cannot tell you is on the AI detector page. Comparing more tools? The Turnitin and GPTZero pages take on the education-platform side of the market.
FAQ
Questions about switching
What markhuman does and deliberately does not do, and how to read the report when tools disagree.
Is markhuman a free Copyleaks alternative?
For AI detection, yes: 50 scans a day at up to 2,500 words per scan, no account and no card, with a 50-word minimum before the engine will score. Paid plans add longer documents and monthly volume. What markhuman does not do is plagiarism scanning — see the next question.
Does markhuman check for plagiarism too?
No, and that is deliberate. Plagiarism detection and AI detection answer different questions with different machinery — one matches against a database of sources, the other classifies the statistical texture of the writing. Bundling them invites reading two unrelated scores as one 'integrity risk'. If you need source-matching, use a dedicated plagiarism tool alongside this one; each answer will be cleaner for it.
I'm not an institution — do I need a platform at all?
If you need LMS integration, centralised reporting across a faculty, or seats for a whole team, a platform is the right shape and Copyleaks sells one. If you need to know whether the document in front of you was machine-written — you are a writer checking your own work, an editor vetting a submission, a hiring manager reading a cover letter — you need an answer, and an answer should not require procurement.
What does AI-Assisted mean, exactly?
That the text carries both signatures: a model drafted and a person edited, or a person drafted and a model rewrote. It is a positive finding, not a hedge. On real documents it is the most common truthful answer, and it is the case a single AI-probability score handles worst — the mid-range number that gets argued about instead of acted on.
Will markhuman and Copyleaks return the same verdict on the same text?
Not reliably, and no two detectors will. Different training data, different thresholds, different calibration — disagreement is a normal property of the field, not evidence that either tool is broken. Where tools disagree, the text is genuinely ambiguous and the sentence-level view is the most useful tiebreaker we can offer: it shows which specific lines carry the signal.
Is pasted text stored or used for training?
No — scored in memory, never stored. Worth checking with any tool you use: documents pasted into detectors are often unpublished, confidential, or someone else's work, and 'uploaded into a platform' is a different privacy proposition than 'scored and discarded'.
The document is already in your clipboard
No demo call, no seat licence, no setup. Paste it and read the report — 2,500 words per scan, 50 scans a day, free.