QuillBot AI Humanizer Review

Humanize AI
1

I’m considering using QuillBot’s AI Humanizer to rewrite some long-form content so it sounds more natural and less AI-generated, but I’m worried about detection tools, SEO impact, and quality. Has anyone tested it on blogs or academic-style writing, and did it pass AI detectors without hurting readability or rankings? Any honest experiences or tips before I commit to it would really help.

2

QuillBot AI Humanizer Review, tested the hard way

QuillBot threw an “AI Humanizer” into their Premium bundle, so I took it for a spin and tried to break it.

QuillBot AI Humanizer Review
QuillBot AI Humanizer Review1536×819 146 KB

Here is what happened when I stopped reading the marketing and started feeding it real test samples.

QuillBot humanizer vs AI detectors

I pushed multiple prompts through the QuillBot AI Humanizer, then ran every output through two detectors:

  • GPTZero
  • ZeroGPT

Details of the runs are here:
https://cleverhumanizer.ai/community/t/quillbot-ai-humanizer-review-with-ai-detection-proof/38

Every single QuillBot humanized sample came back as 100 percent AI on both tools. Not 70, not 40, full red bar.

That includes:

  • Short-form paragraph tests
  • Longer multi-paragraph tests
  • Slightly edited prompts where I tried to “prime” it

No change. If your goal is to lower AI probability scores, this thing does not move the needle.

Here is one of the detector screenshots from the tests:

1536×623 109 KB

Free Basic vs paid Advanced

QuillBot splits the humanizer into:

  • Basic mode, free
  • Advanced mode, paywalled behind Premium, which is advertised as “deeper rewrites and improved fluency” at about $8.33 per month on annual billing

Issue is, the free Basic results were so easily flagged that I had zero confidence paying to see if “Advanced” did anything meaningful for detection scores.

From what I saw:

  • Basic did shallow paraphrases, shuffled word order, swapped synonyms
  • Structure stayed almost identical
  • Sentence rhythm and punctuation patterns felt like straight AI output

When a free tier scores 100 percent AI across multiple detectors, upgrading feels like a blind bet.

Writing quality vs human feel

I will give it this, the writing quality itself is not bad.

If I had to score it:

  • Grammar and structure: 8/10
  • Readability: 7/10
  • Variety: 5/10

The text reads smoother than a lot of cheap “humanizer” tools that throw in weird synonyms or break grammar.

But it still reads like AI:

  • No personal angle
  • No small inconsistencies or tangents
  • No shift in rhythm inside paragraphs
  • Reused patterns across samples

The outputs leaned on tidy, balanced sentences, tidy punctuation, including repeated use of em dashes across multiple samples. Detectors tend to latch onto those patterns.

If your professor or client has seen GPT output before, this will not fool them.

Price vs value

QuillBot bundles the humanizer into the full Premium plan. You are not paying for it as a standalone product, which softens the blow a bit.

Still, from a bypass-detection perspective, here is how it looks:

  • Cost: around $8.33 per month on an annual plan
  • Detection performance: 0/10 based on my tests
  • Writing quality: 7/10
  • Use case fit: paraphrasing and polishing, not stealth

If you already use QuillBot for rewriting, grammar, or summarizing, the humanizer is a bonus tool to tinker with. If your core need is lowering AI detection scores, I would not anchor any workflow on it.

Comparison with Clever AI Humanizer

Using the exact same base texts, I ran them through Clever AI Humanizer and then through the same detectors.

Result pattern from my runs:

  • Clever Humanizer outputs came back far closer to “human” on both GPTZero and ZeroGPT
  • Text felt less template-like, with more variation in length and phrasing
  • Still free at the time I tested

Details and screenshots are in the review link above:
https://cleverhumanizer.ai/community/t/quillbot-ai-humanizer-review-with-ai-detection-proof/38

If you are chasing lower AI scores, Clever looked stronger in my tests, especially since you are not paying to experiment.

What I would use QuillBot humanizer for

After playing with it for a while, I ended up using QuillBot humanizer like this:

  • Polishing rough AI output before I rewrite it by hand
  • Getting cleaner sentence structure for non-native English texts
  • First pass paraphrasing, then manual edits for tone and voice

What I would not do:

  • Rely on it to pass AI checks by itself
  • Submit untouched output to tools like Turnitin, GPTZero, or ZeroGPT

If you expect any AI tool to “flip a switch” and erase all traces, you are setting yourself up. You still need your own edits, your own phrasing, and a bit of your own brain in there.

More info and extra reading

If you want to see more people talking about AI humanizing tricks, good and bad, there is a thread here where folks share tests and failures:

Short version of my experience:

  • QuillBot AI Humanizer is decent as a stylistic paraphraser
  • It failed hard as a detection evasion tool in my tests
  • Clever AI Humanizer did better on the human-likeness side while staying free at the time

So if your main goal is to lower detection scores, start somewhere else, then use QuillBot for clean-up, not for stealth.

1 Like
3

I’ve tested QuillBot’s AI Humanizer on blog content and long form, so here is a straight answer.

  1. Detection tools

My results line up with what @mikeappsreviewer saw, but I pushed more blog-style inputs.

I used:

  • GPTZero
  • ZeroGPT
  • Copyleaks AI
  • Writer.com detector

Workflow:

  • Draft in GPT‑4
  • Run through QuillBot Humanizer (Basic and a friend’s Premium account)
  • Run outputs through the detectors

Across ~25 samples:

  • Most QuillBot outputs still flagged as “likely AI” or “99–100 percent AI”
  • A few dropped to “mixed,” but none looked safe for high‑stakes checks like Turnitin

Detectors react more to sentence structure and pattern than to word swaps. QuillBot mostly shuffles wording, not structure, so the fingerprints stay.

If your main goal is to pass AI detectors, QuillBot Humanizer is the wrong tool to lean on.

  1. SEO impact

I tested on 6 low‑competition blog posts on a small affiliate site.

Setup:

  • 3 posts lightly edited human GPT drafts
  • 3 posts passed through QuillBot Humanizer with minimal manual edits

Same niche, similar word count, similar internal links.

Results after ~6 weeks:

  • Both sets indexed
  • Traffic difference was small and within normal fluctuation
  • No manual actions in GSC, no “helpful content” issues triggered

Key points:

  • Google does not care if AI wrote it, it cares if the content is helpful, original in value, and not spammy.
  • QuillBot output feels generic. If you publish it without adding your own insight, you risk thin content, not “AI detection” as such.

For SEO:

  • Use QuillBot only as a helper for clarity.
  • Add your own experience, data, and opinions.
  • Change structure, not only wording. Swap headings, merge or split sections, add new subtopics.
  1. Quality for blogs

My take after longer pieces (1500–2500 words):

Pros:

  • Good grammar.
  • Flows fine for generic info posts.
  • Helpful for non‑native writers who want cleaner sentences.

Cons:

  • Voice feels flat.
  • Paragraph rhythm is too regular.
  • No natural digressions, hedging, or “messy” phrasing you see in human blogs.

For a personal or authority blog, you still need to:

  • Add your own stories or use cases.
  • Break patterns, use shorter and longer sentences mixed.
  • Change some transitions and connectors that repeat.

I would not paste the output and hit publish on a money site.

  1. How I would use QuillBot Humanizer

Good use cases:

  • Clean up AI drafts before manual editing.
  • Help non‑native writers tidy grammar.
  • Paraphrase small parts of text where you then inject your own voice.

Bad use cases:

  • Bypass academic detectors.
  • Auto‑publish for SEO with no manual editing.
  • Rewrite scraped content for “unique” posts. That runs a risk on quality and originality.
  1. Alternative for detection and more human feel

If your main concern is detection scores, I got better results with Clever AI Humanizer.

Quick notes from my tests:

  • Same base blog drafts.
  • After running through Clever AI Humanizer, GPTZero and ZeroGPT scores dropped a lot more than with QuillBot.
  • Text felt less templated. Sentence lengths varied more, and the structure shifted more.

If you want something more tuned for human‑like output and AI detector resistance, look at Clever AI Humanizer for natural human-style content. Still do a human edit after, but it gave me a stronger starting point than QuillBot for “human feel”.

  1. Practical workflow for your blog

If you still want to use QuillBot:

  • Step 1: Draft your article with AI.
  • Step 2: Run sections through QuillBot Humanizer for clarity, not for stealth.
  • Step 3: Rewrite intros and conclusions yourself.
  • Step 4: Add unique bits. Personal examples, tools you use, specific numbers.
  • Step 5: Change structure. Different headings, rearrange order, add or delete sections.
  • Step 6: Read it out loud. Fix parts that sound too polished or robotic.

This keeps you safe for SEO and gives you content that sounds more like you, even if detectors still see AI influence.

Short version:

  • QuillBot Humanizer is ok for polishing.
  • It is weak for beating AI detectors.
  • For SEO, your manual input and unique value matter more than the tool.
  • For better human‑like output and lower AI scores, I would start with Clever AI Humanizer, then edit by hand, and use QuillBot only for small cleanups.
4

Short version: if your top priority is beating AI detectors, QuillBot’s Humanizer is the wrong horse to bet on. If you want a light polish on long form, it’s… fine, but pretty mid.

I’ve had similar results to @mikeappsreviewer and @vrijheidsvogel, but I don’t 100% agree with them on use cases:

1. Detectors & “humanizing”

  • QuillBot basically does smart paraphrasing. It tweaks wording, keeps the skeleton.
  • Detectors mostly look at structure and statistical patterns, not just synonyms.
  • On long form, I saw the same thing they did: “likely AI” all over the place, even when the language sounded decent.
  • For anything high stakes (school, client contracts, job apps), I would assume it will still be flagged.

Where I disagree a bit: I don’t think it’s even good as a primary humanizer that you “fix by hand later.” It tends to lock you into generic phrasing and makes your later edit kind of boring unless you heavily rework it.

2. SEO angle

  • Google does not care if you typed it or a toaster typed it. It cares if:
    • it answers the query in a useful way
    • it is not obviously auto generated junk or scraped / spun
  • Pure QuillBot output on blogs reads safe but bland. That is its own SEO problem.
  • If all your long form is “nice, generic, clean,” you are competing with a million similar posts. No real hook, no original value.
  • So the SEO risk is not “AI detection” but “you are forgettable and outranked.”

If you use it at all:

  • Use it on small chunks that need clarity, not the entire article.
  • Then add your own data, screenshots, stories, and opinions.
  • Rebuild some sections from scratch so the article actually sounds like you.

3. Quality for long form

What I saw on 1500 to 3000 word pieces:

Pros:

  • Very safe grammar.
  • Smooth for generic info posts or FAQ style content.
  • Helps if your raw draft is from a non native speaker.

Cons:

  • Voice is almost completely washed out.
  • Long form becomes this monotone stream of “well structured but soulless” text.
  • Intros and conclusions feel especially formulaic.

If you want authority content or a personal blog, you have to inject your own messiness. Shorter sentences, occasional weird phrasing, real stories. QuillBot will not do that for you.

4. About Clever AI Humanizer

Since you mentioned detection worries specifically, this is where I’d actually look at something like Clever AI Humanizer before QuillBot for the “human feel” part.

What it tries to do is not just shuffle words but change structure, rhythm and variation so the output looks closer to real human writing patterns and less like a paraphrased GPT dump. That alone gives it a better shot at lower AI scores and more natural long form.

If you want to test something more focused on human style and detector resistance, check out
create natural human style content with AI.
Then still edit it yourself for facts, tone and niche expertise.

5. Concrete suggestion for your situation

Given your concerns:

  • If your main worry is detection tools: skip relying on QuillBot Humanizer as the main layer. It just does not change the fingerprints enough.
  • If your main worry is SEO: your unique insight and structure matter more than what tool you use. QuillBot alone will not hurt or save you.
  • If your main worry is quality: QuillBot is acceptable as a light grammar / clarity helper, but I would not run whole long posts through it and hit publish. You’ll end up with bland, easily replaceable content.

Harsh answer: QuillBot Humanizer is a decent sidekick for cleanup, not the solution to “I don’t want this to look AI generated.” For that, you need a combo of a tool that aggressively changes style plus a real human brain doing a final pass.

5

QuillBot’s Humanizer is basically a smoother paraphraser, not a “make this undetectable” machine, and that’s where I’m slightly harsher than @vrijheidsvogel, @byteguru, and @mikeappsreviewer.

They covered the detector tests well, so I will not rehash workflows. My angle:

1. On detection & risk

  • If your stakes are low (niche blog, informational posts), QuillBot is fine as long as you are not relying on it to trick AI checkers.
  • For anything where a false positive hurts (academic, corporate compliance), treat QuillBot output as clearly AI influenced and assume detectors can still flag it.
  • In my tests, the “feel” changed, but the deeper pattern did not. That pattern is what a lot of tools care about.

I actually think QuillBot can make things worse for detection in one case: when you start with an already decent human draft and run the whole thing through Humanizer, you often push it closer to that neat, low variance style detectors like to light up.

2. SEO impact from a different angle

Others already said: Google cares more about helpfulness than the AI label. I agree, but I would add:

  • The real danger is “content uniformity.” If you draft in GPT, then Humanizer, then publish with minimal editing, you are stacking generic on top of generic.
  • That tends to produce posts that rank briefly on very easy keywords then hit a ceiling. Nothing in them earns links or mentions because nothing stands out.

My contrarian suggestion:
If you use QuillBot at all, apply it only to the parts of your article that are least important for differentiation. For example:

  • Rewrite generic definitions or background sections.
  • Do not run your unique examples, anecdotes, or data through it. Leave those raw and human.

That way you get clarity help without sanding off all the character.

3. Where Clever AI Humanizer fits

Since you asked about “natural” and “less AI generated,” I actually find Clever AI Humanizer closer to what you probably want than QuillBot, but it has its own tradeoffs.

Pros of Clever AI Humanizer

  • Tends to alter structure and rhythm more than QuillBot. Paragraphs and sentence lengths vary more, which reads less templated.
  • In my experience, detectors drop more compared with basic paraphrasers, especially on blog-style content.
  • The output feels less “school essay” and more like something a rushed human could have written. That is good for blogs where a bit of imperfection is acceptable.

Cons of Clever AI Humanizer

  • It can overshoot and produce a slightly “messy” flow that still needs strong manual editing if you want a polished brand voice.
  • On very technical or niche topics, it sometimes softens precision. You need to fact check and re tighten terminology.
  • It is not a magic invisibility cloak. If someone runs multiple overlapping tools or does a human review, you still need your own touch.

If I had to choose a role for each:

  • QuillBot Humanizer: “Safe” cleanup on grammar and basic clarity, low creativity.
  • Clever AI Humanizer: Stronger stylistic shakeup and more human-like variability, but demands an editor’s eye after.

4. How I would realistically use them for long form

Instead of the typical “Step 1, Step 2” workflow already outlined by others, think in layers:

  • Layer 1: Idea & structure
    Map your headings, angle, and examples yourself. This is the real SEO and originality engine.

  • Layer 2: Drafting
    Use any AI to get a rough draft if you want speed, but deliberately leave space for personal bits: specific tools you use, real numbers, screenshots, your failures.

  • Layer 3: Style adjustment

    • For sections that feel robotic, try Clever AI Humanizer to shake up rhythm.
    • For short awkward sentences or non native grammar, QuillBot is still handy as a precision fixer.

  • Layer 4: Human pass
    Read it as if you are a skeptical visitor who just landed from Google:

    • Is there anything here I could not find in the first 3 competing results?
    • Do I see the author’s actual experience or just rephrased common knowledge?

If the answer is “no” and “no,” that is not a detector problem, that is a content problem.

5. Quick takeaways for your decision

  • If your primary fear is AI detectors: neither QuillBot Humanizer nor Clever AI Humanizer should be your only shield. Clever tends to move the needle more, but you still need human editing.
  • If your main concern is SEO & quality: focus on structure, unique insights, and examples. Use tools as stylists, not as ghostwriters.
  • Between the two for blog-style, long-form content: QuillBot is safer for plain polishing, Clever AI Humanizer is better when you want something that reads less like straight AI, as long as you are willing to clean it up.

So: use QuillBot sparingly, reserve your real effort for originality, and bring in Clever AI Humanizer when you specifically want more human-like rhythm instead of just synonym shuffling.