[Very Small Case Study] Comparing the 4 main plagiarism checkers ✅

[welie]

Send the articles, I'll have them checked through Writerzen's checker

Please don't rely on WriterZen. I was testing out a writer from Upwork, and I was amazed at the quality he was providing me for relatively cheap price. I was relying on WriterZen for detecting plagiarim, and it was all clean.

30 articles later I randomly subscribed to QueText for a 3 day trial, and everything was lifted word for word from a pretty massive authority site. All the writer was doing was switching "and" with "&", adding random "Moreover", "In addition to" filler phrases.

Thanks to Google Sandbox I was nowhere near top 100, so luckily no DMCA.

The only downsides are:

- There's a timer set to 290 seconds. So you have to wait 290 seconds and the timer counts down every time you run an article through.
- There's also a character limit, you can run somewhere around 3 articles per day. Not bad for a free option.

Its been sometime since I used 1Text, but you can check for multiple articles in parallel using Firefox's Container tabs.
However, the character limit is at an IP level, so unless you have access to dynamic IPs or proxies, your only option is to wait, or to buy credits. They do not sell their services to non-Russians (again, this may be outdated now)

 

[blinks]

thanks for your share...

 

[PHPInjected]

Please don't rely on WriterZen. I was testing out a writer from Upwork, and I was amazed at the quality he was providing me for relatively cheap price. I was relying on WriterZen for detecting plagiarim, and it was all clean.

30 articles later I randomly subscribed to QueText for a 3 day trial, and everything was lifted word for word from a pretty massive authority site. All the writer was doing was switching "and" with "&", adding random "Moreover", "In addition to" filler phrases.

Thanks to Google Sandbox I was nowhere near top 100, so luckily no DMCA.


Its been sometime since I used 1Text, but you can check for multiple articles in parallel using Firefox's Container tabs.
However, the character limit is at an IP level, so unless you have access to dynamic IPs or proxies, your only option is to wait, or to buy credits. They do not sell their services to non-Russians (again, this may be outdated now)

I don't think I'll be running any more through the test right now. Maybe if there were 2-3 really popular plagiarism checkers that I forgot about, but I think I covered all of the main options.

I guess the sandbox can have it's benefits. I prefer the Quetext UI & detection system if I'm being honest.

I think most marketers have access to proxies or at least do at some point. If 1text can be utilized like that, I may switch over & just rotate proxy/browser when I have a bulk load of articles I need to have check.

 

[Awebus]

How is Quetext costlier? Copyscape costs $3 per 20000 words. Quetexts cost $1.96 for Pro Organization, $2 for pro basic and better discounts if paid yearly.

 

[PHPInjected]

How is Quetext costlier? Copyscape costs $3 per 20000 words. Quetexts cost $1.96 for Pro Organization, $2 for pro basic and better discounts if paid yearly.

So, with Copyscape, for $10 you get 98,800 words. But with QueText you get 250,000 words for $20. Better value and that's IF you don't buy the yearly package, but not a lot of people do.

Plus, QueText is a better value even if it did cost more.

 

[OccultKingdoms]

Copyscape forgot to update their website design... and their database.

 

[Aglet49]

Yeah this thread confirms my general thoughts. But one thing that was not talked about was the amount of false positives with Copyscape. In my experience this is just as bad as not detecting plagiarism. In the articles you tested they were all false negatives, so it wasn't possible to compare the amount of incorrectly flagged text.

 

[PHPInjected]

Yeah this thread confirms my general thoughts. But one thing that was not talked about was the amount of false positives with Copyscape. In my experience this is just as bad as not detecting plagiarism. In the articles you tested they were all false negatives, so it wasn't possible to compare the amount of incorrectly flagged text.

Essentially making Copyscape useless in most instances. The point of the thread was to compare different services suggested on the forum. If one of those triggers false positives 3/4 times that you use it & can't even analyze 3-4 random articles properly, it's useless and shouldn't even be used until it's properly coded/updated.

Free versions of plagiarism checkers gave better results. It's each person's own responsibility to compare the results flagged within each article, though.

 

[Aglet49]

Essentially making Copyscape useless in most instances. The point of the thread was to compare different services suggested on the forum. If one of those triggers false positives 3/4 times that you use it & can't even analyze 3-4 random articles properly, it's useless and shouldn't even be used until it's properly coded/updated.

Free versions of plagiarism checkers gave better results. It's each person's own responsibility to compare the results flagged within each article, though.

Exactly. It's totally unreliable. Flagging common phrases as plagiarized and missing entire copied sentences like in your case study. I think their 3-word algorithm is very outdated.

 

[-Creationtc-]

yah, Quetext always gives most accurate result.
Thanks for sharing your analysis.

 

[Matt S]

Which doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I understand why you'd want to publish "perfect" "100% unique" articles, but a little duplicate content doesn't hurt.

Agreed. I had a client kicking off, claiming I was plagiarising because quetext was pulling in 18% 'plagiarism'. This was occuring due to common phrases such as "the pros and cons of this are that" and "if you find yourself in this situation." Quetext is over the top sensitive and all the writers in the group's I use agreed. The concencous was that Fairly was an appropriate middle ground, but even then most of what it picks are up just common phrases from unrelated sites, so they can be ignored.

I couldn't please this client and binned him.

 

[DatNguyen1914]

Agreed. I had a client kicking off, claiming I was plagiarising because quetext was pulling in 18% 'plagiarism'. This was occuring due to common phrases such as "the pros and cons of this are that" and "if you find yourself in this situation." Quetext is over the top sensitive and all the writers in the group's I use agreed. The concencous was that Fairly was an appropriate middle ground, but even then most of what it picks are up just common phrases from unrelated sites, so they can be ignored.

I couldn't please this client and binned him.

This is my concern as well. Everybody here's talking about how good Quetext is, but after testing with a few articles on different subjects, I don't understand why it's overrated.

Quetext sees common phrases as plagiarism, and the topics of the resources don't even relate to my articles.

Can someone explain?

 

[Jerk55]

This is my concern as well. Everybody here's talking about how good Quetext is, but after testing with a few articles on different subjects, I don't understand why it's overrated.

Quetext sees common phrases as plagiarism, and the topics of the resources don't even relate to my articles.

Can someone explain?

Agreed. I had a client kicking off, claiming I was plagiarising because quetext was pulling in 18% 'plagiarism'. This was occuring due to common phrases such as "the pros and cons of this are that" and "if you find yourself in this situation." Quetext is over the top sensitive and all the writers in the group's I use agreed. The concencous was that Fairly was an appropriate middle ground, but even then most of what it picks are up just common phrases from unrelated sites, so they can be ignored.

I couldn't please this client and binned him.

It's probably not as good as they say, then. For uniqueness, you only need to meet a 50% uniqueness threshold for your article to be considered unique by Google. Most people don't understand this -- they think it has to be 100% unique. This usually results in fastidious amd fussy clients.

 

[Panther28]

Thanks for the write up @PHPInjected I changed my process and now use quetext and copyscape cause of you, quetext gives me much more confidence to see what's going on under the hood. Thanks for costing me an extra $20 bucks a month, though!

 

[PHPInjected]

This is my concern as well. Everybody here's talking about how good Quetext is, but after testing with a few articles on different subjects, I don't understand why it's overrated.

Quetext sees common phrases as plagiarism, and the topics of the resources don't even relate to my articles.

Can someone explain?

Because that’s their algorithm for detection. If nothing that you feel is actually plagiarism, then just leave it? Generally, in my small testing, QueText picked up the majority of detections that other checkers picked up, plus a tiny bit more/less. I’d rather have false positives than false negatives.

Thanks for the write up @PHPInjected I changed my process and now use quetext and copyscape cause of you, quetext gives me much more confidence to see what's going on under the hood. Thanks for costing me an extra $20 bucks a month, though!

Not a problem! Though, I’d say do your own testing just to make sure that QueText is getting what you need done. I may do another test and purposely plagiarize parts of articles to see which checkers pick it up.

 

[bigarash]

In my opinion and experience, 1text is the best tool to find plagiarized content!

 

[PHPInjected]

In my opinion and experience, 1text is the best tool to find plagiarized content!

Ive said it above and I was impressed with 1text checker results given that it’s a free tool. It kept up with some of the paid tools that are praised.

If you don’t have any funds for one of the main checkers, 1text works well.

 

[archangelnot]

Really interesting post, I thought Copyscape was the standard of the market.

 

[india]

You should also try 1text. I found 1text better from all of these.

 

[Zablo]

tf! I use smallseo tool blindly for all my articles and websites. need to switch something free or something affordable now