Best Deepfake Detectors in 2026
Ten tools compared on what they claim, what backs the claim, and what they admit they cannot do. Half of the ten state an accuracy figure; a sixth cites an independent study instead. Four publish the conditions under which they become unreliable. This comparison is published by FauxLens, which is one of the ten. We have marked the categories where other tools beat us - Sightengine on independent validation, Illuminarty on region heatmaps, Attestiv on statistical rigour - because a comparison whose author wins every row is not worth reading.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Tool | Free Tier | Accuracy | Privacy | API | Extension | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FauxLensOur Pick | Claims 98%+ in internal testing | Deleted after scan | Anyone who needs to see WHY a verdict was reached - journalists, HR screeners, and developers who need the per-signal breakdown rather than a single score. | |||
Sightengine | Cites an independent academic study | Review policy | Developers who want a well-documented API from a vendor that is honest about failure modes. | |||
Hive Moderation | Claims "industry-leading", no figure | Review policy | Large platforms needing AI detection inside a broader moderation pipeline at high volume. | |||
Reality Defender | Publishes no figure | Review policy | Financial institutions and enterprises needing multi-modal detection with support. | |||
Sensity AI | Claims 98% on unnamed datasets | Review policy | Enterprises and government agencies focused on video deepfakes and KYC identity fraud. | |||
Winston AI | Claims above 98% for images | Review policy | Teams whose primary need is AI text detection, with images as a secondary check. | |||
Attestiv | Quotes a minimum 97% AUC | Review policy | Insurance and enterprise fraud teams processing claims media at volume. | |||
Illuminarty | Publishes no figure | Review policy | Users who want to see WHICH REGIONS of an image look generated, not just a verdict. | |||
AI or Not | Claims 98.9% | Review policy | A fast one-off check with zero friction and no account. | |||
Was It AI | Publishes no figure | Review policy | A free, no-friction second opinion when you already have a result from another tool. |
Detailed Reviews
FauxLensOur Pick
Forensic AI image and deepfake detection with a readable evidence chain.
Accuracy claim
Publishes limitationsFauxLens detects AI-generated images, videos and screenshots with 98%+ accuracy in our internal testing. These are our own test runs, not an independent audit. Deepfake-Eval-2024 measured detector AUC falling by roughly 45% on real-world media versus academic benchmarks, so forwarded or compressed images score lower for every tool.
Strengths
- Per-signal evidence chain, including which signals could not run and why
- Publishes the conditions under which detection degrades
- Uploads deleted after analysis; only the result is kept
Limitations
- No independent third-party validation of our results - Sightengine has this and we do not
- No region heatmap showing WHERE an image looks generated (Illuminarty does this better)
- Video analysis limited to 100MB
Best For
Anyone who needs to see WHY a verdict was reached - journalists, HR screeners, and developers who need the per-signal breakdown rather than a single score.
Sightengine
AI image detection with the most candid limitations documentation in the category.
Accuracy claim
Publishes limitationsThe only vendor here citing third-party evidence rather than a self-reported number, linking a University of Rochester and University of Kansas study (arXiv:2404.14581, the ARIA dataset, 140k+ images).
Strengths
- Independent academic validation - the only tool in this comparison with it
- States plainly that no detector is 100% reliable and that results need human judgement
- Explicitly warns that it may struggle with generators it has not seen before
Limitations
- API-first; less oriented to a one-off consumer check
- No browser extension
Best For
Developers who want a well-documented API from a vendor that is honest about failure modes.
Hive Moderation
Enterprise-scale content moderation that includes AI-generated image detection.
Accuracy claim
No limitations publishedNo accuracy percentage. Claims a "<0.01% audited false positive rate" - but names no auditor and links no report, so the word "audited" is not checkable.
Strengths
- Built for high-volume enterprise moderation
- Covers far more than AI detection - NSFW, violence, hate speech
Limitations
- Enterprise-only, no self-serve free tier
- No published limitations documentation
- An "audited" claim with no named auditor
Best For
Large platforms needing AI detection inside a broader moderation pipeline at high volume.
Reality Defender
Well-funded enterprise deepfake detection across image, video, audio and text.
Accuracy claim
No limitations publishedNo self-reported accuracy percentage anywhere on the site - notable given it is among the best-funded players in the category. Its "1-99%" range describes output confidence, not accuracy.
Strengths
- Multi-modal: image, video, audio and text in one platform
- Declines to publish an unsubstantiated accuracy number, which is the honest posture
Limitations
- No free or self-serve tier
- No public limitations documentation
Best For
Financial institutions and enterprises needing multi-modal detection with support.
Sensity AI
Deepfake and synthetic media detection focused on video and identity fraud.
Accuracy claim
No limitations publishedStates "98% accuracy on public datasets". The qualifier is more than most vendors offer, but no dataset is named, so the claim cannot be reproduced.
Strengths
- Strong video deepfake detection with temporal analysis
- Purpose-built for identity fraud and KYC
- Qualifies its accuracy claim as being on public datasets
Limitations
- No free tier or self-serve access
- The datasets behind the 98% figure are not named
Best For
Enterprises and government agencies focused on video deepfakes and KYC identity fraud.
Winston AI
AI detection suite, strongest on text, with an image detector alongside it.
Accuracy claim
No limitations publishedClaims to be "the only AI image detector with an accuracy rate above 98%". Winston does have genuine peer-reviewed third-party validation - but it is for their TEXT detector. The image claim carries no cited methodology.
Strengths
- Real independent validation exists for their text product
- Mature, well-supported commercial tool
Limitations
- The text detector validation does not transfer to the image detector, though the site does not make that easy to notice
- An "only tool above 98%" superiority claim with no published methodology
Best For
Teams whose primary need is AI text detection, with images as a secondary check.
Attestiv
Forensic media analysis aimed at insurance and enterprise fraud workflows.
Accuracy claim
Publishes limitationsThe only vendor here using a real named statistical measure rather than a bare percentage: "tested to a minimum of 97% area under the ROC curve (AUC)". AUC is meaningfully harder to game than headline accuracy.
Strengths
- Reports AUC rather than a bare accuracy figure - the most rigorous claim in this table
- Documents that each model targets specific anomaly types and is "not all-encompassing"
- States a concrete resolution floor below which some models are bypassed
Limitations
- Enterprise-oriented, not built for a one-off consumer check
- No free tier
Best For
Insurance and enterprise fraud teams processing claims media at volume.
Illuminarty
AI image detection with localization heatmaps showing suspect regions.
Accuracy claim
No limitations publishedNo accuracy percentage and no superlative claim. Only a general disclaimer.
Strengths
- Region heatmaps - the most-cited differentiator in this category, and something FauxLens does not offer
- Free tier available
- Makes no accuracy claim it cannot support
Limitations
- No published deletion-after-analysis commitment
- No browser extension
- No published limitations documentation
Best For
Users who want to see WHICH REGIONS of an image look generated, not just a verdict.
AI or Not
Deliberately minimal AI image and audio detection - upload, get a verdict.
Accuracy claim
No limitations publishedStates "98.9% accuracy" on the homepage as a headline stat, with no methodology, dataset or date.
Strengths
- Ruthlessly simple - the whole page is the tool, which is why it ranks so well
- Audio deepfake detection alongside images
- No account required
Limitations
- A precise-sounding 98.9% with nothing published behind it
- Verdict only, no forensic evidence breakdown
- No published limitations documentation
Best For
A fast one-off check with zero friction and no account.
Was It AI
Free, minimal AI image checker with an in-product way to report wrong verdicts.
Accuracy claim
Publishes limitationsNo accuracy percentage. Documents quality and resolution limits instead, and notes that screenshots reduce detection quality.
Strengths
- Genuinely free
- Ships a permanent "report wrong classification" control, which is a real accountability signal
- Honest about resolution and screenshot limitations
Limitations
- No API
- Minimal forensic detail
Best For
A free, no-friction second opinion when you already have a result from another tool.
Check a photo or video for deepfakes
Free credits while available. No account required. Zero image storage.
SCAN IMAGE NOWFrequently Asked Questions
It depends on what you are checking and why. For a consumer check that starts with free credits and shows a readable evidence chain, FauxLens. For the smallest possible friction, AI or Not. To see WHICH REGIONS of an image look generated, Illuminarty. For a vendor with independent academic validation, Sightengine. For enterprise moderation at volume, Hive Moderation or Sensity AI. Be sceptical of any answer - including this one - that names a single winner for every use case.
FauxLens publishes a documented retention policy: uploaded images are deleted immediately after analysis, and only the result is kept. Most competitors that offer free tiers do not publish equivalent privacy guarantees.
FauxLens offers a Chrome browser extension: right-click any image on any website and check it for AI without leaving the page. On Android, the FauxLens app does the same from the share menu, so a photo, screenshot or video from any app can be checked in a couple of taps.
Nine of the ten tools compared here expose a REST API; Was It AI is the exception. FauxLens suits developers who need per-signal forensic responses and uploads deleted after analysis. Hive and Sensity suit large platforms needing detection inside a broader moderation pipeline. Sightengine is the best-documented API of the group and the only one citing independent academic validation.
FauxLens, Sensity AI, Reality Defender and Attestiv handle video. FauxLens and Sensity both work by extracting keyframes and then comparing them against one another for temporal inconsistency, which is the test a still image cannot support. Hive supports video moderation more broadly. Illuminarty, AI or Not and Was It AI focus on static images.