is one of the many plagiarism checkers on the endless plains of the Internet. With nothing exceptional about it, this service still performs its main functions well enough to be considered a reliable plagiarism checker if you do not come across with anything better, and have the urge to check a bunch of papers. Perhaps its only difference from a number of competitors is that it is seemingly oriented towards SEO specialists, since you can perform plagiarism checks not just via regular file uploads, but also via simply copy-pasting URLs containing the text that needs to be scanned.

Plagiarism-Checking Algorithm

Comparison base

There is no info available on which search engine the plagiarism checker utilizes to perform its scans – neither on the website, nor provided by the support team. The only clue we managed to find is that the website claims to be performing scans throughout “billions of websites,” so we believe it means has no plagiarism base of its own.

Comparison algorithms

Unlike many other plagiarism checkers you can find online, is capable of detecting changes in word order. It is not a secret that many students use this trick to bypass plagiarism scans—usually, it is enough to slightly alter the structure of a sentence to make a plagiarism checker think it is unique. Well, we were surprised with the fact that although the algorithm is far from perfect, it can still recognize modified sentences as plagiarized; on average, the program marks 1 out of 3 sentences as plagiarism, the structure of which was changed.

At the same time, is completely helpless against synonyms. It is enough to change several words in a sentence to their analogues and the program will mark the whole sentence as 100% unique. The same applies to paraphrased sentences, and this is not good, But, on the other hand, how many plagiarism checkers with algorithms sophisticated enough to recognize concealed plagiarism are there on the Web?

What we were annoyed with when testing the service was the amount of false alarms (meaning when the program marks a fragment as plagiarized when it was not). Rather often, we saw a solid piece of text highlighted with red, but when we checked the sources from which this fragment was supposedly plagiarized, we could not find any matches. Knowing this, if you plan on using for your needs, you should consider not relying on the program, and check all the matches the program shows you on your own. This is inconvenient.

Words Order
Recognition of the significant parts of a paper

What is extremely important for any plagiarism checker is to be able to recognize quotes. Writing an academic paper in humanities (and, rather often, in natural sciences too) is almost impossible without using quotations; considering the fact that the same quotations may be used by different authors in different contexts, it is not surprising that the developers of a number of plagiarism checkers “teach” their services to not mark quotes as plagiarism. Unfortunately, has no such function: whenever you use a quote, be prepared to have it highlighted as plagiarism.

The same goes for citations, names of sources you mentioned in your text, and so on. Whenever you specify a certain source in your work, be prepared that will recognize it incorrectly.

Algorithm evaluation

This is a rather poor performance, and even the fact that the service occasionally detects plagiarism in sentences with the changed word order and structure does not compensate for its setbacks: the inability to see through synonyms and paraphrasing, as well as to recognize quotations and citations properly.


Time of checking

The time needs to fully scan a paper is approximately 2 minutes. This is a common result for a number of plagiarism checkers; however, we liked that the program shows you the results gradually, as soon as they are obtained. This is convenient, and negates the fact that the service does not have any time tracker; so basically, you just need to launch the scan and wait until it is over. However, you can only check one paper at a time: the service does not support multiple simultaneous scans, so if you leave the page, you will have to scan your paper all over again.

Report convenience has a rather unique way of displaying scanning results. The whole report is divided into two parts: one part is for the text fragments that have been plagiarized, and the other one is for those that are “clear.” Also, the service shows you the overall percentage of plagiarism detected in your text, which is nice, but we did not like the aforementioned division: it makes you compare the report with the text you uploaded several times. Some of you might find this annoying.

Each text fragment that has been marked as plagiarized is accompanied with a source from which, as the program suspects, you have copied this fragment. Yes, we wrote “A source,” not “the list of sources,” because, for some reason, thinks one source per plagiarized fragment is more than enough. And yeah, be prepared to follow some links to see the actual source.

At least you can see which exactly parts of the original have been plagiarized— carefully highlights them for you. Sometimes the whole website, from which the source is located, is displayed incorrectly, but this is not critical.

Usability evaluation

Its developers have implemented several strange (in our opinion) decisions such as breaking the report in two different parts, but in general, is rather convenient to use.

Website’s Functionality

Text input methods

Along with the regular copy-pasting method, you can also upload files in .txt and .docx formats. Or, you can insert the URL link leading to the text that needs to be scanned.

Report download

We were surprised to have found no way to download or share plagiarism reports. This is strange, although the suggestion that is mostly oriented towards SEOspecialists might explain this.

Working with the report

Yet another fact proving that is not meant for students is that there is no way you can turn off checking quotes and references (and you do remember that the service marks them as plagiarism, don’t you?). You cannot make any corrections on the fly as you get the report, so you will have to edit your paper, re-upload it, and scan it again. The only option available for you is to disable scanning for one of the websites (you need to manually insert its URL), but this looks like a strange and unnecessary decision to us.

Functionality evaluation

It is weird how unthoughtful working with the report—one of the most crucial parts of any plagiarism checker—has been realized in the case of

Prices, Guarantee, Safety

Price of the service

The website provides new users with a trial version. Just don’t get too excited about it: the trial version is a one-time free check of a paper no longer than 1000 words. For everything else, you will have to pay. Users are offered to choose between several monthly subscriptions, differing only in the number of checks that can be performed, and the length of the scanned papers (more expensive subscriptions allow scanning larger documents, and the cheapest one costs $10 for 300 checks). All of the unused checks burn by the end of the month, so you cannot purchase a cheaper subscription and save your checks for later.

Money back guarantee

In case you did not like working with the service, and the staff cannot do anything to fix the situation, you can get a 100% refund—at least this is what they claim on the website.

Usage safety

The website does not store any scanned documents, so you can use it as much as you want.


Although we did not really like the “burning checks.” However, this is a regular policy for way too many plagiarism checkers, so we have to deal with it.


Overall Evaluation

Mostly due to some useful features it provides (and, at the same time, the way it implements these features could be much better, so this is why it gets a 3.0).

  • Any new user can try the service out before deciding whether to buy a subscription, or not. This is awesome, because there are too many plagiarism checkers that charge money from the very first time you use them.
  • You can see which parts of the original source have been plagiarized.
  • Working with the report in general is inconvenient: the fact that it is divided in two separate parts, and that it is impossible to download or share it, is disappointing.

Visit Site

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *