BiasChecker.ai
The BiasChecker extension is launching soon. This page previews the AI models you'll be able to choose from — there's nothing to install just yet. Join the waitlist →

AI models for every need

BiasChecker doesn't rely on a single AI. You choose from 12 models built by 7 different makers — and because every model is trained on different data and carries its own slant, that choice is part of the analysis, not just a setting.

In our own testing the same article can read as clearly biased to one model and balanced to another, and the split often tracks where a model was built. So run a piece through more than one: where they agree is a strong signal, where they diverge shows you each model's own perspective. Pick by the depth a piece deserves and how many analyses your plan allows.

Model line-up updated June 2026 — 12 models from 7 makers

Works in any major language — analyse news in Chinese, Arabic, German and more

How model cost works

Your plan gives you a monthly allowance of tokens — that's the exact meter. Every check draws down the actual tokens read and written, multiplied by the model's rate: a 1× model costs the raw token count, a 3× model three times that, a 10× model ten times. Longer articles cost a little more, since there's more text to read. To keep it easy to picture, we translate that allowance into analyses — one analysis ≈ one article checked for one type on a 1× model — but those counts are approximate; the precise draw-down is always tokens × the multiplier.

Trial
~20 analyses* free for 14 days (100K tokens)
Plus free cached analyses
Lite
~600 analyses* every month (3M tokens)
Pro
~1,400 analyses* every month (7M tokens)
Premium
~3,400 analyses* every month (17M tokens)

* Using 1× models. Higher-multiplier models use proportionally more — e.g. a 3× model gives ~200 checks/month on Lite.

Need more? Credit packs top up any plan from $15 for ~500 analyses (2.5M tokens). And on subscription plans, articles the community has already analysed are free — they don't count against your allowance. Compare plans →

Match the model to the analysis

Not every analysis needs the same model. The question to ask: does this lens mostly read the text, or does it need to know the world? Click a tier to filter the models below.

DeepSeek V3.2

DeepSeek

1 analysis/check
Steady
Strongest in Chinese & English

Tuned and benchmarked mainly on Chinese and English; other major languages still work, they're just not the focus.

The bargain overachiever: one of the most faithful models in our testing despite sitting at the lowest-cost tier — at its best pulling apart shaky reasoning, and unusually precise on legal points and what an article leaves out.

Best for:Logical fallaciesLegal riskKey omissions
Learn more about DeepSeek V3.2

GLM 4.7

Zhipu AI

1 analysis/check
Steady
Strongest in Chinese & English

Tuned and benchmarked mainly on Chinese and English; other major languages still work, they're just not the focus.

A steady all-rounder that quotes its evidence well — our dependable, near-instant 1× everyday pick at the lowest cost in the line-up.

Best for:Everyday checksHigh volume
Learn more about GLM 4.7

Gemini 3 Flash

Google

2 analyses/check
Fast
Broadly multilingual (100+ languages)

Google documents the Gemini family across 100+ languages.

Google's fast-value pick: in our most recent run it paired quick turnarounds with solid factual grounding and reliably declined to joke about tragedies.

Best for:Best valueFact-heavy articles

Google's safety filter can refuse articles with violent or graphic themes.

Learn more about Gemini 3 Flash

GLM 5

Zhipu AI

2 analyses/check
Takes its time
Strongest in Chinese & English

Tuned and benchmarked mainly on Chinese and English; other major languages still work, they're just not the focus.

The understated one — it flags less and means it more, keeping verdicts deliberately conservative where other models escalate.

Best for:Complex articlesMeasured verdicts
Learn more about GLM 5

GPT-5.4 Minidefault

OpenAI

2 analyses/check
Fast
Broadly multilingual

Strong across dozens of languages; OpenAI benchmarks 14, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, Korean and Spanish.

Our default: across our test articles it matched the 10× flagship's depth of findings at a fraction of the price, in the same evidence-heavy style.

Best for:Everyday checksScience & healthLegal risk
Learn more about GPT-5.4 Mini

Grok 4.3

xAI

2 analyses/check
Fast
English-first

Handles other major languages, but xAI publishes little on its multilingual quality.

Our pick for the quickest read: it sticks close to the facts in a lean, just-the-evidence style, so the analysis comes back fast.

Best for:Fastest analysisFact-first reads

Speed over depth — its lean style surfaces fewer findings than the deeper models, so reach for a 6× or 10× flagship when you want the most thorough read.

Learn more about Grok 4.3

Kimi K2.5

Moonshot

2 analyses/check
Steady
Strongest in Chinese & English

Tuned and benchmarked mainly on Chinese and English; other major languages still work, they're just not the focus.

Our best all-round value pick in testing: accurate and level-headed, restrained on routine stories, and the sharpest of any model at catching persuasion tactics where the spin runs thick.

Best for:Persuasion tacticsEveryday checksComplex articles
Learn more about Kimi K2.5

Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic

3 analyses/check
Steady
Broadly multilingual

Strong across dozens of languages; Anthropic benchmarks 14, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, Korean and Spanish.

Anthropic's careful eye at a mid price: in our earlier testing the most disciplined at telling real manipulation from noise, with an ethics-first sensibility that suits sensitive, moral questions.

Best for:Moral questionsManipulation tactics
Learn more about Claude Haiku 4.5

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Google

6 analyses/check
Takes its time
Broadly multilingual (100+ languages)

Google documents the Gemini family across 100+ languages.

The evaluator — strongest on methodology and data claims, arguing its conclusions rather than piling up quotes.

Best for:Science & healthEvidence quality

Google's safety filter can refuse articles with violent or graphic themes.

Learn more about Gemini 2.5 Pro

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

6 analyses/check
Takes its time
Broadly multilingual (100+ languages)

Google documents the Gemini family across 100+ languages.

Google's newest Flash at frontier quality — early days in our comparison testing, so its personality is still taking shape.

Best for:Latest from Google

Google's safety filter can refuse articles with violent or graphic themes.

Learn more about Gemini 3.5 Flash

GPT-5.1

OpenAI

6 analyses/check
Steady
Broadly multilingual

Strong across dozens of languages; OpenAI benchmarks 14, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, Korean and Spanish.

The maximalist: by a wide margin the most thorough model we tested — most findings, most verbatim quotes, fullest write-up on every lens, and a standout on legal questions.

Best for:Important articlesMaximum depthLegal risk
Learn more about GPT-5.1

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Anthropic

10 analyses/check
Takes its time
Broadly multilingual

Strong across dozens of languages; Anthropic benchmarks 14, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, Korean and Spanish.

The genre-spotter with the driest wit: first to call a press release a press release, and the most balanced voice on charged topics.

Best for:Controversial topicsMoral questionsLong reads
Learn more about Claude Sonnet 4.6

Speed bands are indicative, not guaranteed — actual time varies with article length, time of day, and the current load on the AI providers we use. Very long articles take longer; every model handles articles up to 150,000 characters (roughly 25,000 words). In our max-length tests, models across the price range held full analysis depth at length — engagement with content near the very end of a long read varied by model rather than by price tier.

See the difference: same article, different models

We analysed the same article with three different models across eleven of the thirteen analysis types (Overview and Rewrite are not shown side by side). Notice how models can reach different conclusions — and how each brings a unique perspective.

Example article

Gallagher, Bipartisan Coalition Introduce Legislation to Protect Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications, Including TikTok

A U.S. House committee press release announcing the bipartisan “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” — the bill that would force TikTok to divest from ByteDance or lose access to U.S. app stores and web hosting.

U.S. House Select Committee on the CCP

Surfaces the meaning beneath the words — what the author really wants you to think.

GLM 5Zhipu AI
4× cost

A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act to prohibit app stores and web hosting services from distributing applications controlled by foreign adversaries, specifically targeting TikTok unless it divests from ByteDance. The bill creates a process for the President to designate other foreign adversary-controlled apps that pose national security risks and requires designated apps to allow users to export their data.

  • The bill lists over 50 bipartisan co-sponsors including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi
  • Designated apps must provide users a way to download and transfer their data to alternative platforms
  • The legislation explicitly states it does not punish individual users or censor speech

Steered to see

View TikTok as a dangerous tool of the Chinese Communist Party that threatens American security, children, and democracy, making a ban or forced divestment necessary.

Played down

Nothing significant — the piece is fairly even-handed.

Technique

The text frames the legislation as a bipartisan consensus by listing numerous co-sponsors and amplifies the threat through emotionally charged quotes calling TikTok 'malware,' 'spyware,' and a 'digital weapon.'

Evidence

  • TikTok is Communist Chinese malware that is poisoning the minds of our next generation

    The text uses inflammatory metaphors to frame the app as a toxic threat rather than a technology platform.

  • The article presents an ultimatum that positions forced divestment as the only acceptable outcome.

  • The bill is co-led by House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL

    The extensive listing of bipartisan co-sponsors signals that opposition to TikTok is a settled, consensus position.

Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic
5× cost

A bipartisan group of House representatives introduced legislation to ban TikTok and other foreign adversary-controlled social media applications from U.S. app stores and web hosting services unless they divest from entities controlled by hostile foreign powers. The bill creates a presidential designation process for other apps posing national security risks and requires designated apps to provide users data portability. The legislation frames the issue as protecting Americans from surveillance, data theft, and propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party.

  • Bill requires ByteDance to divest TikTok or face prohibition from U.S. app stores and web hosting services.
  • Multiple representatives use inflammatory language: TikTok described as "malware," "spyware," and a tool for "indoctrination" and "propaganda."
  • Rep. Dunn cites TikTok CEO's response about spying as evidence of wrongdoing: "I don't think spying is the right way to describe it."
  • Bill includes data portability requirement allowing users to download and transfer their data to alternative platforms.
  • Legislation applies only to apps with over one million annual active users controlled by foreign adversaries, as defined by statute.

Steered to see

Accept that TikTok poses an imminent, unacceptable national security threat justifying legislative action to ban or force its sale from U.S. markets.

Played down

Nothing significant — the piece is fairly even-handed.

Technique

The text stacks alarming characterizations ("malware," "spyware," "poisoning minds"), cites national security concerns, and presents broad bipartisan support to establish urgency and legitimacy for the ban.

Evidence

  • TikTok is Communist Chinese malware that is poisoning the minds of our next generation and giving the CCP unfettered access to troves of Americans’ data

    The text uses extreme, emotionally charged language to frame TikTok not as a policy problem but as an active threat to American youth and security.

  • The text presents a specific claim about data access as settled fact, using it to establish the threat as proven rather than alleged or disputed.

  • This bill addresses the immediate national security risks posed by TikTok and creates a process for the President to protect Americans’ national security and privacy

    The text frames the legislation as a protective measure responding to an established threat, not as a contested policy choice requiring debate.

GPT-5.1OpenAI
10× cost

The text is built to make readers see TikTok and similar foreign adversary–controlled apps as urgent national security threats that must be forced to divest or be effectively banned in the U.S.

  • Defines “foreign adversary–controlled” apps via Title 10 and presidential designation
  • Stresses bipartisan support by listing many Republican and Democratic co-sponsors
  • Frames TikTok as linked to CCP surveillance, propaganda, and harm to children’s mental health
  • States users will be able to export their data to other platforms if an app is designated
  • Explicitly claims the bill targets ownership/control, not user behavior or speech content

Steered to see

The article guides readers to view TikTok as a CCP-linked digital weapon and to support strong legislative action forcing divestment or de facto banning for national security.

Played down

Nothing significant — the piece is fairly even-handed.

Technique

The article uses stark national-security language, vivid threats (surveillance, propaganda, harm to kids), repeated linkage of TikTok to the CCP, and reassurance about speech and users to frame the bill as a necessary, reasonable defense measure with broad bipartisan backing.

Evidence

  • This is my message to TikTok: break up with the Chinese Communist Party or lose access to your American users

    The article draws a direct ultimatum, framing divestment from the CCP as the only acceptable path for TikTok’s U.S. presence.

  • TikTok is Communist Chinese malware that is poisoning the minds of our next generation and giving the CCP unfettered access to troves of Americans’ data

    The article uses inflammatory, security-focused language to portray TikTok as both psychological and data-based threat, heightening urgency for the bill.

  • This legislation does not regulate speech. It is focused entirely on foreign adversary control—not the content of speech being shared

    The article anticipates civil liberties concerns and frames the bill as narrowly targeting foreign control, not censorship, to make support feel safer and more reasonable.

Key takeaway: All agree the surface is a routine bill announcement and the real aim is to cast TikTok as CCP-controlled and rally support for a ban. Premium GPT-5.1 (6×) backs this with key points, a verification question, and reconstructed evidence quotes; GLM 5 (2×) gives the three core intent fields.

💡 Compare models on any article — the Chrome extension lets you switch models directly in the side panel to see how different models analyse the same content.

Try this on your own reading

In the extension side panel, pick a different model from the dropdown and re-run the same article. Where the two models agree, you can be fairly confident. Where they diverge, you're seeing each model's own perspective — in our own testing, half the fleet read one BBC science piece as biased and the other half as balanced. That disagreement is information, and it's the whole point of having 12 models to choose from.

Where to start

We put more than 30 models from nearly every major AI lab through the same real articles, then kept only the 12 that earned their place. Two patterns held: the 1×–3× models are the value sweet spot, matching the pricey flagships on most everyday reading, while the 6× and 10× models are best in class for depth — outside context, long documents, and the hardest calls. There's no single "best" model; the right one depends on the article and how much depth it deserves.

⭐ A dependable everyday pick

For most reading, a 2× model is the sweet spot — it follows an article's argument more reliably than a 1× model and rarely misreads a tangled one. GPT-5.4 Mini (2×) is our default and a fast, steady all-rounder. The 1× models, GLM 4.7 and DeepSeek V3.2, are great when you're skimming a lot and just want a quick, low-cost read.

💎 Best value step-up

GPT-5.4 Mini (2×) — our default — punches well above its price: in our testing it matched the 10× flagships' depth of findings at a fraction of the cost, which makes the jump from 1× to 2× the highest-value step you can take. Claude Haiku 4.5 (3×) is another standout in this affordable tier — one of the strongest readers for the price and a great pick when you want a little more depth on a tricky piece without stepping up to a 6× or 10× flagship.

⚡ When you want it fastest

Grok 4.3 (2×) gives the quickest analysis — it sticks close to the facts in a lean, just-the-evidence style, so results come back fast. The trade-off is depth: it surfaces fewer findings than the deeper models, so step up to a 6× or 10× flagship when an article deserves the most thorough read.

📚 For articles that really matter

GPT-5.1 (6×) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (10×) were the most thorough overall, surfaced the most outside context on Background and Omissions, and were the only two that reliably read to the end of very long articles.

🎯 For specific jobs

Kimi K2.5 (2×) caught more persuasion techniques than any other model; DeepSeek V3.2 (1×) is the one to reach for on logical fallacies and critical thinking; Claude Haiku 4.5 (3×) and Sonnet 4.6 (10×) lean into nuanced, ethical reasoning on sensitive topics.

🤝 When it's important, use two

The strongest signal isn't any one model — it's agreement. Run a piece through two different models: where they agree you can be confident, where they diverge is worth a closer look.

Frequently asked questions

Which model should I start with?

GPT-5.4 Mini (2×) is the system default — a capable, well-rounded everyday choice. If you're skimming a lot and want the lowest cost, the 1× models (GLM 4.7, DeepSeek V3.2) are the fastest and cheapest. When an article is especially dense or the argument is tangled, a higher-tier model reads the logic more carefully and is less likely to misread what it actually says. Every model we offer can do the job — the cheaper ones just slip slightly more often on complex reasoning, so stepping up is an easy way to add confidence when you want it.

Can I use different models for different analysis types?

Yes. In the Chrome extension settings, switch to "per-analysis" mode to assign a different model to each analysis type. For example, use GLM 4.7 for everyday bias checks and Claude Sonnet for moral assessment.

Do all plans get access to all models?

Yes — every plan can use every model, including the free trial. The only difference between plans is the monthly analysis allowance, not which models you can access.

Can I analyse non-English articles?

Yes — BiasChecker works on articles in any major language. In our testing, quality held up across Chinese, Arabic, and German with no drop versus English, and on-page highlighting works because quotes are extracted in the article's original language. The analysis itself is written in English — except the GPT-5 models (GPT-5.1, GPT-5.4 Mini), which write theirs in the article's own language.

How widely a model is documented to support languages does vary, and each model card above shows it: broadly multilingual models (Gemini, GPT-5, Claude) are built for 100+ languages; the Chinese & English specialists (GLM, Kimi, DeepSeek) are strongest in those two with solid coverage of other majors; and Grok is English-first with a shorter official list. For non-English news, a broadly-multilingual model is the safest pick.

One thing to note: BiasChecker analyses the text as it appears on the page. If your browser's "Translate this page" feature is switched on, it will analyse the translated version — so turn page translation off if you want the original language checked.

Why do some models cost more?

More expensive models are generally larger, newer, or use reasoning techniques that require more computation. Larger models also know more about the world and read further into long articles, which shows up as more depth and fuller coverage on lenses like Key Omissions, Background Context, Legal Risk, Critical Thinking, and Scientific Rigour — where bigger models were quicker to flag shaky claims in advocacy pieces (though on a rigorous primary-science paper every tier agreed it was sound). For straightforward text-reading checks, a 1× model does a great job.

Is there a limit on article length?

Every model can analyse an article up to 150,000 characters (~25,000 words). In our max-length tests, models across the price range held full analysis depth all the way to that limit; the only thing that varied was how closely a model engaged with content right at the very end of a very long read, and that tracked the individual model rather than its price tier. For anything longer than 150,000 characters, select the section you care about and analyse that.

How is usage measured?

In tokens — that's the exact measure. Tokens are the small chunks of text a model reads and writes (roughly ¾ of a word each), and every analysis draws down your monthly token allowance by the actual amount of text read and written, multiplied by the model's rate (a 1× model costs the raw token count, a premium model costs ×its multiplier). Longer articles and pricier models therefore use more tokens. To make this easy to picture, we also show it as analyses: a typical article checked for one type on a 1× model is ≈ 5,000 tokens, so that's "one analysis" — but the underlying meter is always tokens, and your allowance resets each billing cycle.

Can I switch models at any time?

Yes — pick a different model from the side panel dropdown whenever you like, no plan change needed. Each check is simply charged at the multiplier of the model you used, so you can run everyday articles on a 1× model and save the expensive ones for pieces that matter.

What happens if I use up my monthly analyses?

Your allowance refills at the start of each billing cycle. If you run out mid-month, a credit pack (from $15 for ~500 analyses / 2.5M tokens) tops you up instantly — credits are only consumed after your plan allowance. And articles the community has already analysed stay free on subscription plans, so popular news often costs you nothing at all.

12 models, ready to read the news with you

The BiasChecker extension is launching soon — it'll let you run any article through the models above and see what your favourite news source isn't telling you. Take a look at the plans while you wait.