Which AI music detector is the most accurate?

Nobody can answer that honestly right now. Ircam Amplify publishes 99% accuracy and AI Voice Detector publishes 99% accuracy, but neither one shows the corpus, the metric definition or the evaluation method behind the number, so the two figures can't be compared to each other or to anything else. Until detectors are measured on a shared public corpus, treat every percentage on every vendor site — including the lack of one here — as a marketing choice rather than a result.

Is there a genuinely free AI song checker?

Yes. This tool is free with no account and allows 12 analyses per rolling 24 hours. Deezer’s playlist checker is free for listeners; other services publish their own access and pricing terms.

Which detectors upload my audio?

Ircam Amplify and AI Voice Detector analyse audio server-side. Deezer’s consumer tool reads playlists instead of accepting a file. This tool sends the complete file over HTTPS to our server and a specialist provider; we do not write audio to site-side storage, while provider handling follows its own terms.

What is the difference between an AI music detector and an AI voice detector?

They address different classification tasks. A music detector evaluates a musical recording; a voice detector targets synthetic or cloned speech. Using either outside its stated scope can produce a misleading result.

Can any of these tools prove a track was AI-generated?

No. These services provide classifications or indicators, not proof of authorship. Processing, mixed human-and-AI workflows and unfamiliar generators can complicate interpretation. Seek stems, session files, provenance records or version history before drawing a consequential conclusion.

Why compare an AI music tool with an AI voice tool at all?

Because people mix them up constantly. Someone arrives looking for a way to check a song and lands on a voice-deepfake product, or the other way around. Naming the boundary is more useful than pretending every tool competes for the same job.

AI music detectors compared, ours included

Four tools people turn to when they want to know whether audio was generated: this one, Ircam Amplify, Deezer’s detector and AI Voice Detector. What each one actually decides, what it costs, where your file goes, and whether its accuracy claim has a published method behind it.

Every third-party claim below is quoted from that vendor’s own public pages, checked 2026-08-15. Nothing here is sponsored or affiliate-linked.

The short answer

These tools aren’t really competing with each other. One screens catalogues through an API, one reads playlists against an already-classified library, one detects cloned speech, and this one checks a single music file via a third-party service. The useful question isn’t which is best but which one answers your question — the last section on this page says plainly when to reach for something other than us.

Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.

Summary comparison of four AI detection tools
Tool	What it detects	Price	Audio uploaded?	Accuracy claim
AI Music Detector	Generated music	Free	Yes — see privacy disclosure	None published
Ircam Amplify	Generated music, at catalogue scale	Enterprise quote	Yes — cloud API	99%, method not published
Deezer	Generated tracks inside playlists	Free	No file upload offered	None, but method peer-reviewed
AI Voice Detector	Cloned and synthetic speech	Free tier, then $49–$599/mo	Yes	99%, method not published

Why two tools both claim 99%

Ircam Amplify advertises “99% accuracy” with “less than 1% false positives”. AI Voice Detector advertises “99% accurate”. Neither figure comes with a published corpus, metric definition or evaluation procedure, and the two tools don’t even do the same job, so the numbers can’t be compared with each other, let alone reproduced by anyone outside those companies.

An accuracy percentage only means something once you know what was tested and how a correct answer was defined. Detection rate on generated tracks, false-positive rate on human recordings and abstention rate pull against each other: any one of the three can be made to look excellent by sacrificing the others. That’s why this site publishes a benchmark protocol with unmeasured cells instead of a headline number, and why the most transparent entry on this page is Deezer — not because it claims the most, but because its method was peer-reviewed and its code released.

AI Music Detector (this site)

AI Music Detector

What it detects: A third-party categorical assessment of whether a music file appears AI-generated, with separate vocal and instrumental indicators. It does not identify a generator or analyze speech.
Who it is for: Anyone with a file and a question — listeners, curators, A&R, teachers, moderators, journalists.
How you access it: Free web tool. No account, no email, no API.
Pricing: Free, with a fair-use allowance of 12 analyses per rolling 24 hours and no paid tier.
Where your audio goes: Your audio travels over HTTPS through our server to the classification provider. We do not write it to site-side storage; provider handling follows its own terms.
Accuracy claim: None published. Instead we publish a benchmark protocol, with result cells marked not measured until an evaluation has actually been run.
Method published?: Partly. This site publishes its request lifecycle, returned report fields, limitations and evaluation protocol; the provider's internal model and thresholds are not disclosed here.
Limits: 25 MB file size limit; recordings between 5 seconds and 15 minutes long.
Best for: An immediate, non-forensic second opinion on one file, with component indicators and a downloadable PDF.

Source: Our methodology

Ircam Amplify AI Music Detector

Ircam Amplify, the commercial spin-out of IRCAM in Paris.

What it detects: Fully AI-generated music tracks. The product page lists coverage of major generators including Suno, Udio, Sonauto and ElevenLabs.
Who it is for: Music industry professionals — the product page names DSPs, distributors, labels, CMOs/PROs and publishers.
How you access it: Not self-serve. Access runs through a request form, with integration described as a REST API and SDK. A public demo page exists separately.
Pricing: Not published. Enterprise quote only.
Where your audio goes: Server-side by necessity: audio goes to their cloud API for analysis. Retention terms aren't stated on the product page.
Accuracy claim: “99% accuracy” with “less than 1% false positives”, as stated on the product page.
Method published?: No corpus, metric definition or evaluation method is published alongside that figure.
Limits: Not published for the API. Catalogue-scale throughput is advertised instead.
Best for: Rights-holders and platforms that need to screen a catalogue at scale through an API and can work through procurement.

Source: ircamamplify.io product page

Deezer’s AI music detection

Deezer, working from its own research group.

What it detects: AI-generated tracks in Deezer's catalogue. The consumer-facing tool checks tracks in playlists against that already-classified catalogue, rather than analysing a file you supply.
Who it is for: Deezer listeners for the playlist tool; Deezer itself for the catalogue pipeline.
How you access it: Free web tool that scans playlists from a connected streaming service. The catalogue-side classifier isn't an external product or API.
Pricing: Free for the playlist tool.
Where your audio goes: No audio upload is offered. The playlist tool matches known tracks, so there's no file for you to hand over.
Accuracy claim: No headline accuracy percentage is published on the consumer pages.
Method published?: Yes, and unusually so: the underlying detector is described in a peer-reviewed ICASSP 2025 paper with code released publicly.
Limits: Playlist-based, so it can't help with an unreleased file, a private mix or anything outside the catalogue.
Best for: Checking how much of a playlist you already listen to is generated, and reading a method that's genuinely published.

Source: deezer.com AI music detector

AI Voice Detector

AI Voice Detector (aivoicedetector.com).

What it detects: Synthetic and cloned speech in audio and video — voice deepfakes and text-to-speech. It's a voice tool, not a music tool.
Who it is for: Individuals through to enterprises checking whether a recorded voice is real.
How you access it: Web app plus a Chrome extension. File upload, URL, or record directly in the page.
Pricing: Free tier at $0 with 50 detections a month, then paid plans published at $49, $199 and $599 a month.
Where your audio goes: Files are uploaded to their service for analysis.
Accuracy claim: “99% accurate”, as stated on the homepage.
Method published?: A dated methodology page is referenced, but no corpus or metric definition backing the 99% figure appears on the public pages.
Limits: The free web tool states a 25 MB file cap, and the free plan limits each detection to two minutes.
Best for: A suspected cloned voice in a call recording, voice note, podcast or video — the case this site deliberately doesn't cover.

Source: aivoicedetector.com pricing

Which one actually fits your situation

You have one file and want an answer now, without it being stored: Use this tool. The file is sent for classification but is not written to site-side storage; the report includes a category, component indicators, confidence and timeline.
You need to screen thousands of tracks automatically: Use a commercial API such as Ircam Amplify. A browser tool can't batch a catalogue, and we don't offer an API.
You think a speaking voice was cloned: Use a tool designed for synthetic or cloned speech. A music classifier is not validated for that separate task.
You want to know how much AI is in what you already listen to: Use Deezer's playlist checker. It works from a classified catalogue, a question no file-based detector can answer.
You need something defensible for a dispute or a payout decision: No tool on this page, ours included, proves authorship. Treat a result as a screening signal and seek session files, stems, provenance records or project history before making a consequential decision.

Corrections

Vendor pages change, and a comparison that goes stale turns into misinformation. If something here is out of date or wrong about your product, reach us through the contact page and we’ll fix it and re-date the page. See also our accuracy and limitations, the methodology, and the benchmark protocol.

Frequently asked questions

Nobody can answer that honestly right now. Ircam Amplify publishes 99% accuracy and AI Voice Detector publishes 99% accuracy, but neither one shows the corpus, the metric definition or the evaluation method behind the number, so the two figures can't be compared to each other or to anything else. Until detectors are measured on a shared public corpus, treat every percentage on every vendor site — including the lack of one here — as a marketing choice rather than a result.

Want to check a file right now?

Free, no account needed, and audio is not written to site-side storage.

Open the detector