Find the source
Reverse image search + AI check
Reverse image search tells you where a picture has appeared; an AI detector tells you how it was made. Together they answer most “is this real?” questions. Run the AI check here, then search for the source.
Free · no sign-up · your file never leaves your device
Drop the image to check, click to choose, or paste
JPEG · PNG · WebP · AVIF · HEIC (Safari) — checked on your device
Two questions, two tools
Reverse image search compares a picture with images already published online and shows where copies appear. It is unbeatable for context: who posted it first, when, with what caption, and whether it belongs to a different event. It is weak at origin — a generated image that has never been posted before returns nothing, and so does a genuine private photo.
An AI detector does the opposite. It ignores where an image has been and examines the file and its pixels for traces of how it was made. It cannot tell you that a real photo is being passed off as something else.
Run both. The AI check above takes a few seconds and needs no upload; then use the search engines below.
Where to search
- Google Lens — the largest index; good for objects, landmarks and screenshots of social posts.
- Bing Visual Search — a different index, often finds pages Google misses.
- TinEye — exact-match search with date sorting, ideal for finding the earliest and largest copy.
- Yandex Images — strong on faces and on sites outside Western Europe and North America.
Crop to the interesting part of the picture before searching — a face, a logo, a building — because search engines match crops better than busy whole scenes.
Putting the answers together
Old matches from reputable sources, plus camera metadata in your copy, usually mean a real photo — check that the old caption matches the current claim. No matches, no metadata and a high AI score suggest a generated image. Matches only on AI art communities settle it outright. Conflicting signals call for more context: ask the person who shared it, and look for other images of the same scene.
Searching a profile photo or a meme
For faces, crop tightly to the face before searching; engines match faces poorly when they make up a small part of a busy image. For memes and screenshots, search a crop of the image region rather than the text, and separately search the text in quotes on a regular search engine — the original post often turns up that way. For product photos, search the product itself: a listing that uses a generated product image often has no matches, while a scam that steals a real seller’s photos will match the original listing.
Keep a note of the earliest date you find and where. If the image later turns out to be AI-generated or mis-captioned, that record is exactly what you need to explain why — and, if you are reporting a scam, what platforms and investigators ask for.
How accurate is it? Our measured numbers
We test GPTTrace on labelled image samples and publish the results, including where it does badly. It is tuned to keep false accusations rare, so it misses some AI content rather than flag real work.
image check: AUC 0.938 (cross-validated)
679 labelled samples (399 AI, 280 human), run 2026-10-08. At the “Likely AI” line it caught 64% of AI samples and wrongly flagged 5% of human ones.
| Source | Truth | Samples | Result at “Likely AI” |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-nano-banana | AI | 40 | 40% caught |
| midjourney-v6 | AI | 40 | 68% caught |
| midjourney-v5 | AI | 40 | 73% caught |
| flux-dev | AI | 40 | 13% caught |
| flux-schnell | AI | 40 | 48% caught |
| sdxl | AI | 40 | 100% caught |
| gpt-image | AI | 40 | 30% caught |
| kling | AI | 39 | 97% caught |
| leonardo-stablecog | AI | 40 | 98% caught |
| bitmind-imagine-mix | AI | 40 | 80% caught |
| fullsize-photos | Human | 40 | 10% wrongly flagged |
| open-images-photos | Human | 40 | 5% wrongly flagged |
| lfw-faces | Human | 40 | 0% wrongly flagged |
| caltech-objects | Human | 40 | 3% wrongly flagged |
| coco-photos | Human | 40 | 0% wrongly flagged |
| ffhq-faces | Human | 40 | 0% wrongly flagged |
| celeba-faces | Human | 40 | 18% wrongly flagged |
Data sources and method: methodology & accuracy.