Behavior analysts commonly use visual inspection to analyze single-case graphs, but studies on its reliability have produced mixed results. To examine this issue, we compared the Type I error rate and power of visual inspection with a novel approach, machine learning. Five expert visual raters analyzed 1,024 simulated AB graphs, which differed on number of points per phase, autocorrelation, trend, variability, and effect size. The ratings were compared to those obtained by the conservative dual-criteria method and two models derived from machine learning. On average, visual raters agreed with each other on only 73% of graphs. In contrast, both models derived from machine learning showed the best balance between Type I error rate and power while producing more consistent results across different graph characteristics. The results suggest that machine learning may support researchers and practitioners in making less error when analyzing single-case graphs, but further replications remain necessary.