Consensus records 6,014,388 monthly visits with -1.2% month-over-month growth and Freemium pricing. Evalify records 496 monthly visits with +48.1% growth and Contact for Pricing pricing.
AI academic search engine for peer-reviewed science
AI freedom-to-operate analysis for patent attorneys
| Dimension / Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Official Domain | consensus.app | evalify.ai |
| Pricing Model | Freemium | Contact for Pricing |
| Monthly Visits | 6.01M (6,014,388) | 496 (496) |
| MoM Traffic Delta | -71.39K (-1.2%) | +161 (+48.1%) |
| Primary Market & Share | 🇺🇸 United States (12.8%) | 🌐 Global (—) |
| Direct Visits / mo | 2.92M | 198 |
| User Rating | 4.7 | 4.2 |
| Supported Platforms | Website | Website |
AI academic search engine for peer-reviewed science
Ask a research question in plain language and get answers synthesized from peer-reviewed studies, with each claim linked to its source paper.
A visual summary shows how the scientific literature leans on a yes/no question, indicating agreement, disagreement or mixed evidence.
Narrow results by study design, sample size, journal quality, publication year and more to prioritize high-quality evidence.
Aggregate findings across many studies into structured summaries that map what is known and where the gaps are.
AI freedom-to-operate analysis for patent attorneys
Produces a reasoned infringement verdict and per-jurisdiction risk framing in the structure attorneys already use, so the deliverable is an editable draft rather than a pile of search results.
Every limitation of every charted claim is mapped against the product with the verdict and the reasoning that produced it, making the analysis auditable rather than a black-box score.
A single clearance number built from the chart verdicts, designed to be defensible for an attorney and legible to a business client.
Several AI agents review each claim chart and flag disagreements explicitly, so unresolved conflicts are visible and the human decides.
SpecialistCovers general web sources alongside academic papers, but lacks specialized scientific synthesis metrics and consensus ratings.
SpecialistCovers general web sources alongside academic papers, but lacks specialized scientific synthesis metrics and consensus ratings.
Purpose-built AI and trusted content for legal, tax, risk and trade professionals
Purpose-built AI and trusted content for legal, tax, risk and trade professionals
Free / Open-sourceCompletely free access to a massive scholarly index, but offers less automated natural-language evidence synthesis than Consensus.
Free / Open-sourceCompletely free access to a massive scholarly index, but offers less automated natural-language evidence synthesis than Consensus.
SpecialistA paid, ad-free search engine that answers to its users
SpecialistA paid, ad-free search engine that answers to its users
Provides deeper PDF reading and interactive literature analysis tools, but is less focused on quick evidence aggregation.
Provides deeper PDF reading and interactive literature analysis tools, but is less focused on quick evidence aggregation.
Domain-specific AI for law firms, in-house legal teams, and professional services
Domain-specific AI for law firms, in-house legal teams, and professional services
Performs advanced systematic review data extraction and evidence synthesis, but has a more complex interface than Consensus.
Performs advanced systematic review data extraction and evidence synthesis, but has a more complex interface than Consensus.
SpecialistThe AI workspace where researchers read, write, and cite with every claim traceable to its source
SpecialistThe AI workspace where researchers read, write, and cite with every claim traceable to its source
SpecialistAI-assisted systematic review software for screening, extraction, and evidence synthesis at scale
SpecialistAI-assisted systematic review software for screening, extraction, and evidence synthesis at scale
Tracks how papers are cited with Smart Citations to gauge reliability, but features a less direct Q&A synthesis.
Tracks how papers are cited with Smart Citations to gauge reliability, but features a less direct Q&A synthesis.
SpecialistExcellent for visual citation mapping and literature discovery, but lacks automated paper Q&A and evidence synthesis.
SpecialistExcellent for visual citation mapping and literature discovery, but lacks automated paper Q&A and evidence synthesis.
SpecialistVisualizes research connections through interactive graphs for literature discovery, but does not provide direct Q&A synthesis.
SpecialistVisualizes research connections through interactive graphs for literature discovery, but does not provide direct Q&A synthesis.
