Only Consensus12
- AI academic search
- cited answers
- Research Agent
- multi-step search planning
- Pro Analysis
- Ask Paper
- advanced filters
- paper lists
- institution links
- Zotero integration
- incognito mode
- history controls
VerdictPal · editorial desk · 2026VerdictPal
Compare · Head-to-head
Pick two cards. See the diff.
Stat bars are editorial heuristics, methodology linked — not a fake benchmark leaderboard. Put two dossiers side by side and see where each one breaks.
Compare · Card A / Card B·Head-to-head
ConsensusvsScite
These cards sit in different sets (Research assistant vs Academic discovery), so picking one over the other is mostly a question of which job you're doing. Consensus wins on privacy controls; Scite wins on citation honesty and speed. Both pass our quality gate. The right pick is the one whose strengths match the job you're trying to do.
- Consensus · avg
- 63
- wins 6 of 16
- Scite · avg
- 67
- wins 7 of 16
- Fields differ
- 12
- of 16 dossier rows
- Receipts
- 20
- sources + bench notes
Dossier fields
Sixteen fields, side by side.
16 metrics
Sixteen numbers, one shared midline.
ConsensusvsScite
These cards sit in different sets (Research assistant vs Academic discovery), so picking one over the other is mostly a question of which job you're doing. Consensus wins on privacy controls; Scite wins on citation honesty and speed. Both pass our quality gate. The right pick is the one whose strengths match the job you're trying to do.
- Editorial fitConsensus58Scite70
- Source qualityConsensus55Scite52
- Citation honestyConsensus58Scite72
- Privacy controlsConsensus40Scite36
- Value for moneyConsensus70Scite68
- SpeedConsensus58Scite70
- IntegrationConsensus60Scite75
- OnboardingConsensus58Scite70
- ReliabilityConsensus70Scite70
- Feature depthConsensus94Scite100
- Data portabilityConsensus59Scite55
- TransparencyConsensus98Scite100
- Ecosystem reachConsensus60Scite75
- DocumentationConsensus55Scite52
- IndependenceConsensus40Scite36
- AffordabilityConsensus71Scite67
Consensus · avg 63 · wins 6 of 160avg 67 · wins 7 of 16 · Scite
- 01Editorial fit5870
- 02Source quality5552
- 03Citation honesty5872
- 04Privacy controls4036
- 05Value for money7068
- 06Speed5870
- 07Integration6075
- 08Onboarding5870
- 09Reliability7070
- 10Feature depth94100
- 11Data portability5955
- 12Transparency98100
- 13Ecosystem reach6075
- 14Documentation5552
- 15Independence4036
- 16Affordability7167
CARD A · Consensus
Research assistant
Consensus
58/100
ROLECited academic Q&A and claim-level literature scanning
Editorial fit
58
Source quality
55
Citation honesty
58
Privacy controls
40
Value for money
70
Speed
58
FREEFree
$15/MOPro (monthly)
$120/YRPro (annual)
Cited academic Q&A and claim-level literature scanning — AI academic search engine for cited answers, claim-level literature Q&A, Research Agent workflows, paper analysis, and deeper review-style summaries over a large peer-reviewed research corpus.
CARD B · Scite
Academic discovery
Scite
70/100
ROLECitation-context and evidence-positioning tool
Editorial fit
70
Source quality
52
Citation honesty
72
Privacy controls
36
Value for money
68
Speed
70
FREEFree
$20/MOPersonal
CUSTOMInstitutional
Citation-context and evidence-positioning tool — Research platform that analyzes citation contexts and classifies citations as supporting, contrasting, or mentioning, with Smart Citations, Scite Assistant, Reference Check, search, dashboards, alerts, API, MCP, and organization analytics.
Privacy facets
Where each card is actually private.
ConsensusScite
Training on your dataYesYes: Off by defaultUnknownUnknown: Not stated
EU data residencyNoNo: Not documentedNoNo: Not documented
SOC 2 attestationNoNo: Not documentedNoNo: Not documented
Local-first by defaultNoNo: Cloud onlyNoNo: Cloud only
Capability split
What each card does uniquely.
Shared0
No overlap detected.
Only Scite12
- Smart Citations
- support/contrast/mention contexts
- Scite Assistant
- search
- dashboards
- collections
- reports
- alerts
- Reference Check
- Scite API
- organization analytics
- patents/clinical trials/grants in MCP release notes
Failure modes
Where each card breaks.
Consensus
- AI summaries can over-compress uncertainty
- Retrieval/ranking can make a field look settled
- Academic-paper corpus can miss books, policy, and niche sources
- Agent workflows can still miss important search terms
- UX may encourage citing answer text instead of papers
Scite
- Citation classification can misread nuance
- Reference Check can miss non-DOI/difficult-format sources
- News/policy/books may be weakly represented
- Subscription cost may require library access
- Citation context does not replace methodological appraisal
- Uploads/searches create a cloud-processing boundary
Pricing
Pulled straight from each dossier.
Consensus
Research assistant- FREEFree
- $15/MOPro (monthly)
- $120/YRPro (annual)
raw · Current desk price note: Free · Pro $15/mo or $120/yr · Deep $65/mo or $540/yr · Teams custom · Enterprise custom · student discount on Pro with eligibility verification. Re-check live pricing before public publication because quotas and plan names can change.
Scite
Academic discovery- FREEFree
- $20/MOPersonal
- CUSTOMInstitutional
raw · Scite’s public pricing page timed out during this pass, so keep exact consumer pricing tied to live verification before publishing. Existing desk notes list Basic / Pro / Organization surfaces; current official pages emphasize organization demos, MCP/API access, and Pro access to patents, clinical trials, and grants in MCP release notes.
Verdict
Which card to actually pick.
These cards sit in different sets (Research assistant vs Academic discovery), so picking one over the other is mostly a question of which job you're doing. Consensus wins on privacy controls; Scite wins on citation honesty and speed. Both pass our quality gate. The right pick is the one whose strengths match the job you're trying to do.