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 · updated 16 Oct 2026VerdictPal
Compare · Head-to-head
Consensus vs Undermind: pricing, privacy & capabilities
Put two dossiers side by side: fit, cost, privacy, and the failure modes that actually change the choice.
Compare · Tool A / Tool B·Head-to-head
ConsensusvsUndermind
In the Research assistant set, Consensus edges ahead overall (editorial fit 58 vs 35). Consensus wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Consensus. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.
- Consensus · avg
- 63
- wins 14 of 16
- Undermind · avg
- 33
- wins 0 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.
ConsensusvsUndermind
In the Research assistant set, Consensus edges ahead overall (editorial fit 58 vs 35). Consensus wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Consensus. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.
- Editorial fitConsensus58Undermind35
- Source qualityConsensus55Undermind40
- Citation honestyConsensus58Undermind0
- Privacy controlsConsensus40Undermind0
- Value for moneyConsensus70Undermind50
- SpeedConsensus58Undermind60
- IntegrationConsensus60Undermind40
- OnboardingConsensus58Undermind60
- ReliabilityConsensus70Undermind0
- Feature depthConsensus94Undermind70
- Data portabilityConsensus59Undermind0
- TransparencyConsensus98Undermind50
- Ecosystem reachConsensus60Undermind40
- DocumentationConsensus55Undermind40
- IndependenceConsensus40Undermind0
- AffordabilityConsensus71Undermind40
Consensus · avg 63 · wins 14 of 160avg 33 · wins 0 of 16 · Undermind
- 01Editorial fit5835
- 02Source quality5540
- 03Citation honesty580
- 04Privacy controls400
- 05Value for money7050
- 06Speed5860
- 07Integration6040
- 08Onboarding5860
- 09Reliability700
- 10Feature depth9470
- 11Data portability590
- 12Transparency9850
- 13Ecosystem reach6040
- 14Documentation5540
- 15Independence400
- 16Affordability7140
TOOL 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
FREE
$20/MOPro (monthly)
$144/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.
TOOL B · Undermind
Research assistant
Undermind
35/100
ROLEDeep literature search and cited research reports
Editorial fit
35
Source quality
40
Citation honesty
0
Privacy controls
0
Value for money
50
Speed
60
FREE
$16/MOPro (annual billing)
$15/MOper person, billed annually
Deep literature search and cited research reports — Literature search that refines your question, follows citation trails and builds cited reports. Search coverage, citation reliability and individual-account data rules still need verification.
Privacy facets
Where each tool is actually private.
ConsensusUndermind
Training on your dataYesYes: Consensus says it does not use your personal or non-personal information to train large language models, or send user data to third parties for that purpose. You do not need to opt out of that stated use. Its privacy policy covers the website and mobile apps without different training rules for free, paid, team or enterprise accounts; it does not set out a separate API training rule. This is a promise about LLM training, not a promise that your searches are never stored or processed. Source: Consensus, Privacy policy (linked in Sources)UnknownUnknown: Checked 13 Oct 2026: Undermind's homepage says a company's proprietary R&D data is not used for AI training and its model providers neither retain nor train on it, in the enterprise section. This does not establish Free, Pro or Team rules. The primary Privacy Policy and Terms were not read for this dossier; individual-account training and opt-out remain unverified. Do not assume an individual subscription inherits the enterprise promise.
EU data residencyUnknownUnknown: UnknownUnknownUnknown: No EU-only or Swiss data-residency option, processing region or DPA was verified as of 13 Oct 2026. Enterprise encryption claims do not establish a storage location; the research note's secondary policy quotation is not treated as verified primary policy.
SOC 2 attestationUnknownUnknown: UnknownUnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.
Local-first by defaultUnknownUnknown: UnknownUnknownUnknown: Not recorded as a plan-wide guarantee. Check the dossier's privacy notes and sources.
Capability split
What each tool does uniquely.
Shared0
No overlap detected.
Only Undermind11
- Literature search from a natural-language research goal
- Follow-up questions to refine the search
- Deep search that follows citation trails
- Research reports with inline source-paper citations
- Report refinement through further questions
- Full-text analysis advertised, with deepest analysis on Pro
- Paper relevance scores, sorting and filters
- Custom research tables
- Topic monitoring and notifications about relevant papers
- Shared workspaces
- Agent connections advertised for Claude and ChatGPT
Failure modes
Where each tool 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
Undermind
- Deep search is not an instant lookup. The vendor reports an average production search time of about 2.9 minutes; we have not timed a search or checked delays on Free.
- As of 13 Oct 2026, the checked material does not establish the exact corpus or databases searched. A long result list cannot prove that all relevant or contrary studies were covered.
- The retrieval benchmark is run by Undermind, using an LLM judge on abstracts and queries sampled from its own service. It is not an independent test of search completeness or whether report claims are supported.
- A source link gives you a paper to inspect, not a checked conclusion. No citation trial was run for this dossier; open the paper and check the passage before using a report's claim.
- Free lists standard rate limits and Pro advertises 10x higher usage, but no tested search allowance is available here. As of 13 Oct 2026, the exact limits and monthly Pro price remain unverified.
- The no-training statement is framed around enterprise proprietary R&D data. As of 13 Oct 2026, it does not establish the rule for an individual Free or Pro account.
Pricing
Pulled straight from each dossier.
Consensus
Research assistant- FREE
- $20/MOPro (monthly)
- $144/YRPro (annual)
raw · Free $0 · Pro $20/mo or $144/yr ($12/mo annual) · Deep $65/mo or $540/yr ($45/mo annual) · Teams/Enterprise custom · verified students and faculty: 40% off Pro for 12 months · clinicians: 25% off.
Undermind
Research assistant- FREE
- $16/MOPro (annual billing)
- $15/MOper person, billed annually
raw · Listed 13 Oct 2026: Free $0; Pro $16/month billed annually; Team $15/person/month billed annually; Enterprise custom. The current page shows a Team configuration of 5 seats at $15, not a verified minimum-seat rule. Free advertises standard rate limits; Pro advertises 10x higher usage and unlimited workspaces, files and paper libraries. Exact chat/search allowances have not been verified or tested. The monthly Pro price and any Academic/Industry price differences remain unverified; no price is inferred from the advertised annual saving.
Verdict
Which tool to actually pick.
In the Research assistant set, Consensus edges ahead overall (editorial fit 58 vs 35). Consensus wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Consensus. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.
The Pack · Editorial newsletter
Know when the rules move.
One short email when a university changes its AI rule for theses, or a research tool changes its pricing or privacy terms. No tracking, no third-party analytics. Unsubscribe in one click.
Questions this comparison answers
Every answer below is assembled from the dated fields on this page. Nothing is written separately for search.
Should you use Consensus or Undermind?
In the Research assistant set, Consensus edges ahead overall (editorial fit 58 vs 35). Consensus wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Consensus. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.
What can Consensus do that Undermind cannot?
Capabilities documented on the Consensus tool but not the Undermind tool:
- 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
What can Undermind do that Consensus cannot?
Capabilities documented on the Undermind tool but not the Consensus tool:
- Literature search from a natural-language research goal
- Follow-up questions to refine the search
- Deep search that follows citation trails
- Research reports with inline source-paper citations
- Report refinement through further questions
- Full-text analysis advertised, with deepest analysis on Pro
- Paper relevance scores, sorting and filters
- Custom research tables
- Topic monitoring and notifications about relevant papers
- Shared workspaces
- Agent connections advertised for Claude and ChatGPT
Is Consensus or Undermind cheaper?
Consensus: Free Free · Pro (monthly) $20/mo · Pro (annual) $144/yr · Deep (monthly) $65/mo · Deep (annual) $540/yr · Teams Custom · Enterprise Custom. Undermind: Free Free · Pro (annual billing) $16/mo · Team (per person, annual billing) $15/mo · Enterprise Custom.
How do Consensus and Undermind score against each other?
On editorial fit, Consensus scores 58 out of 100 and Undermind scores 35 out of 100. The score is a fit judgement for source-heavy research work, not a quality ranking — read both dossiers before you pick.