VerdictPal
Join
VerdictPal · editorial desk · updated 16 Oct 2026VerdictPal
Compare · Head-to-head

Elicit vs Undermind: pricing, privacy & capabilities

Put two dossiers side by side: fit, cost, privacy, and the failure modes that actually change the choice.
ToolsModels

Compare · Tool A / Tool B·Head-to-head

ElicitvsUndermind

In the Research assistant set, Elicit edges ahead overall (editorial fit 59 vs 35). Elicit wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Elicit. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.

Elicit · avg
65
wins 14 of 16
Undermind · avg
33
wins 0 of 16
Fields differ
10
of 16 dossier rows
Receipts
18
sources + bench notes

Checked 2026-10-13 · Elicit·Checked 2026-10-13 · Undermind

Dossier fields

Sixteen fields, side by side.

No.FieldElicitUndermind
01Status · Editorial quality gateFlagshipDraft
02Editorial fit · 0–100 score59 / 10035 / 100
03CategoryResearch assistantResearch assistant
04Primary surfaceProsumer SaaSProsumer SaaS
05Modalities
  • Text
  • Data
  • Text
  • Data
06Role in a stackPaper discovery, evidence-table extraction, and systematic-review supportDeep literature search and cited research reports
07Best for
  • Building structured evidence tables across many papers
  • Early-stage systematic review screening and extraction workflows
  • Researchers who need cited summaries plus column-based extraction, not just a chatbot answer
  • Policy, pharma, medtech, and academic teams that value sentence-level citations, PRISMA-style method traces, and auditable extraction
  • Students exploring a specific literature question who can check the returned papers themselves
  • Researchers following citation trails beyond an initial reading list
  • Readers who want to refine a cited report through follow-up questions
  • A controlled search with public material before deciding whether Pro fits the workload
08Avoid if
  • You need a cheap casual search tool rather than a high-cost research workflow
  • Your review data, uploaded PDFs, or unpublished documents cannot leave local infrastructure without a DPA
  • You expect PRISMA-grade results without human screening, extraction checks, and protocol review
  • Your main need is reference management or citation writing rather than evidence synthesis
  • You need an instant lookup rather than a search that may take several minutes
  • Your review protocol requires a verified database list and reproducible search coverage
  • You need confirmed Free or Pro training and retention terms before sharing unpublished work
  • You need a fixed search allowance or a verified monthly subscription price to budget the work
09Capabilities tracked
  • Search across 138M+ papers
  • ClinicalTrials.gov source support
  • Paper chat with full-text access
  • Zotero import
  • Automated Reports
  • Systematic Review Workflow
  • Screening up to 5,000 papers on Pro and 40,000 on Enterprise
  • Extraction columns
  • Sentence-level citations
  • PRISMA/methods/search-strategy report outputs
  • API access
  • 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
10Failure modes · Documented, not buried
  • Pricing jumps quickly from free to Pro/Scale
  • Structured tables and reports still require human validation
  • Uploaded papers/Zotero imports create cloud privacy boundary
  • Corpus and full-text coverage vary by discipline
  • Vendor accuracy claims need independent reproduction
  • Basic plan limits can distort real review workflows
  • 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.
11Evidence levelSynthesizedSynthesized
12Sources verified · Receipts on the dossier
13Benchmark entriesNone recorded
  • Check annual-billing list prices
    The 13 Oct homepage lists Free $0, Pro $16/month and Team $15/person/month billed annually, with custom Enterprise pricing.
  • Read the vendor retrieval benchmark's method
    Undermind describes 23 research goals sampled from its service, with relevance judged by an LLM from paper abstracts and a ten-minute comparison window.
  • Check the scope of the no-training statement
    The homepage frames the statement around enterprise proprietary R&D data, including model-provider retention and training.
14Alternatives tracked
  • Consensus
  • Scite
  • Semantic Scholar
  • Rayyan
  • Connected Papers
  • Elicit
  • Consensus
  • SciSpace
  • Semantic Scholar
15Pricing checked2026-10-132026-10-13
16Last verified2026-10-132026-10-13
16 metrics

Sixteen numbers, one shared midline.

ElicitvsUndermind

In the Research assistant set, Elicit edges ahead overall (editorial fit 59 vs 35). Elicit wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Elicit. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.

  1. Editorial fit
    Elicit59Undermind35
  2. Source quality
    Elicit52Undermind40
  3. Citation honesty
    Elicit70Undermind0
  4. Privacy controls
    Elicit46Undermind0
  5. Value for money
    Elicit56Undermind50
  6. Speed
    Elicit58Undermind60
  7. Integration
    Elicit75Undermind40
  8. Onboarding
    Elicit58Undermind60
  9. Reliability
    Elicit70Undermind0
  10. Feature depth
    Elicit100Undermind70
  11. Data portability
    Elicit55Undermind0
  12. Transparency
    Elicit100Undermind50
  13. Ecosystem reach
    Elicit75Undermind40
  14. Documentation
    Elicit52Undermind40
  15. Independence
    Elicit46Undermind0
  16. Affordability
    Elicit67Undermind40
Elicit · avg 65 · wins 14 of 160avg 33 · wins 0 of 16 · Undermind
EvidenceElicit 4 · Undermind 0
  1. 01Editorial fit
    59
    35
  2. 02Source quality
    52
    40
  3. 03Citation honesty
    70
    0
  4. 04Privacy controls
    46
    0
PrivacyElicit 2 · Undermind 0
  1. 05Value for money
    56
    50
  2. 06Speed
    58
    60
  3. 07Integration
    75
    40
  4. 08Onboarding
    58
    60
CapabilityElicit 4 · Undermind 0
  1. 09Reliability
    70
    0
  2. 10Feature depth
    100
    70
  3. 11Data portability
    55
    0
  4. 12Transparency
    100
    50
Cost & fitElicit 4 · Undermind 0
  1. 13Ecosystem reach
    75
    40
  2. 14Documentation
    52
    40
  3. 15Independence
    46
    0
  4. 16Affordability
    67
    40
TOOL A · Elicit
Research assistant
Elicit
59/100
ROLEPaper discovery, evidence-table extraction, and systematic-review support
Editorial fit
59
Source quality
52
Citation honesty
70
Privacy controls
46
Value for money
56
Speed
58
FREEBasic
$132/YRper user
$468/YRper user
FlagshipVerified 2026-10-13VP·METHOD

Paper discovery, evidence-table extraction, and systematic-review support — AI research assistant for searching, summarizing, chatting with papers, screening studies, extracting fields, generating research reports, and supporting systematic reviews across large scientific corpora and uploaded documents.

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
DraftVerified 2026-10-13VP·METHOD

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.

ElicitUndermind
Training on your dataUnknownUnknown: Elicit's privacy policy does not say whether content from the free Basic plan, paid Pro or team-focused Scale plan is used to train AI models, or explain a training-specific opt-out. Do not assume that paying switches training off. Elicit lists “No training on your data by default” for Enterprise. Its API terms say input data is not used to train AI models unless you separately opt in. For the web plans, ask [email protected] to confirm the rule before uploading confidential work. Sources: Elicit, Privacy; Pricing; API terms (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.

Only Elicit11

  • Search across 138M+ papers
  • ClinicalTrials.gov source support
  • Paper chat with full-text access
  • Zotero import
  • Automated Reports
  • Systematic Review Workflow
  • Screening up to 5,000 papers on Pro and 40,000 on Enterprise
  • Extraction columns
  • Sentence-level citations
  • PRISMA/methods/search-strategy report outputs
  • API access

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.

Elicit

  • Pricing jumps quickly from free to Pro/Scale
  • Structured tables and reports still require human validation
  • Uploaded papers/Zotero imports create cloud privacy boundary
  • Corpus and full-text coverage vary by discipline
  • Vendor accuracy claims need independent reproduction
  • Basic plan limits can distort real review workflows

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.

Elicit

Research assistant
  • FREEBasic
  • $132/YRper user
  • $468/YRper user

raw · Basic free: limited Research Agent and Research Reports; unlimited search/summaries/chat · Academic pricing, per user and billed yearly: Plus $11/mo ($132/yr), Pro $39/mo ($468/yr), Scale $89/mo ($1,068/yr) · Industry pricing, per user and billed yearly: Pro $49/mo ($588/yr), Scale $169/mo ($2,028/yr) · Enterprise custom; no training on customer data by default (vendor).

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, Elicit edges ahead overall (editorial fit 59 vs 35). Elicit wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Elicit. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.

Open Elicit's dossierOpen Undermind's dossier
Try Elicit ↗Try Undermind ↗

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.

The thesis AI checklist is free to use, no signup needed →

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 Elicit or Undermind?

In the Research assistant set, Elicit edges ahead overall (editorial fit 59 vs 35). Elicit wins on citation honesty, source quality, privacy controls, and value for money; the rest is a wash. For the canonical workflow, pick Elicit. Use Undermind when its niche specifically wins above.

What can Elicit do that Undermind cannot?

Capabilities documented on the Elicit tool but not the Undermind tool:

  • Search across 138M+ papers
  • ClinicalTrials.gov source support
  • Paper chat with full-text access
  • Zotero import
  • Automated Reports
  • Systematic Review Workflow
  • Screening up to 5,000 papers on Pro and 40,000 on Enterprise
  • Extraction columns
  • Sentence-level citations
  • PRISMA/methods/search-strategy report outputs
  • API access

What can Undermind do that Elicit cannot?

Capabilities documented on the Undermind tool but not the Elicit 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 Elicit or Undermind cheaper?

Elicit: Basic Free · Academic Plus $132/yr · Academic Pro $468/yr · Academic Scale $1,068/yr · Industry Pro $588/yr · Industry Scale $2,028/yr · Enterprise Custom. Undermind: Free Free · Pro (annual billing) $16/mo · Team (per person, annual billing) $15/mo · Enterprise Custom.

How do Elicit and Undermind score against each other?

On editorial fit, Elicit scores 59 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.