Elicit vs Litmaps
A side-by-side look at scores, pricing and features — with RECATOOLS' ASEAN-aware verdict for each.
Elicit
AI research assistant for academic literature reviews
Visit
|
Litmaps
Discover related research with citation-graph mapping
Visit
|
|
|---|---|---|
| RECATOOLS Score | 7.6 / 10 | 7 / 10 |
| Capability | ||
| Value for money | ||
| Ease of use | ||
| ASEAN readiness | ||
| API quality | ||
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| Free tier | Basic: unlimited search + 2 automated reports/month; ~125-200M-paper corpus | 3 maps with 200 papers each |
| Paid from | Plus $12/mo; Pro $49/mo; Team $79/mo | $10/month (Researcher) |
| Has API | ✓ | ✗ |
| Open source | ✗ | ✗ |
| Free to use | ✗ | ✗ |
| Users | 200k+ researchers | 100k+ researchers |
| Founded | 2018 | 2016 |
| Maker | Ought (non-profit) | University of Otago |
| Verdict | Elicit owns the literature-review niche: it searches 138 million papers, pulls methods, sample sizes and findings into structured comparison tables, and links every extraction back to source text, which makes verificatio... |
Litmaps maps citation networks so you can see how papers connect, spot the seminal ones, and catch new work as it publishes — handy for systematic reviews and expanding out from a handful of seed papers. The bigger 2026... |
| Full review → | Full review → |
← Back to AI Directory
Comparisons cover up to 4 tools. Scores are RECATOOLS editorial assessments; verify current pricing on each vendor's site.