alphaXiv vs Consensus

Two fact sheets from our own research, side by side — pricing, platforms, API access and status re-checked by us rather than quoted from the vendors.

The short answer

Free plan: Both have one
Public API: Both have one
Best fit: alphaXiv: ML and AI researchers tracking new arXiv papers · Consensus: Checking whether a specific claim has support across published studies
Platforms: alphaXiv: Web, Chrome extension · Consensus: Web, iOS, Android
Trust score: About even — alphaXiv 88, Consensus 90

From our own records as of each tool's last check. Anything we have not confirmed is left out rather than guessed. How we verify

alphaXivLets researchers search and discuss arXiv papers, with answers grounded in the paper text rather than free-form summaries.

ConsensusSearch over peer-reviewed papers with claim summaries

Side by side

Fact	alphaXiv	Consensus
Category	Academic Search & Literature Review	Academic Search & Literature Review
Pricing model	Freemium	Freemium
Starts at	$8/mo	—
Public API	Yes	Yes
Trust score	88 / 100	90 / 100
Platforms	Web, API, Chrome extension	Web, iOS, Android, API
Company	alphaXiv	Consensus NLP, Inc.
Launched	2024	2021
Last verified	Oct 15, 2026	Oct 15, 2026

What our research says

alphaXiv

alphaXiv is useful for staying on top of a fast-moving research area because it ties discussion and search directly to arXiv papers instead of sending you to a separate forum. Its literature-review answers are grounded in citations you can click through to verify, which matters more here than in a general chatbot, but coverage is limited to what's on arXiv and heavier assistant use now sits behind paid Go and Pro plans.

Pros

Grounds generated answers in the actual paper text with citations
Surfaces researcher and organization activity around a topic, not just papers
Offers an MCP server and a Chrome extension for pulling search into other tools
Student discount on the Go plan for recognised academic emails

Cons

Limited to arXiv's corpus, so it misses paywalled or non-arXiv work
Free assistant use runs on preset models with strict limits
Plan prices appear only inside the signed-in subscription settings, not on a public pricing page

Consensus

Useful when you want to know what a body of literature actually concludes rather than reading one paper at a time, but it orients you, it does not replace reading them.

Pros

Every answer is tied to specific papers with study design and sample size
Free tier is a standing plan rather than a time-limited trial
The yes-or-no consensus meter is a fast orientation device
Covers a very large index of peer-reviewed literature

Cons

Summaries can flatten real disagreement between studies into false consensus
Coverage skews to indexed English-language biomedical work
Pricing cannot be verified from outside; the site blocks automated access
Free allowance of the deeper analyses runs out quickly in real use

Which one fits

Choose alphaXiv if you need

ML and AI researchers tracking new arXiv papers
Anyone writing a literature review who wants citations tied to source passages
Finding who else is working on a specific research topic

Choose Consensus if you need

Checking whether a specific claim has support across published studies
Clinicians and students orienting quickly in an unfamiliar literature
Anyone who wants citations attached to every summarised claim