Skip to content
effecthub

ConceptSeek vs Glasp

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

Cheaper paid plan
ConceptSeek — $7.50/mo vs $12.50/mo for Glasp
Free plan
Only Glasp (ConceptSeek has paid plans only)
Public API
Glasp has one; not confirmed by us for ConceptSeek
Best fit
ConceptSeek: Researchers pulling from a mix of YouTube, podcasts, and PDFs · Glasp: Students and researchers collecting cited passages across the web and PDFs
Platforms
ConceptSeek: Web · Glasp: Web, Chrome extension, iOS, Android

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

ConceptSeekSearches across your saved videos, podcasts, and documents by concept and maps where they agree or conflict.GlaspHighlighter for web pages, PDFs, YouTube and Kindle that collects your passages in one library and lets you chat with them.

Side by side

FactConceptSeekGlasp
CategoryKnowledge Management & WikisNote-taking & Second Brain
Pricing modelPaidFreemium
Starts at$7.50/mo$12.50/mo
Public APINot confirmedYes
Trust score75 / 10076 / 100
PlatformsWebWeb, Chrome extension, iOS, Android, API
CompanyConceptSeekGlasp Inc.
Launched—2021
Last verifiedOct 15, 2026Oct 29, 2026

What our research says

ConceptSeek

Useful for anyone doing research across a mix of video, audio, and document sources who's tired of re-watching or re-reading to find one idea again. The Threads feature for spotting agreement or contradiction across sources is the differentiator, but the library and source caps on the entry plan mean serious researchers will likely need Pro or Max.

Pros

  • Searches by concept across video, podcast, and document libraries at once
  • Threads feature surfaces agreement and contradiction between sources
  • Jumps directly to the matching timestamp or passage
  • 7-day free trial before paying

Cons

  • No free ongoing tier, only a 7-day trial
  • Starter plan's $7.50 rate requires annual billing to get
  • Library and source limits scale with price, so heavy use pushes you to Pro or Max

Glasp

Glasp fits students, researchers and writers who read a lot online and want every quote kept with its source and searchable later. People who want their reading private by default, or who mostly need a full note editor rather than a highlighter, should look elsewhere.

Pros

  • Free plan keeps unlimited highlighting plus exports and Notion sync
  • Works across Chrome, Safari, Edge, Brave, Firefox, Opera and mobile
  • Each highlight keeps its source metadata, so quotes stay cited
  • MCP connector and API make the library usable from other AI tools

Cons

  • Highlights are public by default; privacy is a paid feature
  • Free AI allowances are small, especially video summaries
  • Social feed is of limited use to people who read alone

Which one fits

Choose ConceptSeek if you need

  • Researchers pulling from a mix of YouTube, podcasts, and PDFs
  • Journalists or analysts checking where sources agree or contradict
  • Anyone tired of scrubbing through long videos to find one point

Choose Glasp if you need

  • Students and researchers collecting cited passages across the web and PDFs
  • Writers keeping a swipe file of quotes for drafting with ChatGPT or Claude
  • Readers who want Kindle and web highlights in one library

ConceptSeek vs Glasp: the questions people ask

Is ConceptSeek cheaper than Glasp?

On published entry prices, ConceptSeek starts lower — $7.50/mo against $12.50/mo for Glasp. Entry price is the lowest paid plan as we last verified it; what each plan includes differs.

Does ConceptSeek or Glasp have a free tier?

Glasp has a free tier; ConceptSeek has paid plans only.

Which has a public API, ConceptSeek or Glasp?

Glasp ships a public API, as of our last verification. A public API for ConceptSeek is not confirmed by us — check its developer docs before you plan an integration.

More comparisons

Browse all Knowledge Management & Wikis →