No verified ladder yet
View plans and limitsEvidenceHunt vs Humata:
which should you use?
EvidenceHunt and Humata, side by side. Find the one that fits what you need to do.
Find your best fitThe 30-second answer
Pricing, simplified
Start free. Upgrade when you need more.
$9.99 a month
View plans and limitsThe 30-second comparison
If you only read one section, make it this one. Rows where both sides say the same thing are left out — the point is where they differ. Where each row came from is listed underneath.
| Category | EvidenceHunt | Humata | Better fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it's built for | Scoped to clinical evidence and built with practising clinicians, so the filters match how medical literature is actually appraised. | Ask questions across a set of uploaded documents and get answers with the page they came from, which suits a folder of papers rather than one. | EvidenceHunt |
| Fit for search, research & academics | Built for this | Strong fit | EvidenceHunt |
| Free plan | Yes. Basic plan, free: unlimited questions on the low-cost models plus 3 PRO-quality questions, with chat history | Yes. Free, capped at 60 pages of use in total rather than per month, with the basic features and GPT-5 support | Tie |
| Cheapest way to pay | No verified ladder yet. | $9.99 a month. | Tie |
| What the paid tiers cost |
|
| Tie |
| What to watch out for | Medicine only, and no use for research in any other field. It prices in euros rather than dollars, and the free tier gives you 3 PRO-quality questions before dropping you to the low-cost models. | Answers only from what you upload, so the quality of the shortlist is the quality of the answer. The free tier is 60 pages in total, and the step from Expert to Team switches from a flat rate to per user. | Tie |
| Who it is usually for | researchers | researchers, working professionals, students | Tie |
| Sources you can check | Answers carry sources you can open and check. | Answers arrive without sources attached. | EvidenceHunt |
| Made by | EvidenceHunt — Amsterdam, NL. | Humata — Austin, US. | Tie |
EvidenceHunt is ahead on 3 of the 9 rows compared, 3 of them about how well it does the job itself. That is a clear lead rather than a tiebreaker.
EvidenceHunt
Scoped to clinical evidence and built with practising clinicians, so the filters match how medical literature is actually appraised.
Ask questions across a set of uploaded documents and get answers with the page they came from, which suits a folder of papers rather than one.
Humata is the better answer when the job is what it was built for rather than what the pick above does broadly.
How we know
Every row that separated these two, and where it came from. Nothing here is a hands-on test — if a line rests on a vendor’s own pricing page, it says so and links it.
| Row | Favours | Weight | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it's built for | EvidenceHunt | How well it does the job | From this site’s own catalogue record for each product — compiled by hand, not imported. How a product gets listed |
| Fit for search, research & academics | EvidenceHunt | How well it does the job | Both products are listed under search, research & academics in the catalogue, and this is the fit recorded against each listing. Everything listed under search, research & academics |
| Sources you can check | EvidenceHunt | How well it does the job | From this site’s own catalogue record for each product — compiled by hand, not imported. How a product gets listed |
The prices
EvidenceHunt. Read by hand off evidencehunt.com on 4 September 2026. It is not on the monthly re-check, so confirm there before paying. evidencehunt.com/pricing
Humata. Read by hand off humata.ai on 4 September 2026. It is not on the monthly re-check, so confirm there before paying. humata.ai/pricing
The ratings
The category these two share. Search, Research & Academics — both are listed there in the catalogue, and the fit recorded against each listing is a judgement made here, by hand.
The nine-category grid below. Derived from what each product is listed for, by one script, once per build — so the same pair always reads the same. It is a derivation, not a review.
What this is not
Neither product was run side by side to produce this page. Nobody was paid to appear on it and nothing here is ranked by commission.
To put the same question to both and read the answers yourself, run them side by side — that is a live test, and this is not.
Choose based on what you’re doing
All ten categories, including the ones where neither of these is the answer. These ratings are derived from what each product is listed for, not from running it — a rating here is a reading of the record, and the record is linked.
General-Purpose AI Assistants
Questions, brainstorming, explanations, everyday tasks, decision-making, general advice.
Search, Research & Academics
Web research, deep research, books, academic papers, citations, news, fact-checking.
Writing, Communication & Language
Emails, reports, essays, editing, summarizing, translation, presentations.
Coding, Data & Technical Work
Programming, debugging, data analysis, spreadsheets, math, engineering, technical research.
Business, Finance & Professional Work
Business strategy, investing, market research, legal, sales, HR, accounting, consulting.
Image & Design
Image generation, photo editing, logos, graphics, product design, advertising creatives.
Video
Video generation and editing, clipping, subtitles, avatars, animation and motion capture.
Audio, Voice & Music
Voice generation, transcription, music, dubbing, sound cleanup and podcast production.
Marketing & Content Creation
Social media, SEO, advertising, copywriting, content ideas, scripts, brand development.
Productivity, Automation & Personal Life
AI agents, workflows, scheduling, meetings, organization, shopping, travel, personal finance.
Scoped to clinical evidence and built with practising clinicians, so the filters match how medical literature is actually appraised.
Amsterdam, NLAsk questions across a set of uploaded documents and get answers with the page they came from, which suits a folder of papers rather than one.
Austin, USPricing, simplified
The plans people actually compare, read from each vendor’s own page.
Tell us what you use AI for
Pick your main job and the verdict below changes to match. Every answer is on the page already, so this works as a reader, not a lookup.
Frequently asked questions
Is EvidenceHunt or Humata better?
EvidenceHunt is ahead on 3 of the 9 rows compared, 3 of them about how well it does the job itself. That is a clear lead rather than a tiebreaker. EvidenceHunt is built for search, research & academics; Humata does it well without it being its focus; both have a free plan you can start on. EvidenceHunt: Scoped to clinical evidence and built with practising clinicians, so the filters match how medical literature is actually appraised. Humata: Ask questions across a set of uploaded documents and get answers with the page they came from, which suits a folder of papers rather than one.
Is EvidenceHunt or Humata cheaper?
Only one of the two publishes a ladder we have verified, so a like-for-like comparison is not possible yet.
Do EvidenceHunt and Humata both have free plans?
Yes. EvidenceHunt: Basic plan, free: unlimited questions on the low-cost models plus 3 PRO-quality questions, with chat history. Humata: Free, capped at 60 pages of use in total rather than per month, with the basic features and GPT-5 support.
What should I watch out for?
EvidenceHunt: Medicine only, and no use for research in any other field. It prices in euros rather than dollars, and the free tier gives you 3 PRO-quality questions before dropping you to the low-cost models. Humata: Answers only from what you upload, so the quality of the shortlist is the quality of the answer. The free tier is 60 pages in total, and the step from Expert to Team switches from a flat rate to per user.
Read more
What it is for, who makes it, what it costs and what to use instead.
What it is for, who makes it, what it costs and what to use instead.
Web research, deep research, books, academic papers, citations, news, fact-checking.