Models
A mixture of models, cross-checked.
Every frontier model (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Mistral, Grok) alongside our own, routed per sub-task and made to check each other. No single-model bias.
Explore Science vs Thesify
Thesify gives fast, rubric-based writing and pre-submission feedback to students, researchers, and academics. Explore Science takes a finished manuscript and runs a deep review: up to two hours of cross-checked analysis, a Calibre score out of 100 across eight categories, and every reference checked against live scholarly databases.
The short answer
Choose Explore Science, the AI co-scientist, when the paper is finished, headed to a journal, and needs a read you can defend to a supervisor, a co-author, or yourself. Choose Thesify when you want coaching-style feedback on a draft back in minutes, whether you are a student, an early-career researcher, or an established academic after a quick fresh pair of eyes. The two sit at different points on the writing-to-submission path, and at the submission end Explore Science is the one built to judge the science.
Compared July 2026 · from Thesify's own published materials
Choose Explore Science when
- Goes deep: up to two hours of cross-checked analysis and a Calibre score out of 100 across eight categories, where Thesify returns rubric feedback in minutes with no single benchmarked score.
- Several frontier models and scientific agents check each other, and we name every one of them; Thesify does not publicly name the model behind its review.
- Each reference is checked against live scholarly databases and flagged when it fails to resolve or does not support the claim; Thesify states it is not built as a citation-verification engine.
- Every revision is scored, and the movement between drafts is shown in one workspace your co-authors can open.
- Rosa, the chat that has already read your paper, its review, and your wider body of work, plus specialised passes for methods, editorial, and novelty.
Choose Thesify when
- Faster: a structured report back in minutes, against our two hours.
- Cheaper for continuous use: EUR 6.25 a month billed annually, well under our monthly plans.
- Coaches the writer: the Reviewer plan comments on your text and does not generate it, which suits students learning to write.
- Citation insertion while you draft: semantic search across a large corpus of academic sources, with highlight-to-insert references, which Explore Science does not do.
- A journal recommender suggests where to submit, and the Coauthor tier adds an AI editor with LaTeX, PDF compilation, and version history; Explore Science offers neither.
Side by side
| Capability |  | Thesify |
|---|---|---|
| What it reviews | Scientific manuscripts, plus protocol/proposal, editorial, and novelty reviews | Theses, dissertations, essays, papers, grant proposals |
| TurnaroundPer review | Up to two hours per manuscript; close the tab, the result arrives by email | Report back in minutes |
| Review engine | Claude, GPT, Gemini, Mistral, and Grok, plus our in-house Explorer One, each cross-checking the others | Model(s) not publicly named |
| Scoring | Calibre: one score out of 100, built from eight fixed categories | Rubric feedback on thesis statement, evidence and support, purpose fulfilment, topic coverage, plus a Flesch-Kincaid readability score; no single benchmarked score |
| Reference checking | Every reference checked against live databases, and flagged when it does not resolve | Flags claims the cited sources do not support; by its own account not a citation-verification engine |
| Revisions | Each version scored; movement shown category by category, draft to draft | Edit and regenerate the feedback in place; version history on the Coauthor tier |
| Paper-grounded chat | Rosa has read the paper, its review, and the rest of your published work before you ask anything | Theo answers on your manuscript and challenges claims the cited sources do not support |
| Working with others | Shared workspace: co-authors open the same paper, review, and chat | Feedback report shareable with colleagues; real-time collaboration on the Coauthor tier |
| Drafting help | Not offered; reviews finished work | Coauthor tier with an AI editor, LaTeX mode, and PDF compilation |
| Journal selection | Not offered; we assess the paper, not the venue | Journal recommender suggests submission venues |
| Pricing | Free to start; $49 for one full-depth review with no subscription; monthly plans from $99 with a usage allowance | EUR 6.25/mo annual (Reviewer); EUR 7.50/mo annual (Coauthor) |
90% rate a review on par with or better than the human peer review they have had.
Two in three rate it better. From 304 head-to-head ratings by researchers who had received peer review on the same paper. These are our own users, self-reported, which is worth knowing when you weigh them.
Depth
Why a thorough review takes the time it takes.
Most tools optimize for speed. Explore Science runs the engine we built to conduct original research autonomously, and points it at your manuscript: it reads recent literature in your field, checks every reference, and works through the paper the way a careful reviewer does.
The time is the method, not an overhead on it.
How a paper is scoredTime spent thinking about your paper
How long a review actually takes
Single-pass LLM
~2 min
Other AI reviewers
5 to 20 min
Human peer review
(active reading time)
~30 min
Explore Science
up to 2 hrs
Industry observation; self-reported vendor figures; Publons peer-review time survey, 2018.
The engine
What actually reads your paper.
Three pieces of the architecture do the work behind every review.
Agents
Scientific agents that reason like the field.
Dozens of specialised agents work each review in parallel, each tuned to one dimension of analysis, spawning more when a section needs them.
Infrastructure
An in-house science stack.
Memory that holds your paper in context for the whole review, live verification of every citation, and novelty assessment. Built over years of autonomous science.
Where the two tools sit
Thesify is a writing-feedback tool. Upload a document and minutes later you have a digest, a feedback summary, numbered recommendations, and rubric feedback on the thesis statement, evidence and support, purpose fulfilment, topic coverage, and readability. Around that sit a chat assistant called Theo, semantic literature search with highlight-to-insert citations, and a journal recommender. The Reviewer plan is built for academic integrity: it comments on your text and does not write it for you, which matters if you are a student.
Explore Science starts where the draft stops. It reads a finished manuscript for up to two hours, scores it out of 100 across eight categories, and checks the references, so what comes back is a judgement you can act on before an editor forms one.
What happens to your references
Thesify works forward from the draft. It searches a large corpus of academic sources and inserts citations as you write, and its evidence panel highlights passages where the cited sources do not support the claim. Its own guidance draws the boundary: the tool is not built as a citation-verification engine. Nothing in it confirms that a reference already in your bibliography exists, resolves, or says what you attributed to it.
Explore Science checks each reference against live scholarly databases and flags the ones that fail to resolve or do not support the claim they are attached to. That catches a fabricated or misattributed citation before a reviewer does.
Common questions
What does Thesify cost?
Thesify publishes two plans in euros: Reviewer at EUR 6.25 a month billed annually (EUR 75 a year) and Coauthor at EUR 7.50 a month billed annually (EUR 90 a year). Both list a card-required free trial, 7 days for Reviewer and 14 for Coauthor, though Thesify's own pricing FAQ is inconsistent about whether the Reviewer trial is offered, so check it at signup. Explore Science is free to start, one full-depth review is $49 with no subscription, and monthly plans begin at $99 with an allowance for reviews and chat.
Can Thesify track changes across drafts?
Version history sits on the Coauthor tier. On the Reviewer plan you can edit in place and regenerate the feedback, but nothing scores the versions against each other. Explore Science keeps a paper in one workspace, scores every revision, and shows which of the eight categories moved between drafts.
Does Thesify check for plagiarism?
No. Thesify says its tool is not designed for originality screening or plagiarism detection; it is a pre-submission feedback tool. Explore Science offers a plagiarism check as a plug-in alongside the scored review.
Does Thesify help pick a journal?
Yes. Thesify has a journal recommender that suggests submission venues from your manuscript, reported alongside the writing feedback. Explore Science has no equivalent: we assess the paper and leave the venue to you and your co-authors.
Claims about Thesify reflect its own published materials; everything about Explore Science reflects what the platform does today. Sources: Thesify pricing, Thesify pre-submission review, Thesify on what AI peer-review tools check. Something out of date? and we will fix it.
Already using Thesify? Put the same paper through a scored review.
Get started free