AI Writing Space logo
Jenni AI logoJenni AI
5/5(Excellent)
Seamless paper integration with effective summary and research findings.
3.4/5(Good)
Unable to expand sections or include talking points.
5/5(Excellent)
Perfect performance with context-aware suggestions.
4.5/5(Very Good)
Comprehensive and user-friendly citation management.
Not Supported
Not Supported
5/5(Excellent)
Excellent language support across 30 languages.
4.2/5(Very Good)
Table formatting issues during export.
Read Review
SciSpace logoSciSpace
4.2/5(Very Good)
Robust paper upload and analysis features including auto-generated summaries and Q&A capabilities.
2.8/5(Good)
Limited by the absence of talking points and the inability to expand sections.
2.4/5(Good)
Overly robotic language and irrelevant content generation.
4.5/5(Very Good)
Seamless integration of adding, editing, and managing citations.
1.5/5(Poor)
Very limited with only basic AI fix commands.
Not Supported
5/5(Excellent)
Exceptional language support with 80 languages.
3.2/5(Good)
Good formatting preservation, but it lacks LaTeX support.
Read Review
Writefull logoWritefull
Not Supported
Not Supported
1.9/5(Poor)
Only paraphrasing capabilities without autocomplete or section writing.
Not Supported
3.2/5(Good)
Works well with Word, but Overleaf integration is a bit clunky.
Not Supported
2.8/5(Good)
Automatically detects and works with different languages but lacks explicit language selection controls.
3/5(Good)
Export varies depending on integration type (Word or Overleaf).
Read Review
Paperpal logoPaperpal
4.2/5(Very Good)
Robust paper analysis with summary and ability to chat with the document.
3.5/5(Good)
Offers detailed outlines and templates but lacks crucial features for section expansion and customization.
3.2/5(Good)
Produces natural academic content but struggles with context awareness and lacks modern features like autocomplete.
3.8/5(Good)
Limited editing capabilities and lack of inline functionality.
3.2/5(Good)
Convenient background grammar checking with easy-to-apply suggestions but fails to catch deliberate errors.
3.4/5(Good)
Effective plagiarism detection but not integrated into the main editor.
4/5(Good)
DeepL integration maintains an academic tone across languages, but AI features are limited only to English.
4.5/5(Very Good)
Nearly perfect, only lacking LaTeX support.
Read Review
Aithor logoAithor
4.2/5(Very Good)
Good, but slightly slow performance compared to competitors.
4.5/5(Very Good)
Exceptional outline detail and step-by-step generation process.
3.4/5(Good)
Maintains academic tone but lacks context awareness and occasionally sounds robotic.
3.5/5(Good)
Unable to edit citations or change document citation style once set.
Not Supported
Not Supported
1.8/5(Poor)
Inconsistent language handling with random switching and no explicit language control options.
3.8/5(Good)
Reliable Word and PDF exports with well-preserved formatting, nut no LaText support.
Read Review
Unriddle logoUnriddle
5/5(Excellent)
Robust multi-format document support with auto-generated summaries and contextual Q&A.
Not Supported
3.5/5(Good)
Natural academic writing with good context awareness, but limited by the inability to generate complete sections.
3.5/5(Good)
Streamlined citation process, but lacks citation editing.
Not Supported
Not Supported
3.5/5(Good)
No explicit language selection and unclear total language coverage.
4.2/5(Very Good)
Well-preserved citations and bibliography. Only minor formatting issues with blockquote elements.
Read Review
Yomu AI logoYomu AI
Not Supported
2.9/5(Good)
AI-generated outlines have a good structure but lack sufficient research depth.
3.1/5(Good)
While paraphrasing features work well, the AI writer sounds too robotic and needs to be more consistent.
5/5(Excellent)
Managing citations throughout the document is seamless.
2.4/5(Good)
Impossible to check grammar for specific text selections.
4.3/5(Very Good)
Inconsistent results when running the same paper through multiple plagiarism checks.
5/5(Excellent)
5/5(Excellent)
Read Review