8 Evidenza alternatives, compared

Pick by the job you need done. Choose Planetarium to test consumer ads, messages and websites yourself, today. Stay with Evidenza for done-for-you B2B buyer research and a go-to-market plan.

By the Planetarium team · We publish this page and sell in this category

Key takeaways

Planetarium and Minds show a price and let you start yourself; most of the others price each engagement after a demo.
Evidenza's published accuracy figure is 88% similarity in 100+ validations, from its own test.
Each company measures accuracy its own way, so the figures are set side by side, never ranked.

What are the alternatives to Evidenza?

Evidenza is listed first for reference, then Planetarium, then the rest alphabetically, without implying rank. Every row comes from the company’s own pages; each name opens its head-to-head page.

Evidenza
The reference: research B2B buying committees and the C-suite
Price
Not published
Time to a result
Results in 72 hours (full service)
Self-serve
Coming soon
Public API
Not described
Planetarium
Test consumer ads, messages and websites yourself, today
Price
$99 a month, first test free
Time to a result
Half of studies in about 34 seconds
Self-serve
Yes
Public API
Yes, from $999 a month
Aaru
Forecast behavior from transaction and visit data
Price
Not published
Time to a result
Not published (their EY recreation ran in one day)
Self-serve
Contact us
Public API
Docs behind sign-in
Artificial Societies
Model how named stakeholder groups influence each other
Price
Not published
Time to a result
Hours in Radiant, their self-serve app, per their site
Self-serve
Yes, in Radiant; no price published
Public API
Not described
Electric Twin
Keep querying a model of your own customer research
Price
Not published
Time to a result
Answers in seconds once your audience is built
Self-serve
License through sales
Public API
Not described
Minds
Keep reusable persona panels, priced per response
Price
$0.12 a response
Time to a result
Insights within minutes, per their homepage
Self-serve
Yes
Public API
Yes
Remesh
Hear from real people, live
Price
$1.00 per participant-minute, plus software
Time to a result
Live sessions; recruitment in under 24 hours
Self-serve
Request a demo
Public API
Not described
Simile
Get individual-level simulations with a confidence label on each result
Price
Not published
Time to a result
Not published (their Itaú case went from 5 weeks to 4 days)
Self-serve
Not described
Public API
Not described
Synthetic Users
Run qualitative discovery interviews
Price
$12,500 a year
Time to a result
Under 2 minutes to first insight, per their pricing page
Self-serve
Book a demo
Public API
Yes

Evidenza and its alternatives
Platform	Why pick it	Price	Time to a result	Self-serve	Public API
Evidenza	The reference: research B2B buying committees and the C-suite	Not published	Results in 72 hours (full service)	Coming soon	Not described
Planetarium	Test consumer ads, messages and websites yourself, today	$99 a month, first test free	Half of studies in about 34 seconds	Yes	Yes, from $999 a month
Aaru	Forecast behavior from transaction and visit data	Not published	Not published (their EY recreation ran in one day)	Contact us	Docs behind sign-in
Artificial Societies	Model how named stakeholder groups influence each other	Not published	Hours in Radiant, their self-serve app, per their site	Yes, in Radiant; no price published	Not described
Electric Twin	Keep querying a model of your own customer research	Not published	Answers in seconds once your audience is built	License through sales	Not described
Minds	Keep reusable persona panels, priced per response	$0.12 a response	Insights within minutes, per their homepage	Yes	Yes
Remesh	Hear from real people, live	$1.00 per participant-minute, plus software	Live sessions; recruitment in under 24 hours	Request a demo	Not described
Simile	Get individual-level simulations with a confidence label on each result	Not published	Not published (their Itaú case went from 5 weeks to 4 days)	Not described	Not described
Synthetic Users	Run qualitative discovery interviews	$12,500 a year	Under 2 minutes to first insight, per their pricing page	Book a demo	Yes

Read October 27, 2026. Sources are listed at the end.

When is Planetarium the better fit than Evidenza?

Your audience is consumers, creators' followers or interest communities.
You want to run tests yourself today rather than wait 72 hours.
You want to test a live website or an ad with simulated visitors and viewers.

When should you stay with Evidenza?

Your buyers are business decision-makers: buying committees, specialists, the C-suite.
You want a finished go-to-market plan, done for you.
You want positioning, segmentation and creative modules from one supplier.

What does each one publish about accuracy?

Different tests on different questions, so the figures sit side by side and are never ranked.

Evidenza
88% similarity in 100+ validationsown test
Their homepage, which describes it as the average match between synthetic and traditional research
Planetarium
Right 87 times in 100 when it names a winner (575 of 660)own test
1,500 published news-headline A/B tests (Upworthy, 2013 to 2015), held out and scored once (October 2026). It named a winner on 660 and called the other 840 too close. Headlines only
Aaru
Mean absolute error of 2.78 points on 2,993 questionsown report
Their September 2026 report across 186 studies, after a sampling adjustment (3.53 before it; 7.62 points on their distribution measure); EY reports a 0.90 median correlation on a blinded recreation
Artificial Societies
86% distribution accuracy across 1,000 surveysown report
Their January 2026 survey evaluation report, against a 91% human repeat ceiling
Electric Twin
92% on NDAM, their stricter measure, against a 94% human ceilingown test
Their accuracy page; they also report 96% on 1 minus mean absolute error. Led by Prof. Michael Muthukrishna (LSE and NYU), their Chief Science Adviser; pre-registered, with human data collected independently by Stack Data Strategy
Minds
93.99% similarity on one UK surveyown test
301 personas against a UK Food Standards Agency youth survey
Remesh
No simulation
Answers come from real participants, so there is no simulation accuracy to report
Simile
Matched people's answers 85% as well as people matched their own when asked againacademic paper
A 2024 Stanford study of 1,000 people; the company also reports over 7,000 evaluations and a per-result confidence label
Synthetic Users
85 to 92% parity with real interviewsown test
Their 2024 study of 8 real and 8 synthetic interviews with UK teachers, scored on four weighted criteria they publish

What each platform publishes about its accuracy
Platform	Their headline figure	What it measures
Evidenza	88% similarity in 100+ validationsown test	Their homepage, which describes it as the average match between synthetic and traditional research
Planetarium	Right 87 times in 100 when it names a winner (575 of 660)own test	1,500 published news-headline A/B tests (Upworthy, 2013 to 2015), held out and scored once (October 2026). It named a winner on 660 and called the other 840 too close. Headlines only
Aaru	Mean absolute error of 2.78 points on 2,993 questionsown report	Their September 2026 report across 186 studies, after a sampling adjustment (3.53 before it; 7.62 points on their distribution measure); EY reports a 0.90 median correlation on a blinded recreation
Artificial Societies	86% distribution accuracy across 1,000 surveysown report	Their January 2026 survey evaluation report, against a 91% human repeat ceiling
Electric Twin	92% on NDAM, their stricter measure, against a 94% human ceilingown test	Their accuracy page; they also report 96% on 1 minus mean absolute error. Led by Prof. Michael Muthukrishna (LSE and NYU), their Chief Science Adviser; pre-registered, with human data collected independently by Stack Data Strategy
Minds	93.99% similarity on one UK surveyown test	301 personas against a UK Food Standards Agency youth survey
Remesh	No simulation	Answers come from real participants, so there is no simulation accuracy to report
Simile	Matched people's answers 85% as well as people matched their own when asked againacademic paper	A 2024 Stanford study of 1,000 people; the company also reports over 7,000 evaluations and a per-result confidence label
Synthetic Users	85 to 92% parity with real interviewsown test	Their 2024 study of 8 real and 8 synthetic interviews with UK teachers, scored on four weighted criteria they publish

How was this page made?

We publish this page and sell in this category. Every claim about another company comes from that company’s own public pages, or a paper or partner report it cites, read on October 27, 2026, and each is listed below. Where a company publishes nothing on a point, the page says so; that does not mean it cannot do it.

Each company measures accuracy its own way, on its own tests, so the figures are shown side by side but never ranked as one league table. We did not trial the other products. Our own figures are the ones on our pricing and accuracy pages. Something out of date? Tell us through the contact page and we will correct it.

Frequently asked questions

Why not just ask a general AI model?

In our October 2026 test on 421 YouTube videos, Planetarium's error on the mix of comments was 15 to 27% lower than each of 6 leading models asked directly. Planetarium answers as 17,849 ready-made audiences built from people observed online, and says "too close" when it cannot tell.

How can Planetarium show a price from $99 when most here do not?

The audiences are built before you arrive, so there is no project to scope and no audience to build for you. You run the test yourself; half of studies come back in about 34 seconds. Plans start at $99 a month, first test free. Most of the others scope and price each engagement after a demo.

Can these accuracy figures be compared with each other?

Not as one ranking. Each company tests itself its own way, on its own questions, with its own measure, so a higher number on one site is not a better result than a lower one on another. Read what each figure measures, then ask each supplier to run your own past study.

Should synthetic research replace real people?

No. Use it to test many versions fast and cheaply, then take the best to real people when the decision is large. Where a decision needs real people's own words, a platform such as Remesh is the better choice.

Sources

Evidenza, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Evidenza, FAQs (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Evidenza, About (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Aaru, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Aaru, Simulation (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Aaru, Population simulation at the replication floor (opens in a new tab) (September 24, 2026). Read October 27, 2026.
Aaru, EY wealth research case study (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
EY, How AI simulation accelerates growth in wealth and asset management (opens in a new tab) (October 7, 2025). Read October 27, 2026.
Artificial Societies, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Artificial Societies, Evaluation (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Artificial Societies, Radiant (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Artificial Societies, Solutions (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Artificial Societies, Compare (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Electric Twin, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Electric Twin, Accuracy (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Electric Twin, How accurate are synthetic audiences? (opens in a new tab) (February 11, 2026, updated October 26, 2026). Read October 27, 2026.
Minds, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Minds, Pricing (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Minds, Pricing and getting started (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Remesh, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Remesh, Remesh Recruit (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Simile, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Simile, The simulation company (opens in a new tab) (February 12, 2026). Read October 27, 2026.
Simile, Confidence (opens in a new tab) (August 25, 2026). Read October 27, 2026.
Simile, Itaú at ESOMAR (opens in a new tab) (September 11, 2026). Read October 27, 2026.
Park et al., Generative agent simulations of 1,000 people (opens in a new tab) (November 2024). Read October 27, 2026.
Synthetic Users, Homepage (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Synthetic Users, Pricing (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.
Synthetic Users, How we measure success (opens in a new tab) (updated May 21, 2026). Read October 27, 2026.
Synthetic Users, API documentation (opens in a new tab). Read October 27, 2026.

8 Evidenza alternatives, compared

Pick by the job you need done. Choose Planetarium to test consumer ads, messages and websites yourself, today. Stay with Evidenza for done-for-you B2B buyer research and a go-to-market plan.

By the Planetarium team · We publish this page and sell in this category

Key takeaways

Planetarium and Minds show a price and let you start yourself; most of the others price each engagement after a demo.
Evidenza's published accuracy figure is 88% similarity in 100+ validations, from its own test.
Each company measures accuracy its own way, so the figures are set side by side, never ranked.

Platform

Why pick it

Price

Time to a result

Self-serve

Public API

Evidenza

The reference: research B2B buying committees and the C-suite

Not published

Results in 72 hours (full service)

Coming soon

Not described

Planetarium

Test consumer ads, messages and websites yourself, today

$99 a month, first test free

Half of studies in about 34 seconds

Yes

Yes, from $999 a month

Aaru

Forecast behavior from transaction and visit data

Not published

Not published (their EY recreation ran in one day)

Docs behind sign-in

Artificial Societies

Model how named stakeholder groups influence each other

Not published

Hours in Radiant, their self-serve app, per their site

Yes, in Radiant; no price published

Not described

Electric Twin

Keep querying a model of your own customer research

Not published

Answers in seconds once your audience is built

License through sales

Not described

Minds

Keep reusable persona panels, priced per response

$0.12 a response

Insights within minutes, per their homepage

Yes

Remesh

Hear from real people, live

$1.00 per participant-minute, plus software

Live sessions; recruitment in under 24 hours

Request a demo

Not described

Simile

Get individual-level simulations with a confidence label on each result

Not published

Not published (their Itaú case went from 5 weeks to 4 days)

Not described

Synthetic Users

Run qualitative discovery interviews

$12,500 a year

Under 2 minutes to first insight, per their pricing page

Book a demo

Yes

Platform

Their headline figure

What it measures

Evidenza

88% similarity in 100+ validationsown test

Their homepage, which describes it as the average match between synthetic and traditional research

Planetarium

Right 87 times in 100 when it names a winner (575 of 660)own test

1,500 published news-headline A/B tests (Upworthy, 2013 to 2015), held out and scored once (October 2026). It named a winner on 660 and called the other 840 too close. Headlines only

Aaru

Mean absolute error of 2.78 points on 2,993 questionsown report

Their September 2026 report across 186 studies, after a sampling adjustment (3.53 before it; 7.62 points on their distribution measure); EY reports a 0.90 median correlation on a blinded recreation

Artificial Societies

86% distribution accuracy across 1,000 surveysown report

Their January 2026 survey evaluation report, against a 91% human repeat ceiling

Electric Twin

92% on NDAM, their stricter measure, against a 94% human ceilingown test

Their accuracy page; they also report 96% on 1 minus mean absolute error. Led by Prof. Michael Muthukrishna (LSE and NYU), their Chief Science Adviser; pre-registered, with human data collected independently by Stack Data Strategy

Minds

93.99% similarity on one UK surveyown test

301 personas against a UK Food Standards Agency youth survey

Remesh

No simulation

Answers come from real participants, so there is no simulation accuracy to report

Simile

Matched people's answers 85% as well as people matched their own when asked againacademic paper

A 2024 Stanford study of 1,000 people; the company also reports over 7,000 evaluations and a per-result confidence label

Synthetic Users

85 to 92% parity with real interviewsown test

Their 2024 study of 8 real and 8 synthetic interviews with UK teachers, scored on four weighted criteria they publish

How was this page made?

Frequently asked questions

8 Evidenza alternatives, compared

Key takeaways

What are the alternatives to Evidenza?

When is Planetarium the better fit than Evidenza?

When should you stay with Evidenza?

What does each one publish about accuracy?

How was this page made?

Frequently asked questions

Why not just ask a general AI model?

How can Planetarium show a price from $99 when most here do not?

Can these accuracy figures be compared with each other?

Should synthetic research replace real people?

Sources

Run your first test free.

8 Evidenza alternatives, compared

Key takeaways

What are the alternatives to Evidenza?

When is Planetarium the better fit than Evidenza?

When should you stay with Evidenza?

What does each one publish about accuracy?

How was this page made?

Frequently asked questions

Why not just ask a general AI model?

How can Planetarium show a price from $99 when most here do not?

Can these accuracy figures be compared with each other?

Should synthetic research replace real people?

Sources

Run your first test free.