Elicit vs Litmaps

Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, and ratings

Analysis reviewed Live tool data as of 2026-08-15
Cross-checked through our multi-step verification ·
Saved

At a glance

DimensionElicitLitmaps
PricingFree (5 searches/day, 1 report); Plus $10/mo (100 searches, 5 reports); Pro $20/mo (500 searches, 20 reports); Enterprise API customFree (2 litmaps, 100 articles/map); Pro Education $10/mo; Pro $15/mo; Pro Edu Annual $8.33/mo; Pro Annual $12.50/mo
Best forSystematic reviews and data extractionExploratory literature mapping and discovery
Core strengthAutomated PRISMA-compliant screening and evidence extractionVisual citation network maps with date vs. citation graph
Paper coverage138M+ papers + 545K clinical trials270+ million papers from various sources
PRISMA complianceYes – PRISMA 2020 (latest news)No
IntegrationsClaude Opus 4.5, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Elicit API, ZoteroZotero, BibTeX, Google Scholar (indirect), PubMed, arXiv, Web of Science (indirect)

For researchers conducting PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews, Elicit is the clear choice with 97-99% screening accuracy and structured reports. For visual literature discovery and mapping, Litmaps offers a unique bird's-eye view via citation networks. Pick based on your workflow: systematic rigor vs. exploratory visualization.

Elicit
Elicit

The AI research assistant for evidence-based literature reviews with citations

Visit Website
Litmaps
Litmaps

Visual literature review tool for mapping academic papers via citation networks

Visit Website
Pricing
Freemium
Freemium
Plans
$0
$11/user/mo (annual)
$39/user/mo (annual)
$89/user/mo (annual)
Custom
$0/mo
$10/mo
$120/yr
Contact sales
Popularity
5.7k views
4.3k views
Skill Level
Intermediate
Intermediate
API Available
Platforms
WebAPI
Web
Categories
🔬 Research & Education
🔬 Research & Education
Features
Semantic search across 138M+ academic papers and 545K+ clinical trials
Systematic Literature Review workflow with PRISMA 2020 support
Automated abstract and full-text screening
Data extraction from up to 20,000 data points per project
Sentence-level citations for every AI-generated claim
Research Agent for multi-step evidence gathering and artifact creation (reports, tables, figures, bioinformatics
Interactive tables with customizable columns
Alerts for new research
Library to organize sources
Export to RIS, CSV, BIB, PDF, DOCX
Elicit API and MCP server for programmatic access
Extract and interpret from figures (Scale tier)
Research reports with custom paper selection and templates
Custom extractions from uploaded papers (Pro tier)
Live editing and real-time collaboration (Scale tier)
Seed map generation from a single article
Date-versus-citation graph visualization
Discover papers via citation connections
Automatic email alerts (daily, weekly, monthly, configurable)
Advanced search with custom filters
BibTeX export
Collaborate with colleagues, students, advisors
Dyslexia-friendly visual layout
Catalog of 270+ million papers
Share maps (read-only)
Organize multiple research projects
Team-wide collaboration on Team plan
Basic search on free tier
Unlimited Litmaps on Pro and Team
Configurable alert frequency on Pro and Team
Integrations
Zotero
BibTeX
Google Scholar
PubMed
arXiv
Web of Science

Who should pick which

  • PhD student starting a literature review
    Pick: Litmaps

    Litmaps helps visually map citation networks from a single seed paper, providing orientation in a new field at low cost (free tier).

  • Researcher conducting a PRISMA systematic review
    Pick: Elicit

    Elicit is PRISMA 2020-compliant, with automated screening and data extraction, ensuring reproducibility and high accuracy.

  • Pharmaceutical R&D screening clinical trials
    Pick: Elicit

    Elicit searches 545K+ clinical trials and integrates with ClinicalTrials.gov; its API allows programmatic access for large-scale screening.

  • Educator teaching research methods
    Pick: Litmaps

    Litmaps' dyslexia-friendly layout and shareable maps help students understand citation networks and research landscapes interactively.

  • Policy analyst needing evidence summaries
    Pick: Elicit

    Elicit generates structured research reports with citations, enabling quick evidence synthesis for policy decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Elicit vs Litmaps: which should you choose?

For researchers conducting PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews, Elicit is the clear choice with 97-99% screening accuracy and structured reports. For visual literature discovery and mapping, Litmaps offers a unique bird's-eye view via citation networks. Pick based on your workflow: systematic rigor vs. exploratory visualization.

Which tool is better for a systematic review?

Elicit, because it now supports PRISMA 2020 guidelines with automated screening and reproducible workflows.

Can Litmaps be used for systematic reviews?

Litmaps is designed for exploratory mapping, not systematic review methodology. It lacks PRISMA compliance and automated screening.

Does Elicit have a free tier?

Yes, Elicit offers a free plan with 5 searches per day and 1 report. Higher tiers are $10/mo (Plus) and $20/mo (Pro).

Does Litmaps integrate with reference managers?

Yes, Litmaps integrates with Zotero and BibTeX, and indirectly with Google Scholar, PubMed, arXiv, and Web of Science.

Which tool has more papers indexed?

Litmaps claims 270+ million papers; Elicit covers 138M+ papers plus 545K clinical trials. Coverage varies by source.

Can I share maps with colleagues in Litmaps?

Yes, Litmaps allows sharing maps with colleagues and advisors. It also supports team collaboration.

Does Elicit offer an API?

Yes, the Elicit API was launched in March 2026, allowing programmatic search and report generation.

Which tool is more affordable for students?

Litmaps Pro Education at $10/mo (or $8.33/mo annual) is cheaper than Elicit Pro at $20/mo. Both have free tiers.

More Elicit or Litmaps comparisons

Explore each tool further

Browse these categories

Still deciding? Get the weekly AI tools brief

One email a week — new tools, honest comparisons, no spam.

Last reviewed: May 12, 2026