Opyt vs Elicit

Elicit searches the literature when you ask. Opyt keeps searching after you stop.

Elicit and scite come closer to Opyt's growth loop than anything else here. scite's Research Feeds and Elicit's alerts genuinely are standing queries, but you author them by hand, and they only see papers.

Opyt's standing queries are emitted by the act of reading. Read a topic end to end and the questions it raises become durable queries that run against arXiv, GitHub and OpenAlex, decay instead of dying, and rank their finds by how many of your own independent questions converged on the same thing.

At a glance

Where Elicit is better

• Rigour in the literature: 20 extraction columns on Pro up to 40 on Enterprise, and screening runs of 5,000 papers on Pro up to 40,000 on Enterprise. Opyt has neither.
• Scale of the index: 138 million papers, against whatever has entered your own store.
• Citation graphs, reference management and PDF annotation, none of which Opyt has.
• For an actual systematic review, Opyt is not in the running.

Where Opyt is better

• A heterogeneous corpus: 2,417 posts, 267 repos, 28 blog archives and 24 papers ranked in one index.
• Queries you never had to write, generated by reading a region end to end.
• Your own prior reading sits in the same store as the literature: 974 documents you saved by hand, beside everything the standing queries pulled.
• Convergence ranking: the signal is your questions overlapping, not a citation count.

Which one

Inside the literature, Elicit is stronger. Across the sources a working researcher reads day to day, Opyt is.

install Opyt free, MIT, five minutes