What it is and who it's for
Consensus is a science answer engine: instead of a list of links it gives you a conclusion grounded in peer-reviewed papers, and keeps the synthesis tied to its primary sources. Built for clinicians, analysts, PMs and anyone who needs to quickly see "what the science says" on a yes/no question with proof, rather than read a hundred papers. Its signature feature is the Consensus Meter, which boils the weight of evidence down to a visual "yes / no / possibly" in seconds across a corpus of 220M+ works.
Key features
- Answers to research questions grounded in peer-reviewed papers, with inline citations.
- Consensus Meter — a visual "yes / no / possibly" summary of the weight of evidence.
- A corpus of 220M+ papers (OpenAlex + Semantic Scholar + exclusive full-text partnerships).
- Per-paper summaries and filters by study type.
- Integration with GPT models; library subscriptions at 170+ universities.
- Export and saving of findings.
Getting started in 5 minutes
- Open consensus.app and ask a question like "Does X help with Y?".
- Look at the Consensus Meter and click through to the source papers to verify.
- For depth, narrow down by study type (meta-analyses / RCTs) and save the collection.
When to use it and when not to
- ✅ Use it if you need a fast evidence-based "yes / no / possibly" backed by peer-reviewed proof.
- ✅ Use it if speed and a clear read on the weight of evidence matter more than a full systematic review.
- ❌ Skip it → go with "Elicit" if you need a structured literature review with data extracted into tables.
- ❌ Skip it → go with "Perplexity" if the question isn't scientific but general web research.
Honest pricing
Free plan with a query limit; paid plans add more queries, stronger models and advanced filters. Often available through university libraries. Exact numbers are on the vendor's site and do change.
Gotchas
- "Yes / no / possibly" is a simplification: for clinical or high-stakes decisions, read the papers and their context yourself.
- Answer quality depends on how you phrase the question (binary, specific questions work best).
- Coverage is uneven across disciplines; paid full text isn't available for every journal.
- It doesn't replace a systematic review — it's a tool for quick evidence-based orientation.
🤖 Prompt booster
"I have a question <DESCRIBE — ideally binary and specific> for Consensus. Help me rephrase it so the Consensus Meter returns a clear weight of evidence; suggest which study-type filters to turn on (meta-analyses / RCTs), and give me a checklist of which 2-3 key papers to open and what to check in them before I rely on the conclusion."