Elicit vs Consensus for Nonprofits
Choosing between Elicit's systematic data extraction and Consensus's rapid GPT-4 summaries? Both transform academic research from weeks to hours, but Elicit excels at rigorous literature reviews while Consensus delivers quick synthesized answers. Your decision hinges on whether you need research-grade data extraction or fast evidence-based insights for program planning.
Quick Verdict
Choose based on your research priorities:
Choose Elicit if:
- •You conduct systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or literature reviews requiring structured data extraction
- •You need to extract specific data points (sample sizes, methods, outcomes) from hundreds of papers efficiently
- •Your work involves rigorous evidence synthesis for grant proposals or program design
- •You value 94-99% data extraction accuracy for research-grade work
- •You're analyzing research papers in depth rather than getting quick overviews
Choose Consensus if:
- •You need quick, synthesized answers to specific research questions ("Does mindfulness reduce stress?")
- •Budget is tight and $8.99/month fits better than $12/month
- •Visual consensus indicators help you quickly assess agreement across studies
- •You primarily need GPT-4 summaries and citations rather than deep data extraction
- •You're researching topics for program planning, blog posts, or board presentations (not formal research)
At-a-Glance Comparison
| Feature | Elicit | Consensus | Winner / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting Price | $12/month (Plus) | $8.99/month (Premium) | 💰 Consensus (25% cheaper) |
| Free Tier | Limited searches & extraction | Limited searches, no GPT-4 | ⚖️ Tie (both limited) |
| Database Size | 125M papers | 200M+ papers | 📚 Consensus (60% larger) |
| Primary Strength | Data extraction (94-99%) | GPT-4 summaries + Consensus Meter | 🎯 Context-dependent |
| Learning Curve | Beginner-friendly (4/5) | Very easy (5/5) | ⚡ Consensus (simpler) |
| Systematic Reviews | Yes (core feature) | No (quick insights only) | 🔬 Elicit (research-grade) |
| Visual Consensus | No | Yes (Consensus Meter) | 📊 Consensus (unique feature) |
| Export Options | CSV, BibTeX, RIS, Zotero | Citations only | 💾 Elicit (broader exports) |
| API Access | Yes (Pro plan) | No | 🔧 Elicit (automation) |
| Speed to Insight | 30 min - 2 hours | 15-30 minutes | ⚡ Consensus (faster) |
| Best For | Rigorous research, grant evidence | Quick answers, program planning | 🎯 Depends on use case |
Last updated: January 7, 2026. Pricing and features subject to change; verify with vendors.
Head-to-Head Feature Breakdown
Data Extraction & Systematic Reviews
How each tool handles structured research data and literature reviews
Elicit
Elicit excels at extracting structured data from academic papers with 94-99% accuracy. Create custom extraction columns (sample size, methodology, outcomes), process hundreds of papers simultaneously, and export to spreadsheets. Ideal for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and evidence synthesis for grant proposals. Templates help you start literature reviews in minutes.
✓ Best for research-grade systematic reviews
Consensus
Consensus doesn't extract structured data—it synthesizes findings using GPT-4 to answer specific questions. Instead of pulling sample sizes, you get Yes/No/Possibly answers with supporting citations. Great for quick research questions but not suitable for formal systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Focus is rapid insights, not rigorous data extraction.
○ Not designed for systematic reviews
Nonprofit Verdict:
Use Elicit for grant proposals requiring evidence tables ("15 studies show X reduces Y by 30%"). Use Consensus for program planning discussions ("Does the research support implementing mindfulness programs?").
Search Quality & Paper Discovery
How each platform finds relevant academic research
Elicit
Searches 125 million papers using semantic search (understands intent, not just keywords). Upload seed papers and find similar studies. Filter by study design (RCT, meta-analysis), publication date, citation count. Strong at finding intervention studies and experimental research. Results ranked by relevance and quality indicators.
✓ 125M papers, semantic search, study design filters
Consensus
Searches 200+ million peer-reviewed papers with question-based interface ("Does X cause Y?"). GPT-4 analyzes papers and provides Yes/No/Possibly classifications with visual Consensus Meter showing study agreement. Excellent for controversial or debated topics where scientific consensus matters. Larger database but less granular filtering.
✓ 200M+ papers, question-based, Consensus Meter
Nonprofit Verdict:
Elicit better for finding specific types of studies (e.g., "RCTs on trauma-informed care"). Consensus better for assessing scientific agreement ("Do experts agree that housing-first works?").
AI Summaries & Research Synthesis
How AI processes and summarizes academic research
Elicit
AI generates one-sentence paper summaries and extracts key findings to custom columns. Ask follow-up questions about specific papers. AI identifies gaps in literature and suggests related search queries. Focus is accurate extraction over creative synthesis. Summaries are concise and fact-focused—not narrative prose.
✓ Extraction-focused, high accuracy (94-99%)
Consensus
GPT-4 generates comprehensive research summaries answering your specific question. "Synthesize" button creates multi-paragraph synthesis across all relevant papers, identifying patterns and contradictions. Consensus Meter visualizes agreement (e.g., "67% of studies say Yes, 20% No, 13% Possibly"). Best-in-class for narrative synthesis and quick insights.
✓ GPT-4 synthesis, narrative summaries, visual consensus
Nonprofit Verdict:
Elicit for accurate data you'll analyze yourself. Consensus for pre-synthesized insights you can share in board decks or stakeholder reports.
Export Options & Workflow Integration
How research integrates into your nonprofit workflows
Elicit
Export research tables to CSV, BibTeX, RIS for citation managers. Direct Zotero integration for seamless library sync. API access (Pro plan) for custom automations. Download extracted data as spreadsheets for further analysis in Excel or Google Sheets. Designed for integration into research workflows and grant writing processes.
✓ CSV, BibTeX, RIS, Zotero, API access
Consensus
Export individual paper citations but limited bulk export options. No Zotero integration or API access. Best used in-platform for quick research and copy-paste citations into documents. Focus is on providing answers in the tool rather than feeding other systems. Simple but less flexible for complex research workflows.
○ Citation export only, no integrations
Nonprofit Verdict:
Elicit for grant writers managing citation libraries and building evidence tables. Consensus for quick research where you'll manually copy key findings into proposals or reports.
Pricing Breakdown & Total Cost of Ownership
Elicit Pricing
Free Tier
$0/month
- • Limited searches per month
- • Basic paper summaries
- • Limited data extraction
- • Good for occasional research
Plus Plan
$12/month
- • Unlimited searches
- • 5,000 one-time credits/month
- • Advanced data extraction
- • Export to CSV, BibTeX, RIS
- • Best for regular research
Pro Plan
$49/month
- • Everything in Plus
- • 50,000 credits/month
- • API access for automation
- • Priority support
- • For research teams/frequent use
Consensus Pricing
Free Tier
$0/month
- • Limited searches per month
- • Consensus Meter access
- • No GPT-4 summaries
- • Basic citations
- • Good for trying the platform
Premium Plan
$8.99/month
- • Unlimited searches
- • GPT-4 summaries
- • Consensus Meter + filters
- • Study snapshots
- • Bookmarks & libraries
- • Best value for regular use
Note: Consensus has only 2 tiers (Free and Premium). No enterprise tier currently available.
Total Cost of Ownership: 3 Nonprofit Scenarios
Annual costs including hidden expenses and time savings
| Scenario | Elicit | Consensus | Better Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small Nonprofit 5-10 searches/month, occasional grant research | $0/year Free tier sufficient | $0/year Free tier sufficient | Tie - Both free |
| Mid-Size Nonprofit Weekly research, quarterly grant applications | $144/year Plus plan ($12/mo) | $107.88/year Premium ($8.99/mo) | Context-dependent Consensus cheaper; Elicit saves more time |
| Research-Focused Org Regular systematic reviews, evidence synthesis | $588/year Pro plan ($49/mo) | $107.88/year Premium (max tier) | Elicit Higher cost but 3x time savings for research work |
Hidden Costs to Consider:
- • Training time: Elicit requires 1-2 weeks to master extraction; Consensus 3-5 days
- • Citation managers: Both recommend Zotero (free) or Mendeley (free) for citations
- • Opportunity cost: Time saved on research = time for programs, fundraising, or strategy
ROI Example: Grant Research Project
Systematic review for $100,000 federal grant proposal
With Elicit (Plus - $12/month)
With Consensus (Premium - $8.99/month)
Key Insight:
For rigorous grant research requiring evidence tables, Elicit delivers 2.6x higher ROI despite higher cost. For background research and quick evidence gathering, Consensus provides excellent value at lower price point.
Use Case Scenarios
When to Use Elicit
Scenario 1: Federal Grant Evidence Synthesis
Community health nonprofit applying for SAMHSA grant
Challenge:
Program officer requires evidence table showing 15-20 peer-reviewed studies supporting trauma-informed care effectiveness. Need sample sizes, effect sizes, and methodological quality ratings. Manual review would take 40+ hours.
Solution with Elicit:
Search "trauma-informed care effectiveness RCT" → 150 relevant papers. Create custom extraction columns for sample size, effect size, intervention type, outcome measures, quality rating. Export to Excel. Review and curate in 8 hours instead of 40.
Result:
Completed evidence table with 18 high-quality studies. Grant reviewer praised "exceptionally rigorous literature review." 32 hours saved ($1,600 value). Grant awarded ($500,000).
ROI:
Time saved: 32 hours | Cost: $12 | ROI: 13,233% (if grant attributed even 1% to literature review quality)
Scenario 2: Program Design Meta-Analysis
Youth development org designing evidence-based mentorship program
Challenge:
Board wants program based on "what works" in youth mentorship. Need to identify effective program components (frequency, duration, mentor training, etc.) across multiple studies. Manual synthesis would require academic consultant ($3,000-5,000).
Solution with Elicit:
Systematic search for youth mentorship interventions. Extract program components, dosage, outcomes, and effect sizes from 45 studies. Identify patterns: programs with 2+ contacts/week show 2.3x better outcomes than monthly. Weekly training supervision critical.
Result:
Evidence-based program design document with specific recommendations. Board approved $120,000 program budget with confidence. Avoided costly trial-and-error or consultant fees.
ROI:
Consultant cost avoided: $4,000 | Elicit cost: $12 | Net savings: $3,988 (plus faster timeline)
Scenario 3: Annual Report Impact Evidence
Education nonprofit demonstrating program effectiveness to funders
Challenge:
Annual report needs to cite research showing early literacy programs improve 3rd grade reading scores. Major funder (40% of budget) asks for evidence-based justification for program approach. Need credible citations fast—annual report due in 2 weeks.
Solution with Elicit:
Search "early literacy intervention 3rd grade reading outcomes." Extract effect sizes, program characteristics, and participant demographics from 30 studies. Identify 8 studies directly supporting program model. Generate BibTeX citations for report.
Result:
Annual report included statement: "Our literacy model aligns with 8 peer-reviewed studies showing 0.4-0.7 effect size improvements in reading scores." Funder renewed at increased level ($450,000 → $550,000).
ROI:
Time saved: 12 hours | Increased funding: $100,000 | Elicit cost: $12 | ROI: Immeasurable
When to Use Consensus
Scenario 1: Board Meeting Quick Research
Environmental nonprofit considering new program direction
Challenge:
Board member asks at meeting: "Does research support community gardens reducing food insecurity?" Executive Director needs evidence-based answer in 24 hours for follow-up email. No time for systematic review.
Solution with Consensus:
Search "Do community gardens reduce food insecurity?" Consensus Meter shows 75% Yes, 15% Possibly, 10% No. GPT-4 summary synthesizes findings across 40 studies. Copy key findings and 5 citations. Total time: 20 minutes.
Result:
Follow-up email to board: "Research shows strong consensus (75% of studies) that community gardens reduce food insecurity, with average 20-30% increase in fresh vegetable consumption." Board approved $50,000 pilot program.
ROI:
Time saved: 3 hours | Enabled decision: $50,000 program | Consensus cost: $8.99 | ROI: Excellent
Scenario 2: Blog Post Research
Mental health nonprofit writing thought leadership content
Challenge:
Communications team writing blog post on workplace mental health programs. Need credible research citations but not formal systematic review. Budget: 2 hours for research.
Solution with Consensus:
Search 5 questions: "Do workplace mental health programs reduce absenteeism?" "Do EAPs improve employee wellbeing?" "Does mental health training reduce stigma?" Get GPT-4 summaries + citations for each. Research complete in 90 minutes.
Result:
Published blog post with 8 research citations, visual Consensus Meter graphics showing scientific agreement. Post shared 200+ times, generated 15 corporate partnership inquiries. Led to $75,000 corporate sponsorship.
ROI:
Time spent: 1.5 hours | Partnership value: $75,000 | Consensus cost: $8.99/month | ROI: Exceptional
Scenario 3: Program Planning Feasibility
Housing nonprofit exploring trauma-informed design
Challenge:
Program team wants to integrate trauma-informed design into new affordable housing project. Need quick research to determine if evidence supports this approach before presenting to architect (meeting in 3 days). Not grant-writing—just strategic planning.
Solution with Consensus:
Search "Does trauma-informed design improve housing stability?" and "Does built environment affect trauma recovery?" Consensus Meter + GPT-4 summaries show strong support. Identify 3 key design principles (privacy, natural light, community spaces) cited across studies.
Result:
Presented evidence-based design recommendations to architect with 6 supporting citations. Architect incorporated recommendations at no additional cost. Became selling point in funder pitches: "Research shows trauma-informed design increases housing stability by 25%."
ROI:
Time spent: 2 hours | Enhanced program credibility | Consensus cost: $8.99 | ROI: High (better funder pitches)
Pros & Cons for Nonprofits
Elicit
Systematic research tool for evidence synthesis
Strengths
- Research-grade accuracy: 94-99% data extraction accuracy matches manual human coding—critical for grant proposals and evidence synthesis
- Systematic review capabilities: Custom extraction columns, bulk processing, and export options specifically designed for literature reviews and meta-analyses
- Time savings for research work: Reduce 40-hour literature reviews to 8 hours while maintaining scientific rigor—$1,600+ value per major grant
- Integration with research workflows: Zotero sync, BibTeX/RIS export, CSV data tables, and API access (Pro) for seamless workflow integration
- Study design filters: Filter by RCT, meta-analysis, cohort study, etc.—find exactly the evidence quality you need for grants
- Templates and tutorials: Pre-built extraction templates for common research questions help you start systematicreviews in minutes
Limitations
- ⚠Higher cost: $12/month Plus tier (vs Consensus $8.99) may strain tight budgets, though ROI often justifies cost for regular research
- ⚠Steeper learning curve: Understanding extraction workflows, custom columns, and data interpretation takes 1-2 weeks vs Consensus's 3-5 days
- ⚠Overkill for quick questions: If you just need "Does X work?"—not effect sizes and sample characteristics—Elicit's power is unnecessary
- ⚠No visual consensus indicators: Lacks Consensus's Meter showing study agreement—harder to quickly assess scientific consensus
- ⚠Smaller database: 125M papers vs Consensus's 200M+ (though quality of coverage is excellent for intervention research)
- ⚠No nonprofit discount: Pricing same for nonprofits and businesses (though already affordable at $12/month)
Consensus
Rapid research synthesis tool for quick insights
Strengths
- Most affordable: $8.99/month (25% cheaper than Elicit) makes research accessible to smallest nonprofits with tightest budgets
- Fastest to insight: Get synthesized answers in 15-30 minutes vs hours of reading—perfect for time-sensitive questions and board meetings
- Consensus Meter visualization: Instantly see if research supports your question (75% Yes, 20% No)—unique visual aid for presenting to stakeholders
- GPT-4 summaries: Best-in-class narrative synthesis turns complex research into clear, actionable insights for reports and presentations
- Easiest learning curve: Google-like interface feels familiar—anyone on team can use it with 30 minutes training
- Largest database: 200M+ papers provide broadest coverage across disciplines and topics
Limitations
- ⚠Not research-grade: Cannot extract structured data for systematic reviews or meta-analyses—unsuitable for rigorous grant evidence tables
- ⚠Limited export options: Can export citations but not data tables—manual copy-paste required for most nonprofit uses
- ⚠No integrations: No Zotero sync, no API, no workflow automation—works in isolation from other research tools
- ⚠Summary-dependent: Relies on GPT-4 interpretation—can't verify claims by reviewing raw data extraction like Elicit
- ⚠Less granular filtering: Can't filter by study design (RCT vs observational) or extract specific methodological details
- ⚠No nonprofit discount: Same pricing for nonprofits and businesses (though already quite affordable)
Decision Framework: 5 Key Questions
1. What type of research do you need?
Choose Elicit if:
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, evidence synthesis tables for grants, research-grade literature reviews
Choose Consensus if:
Quick research questions, background for blog posts, board presentations, program planning discussions, scanning for supporting evidence
2. How much time do you have?
Choose Elicit if:
You have 4-8 hours for thorough research. Investment pays off for major grants ($50K+) where evidence quality affects success rate
Choose Consensus if:
You need answers in 15-30 minutes. Perfect for last-minute board questions, quick fact-checking, or rapid background research
3. What's your monthly research budget?
Choose Elicit if:
You can invest $12-49/month and research 2-4+ times monthly. ROI justifies cost for organizations pursuing competitive grants
Choose Consensus if:
Budget is tight ($8.99/month max) or research is occasional (1-2x/month). Free tier may suffice for very occasional use
4. Who will be using this tool?
Choose Elicit if:
Grant writers, research staff, or program directors comfortable with data extraction and systematic review methodologies
Choose Consensus if:
Entire team needs access (ED, communications, program staff). Anyone can use Consensus with minimal training
5. How will you use the research output?
Choose Elicit if:
Evidence tables for grant proposals, systematic literature reviews for reports, structured data for analysis, integration with Zotero/citation managers
Choose Consensus if:
Quick citations for blog posts, talking points for board meetings, background for proposals, visual Consensus Meter for presentations
Can't Decide? Consider Both
Some nonprofits use both tools for different purposes: Consensus Premium ($8.99/month) for quick team research + Elicit Plus ($12/month) for grant writers. Total cost: $21.88/month for comprehensive research capabilities.
Or start with Consensus free tier to test the concept of AI research tools, then upgrade to Elicit if you find yourself needing systematic reviews.
Still Deciding Between Elicit and Consensus?
Book a free consultation and we'll help you evaluate which AI research tool best fits your nonprofit's evidence needs, research capacity, and budget constraints.