Xapien vs Undermind
Plans, free access, limits and intended use side by side, taken from each vendor’s own pages. No score and no winner: the facts show where the two differ.
Change tools
AI due diligence reports on people and companies, sold by annual report volume
Deep literature search that reports its own coverage
- Free access
- Xapien: No free tier
- Undermind: Free access
- Paid from
- Xapien: No fixed price listed
- Undermind: USD 75 per month
- Plans listed
- Xapien: 4
- Undermind: 6
- Public API
- Xapien: Not confirmed
- Undermind: Not confirmed
Where Xapien and Undermind differ
- AccessXapien has no free tier, while Undermind offers free access.
- Pricing checkPrices not confirmed for Xapien; prices confirmed for Undermind.
- PlansXapien lists 4 plans and Undermind lists 6.
Head to head
Each value from the tool’s profile and the vendor’s own pages
| Xapien | Fact | Undermind |
|---|---|---|
| Access and price | ||
| No free tier | Free accessDiffers | Free access availableFree · USD 0 |
| No fixed price listed | Lowest listed paid plan | USD 75 per monthPro (Industry) · or $60 per month billed annually |
| No public prices; 12-month plans from 250 reports a year | Pricing model | Free plan; Pro from $16 a month billed annually |
| 4 | Plans listedDiffers | 6 |
| Not confirmed | Public API | Not confirmed |
| Not confirmed | Card to start | Not confirmed |
| Not confirmed | Open source | Not confirmed |
| What it is for | ||
| Compliance, legal and fundraising teams that vet many third parties | Built for | Finding hard-to-locate papers on a specific research question |
| Research & sources | CategorySame | Research & sources |
| Platforms |
|
| Not listed | Works with |
|
| How current | ||
| Profile sources checked | ||
| Prices not confirmed · Oct 11, 2026 | Pricing checkDiffers | Prices confirmed · Oct 11, 2026 |
Official source check for both tools. No hands-on testing and no score: “Differs” marks a documented difference, not a better tool.
Plans and prices
Xapien
Prices not confirmed · Oct 11, 2026- BaseNot published; 12-month plan
- ProNot published; 12-month plan
- EnterpriseNot published; 12-month plan
- Not-for-profitNot published
Undermind
Prices confirmed · Oct 11, 2026- FreeUSD 0
- Pro (Academic)USD 20 per monthor $16 per month billed annually
- Pro (Industry)USD 75 per monthor $60 per month billed annually
- Team (Academic)USD 18.70 per person per monthor $15 per person per month billed annually
- Team (Industry)USD 75 per person per monthor $60 per person per month billed annually
Show 1 more plan
- EnterpriseCustom
Strengths and limits
Xapien
Strengths
- Sources down to the sentence: The FAQ and the how-it-works page say every statement in a report traces back to the page it came from, so a reviewer can judge each source.
- Built for name collisions: Persona-based resolution is meant to keep people with the same name apart, which the FAQ names as the main cause of false positives.
- Screening included: The FAQ states sanctions, PEP and watchlist screening is part of the subscription rather than a separate purchase.
Limits to plan around
- No public prices: The plans page lists only report volumes and a “Discuss pricing” link; the FAQ says prices scale with usage and are quoted by the sales team.
- Annual commitment: Every plan shown is a 12-month plan, and we found no free plan or self-serve trial; the way to evaluate it is a 30-minute demo.
- Pages disagree: Pro starts at 650 reports a year on the plans page and 600 on the platform page, and the two pages list different features per plan.
Undermind
Strengths
- Free plan with agent access: The pricing section lists agent connections and shared workspaces at $0, with abstracts and metadata searched.
- Coverage is reported: The provider says the report summary states when a search has probably not found everything, so you can extend it.
- Full-text search on Pro: The FAQ says Pro adds search of the full texts of nearly all open-access and preprint papers.
Limits to plan around
- Unnumbered limits: Free has standard rate limits and Pro 10x higher limits, but no page gives the base numbers.
- Single source database: Search draws on Semantic Scholar; the FAQ says a specific paper may not be in it.
- No refunds: The refund policy calls charges non-refundable once a billing period has begun, except where required by law.
See both products
Start from your task, not from a winner.
Run both tools on the same real task, then compare the result, how much editing it needs and how fast it uses your plan’s allowance.
How we reviewChange this pair
Choose tools
Choose two tools below. You can replace either selection at any time.
Audio & voice
Automation
Coding
Data & spreadsheets
Images & design
Presentations
Research & sources
Video & editing
Website builders
Writing & content
Comparing tools from different categories is fine, and often useful — a writing assistant and a research tool solve different halves of the same job. The table will show you exactly where they diverge.
Questions about comparing tools
How does the comparison work?
Add two tools to the comparison tray from any tool card, then open this page. The table pulls each tool's verified plan details, platforms, strengths and limits from its profile, so both columns carry the same kind of evidence, with a separate source-check date for each tool.
Do you declare a winner?
No. The table sets two tools against each other on documented facts, not on a score. Which one wins depends on your task, your budget and your usage volume — three things we cannot see from here.
Why are some cells empty or marked unverified?
Because we could not confirm that detail on the vendor's own pages. Rather than filling the gap with a figure from elsewhere, we mark it and say why on the tool's profile.
Can I compare more than two tools?
Not at once. Two columns keep the differences readable and force a real decision. Remove either selected tool to replace it, or clear both to start a new pair.
Every figure in the table above comes from the linked profile, where the source and the verification date are listed. Browse all tools or read the editorial policy.