A systematic review has distinct stages, and no single tool is best at all of them. This guide maps AI tools to the stage where each one earns its place, with prices taken from each vendor’s own page.
Last checked: 2026-10-29. Every competitor fact links to a source listed at the end. Where we could not find a fact on the vendor’s own page, we left it out.
The short answer
| Stage | Good fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Search and scoping | Elicit, Phở Chat | Natural-language search over large paper sets; Phở searches PubMed, OpenAlex, arXiv, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Title and abstract screening, team | Covidence, Rayyan | Built for several reviewers, conflicts and an audit trail [2][3] |
| Title and abstract screening, AI prioritised | ASReview, Elicit | Active-learning ranking (ASReview); dedicated AI screening workflow (Elicit) [1][5] |
| Focused AI screening with reasons | Phở Chat | Up to 60 records per run, a reason for every verdict, unsure records kept for you |
| Data extraction | Elicit, DistillerSR | Custom extractions and tables (Elicit); configurable review workflow (DistillerSR) [1][4] |
| Reporting and handover | Covidence, Phở Chat | Exports to reference managers; Phở exports Word, RIS and CSV |
Elicit
Elicit’s Pro plan, listed at $49 per user per month billed as $588 a year, includes a dedicated systematic review workflow that can screen 5,000 papers, custom extractions from uploaded papers and up to 20 table columns. Enterprise raises this to 40,000 papers and 40 columns and states PRISMA-grade screening and extraction accuracy. The free Basic plan searches more than 138 million papers. [1]
Best for: one platform from search through extraction at scale, if the budget fits.
Covidence
Covidence lists $339 a year for a single review and $907 a year for up to three reviews, each with unlimited collaborators. It imports from EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, RevMan and any tool that exports RIS, CSV or PubMed XML, and supports screening on mobile. [2]
Best for: formal reviews with several reviewers. Many institutions already license it, so check before you pay.
Rayyan
Rayyan’s free plan allows three active reviews with duplicate detection. Paid individual plans add more active reviews, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale risk-of-bias assessment and majority-rule conflict resolution, and institutional licences are available. [3]
Best for: team screening on a budget, especially for students.
DistillerSR
DistillerSR describes an AI-enabled workflow that manages the whole review lifecycle, with modules and API integrations. Its student pricing page lists $19.95 per month for a student subscription; corporate pricing is on request. [4]
Best for: organisations that need a configurable, audited review process across many projects.
ASReview
ASReview is free, open-source screening software coordinated at Utrecht University. It uses active learning to show the most likely relevant records first, and lets you simulate and benchmark performance before you rely on it. It states it can reduce screening workload by 95 percent, which is its own figure. [5]
Best for: transparent, reproducible screening at no cost, if you can run it yourself.
Phở Chat
Phở Chat covers search, focused screening and handover in one workspace. You search PubMed, OpenAlex, arXiv, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov; screening runs take up to 60 records and give a reason tied to your criteria for each verdict. When the AI is unsure, the record stays undecided for you instead of being excluded. You can export the results to Word or RIS. Answers cite real PubMed or DOI sources, and a claim the sources do not support is labelled unverified rather than given an invented citation.
You can also bring your own OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, xAI or OpenRouter key and pay the provider directly, with no markup. The Free plan costs nothing; Pro, which runs on your own model key, is $10 per month or $99 per year.
Best for: a focused question, a scoping pass or a first screen where you want reasons and a file at the end. Not the best fit for: a multi-reviewer review of thousands of records, where Covidence, Rayyan or Elicit’s larger plans are built for the job.
A workflow that combines them
- Scope the question and run searches in Elicit or Phở Chat to see what the literature looks like.
- Export records as RIS and import them into Covidence or Rayyan if several people will screen.
- Use ASReview or an AI screening workflow to put likely includes first, and keep a human decision on every record.
- Extract data with structured tables, then report with a PRISMA flow diagram.
Whatever the tools, keep the reasons for each decision. They are what makes a review reproducible.
Try it: run a focused screening pass on your own question at pho.chat. It is free to start. For tool-by-tool detail, see Elicit alternatives in 2026 and Phở Chat vs Consensus vs SciSpace.
Sources
- Elicit, Pricing. https://elicit.com/pricing (checked 2026-10-29)
- Covidence, Pricing. https://www.covidence.org/pricing/ (checked 2026-10-29)
- Rayyan, Pricing. https://www.rayyan.ai/pricing ; Plans overview. https://help.rayyan.ai/hc/en-us/articles/46067741714321-Rayyan-Plans-Overview (checked 2026-10-29)
- DistillerSR, Student and academic pricing. https://www.distillersr.com/pricing/student-pricing ; Corporate and government pricing. https://www.distillersr.com/pricing/corporate-and-government-pricing (checked 2026-10-29)
- ASReview, Home and product. https://asreview.nl/ ; https://asreview.nl/product/ (checked 2026-10-29)