Kahubi vs Covidence
Covidence is a standard choice for review teams, especially in health research. It manages screening, full-text review, extraction and risk-of-bias tables with a clear audit trail. Kahubi covers the review from a different angle: AI assistance across search, screening and full texts, and a written review at the end.
What Covidence does well
Credit where it's due: these are real strengths, and for some workflows they are exactly what you need.
- A structured, well-known workflow for screening, full-text review and extraction
- Dual screening with conflict tracking and a full record of votes
- Customisable extraction forms and risk-of-bias tables
- Many universities and Cochrane groups already use it
Where Kahubi differs
The search is part of the flow
In Kahubi you frame the question, generate search strings and run the search inside the same flow, so the identification numbers and the screening log stay together.
AI that reads the full texts
Kahubi suggests screening decisions with reasons and, once papers are included, the agent reads the full texts to answer extraction questions with the source paper cited. You check and confirm, but you do not start from a blank form.
Analysis and writing included
Statistics on your extracted data and a written review following PRISMA, MOOSE or Cochrane reporting standards, as a LaTeX or Word document in your citation style.
Beyond reviews
The same workspace handles your other studies: interviews transcribed in the EU, survey data, grant applications and manuscripts.
Feature comparison
| Capability | Covidence | Kahubi |
|---|---|---|
| Chats with your full library | No | Yesthe agent reads, searches, and cites your whole library |
| Edits a real LaTeX manuscript (compiled to PDF) | No | YesLaTeX → PDF compile built in, plus .docx and .tex export |
| Systematic review flow with PRISMA support | Partialscreening, extraction, risk of bias and PRISMA diagram; search and write-up elsewhere | Yesdefine → search → screen → written review (PRISMA, MOOSE, Cochrane) |
| Statistics on your CSVs (t-tests, ANOVA, regression…) | No | Yesfrom t-tests to PCA and Cronbach’s alpha, results land in your draft |
| Interview transcription processed in the EU | No | Yesspeaker labels, 99+ languages, EU-based providers |
| Learns your writing voice from your papers | No | Yesa style profile learned from your own publications |
Last reviewed October 2026. Based on each product's public materials. Features change, so verify details on their site. Spotted something out of date? Tell us and we'll fix it.
Choose Covidence if…
You run formal reviews with multiple screeners and structured risk-of-bias assessment, and your institution provides Covidence.
Choose Kahubi if…
You want AI help across search, screening and full texts, plus the analysis and the written review, in one workspace you also use for your other research.
Kahubi pricing
Simple monthly plans, cancel anytime. A real free tier to start with, and predictable monthly cost on every paid plan.
Try Kahubi on a small project
For a single ongoing study
For active researchers
For labs and heavy users
Kahubi vs Covidence: common questions
Should I use Kahubi or Covidence for a Cochrane review?
Does Kahubi do data extraction?
Can I move references between Covidence and Kahubi?
Try the Kahubi side of the comparison
Sign up free, import your library in minutes, and run one real task (a screening round, an analysis, a draft) before you decide.