Kahubi vs Litmaps
Litmaps is a great way to see a literature: start from a few seed papers and watch the citation network around them, with alerts when new work appears. Kahubi works from the same starting point but in a different shape. The papers become a library the AI can read, screen, analyse and cite in your manuscript.
What Litmaps does well
Credit where it's due: these are real strengths, and for some workflows they are exactly what you need.
- Clear visual maps of how papers cite each other over time
- Discovery from seed papers, so you find work connected to what you already trust
- Alerts when new papers appear in your map (monthly on the free plan, more often on paid plans)
- Friendly for students starting a literature review
Where Kahubi differs
Reading, not only mapping
A map shows which papers connect. Kahubi’s agent reads them: ask how the methods differ, which findings conflict or what a key paper actually claims, and it answers from the full texts with citations.
Field monitoring that feeds your project
Kahubi’s monitor watches your topics, authors and journals and sends digests of new work. Anything relevant goes straight into your library, where it can be screened and cited.
From literature to a written review
Systematic review screening with a PRISMA log, then a draft written from the included papers in your citation style, as a LaTeX or Word document that compiles and keeps version history.
The rest of the study in the same place
Statistics, EU interview transcription, thematic analysis and grant writing sit next to the literature, so you are not exporting and re-importing between tools.
Feature comparison
| Capability | Litmaps | 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 | Partialdiscovery and monitoring; no screening log or written review | 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 Litmaps if…
You want a visual way to explore and monitor a citation network, and you write and analyse elsewhere.
Choose Kahubi if…
You want the literature to turn into answers, a screened review and a manuscript, with analysis and interviews in the same workspace.
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 Litmaps: common questions
Does Kahubi have citation maps like Litmaps?
Can Kahubi alert me to new papers?
How do I bring a Litmaps collection into 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.