Covidence alternative
SysRevAI vs Covidence: the whole workflow, without paying per review
Covidence is a mature, widely used platform. SysRevAI covers the same stages, adds RoB 2, ROBINS-I and GRADE, and lets you keep the data on your own server, open source.
In 30 seconds
Cost: €0 for up to 10 users, with no limit on reviews. Covidence costs $339 per review per year.
Privacy and GDPR: the data stays on your server. Covidence stores it in Australia, outside the European Economic Area.
More quality tools: RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa, JBI and GRADE, included.
Open source: AGPL-3.0, auditable, with no vendor lock-in.
Detailed comparison
Stage by stage, what each one includes. Covidence’s prices are the published ones, in dollars.
| Feature | SysRevAI | Covidence |
|---|---|---|
| Model and cost | ||
| Licence | Yes: Open source, AGPL-3.0 | No: Proprietary |
| Where it runs | Yes: On your server, or hosted by us | No: Only in Covidence’s cloud |
| Price | Yes: €0 for up to 10 users; Institution tailored | Partial: $339 per review per year; $907 for 3 reviews; institutions on request |
| Reviews | Yes: Unlimited | Partial: Depends on the plan |
| Collaborators | Yes: Up to 10 (Community); unlimited (Institution) | Yes: Unlimited |
| Trial | Yes: 30 days on our server, up to 6 people | Partial: Up to 500 records |
| Privacy and security | ||
| Where the data is stored | Yes: On your server; you decide its location and backups | Partial: Servers in Australia, outside the European Economic Area |
| AI and data | Yes: Optional, with your key; only the text of each action is sent | Partial: Built into the service |
| Auditable code | Yes: Yes, it is public | No: No |
| Backups and encryption | Yes: Automatic backups and full export; HTTPS on your server | Yes: SSL encryption and backups |
| Search and import | ||
| Built-in search | Yes: PubMed, OpenAlex, CrossRef and Europe PMC at once | Not listed |
| Living reviews | Yes: Saved searches that run again on their own | Not listed |
| Import | Yes: RIS, BibTeX, PubMed, CSV and others | Yes: RIS, CSV, PubMed XML, EndNote and Zotero |
| Duplicates | Yes: Three passes (DOI/PMID, title, similarity) and an AI check | Yes: Automatic detection |
| Screening | ||
| Modes | Yes: Blind, double blind, double blind with a third reviewer, and pilot | Yes: Independent dual review with conflicts |
| Sharing the work | Yes: References assigned per reviewer | Not listed |
| AI help | Yes: Prioritises the queue and pre-screens with a threshold; every decision is traceable | Yes: Randomised trial classifier |
| On your phone | Yes: Native iOS and Android apps, offline too | Yes: Title and abstract screening |
| Full text | ||
| Getting the PDFs | Yes: Automatic retrieval from 9 legal open-access sources | Partial: Manual upload |
| Full-text screening | Yes: PDF next to the criteria, mandatory reason and AI proposal | Yes: With exclusion reasons |
| Extraction and quality | ||
| Data extraction | Yes: Templates with the PDF alongside and an AI-filled draft | Yes: Customisable templates and AI suggestions |
| Risk of bias | Yes: RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle-Ottawa and JBI | Partial: Cochrane RoB 1 by default, editable template |
| Synthesis, reports and team | ||
| PRISMA 2020 | Yes: Automatic, as editable SVG | Yes: Diagram export |
| GRADE | Yes: Summary of findings table in Word and CSV | Not listed |
| Meta-analysis and RevMan | Yes: CSV for metafor or Stata and export to RevMan 5 | Yes: Export to RevMan Web and RevMan 5 |
| Critical article analysis | Yes: AI critical report (five axes, devil’s advocate) and help writing the manuscript with the Copilot | Not listed |
| AI-use statement | Yes: Word document to attach to the publication | Not listed |
| API | Yes: REST API in every edition | Not listed |
| Support | Yes: Tickets from inside the platform, Community included; Institution includes installation on the organisation’s servers | Yes: Online; 24/7 for institutions |
included · partial or depends on the plan · not available · “Not listed”: not found in Covidence’s public documentation.
When Covidence may be the better choice
We say it plainly, so you can choose well:
- You are doing a Cochrane review: Cochrane recommends Covidence, its authors have access to it and it integrates with RevMan Web.
- You do not want to run a server and your institution already pays for the licence.
SysRevAI also exports to RevMan 5 and a CSV for meta-analysis, and the hosted plan saves you installing anything.
Move from Covidence to SysRevAI in three steps
- In Covidence, export each stage’s references as RIS or CSV.
- In SysRevAI, create the review and import them: duplicates are detected automatically.
- Invite the team and carry on: full text, extraction, risk of bias and GRADE.
Frequently asked questions
How much do I save compared with Covidence?
Covidence costs $339 per review per year, or $907 for three reviews. SysRevAI Community is free with unlimited reviews. If you use AI, you pay Anthropic directly, with a budget you set.
Why does it matter where the data is stored?
A review’s data includes the team’s names and e-mails and, sometimes, unpublished information. If it stays on your institution’s server, there is no international transfer to justify to your data protection officer.
Who helps me install it?
Community installs with a web wizard and has ticket support from inside the platform. The Institution edition includes help installing SysRevAI on the organisation’s servers.
Try SysRevAI for 30 days, nothing to install
Create an account, import your Covidence export and compare for yourself.
Sources: covidence.org/pricing, support.covidence.org and university library guides on where the data is stored, checked on 28 October 2026. Third-party prices and features may change; if you spot outdated data, write to us and we will fix it. Covidence is a trademark of its owners. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by Covidence.