ASReview vs INRA

ASReview—Visit INRA5.8Visit

ASReview #6 in Literature Review Software —/10 Free plan Free plan✓ 3 of 5 features Visit ASReview

vs

Higher score INRA #7 in Literature Review Software 5.8/10 Free plan · paid from $7.50/user/mo (annual) Free plan✓ 1 of 5 features Visit INRA

• ASReview fits best

  Open-source AI-assisted screening

• INRA fits best

  AI-assisted reviews with source verification

Advertiser disclosure: iTechGuides is reader-supported. We may earn a commission when you click some links. It never changes our verdict. How we rank.

Side by side

Feature	ASReview —/10 Visit ↗	INRA 5.8/10 Visit ↗
At a glance
Editor score	—	5.8
Ranking	#6 in Literature Review Software	#7 in Literature Review Software
Best for	Open-source AI-assisted screening	AI-assisted reviews with source verification
Pricing model	Free	Free plan + paid
Starting price	Not published	$7.5/user/mo
Free plan	✓	✓
Free trial	—	—
Deployment	Cloud, Self-hosted, Desktop, Browser extension	Cloud
Platforms	Web, Windows, macOS, Linux	Web
Support	Email, Community, Docs	Email
Compliance	GDPR	GDPR
Integrations	11 integrations	8 integrations
Built for	Solo, Small business, Mid-market, Enterprise	Solo, Small business, Enterprise
Features ASReview 3/5 · INRA 1/5
Screening workflow	✓	✓
Full-text management	—	Not published
Systematic review tools	✓ (best)	Not published
Collaboration	✓ (best)	Not published
Evidence mapping	Not published	Not published
Specs
Discovery tools	Recommendations	Not published
Citation import limit	Not published	Not published
Our review
Pros	Active learning prioritizes records from screening decisions Imports CSV, TSV, XLSX, and RIS datasets Supports collaboration, benchmarking, and duplicate hiding	Citation-backed reviews with inline source inspection Full systematic review workflow, including screening and extraction Zotero, Mendeley, PubMed, OpenAlex, and other source integrations
Cons	Does not provide full-text access Requires an externally obtained dataset Collaboration requires private server access	Web-only access Teams & Institutions requires at least three seats AI assistance does not replace reviewer inclusion and judgment decisions
Our verdict	ASReview is an open-source machine-learning tool for screening and labeling large collections of textual records. It is designed for researchers conducting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, evidence-based policy work, guideline updates,… Read the review →	INRA is a web-based AI-assisted research platform for researchers, graduate students, clinical teams, policy groups, and R&D teams. It supports academic search, source retrieval, uploaded PDFs, reference-manager sources, evidence… Read the review →

Strengths and trade-offs

• ASReview — where it wins

  • Active learning prioritizes records from screening decisions
  • Imports CSV, TSV, XLSX, and RIS datasets
  • Supports collaboration, benchmarking, and duplicate hiding

  Where it doesn't

  • Does not provide full-text access
  • Requires an externally obtained dataset
  • Collaboration requires private server access

• INRA — where it wins

  • Citation-backed reviews with inline source inspection
  • Full systematic review workflow, including screening and extraction
  • Zotero, Mendeley, PubMed, OpenAlex, and other source integrations

  Where it doesn't

  • Web-only access
  • Teams & Institutions requires at least three seats
  • AI assistance does not replace reviewer inclusion and judgment decisions

• ASReview—/10 · Free plan

  A capable free screening tool for teams that can manage full-text access separately.

  Visit ASReviewFull verdict →
• INRA5.8/10 · Free plan · paid from $7.50/user/mo (annual)

  A broad review workflow with citation inspection, screening, extraction, and PRISMA outputs.

  Visit INRAFull verdict →