EVERYTHING XIAOMI
Get listed
Side by side

ASReview vs RevMan

ASReview logo

ASReview

7.7#1 in ai literature review softwareFree plan
Free planWebAPILinuxmacOS
Visit

RevMan

7.8#1 in systematic review softwareFrom £80 a year
Free planWebLinuxmacOSWindows
Visit

What both publish

FactASReviewRevMan
APIASReview documentation includes a Python API, and the institutional page also mentions a REST API and CLI for automated workflows.Cochrane documents Review Document, ReviewDB and Group APIs, including a REST ReviewDB endpoint at api.cochrane.org.
HeadquartersUtrecht, NetherlandsLondon, United Kingdom
IntegrationsThe site describes compatibility with EndNote, PubMed, and other reference managers, and says RIS files can be imported and exported.RevMan can import study data and references from Covidence, and RIS reference imports can use data from Crossref, PubMed, or CRS.
Intended usersThe site presents ASReview for screeners, information specialists, data scientists, developers, institutions, and students.RevMan supports diagnostic test accuracy, intervention, methodology, overview, prognosis, qualitative, and flexible review types.
PurposeASReview uses AI-aided active learning to prioritize records for systematic review screening while keeping a human screener in the decision loop.RevMan is Cochrane’s software for producing transparent systematic reviews, guiding authors from structured data entry and analysis through result visualization.

ASReview plans

  • ASReview LABFree
  • Free and open-source ASReview LABFree

RevMan plans

  • Practice reviewFree
  • Cochrane author accessFree
  • Individual student annual subscription£80 a year
  • Student£80 a year
  • Academic£100 a year
  • Individual academic annual subscription£100 a year

Pick ASReview if…

ASReview is for screeners, information specialists, data scientists, developers, institutions, and students involved in systematic reviews. Its team screening and automation options may suit organizational workflows.

Pick RevMan if…

RevMan suits authors preparing systematic reviews across its listed review types, including people working collaboratively on analysis and writing. The free practice option may suit someone who can work within its deletion, export, and single-user limits.

Charts they share