GoNoGo vs Preuve AI
We are one of the two, so here is the rule we held ourselves to: the section on when to pick Preuve AI is written to be useful to you, not to be survivable for us.
Short answer
GoNoGo or Preuve AI?
Preuve AI answers in from 60 seconds to several minutes from a written description, for $29 report, free 60-second scan. GoNoGo asks for a 15-minute conversation first, then runs six research stages and scores the result against fixed thresholds. Speed against input depth, and the right answer depends on how decided you already are.
The split in four lines
- Screening several ideas: Preuve AI
- One idea you are about to build: GoNoGo
- Needing a document for someone else: compare citation counts, DimeADozen leads there
- Wanting your own reasoning interrogated rather than summarised: GoNoGo
Side by side
Price and speed first, then the axes that actually decide which answer you get. Their column is read off their own product page on 16 August 2026.
| Preuve AI | GoNoGo | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $29 report, free 60-second scan | Free tier, then $9.99-19.99 per project |
| Time to answer | From 60 seconds to several minutes | 15 minutes of conversation, then the research runs |
| How your idea gets in | "Describe your startup idea in a sentence or two" | A 15-minute spoken interview with a video avatar that asks follow-ups |
| How much of your reasoning reaches the research | One or two sentences | 13 fields of 14 filled from the conversation: median 1,616 characters of your own words against 163 from a single idea field, measured across 26 projects |
| What else you can bring | Not mentioned | Drop files into the session while you talk: text, CSV, spreadsheets, PDFs, images. Each upload is then graded before it is used, with its category, a reliability tier, the limitations of that kind of evidence and the sample size it represents, so a survey of nine friends is not treated as market data |
| Synthetic audience | Not mentioned | A panel built from real posts across 11 platforms, calibrated by holding back part of the data and checking the personas against it |
| What checks the output | 10 agents over 60+ live sources with a cross-validator on top | Key claims re-checked by three independent models from three vendors (Anthropic, Mistral, Amazon); disagreement is recorded by name rather than averaged away |
| How the verdict is formed | Score, published as deliberately harsh: 17.5% of ideas reach 70+ across 7,000+ analysed | Computed: five researched dimensions scored against fixed thresholds, verdict is a threshold on the sum (70+ go, 50+ pivot) |
| What you get afterwards | Founder Report: verdict, founder fit, risk scoring, first-100-customers plan, 15-competitor map, three pivots, business plan. Monitoring from $19/mo | 21 documents from three agents. Alex: 15, including the validation report, market intelligence, problem dossier, investor pitch deck guide, pitch one-pager, go-to-market playbook, customer economics and the focus-group interviews. Sam: what to build, on what, in what order, and what it costs. Maya: brand book, design system, logo, MVP builder prompt, and a landing page you can publish to start collecting leads |
| After the verdict | Radar monitoring from $19/mo | A daily digest built for your project specifically: news in your niche, your named competitors, and it is aimed at your still-unproven assumptions and the concerns your focus group raised, rather than at the market in general |
| Contact with real humans | None | Reality Check: a real survey of the real people your landing page collected, scored against what the synthetic panel predicted |
The axis Preuve AI does not have: a conversation
Every tool in this category, Preuve AI included, starts from something you typed. Ours starts from something you said, to a video avatar that asks the next question based on your last answer, in any of 21 languages, for about half an hour.
It is full duplex, which matters more than it sounds: you can cut in mid-sentence and it stops and listens rather than talking over you, and it does not abandon a thought because you paused to think. That is the difference between an interview and a form read aloud.
Why bother. In a randomised experiment on 1,001 people, spoken answers ran 2.5 times longer than typed ones to the same question (Höhne, 2024, Social Science Computer Review 42(4)). On our side, 13 of 34 projects were carried through all four phases, so people do not abandon it at minute two.
And what we are not claiming, because the evidence goes the other way: that speaking makes people more honest, or that a realistic avatar makes them more open. Both have been tested and both failed. The case for voice is volume of context, not candour.
Pick Preuve AI
You want a cited document for a specific decision and you value source-checking above input depth. On the citation axis they are the closest thing to what we would use ourselves.
- Live research rather than a model recalling the market from memory
- A cross-validator that fact-checks claims before they reach you
- Publishes a harshness benchmark: on their July 2026 numbers only 17.5% of ideas scored 70 or above
Pick GoNoGo
You want the same rigour applied to your own reasoning. We check key claims with three independent models from Anthropic, Mistral and Amazon and record disagreement by name instead of averaging it away.
- The interview pushes back while you are still describing the idea
- Claims are checked by three independent models and disagreement is recorded by name
- The verdict moves when the evidence moves, not when the model is in a better mood
What neither of us does
Neither tool talks to your actual customers. Both are ways to think faster before you go outside, and both are useless against the most common cause of death, which is the founder losing interest in month four.
Common questions
Is GoNoGo better than Preuve AI?
Not in general, and the honest answer depends on one thing: how much you have already decided. You want a cited document for a specific decision and you value source-checking above input depth. On the citation axis they are the closest thing to what we would use ourselves. If instead you have picked one idea and are about to spend months on it, the depth of the input starts to matter more than the speed of the output, and that is the case we built for.
How much does each cost?
Preuve AI: $29 report, free 60-second scan (read off their own page on 16 August 2026). GoNoGo: a free tier, then $9.99-19.99 per project. Neither is a subscription you have to cancel.
What does GoNoGo do that Preuve AI does not?
It interviews you first. A 15-minute conversation puts a median of 1,616 characters of the founder's own words into the research against 163 from a single idea field, measured across 26 projects. Then six research stages run on that, and the verdict is computed against fixed thresholds rather than composed as an opinion.
What does Preuve AI do that GoNoGo does not?
Live research rather than a model recalling the market from memory. A cross-validator that fact-checks claims before they reach you. Publishes a harshness benchmark: on their July 2026 numbers only 17.5% of ideas scored 70 or above.