Compare
Lewsearch vs Ditto
Public research pages previously published under the Ditto name now state that Ditto is FishDog. This page scores fish.dog as the current home of that census-persona product. FishDog's homepage says 340,000 US individuals built from census data and behavioral science. A FishDog-authored market-map post publishes 92% overlap with traditional focus groups across 50+ parallel studies and $50,000 to $75,000 a year. Lewsearch publishes MAE against named public polls. Those units do not convert.
Name first, then the rubric
Buyers still search “Ditto.” The askditto.io research paper we fetched opens with a rebrand notice to FishDog. The current FishDog homepage describes synthetic populations for TestScreen, ThesisLab, and InnovationLab, and says every population is grounded in census data and behavioral science: 340,000 US individuals, recruited rather than invented to order. It says results are validated against external ground truth such as the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index and live prediction markets. It does not publish a pooled MAE against Pew, Gallup, UT/TPP, or PPIC with a scored-question count.
Lewsearch does. 7.47% mean absolute error on 404 ex-electoral questions of a 460-question benchmark vs real polls (Pew, Gallup, UT/Texas Politics Project, PPIC). The file is on methodology. Coverage is on coverage (27 live panels · U.S. national · 4 census regions (32 audiences)).
Worked example: 92% overlap is not 7.47% MAE
FishDog's own market-map article (February 2026, Phillip Gales, co-founder, conflict disclosed on the page) assigns FishDog “92% overlap with traditional focus groups across 50+ parallel studies.” Overlap with a focus group is a qualitative-agreement claim. Lewsearch's 7.47% MAE is the average option-share gap on 404 public-poll items. Do not write 92% as the inverse of 7.47. If you need the raw per-question file, only one of those cells has a public CSV today.
| Rubric | Lewsearch | Ditto / FishDog (per fish.dog) |
|---|---|---|
| Published error rate | 7.47% MAE on 404 ex-electoral of 460 questions | Homepage: benchmarks vs prediction markets and public indices. Market-map post: 92% focus-group overlap, 50+ studies |
| Named benchmarks | Pew, Gallup, UT/Texas Politics Project, PPIC, election canvass | Homepage names University of Michigan consumer sentiment and live prediction markets |
| n disclosed | 460 scored questions; panel pool 650,000 | Homepage: 340,000 US individuals. Market-map post: 300,000+ pre-built personas |
| Public pricing | Yes, on /pricing | Homepage: no price list. Market-map post: $50,000–$75,000/year (author is a FishDog co-founder) |
| Access model | Self-serve study plus demo | Homepage describes partner-led engagements. Market-map post describes self-serve |
A second Ditto URL, not mixed into the table
The askditto.io homepage we fetched on August 22, 2026 presents a licensed food-and-agriculture qualitative platform operated by 6 Seeds Consulting. That page says the product is qualitative, not statistical forecasting, and prints pilots starting at $5,000 and annual access starting at $35,000 a year. Those figures are not entered in the FishDog column above. If that site is the Ditto you were sent, it is a different published offer than the census-persona product now branded FishDog.
Sources
Competitor cells cite pages we fetched on August 22, 2026. Lewsearch cells cite /methodology and /pricing.
FAQ
- Is Ditto still a separate product?
- A methodological paper hosted on askditto.io states "Ditto is now FishDog. Same team, same platform, new name." The current fish.dog homepage does not use the Ditto name. A licensed food-and-agriculture qualitative product also currently lives at askditto.io with different published prices. This page does not mix those SKUs.
- What accuracy number does FishDog publish?
- The fish.dog homepage says populations are benchmarked against prediction markets and public indices, including the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index, and that misses are published with hits. The February 2026 market-map post on fish.dog, written by a FishDog co-founder who discloses the conflict, states 92% overlap with traditional focus groups across 50+ parallel studies. That post is not a scored public-poll MAE file.
- What does Lewsearch publish?
- 7.47% mean absolute error on 404 ex-electoral questions of a 460-question benchmark vs real polls (Pew, Gallup, UT/Texas Politics Project, PPIC). Held-out ex-electoral MAE is 9.97%.
- Does FishDog publish pricing?
- The homepage we fetched does not list a price. The same market-map post lists $50,000–$75,000 a year for unlimited studies. Treat that as a FishDog-authored figure, not an independent rate card.
Check the work
Related comparisons
Canonical: https://lewsearch.com/compare/lewsearch-vs-ditto