Compare
Lewsearch vs Minds
Minds (getminds.ai) publishes an agreement range against historical human panels: 80 to 95 percent on its comparison-hub post, and 85 to 95 percent on its consumer-insights FAQ. Its methodology page says it does not publish one universal accuracy percentage. Lewsearch publishes mean absolute error against named public polls. Those units do not convert. Minds also publishes a price list. Use the rubric.
What each site actually says
Minds describes itself as a synthetic market research platform for AI personas (“Minds”), reusable audiences, interviews, qualitative exploration, and directional questionnaires. Its consumer-insights FAQ, dated June 19, 2026 on the page we fetched, states 85% to 95% agreement with traditional physical panels and names Kantar, the US Census Bureau, BEA, CDC, Eurostat, and Destatis as validation references. The same FAQ says Minds is not suitable for political polling, clinical trials, or precise price-point elasticity research. Its methodology page (updated July 31, 2026 in the suggested citation) says a single accuracy percentage would hide important differences and that the page does not publish a universal Minds accuracy claim. Both statements are on Minds' own site. This page does not pick a winner between them.
Lewsearch publishes one pooled production figure. 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 scored file and 5-fold cross-validation method are on methodology. Coverage is on coverage (27 live panels · U.S. national · 4 census regions (32 audiences)).
Worked example: one unit, one n
On the UT/Texas Politics Project approval block (18 questions, 5-fold CV), Lewsearch's calibrated MAE is 3.43%. That cell has a denominator. Minds' FAQ range is an average agreement band on consumer preferences, language alignment, and objection mapping. It does not publish a pooled MAE against Pew, Gallup, UT/TPP, or PPIC with a scored-question count. If your procurement packet needs that cell, it is filled on one side and stated as a range (or declined as a universal claim) on the other.
| Rubric | Lewsearch | Minds (per getminds.ai) |
|---|---|---|
| Published error / accuracy unit | 7.47% MAE on 404 ex-electoral of 460 questions | 80–95% (comparison hub) and 85–95% (FAQ) agreement. Methodology page: no universal percentage |
| Named benchmarks | Pew, Gallup, UT/Texas Politics Project, PPIC, election canvass | FAQ names Kantar, US Census Bureau, BEA, CDC, Eurostat, Destatis |
| n disclosed | 460 scored questions; per-panel n on /methodology | FAQ cites simulations of up to 10,000 answers. No public-poll scored-question count |
| Public pricing | Yes, on /pricing | Yes: Free, Individual €39/$39, Team €79/$79 per seat, Enterprise custom |
| Access model | Self-serve study plus demo | Self-serve signup plus enterprise demo |
| Stated boundary on their site | Not a replacement for probabilistic human sampling | FAQ: not for political polling, clinical trials, or precise price elasticity |
How to use the table
Minds is a persona-and-audience product with a public price list and a published agreement range that its own methodology page refuses to treat as universal. Lewsearch is a tabulated U.S. panel with a public-poll MAE file. If you need a scored question count against Pew or UT/TPP, that cell is on one side. If you need EU-hosted persona studies with a printed euro price, ask Minds. Do not average 90% agreement with 7.47% MAE.
Sources
Competitor cells cite Minds' own pages, fetched August 22, 2026. Lewsearch cells cite /methodology and /pricing.
FAQ
- What accuracy number does Minds publish?
- Per Minds' own FAQ page, an average of 85% to 95% agreement with traditional physical panels on consumer preferences, language alignment, and objection mapping. Per its synthetic-respondents comparison hub, 80 to 95 percent against historical human-panel data. Its methodology page says it does not claim one universal percentage.
- What accuracy number 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). Texas is 4.88% ex-electoral. The pre-registered held-out set is 9.97% ex-electoral.
- Does Minds publish pricing?
- Yes, on getminds.ai/pricing. Free: 3 Panel answers a month. Individual: €39 / $39 a month for 500 synthetic responses. Team: €79 / $79 per seat a month for 4,000 responses per seat, 2-seat minimum. Enterprise: custom.
- Can I treat 85 to 95 percent agreement as 7.47% MAE?
- No. Agreement percent and mean absolute error answer different questions. Do not translate one into the other.
Check the work
Related comparisons
Canonical: https://lewsearch.com/compare/lewsearch-vs-minds