They give you AI answers. We give you AI answers you can verify. Every insight is checked by a second AI from a different vendor. Claude writes the insight and ChatGPT audits it, so you see both perspectives before any number reaches you. It's the one thing 0 of 12 competitors have.
14-day free trial, no card required.
Single-model AI is one opinion. The Confidence Check gives you two, from rival vendors with different training data, different reasoning, and different blind spots. After Askalytics' first AI writes an insight, a second model from a different provider reads the same data and audits every citation and claim. The result lands on your screen as a verdict (Confirmed, Strengthened, Weakened, or Contradicted) alongside the original narrative. No other AI analytics tool does this. It's the architectural reason an Askalytics insight is something you can forward to your board.
The primary model reads your nightly-refreshed warehouse, runs the queries it needs, and writes the narrative (title, key finding, and recommendations) with every claim cited inline to the exact query that produced it.
ChatGPT, a model from a rival provider (OpenAI), re-reads the same data and the narrative Claude wrote. It checks the citations and reasoning against that data and flags any claim it cannot support. Plain code checks have already redone the math.
You see one of four verdicts: Confirmed (verifier agrees), Strengthened (verifier raised confidence on stronger evidence), Weakened (verifier disagreed with some specifics), or Contradicted (verifier found material issues). Both perspectives ship with the insight, so you read the original and the audit notes.
The architecture isn't decoration. It's the difference between a tool you trust and a tool you double-check.
When one AI confidently states a wrong number, you have no second opinion to catch it. The Confidence Check is the second opinion. Two models from rival labs are unlikely to fabricate the same wrong answer the same way, because their training data, model families, and failure modes are genuinely different. If they agree, that's signal. If they disagree, you see the disagreement and can decide.
For marketing leaders who present numbers to a board, an agency reporting to a client, or a founder updating investors, "the AI said so" is not a defensible source. A cross-checked insight with a verifier verdict, a confidence score, and citations to deterministic findings is. Every Askalytics insight ships with a paper trail you could put in front of an auditor.
None of the major AI analytics tools do this. Mixpanel's Spark AI, Heap's AI, and GA4's native AI are all single-model. Most don't even cite their sources. We built cross-provider verification because we believe single-model output is not safe enough for decisions involving real money. The blog covers why.
A real verdict from a real customer insight, run before the writer and checker roles were fixed: the one that opened the Cornishware case study.
Primary model (OpenAI) wrote: "Email-attributed revenue collapsed by 58% versus the prior 90 days, from £116,307 to £48,849."
Confidence Check verdict: WEAKENED · Score −12
Verifier (Anthropic) re-derived the email decline from the same finding set and got 42%, not 58%. The 58% figure compared a non-equivalent baseline window. The corrected number lands at £116,307 → £67,934. That's still a material collapse, but the magnitude is meaningfully smaller than the first model stated.
Verifier: Anthropic Claude | Cost: free
The Bloom & Measure demo property is loaded by default on every free trial account.
Every insight gets one of these four labels, with the verifier's reasoning attached.
The verifier reviewed every claim and the score didn't move materially (delta within −15). The two models agree on the substance. Default state for clean insights.
The verifier found the original narrative under-stated the evidence and raised the confidence score. Rare but high-signal. It usually means the underlying evidence is stronger than the first AI framed it.
The verifier disagreed with one or more specifics, such as a wrong percentage, a baseline mismatch, or an over-claimed recommendation. Confidence drops by 15-30 points. The insight still ships, but with both views visible.
The verifier found material issues that undermine the central claim. Confidence drops more than 30 points and the insight still ships, clearly labeled Contradicted so you can see both views and judge for yourself. Very rare, because the citation pipeline catches most issues earlier.
The cross-check adds a few seconds, usually under ten, to a typical insight run. Insights generate in the background; you receive them by email and in-app when they're ready. The latency is well worth the trust gain, and the verifier work happens in parallel with other post-processing where possible.
You see both. A Weakened or Contradicted verdict ships with the verifier's specific objections inline: what claim was wrong, what the verifier thinks the correct value is, and which finding it cited. The original narrative is preserved so you can read both views and decide. We don't "average" the disagreement into a single muddy answer.
Yes. Every insight has an audit pane showing the primary model's output, the verifier's notes, its verdict, and its score. It's the same evidence pack an internal auditor would want.
Anthropic Claude and OpenAI ChatGPT, each with a fixed role. Claude writes every insight, and ChatGPT verifies it. The pairing is deliberate: rival labs with different training data and architectures are most likely to surface independent failure modes. See our two AI providers page for more on how the roles work.
Email [email protected] and we'll walk you through the audit trail. Growth and above include priority support.
How we ground every figure: each number in an insight ties back to the exact query that produced it. The other half of the architecture.
Learn more →The end-to-end insight pipeline that ties the warehouse queries, narration, and Confidence Check together. 8 analysis categories.
Learn more →Side-by-side against Google Analytics, Mixpanel, Heap, and traditional BI tools. None of them cross-check their AI.
See comparisons →Connect GA4, Search Console, Google Ads, and Microsoft Clarity in a few minutes, plus HubSpot and Mailchimp in beta. Every insight is cross-checked by a second AI before it reaches you.