| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Continuously monitors and logs application usage across the user's device(s) by hooking into OS-level process/window tracking APIs (likely using accessibility frameworks on macOS/Windows or usage stats APIs on mobile), aggregating raw telemetry into time-series data indexed by app, category, and timestamp. The system normalizes heterogeneous app metadata (app names, bundle IDs, window titles) into a unified taxonomy to enable cross-device pattern analysis.
Unique: Integrates directly with OS-level usage APIs rather than relying on manual logging or browser extensions, enabling passive, always-on tracking without user friction; normalizes app metadata across heterogeneous platforms into a unified taxonomy for cross-device analysis.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than browser-only tools (RescueTime, Toggl) because it captures all app usage including native apps and terminal work, and more passive than manual time-tracking apps because it requires zero user input.
Applies machine learning (likely clustering, anomaly detection, or time-series forecasting models) to the aggregated usage data to identify behavioral patterns such as distraction cycles, peak productivity windows, app-switching frequency, and correlation between app usage and time-of-day or day-of-week. The system generates natural-language insights by mapping detected patterns to a rule-based or LLM-powered recommendation engine that contextualizes findings relative to the user's stated goals.
Unique: Moves beyond simple time-tracking by applying unsupervised learning to detect non-obvious behavioral patterns (e.g., app-switching cascades, productivity windows) and contextualizing them with natural-language explanations; unknown whether insights are rule-based or LLM-generated, but the architecture appears to map detected patterns to a recommendation engine.
vs alternatives: Provides causal insights (why you're distracted) rather than just metrics (how much time), differentiating from basic app timers like Screen Time (iOS) or Digital Wellbeing (Android) which only show usage totals.
Allows users to define recurring or one-time focus blocks (e.g., 'Monday-Friday 9am-12pm', 'during calendar events tagged #deepwork') with automatic enforcement of blocking rules, notification suppression, and do-not-disturb activation. The system integrates with calendar data to automatically detect focus-time-compatible windows and can suggest optimal focus blocks based on detected productivity patterns (e.g., 'you're most productive 10am-12pm, so we recommend a focus block then').
Unique: Combines recurring focus block scheduling with calendar-aware conflict detection and AI-driven suggestions for optimal focus times based on detected productivity patterns; integrates with calendar to automatically adjust focus blocks around meetings.
vs alternatives: More intelligent than static focus modes (iOS Focus, macOS Focus) because it adapts to calendar and suggests optimal times; more practical than manual focus activation because blocks are scheduled and enforced automatically.
Implements OS-level or middleware-based app blocking that prevents execution or foreground access to user-designated distraction apps during specified time windows (e.g., 9am-12pm work blocks). The system likely uses process termination, window-focus interception, or notification suppression depending on OS capabilities; scheduling logic supports recurring patterns (weekdays only, specific hours) and can be triggered manually or by detected behavioral patterns from the AI analysis engine.
Unique: Combines OS-level blocking enforcement with AI-driven pattern detection to suggest blocking rules automatically, rather than requiring users to manually define all rules; scheduling supports both static time windows and dynamic triggers based on detected behavioral patterns.
vs alternatives: More forceful than browser-based blockers (Freedom, Cold Turkey) because it operates at the OS level and can block native apps; more flexible than parental-control solutions because it's designed for self-imposed discipline rather than external enforcement.
Provides a UI for users to define productivity goals (e.g., 'spend <2 hours/day on social media', 'maintain 4 hours of uninterrupted focus work daily') and maps these goals to app categories and time thresholds. The system continuously evaluates actual usage against goal thresholds, generating progress metrics and alerts when users exceed limits; goals can be time-bound (daily, weekly) and support exceptions or grace periods.
Unique: Integrates goal definition with real-time usage tracking and AI-driven insights, allowing goals to be informed by detected behavioral patterns rather than arbitrary user guesses; supports context-aware goal adjustment (different goals for different days/times).
vs alternatives: More integrated than standalone goal-tracking apps because goals are directly tied to actual app usage data and AI insights; more flexible than simple app timers because it supports multi-dimensional goals (time, frequency, context) rather than just duration limits.
Aggregates usage data from multiple devices (phone, tablet, laptop) into a unified dashboard, allowing users to see total screen time across all devices and identify which devices contribute most to distraction. The system synchronizes blocking rules and goals across devices so that a blocking rule defined on desktop automatically applies to mobile, and maintains a consistent app taxonomy across heterogeneous platforms (iOS, Android, macOS, Windows).
Unique: Unifies usage tracking and blocking enforcement across heterogeneous platforms (iOS, Android, macOS, Windows) with a single app taxonomy and synchronized rules, preventing users from circumventing focus by switching devices; requires sophisticated app metadata normalization and cloud sync infrastructure.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-platform tools (iOS Screen Time, Android Digital Wellbeing) because it provides cross-device insights and enforcement; more practical than manual multi-app setup because rules synchronize automatically.
Uses time-series analysis and correlation detection to identify sequences of apps that typically precede distraction episodes (e.g., 'opening Slack → checking email → browsing news' is a common distraction cascade). The system builds a directed graph of app transitions and applies statistical significance testing to identify non-random patterns; results are surfaced as 'distraction triggers' with confidence scores and recommendations to break the chain.
Unique: Applies graph-based correlation analysis to app transition sequences to identify non-obvious distraction triggers, moving beyond simple app-usage metrics to causal chain detection; uses statistical significance testing to filter spurious patterns.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than simple app-blocking because it targets the root cause (the trigger app) rather than blocking all distraction apps indiscriminately; more actionable than generic productivity advice because triggers are derived from the user's actual behavior.
Integrates with external productivity tools (calendar, task managers, email) via APIs or webhooks to contextualize app usage within the user's actual work (e.g., 'you spent 3 hours in Slack during your focused work block scheduled in Outlook'). The system generates actionable suggestions tied to specific workflows, such as 'block Slack during your 2-hour deep work block on Tuesday' or 'schedule a 15-minute email check at 3pm instead of constant checking', and can automatically create calendar blocks or task reminders to implement suggestions.
Unique: Bridges the gap between app usage data and actual work context by integrating with calendar and task systems, enabling suggestions that are tied to specific projects, deadlines, and scheduled work blocks rather than generic productivity advice; can automatically create calendar blocks or task reminders to implement suggestions.
vs alternatives: More contextual than standalone screen-time tools because it understands the user's actual work schedule and priorities; more actionable than generic productivity advice because suggestions are tied to specific calendar events and tasks.
+3 more capabilities
Automatically loads and parses documents from diverse sources (PDFs, Word docs, HTML, Markdown, code files, databases) into a unified in-memory representation using format-specific loaders and node-based document abstractions. Each document is decomposed into Document objects containing metadata, content, and relationships, enabling downstream processing without format-specific handling in application code.
Unique: Provides a unified loader abstraction (BaseReader interface) that normalizes 100+ data source connectors into a single Document/Node API, eliminating format-specific branching logic in application code. Loaders are composable and chainable, allowing sequential transformations (e.g., load → split → extract metadata → embed).
vs alternatives: Broader out-of-the-box loader coverage than LangChain's document loaders and more structured node-based decomposition than raw text splitting, reducing boilerplate for multi-source RAG pipelines.
Splits documents into semantically coherent chunks using multiple strategies (character-based, token-aware, recursive, semantic) with configurable overlap and chunk size. Preserves document hierarchy and metadata through a node tree structure, enabling retrieval systems to maintain context relationships and enable hierarchical re-ranking or parent-document retrieval patterns.
Unique: Implements a node-tree abstraction that preserves document hierarchy and enables parent-document retrieval patterns. Supports multiple splitting strategies (recursive, semantic, code-aware) with pluggable custom splitters, and automatically propagates metadata through the node tree.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than LangChain's text splitters because it preserves hierarchical relationships and supports semantic splitting; better for complex document structures than simple character-based splitting.
Screentime scores higher at 42/100 vs LlamaIndex at 40/100. Screentime also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Processes documents containing mixed content (text, images, tables, code) by extracting and understanding each modality separately, then synthesizing information across modalities. Uses vision models for image understanding, specialized parsers for tables and code, and integrates results into a unified document representation for retrieval and generation.
Unique: Integrates vision models, table parsers, and code extractors into a unified multi-modal document processing pipeline that synthesizes information across modalities. Preserves modality-specific structure (table schemas, code formatting) while enabling cross-modal retrieval and generation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multi-modal support than text-only RAG; built-in vision integration reduces boilerplate for document understanding compared to manual vision API calls.
Enables streaming of LLM responses token-by-token and real-time retrieval updates, allowing applications to display partial results as they become available. Supports streaming from retrieval (progressive document discovery) and generation (token-by-token output) with backpressure handling and cancellation support for responsive user experiences.
Unique: Provides first-class streaming support for both retrieval and generation with automatic backpressure handling and cancellation. Enables progressive result display without custom async/streaming code in application layer.
vs alternatives: More integrated streaming support than manual LLM API streaming; built-in retrieval streaming and backpressure handling reduce complexity compared to custom streaming implementations.
Tracks API costs for LLM calls, embeddings, and other operations with per-query and per-session cost attribution. Provides cost optimization recommendations (e.g., batch processing, model selection, caching) and enables cost-aware query planning to balance quality and expense. Integrates with multiple LLM providers to normalize cost tracking across models.
Unique: Provides automatic cost tracking across multiple LLM providers with per-query attribution and cost optimization recommendations. Integrates with query execution to enable cost-aware planning without manual cost calculation.
vs alternatives: More integrated cost tracking than manual API billing review; built-in optimization recommendations reduce guesswork for cost reduction.
Enables building custom RAG pipelines by composing modular components (retrievers, synthesizers, agents, tools) through a declarative or programmatic API. Supports complex workflows with branching, loops, and conditional logic, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Pipelines are reusable, testable, and can be deployed as APIs or batch jobs.
Unique: Provides a flexible pipeline composition API supporting both declarative and programmatic definitions, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Enables complex workflows with branching and conditional logic without custom orchestration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible pipeline composition than fixed RAG architectures; better workflow support than manual component chaining.
Generates embeddings for documents/nodes using pluggable embedding providers (OpenAI, Hugging Face, local models) and stores them in a unified vector store interface that abstracts over multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus, FAISS, Chroma, etc.). The abstraction layer enables switching vector stores without changing application code, and handles batching, retry logic, and metadata indexing.
Unique: Provides a unified VectorStore interface that abstracts 10+ vector database backends, enabling zero-code switching between providers. Handles embedding batching, retry logic, and metadata propagation automatically. Supports both cloud and local embedding models through a pluggable EmbedModel interface.
vs alternatives: Broader vector store coverage and more seamless provider switching than LangChain's vectorstore integrations; better abstraction consistency across backends than using raw vector store SDKs directly.
Retrieves semantically similar documents from vector stores using embedding-based similarity search, with optional re-ranking, filtering, and fusion strategies (hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval). Supports multiple retrieval modes (similarity, MMR, fusion) and enables custom retrieval logic through a pluggable Retriever interface that can combine multiple strategies.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Retriever abstraction supporting multiple retrieval strategies (similarity, MMR, fusion, custom) that can be composed and chained. Built-in support for re-ranking via LLM or cross-encoder, and hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval without custom integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible retrieval composition than LangChain's retrievers; built-in re-ranking and fusion strategies reduce boilerplate for advanced retrieval pipelines.
+6 more capabilities