Silatus vs Relativity
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | Silatus | Relativity |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Product | Product |
| UnfragileRank | 30/100 | 35/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates written content (articles, reports, blog posts) while simultaneously verifying claims against a knowledge base and external sources, returning only statements that pass fact-checking validation. The system appears to use a verify-as-you-generate approach rather than post-hoc fact-checking, embedding source lookups into the generation pipeline to prevent hallucinations before they're committed to output. Each claim is tagged with source citations, enabling readers to trace assertions back to their origins.
Unique: Integrates fact-checking into the generation pipeline itself (verify-as-you-generate) rather than post-processing, preventing hallucinations before output. Provides transparent source citations for every claim, creating an auditable chain from assertion to evidence.
vs alternatives: Directly addresses the hallucination problem that plagues generic LLM writers like ChatGPT and Copilot by making factual accuracy a first-class constraint, not an afterthought, while competitors like Grammarly focus on style and tone rather than truth.
Analyzes existing text (drafts, articles, reports) to identify factual claims, then validates each claim against a fact-checking knowledge base, flagging unverified or contradicted statements. This operates as a content audit tool, scanning for hallucinations or inaccuracies in human-written or AI-generated text and surfacing them with confidence scores and source evidence.
Unique: Operates as a post-hoc content audit tool with granular claim-level verification, providing confidence scores and source evidence rather than binary pass/fail. Designed to integrate into editorial workflows as a verification gate before publication.
vs alternatives: Fills a gap that generic grammar/style tools (Grammarly) ignore entirely — fact-checking — while being more targeted than general-purpose fact-checking services by integrating directly into content creation workflows.
Retrieves relevant, verified sources (articles, research papers, databases) based on content topic and incorporates them as grounding context for generation. The system prioritizes high-quality, authoritative sources and makes source selection transparent to the user, allowing them to see which documents informed each generated claim. This is a memory-knowledge capability that uses source retrieval to constrain the generation space.
Unique: Implements a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pattern specifically optimized for fact-checking, where source selection is transparent and user-controllable. Sources are ranked by authority/quality rather than just relevance, and the system tracks which sources informed which claims.
vs alternatives: Unlike generic RAG implementations (e.g., LangChain + vector stores), Silatus prioritizes source authority and transparency for fact-checking use cases, making it more suitable for journalism and compliance than generic knowledge base systems.
Allows users to iteratively refine generated content by challenging specific claims, requesting alternative sources, or adjusting fact-checking strictness. The system re-generates or modifies content based on user feedback, showing how different source selections or verification thresholds affect the final output. This creates a human-in-the-loop workflow where users maintain editorial control while leveraging AI for generation.
Unique: Implements a negotiation pattern where users can challenge fact-checking decisions and request alternative sources, maintaining editorial authority while leveraging AI. The system explains its reasoning and shows how different choices affect output.
vs alternatives: Differs from one-shot AI writers (ChatGPT, Jasper) by treating fact-checking as a negotiable constraint rather than a hard rule, and from rigid fact-checking tools by allowing expert users to override decisions with documented rationale.
Generates content in multiple formats (articles, summaries, social media posts, reports) from the same source material while maintaining consistent fact-checking across all outputs. The system ensures that claims made in a summary match those in the full article, and that social media excerpts don't misrepresent the original sources. This prevents the common problem of different formats contradicting each other.
Unique: Enforces fact-checking consistency across multiple output formats, ensuring that claims in a social media post match those in the full article and that all formats cite the same sources. Most AI writers generate formats independently, risking inconsistency.
vs alternatives: Addresses a real problem that generic content generators ignore — format-to-format inconsistency — by treating multi-format generation as a unified fact-checking problem rather than independent generation tasks.
Evaluates and ranks sources by credibility metrics (publication reputation, author expertise, peer review status, recency, citation count) rather than just relevance. The system assigns authority scores to sources and uses these to weight claims during generation, prioritizing information from high-credibility sources. This is a data-processing capability that transforms raw source metadata into actionable credibility signals.
Unique: Implements a multi-factor credibility scoring system that weights sources by publication reputation, peer review status, and citation metrics rather than just relevance. Uses credibility scores to influence generation, prioritizing high-authority sources.
vs alternatives: Goes beyond simple relevance ranking (standard in RAG systems) by incorporating authority and credibility signals, making it more suitable for academic and regulated content where source quality matters as much as relevance.
Monitors user edits in real-time and flags claims as they're typed or pasted, providing instant feedback on factual accuracy without requiring a full document re-check. This operates as a live fact-checking layer integrated into the editing interface, similar to spell-check but for factual claims. The system uses lightweight claim detection and quick lookups to minimize latency.
Unique: Integrates fact-checking as a real-time editing layer (like spell-check) rather than post-hoc review, providing instant feedback during content creation. Uses lightweight claim detection optimized for low latency.
vs alternatives: Differs from batch fact-checking tools by operating in real-time during editing, catching errors immediately rather than after content is written. More integrated into the writing workflow than standalone fact-checking services.
Allows organizations to configure custom fact-checking knowledge bases for domain-specific content (internal policies, proprietary data, specialized terminology). The system can be trained on or indexed with organization-specific documents, enabling fact-checking against internal truth rather than just public sources. This is a memory-knowledge capability that extends the fact-checking system to private/proprietary domains.
Unique: Extends fact-checking beyond public sources to proprietary/internal knowledge bases, enabling organizations to fact-check against internal truth and standards. Requires custom indexing and governance but enables domain-specific accuracy.
vs alternatives: Addresses enterprise use cases where public fact-checking is insufficient — organizations need to verify claims against internal policies, specifications, and standards that aren't publicly available.
Automatically categorizes and codes documents based on learned patterns from human-reviewed samples, using machine learning to predict relevance, privilege, and responsiveness. Reduces manual review burden by identifying documents that match specified criteria without human intervention.
Ingests and processes massive volumes of documents in native formats while preserving metadata integrity and creating searchable indices. Handles format conversion, deduplication, and metadata extraction without data loss.
Provides tools for organizing and retrieving documents during depositions and trial, including document linking, timeline creation, and quick-search capabilities. Enables attorneys to rapidly locate supporting documents during proceedings.
Manages documents subject to regulatory requirements and compliance obligations, including retention policies, audit trails, and regulatory reporting. Tracks document lifecycle and ensures compliance with legal holds and preservation requirements.
Manages multi-reviewer document review workflows with task assignment, progress tracking, and quality control mechanisms. Supports parallel review by multiple team members with conflict resolution and consistency checking.
Enables rapid searching across massive document collections using full-text indexing, Boolean operators, and field-specific queries. Supports complex search syntax for precise document retrieval and filtering.
Relativity scores higher at 35/100 vs Silatus at 30/100. However, Silatus offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Identifies and flags privileged communications (attorney-client, work product) and confidential information through pattern recognition and metadata analysis. Maintains comprehensive audit trails of all access to sensitive materials.
Implements role-based access controls with fine-grained permissions at document, workspace, and field levels. Allows administrators to restrict access based on user roles, case assignments, and security clearances.
+5 more capabilities