Homeo AI vs HomAI: Citation Research or Case Copilot?

Quick answer

Choose HomAI when the main job is studying a completed case against classical materia medica passages in natural language. Its current product pages emphasize literal excerpts, author and work attribution, multilingual input, and several ways to balance documentary evidence with AI synthesis. Choose Homeo AI when the main job is a connected practitioner workflow: preserve the approved narrative, review proposed symptoms and rubrics, inspect supporting sources, compare a differential, and carry the reasoning into follow-up.

The names are easy to confuse, but these are separate products. HomAI uses the domain homai.care and describes itself as a professional study and decision-support aid. Homeo AI uses homeo-ai.com and is positioned as a case-workflow copilot for homoeopathic practitioners. Verify the domain before creating an account, entering any material, or paying.

As reviewed on 4 August 2026, HomAI has a real free tier and current first-party feature, FAQ, pricing, and app pages. It also has a pricing inconsistency that a buyer should resolve before purchase. The public subscription page lists Basic as EUR 10 per month when billed annually. The live app lists Basic as EUR 12 monthly or EUR 120 yearly. Those displays may describe different billing views or rollout states, but the pages do not make the reason clear. Confirm the amount, tax, renewal date, and included limits at checkout.

What HomAI currently offers

HomAI's official feature page describes three analysis approaches. Evidence first searches its curated literature before weighing clinical coherence. AI first begins with a whole-case synthesis and then retrieves supporting passages. AI only produces a fast orientation without documentary lookup. That last mode explicitly requires the user to consult independent materia medica.

The cited modes are the most relevant difference for a source-focused buyer. The vendor says results can show literal excerpts with the author and work, search a corpus of classical materia medica and published cases, and keep the conversation in the user's language. Its FAQ describes a blend of retrieval and model scoring, followed by a validator intended to check that quotations are literal, relevant, and attributed. These are useful product claims, but they are not independent proof that every extracted passage is complete, correctly interpreted, or clinically applicable.

The current public plan page lists Free with three cases per month, one analysis per case, five chat messages per case, and 200 saved cases. It lists Basic with 50 cases per month, three analyses per case, ten messages per case, 2,000 saved cases, Evidence Search, Deep Research, and voice dictation. Pro is advertised with higher analysis allowances, patient management, web search, and an intelligent repertory. The public marketing page still labels Pro as coming soon, while parts of the live app present a Pro purchase path. Treat feature availability as account-specific until a trial proves otherwise.

Where HomAI is genuinely strong

HomAI makes documentary review the center of the interface. A practitioner who already thinks in materia medica language may value seeing passages before accepting a proposed remedy. The feature page also distinguishes a cited workflow from an uncited AI-only workflow instead of presenting every answer as equally grounded. That distinction can make a trial easier to audit.

Its natural-language entry and multilingual response are also practical. A practitioner can preserve the wording of a completed case study instead of translating everything into rubrics before exploring the literature. The direct-search databases for materia medica and published cases may be useful for teaching, supervision, or preparing a differential outside a live consultation.

HomAI's limits are concrete enough to test. Cases, analyses, messages, saved records, Deep Research calls, and exports can be counted. A clinic can therefore check whether the public allowance matches its real study pattern rather than buying on a vague unlimited promise.

What needs procurement review

Start with the conflicting Basic displays. Record the plan page, the in-app offer, the final checkout currency, billing period, tax, renewal rule, cancellation path, and what happens to saved cases after downgrade. Do not assume that EUR 10 billed annually and EUR 120 yearly are interchangeable with the EUR 12 monthly app offer until the checkout states it.

Next test source traceability, not just whether a citation is present. A literal fragment can still omit surrounding qualifications, come from an edition the clinic does not use, or be relevant to one symptom while misleading for the totality. Ask whether the product exposes the title, author, edition or source identifier, enough surrounding text, and a stable way to revisit the passage. Check how the result changes when Evidence first, AI first, and AI only receive the same material.

HomAI's FAQ says private case data is not used to train third-party models, records remain until the user deletes them, and TXT is the current export format. It also says no automatic time-based purge is available in the current MVP. Those statements are a useful starting point, not a substitute for a data-processing agreement. Before any operational use, obtain the current legal entity, subprocessor list, processing locations, retention for backups and logs, incident process, deletion evidence, access controls, and contract terms that apply to the selected plan.

Homeo AI should face the same questions. This comparison does not imply that the alternative has no data obligations. The buyer should map both products at the same level of detail and keep identifiable patient information outside a trial until the intended data flow is approved.

Where Homeo AI fits differently

Homeo AI starts earlier in the case-workflow sequence. Its intended job is to keep the original narrative connected to proposed symptoms, editable rubric mappings, source review, accepted and rejected choices, a remedy differential, and later follow-up context. The useful outcome is an inspectable practitioner record, not only a shortlist of passages.

That distinction matters when the practitioner wants repertory terms as explicit review objects. HomAI's official comparison says its input is natural language and its output centers on citations from authors rather than fixed repertory grades and rubrics. A clinic that wants flexible literature exploration may prefer that design. A clinic that wants to review the translation from narrative to rubrics and preserve why each mapping changed may prefer Homeo AI.

Homeo AI is not automatically a larger literature library, a general web-research service, or a replacement for a preferred repertory. If direct corpus exploration is the unresolved bottleneck, HomAI may be the better companion to existing software. If workflow continuity and correction history are the unresolved bottlenecks, Homeo AI may be the better fit.

Run a reproducible clinic test

Prepare twelve completed, de-identified cases for study. Include long and short narratives, at least three languages used by the practice, explicit negation, interrupted chronology, unusual modalities, and two examples where changing one phrase should change the practitioner's interpretation. Remove names, contact details, exact dates, addresses, record numbers, images, and rare combinations that could identify anyone.

For HomAI, run the same text through Evidence first and AI first. Use AI only as a separate exploratory condition, not as a final decision path. Record the proposed remedy set, every cited author and work, whether the quoted passage can be found in the source used by the clinic, the amount of surrounding context, and every material difference between modes. Count analysis and message units consumed. Test export and deletion with a non-production account.

For Homeo AI, record which proposed symptoms and rubrics the practitioner accepts, rejects, or edits. Check whether a second qualified practitioner can trace every accepted mapping from narrative to source support, whether the differential changes predictably after correction, and whether the rationale remains visible in a simulated follow-up.

Keep a practitioner-prepared answer packet outside both systems. Score narrative fidelity, negation handling, chronology, source identity, passage accuracy, omitted context, remedy drift, correction effort, export completeness, and total reviewed time. The test should be able to show that a tool is unsuitable, not merely generate attractive output.

Use only completed, de-identified cases until contracts and data flows are approved. Neither tool replaces diagnosis, referral, emergency care, practitioner judgment, prescription, potency, dosage, or follow-up responsibility. Neither tool should make an emergency-care decision or decide whether a person needs urgent conventional assessment.

Conditional verdict

Choose HomAI when direct study against attributable materia medica passages is the priority, the cited modes survive source checking, and the final checkout terms match the clinic's expected volume. Its explicit evidence modes and literature search are meaningful strengths for teaching and differential study.

Choose Homeo AI when the clinic needs a review trail across narrative, rubric mapping, source inspection, differential reasoning, and follow-up. Its value should be judged by how well corrections remain visible and understandable to another authorised practitioner.

A clinic may use both if it sets a clear boundary. Keep the authoritative record in the approved system, use only the minimum de-identified material needed for a documented research purpose, and never let an uncited or unreviewed shortlist become a prescription. The better purchase is the workflow whose sources, transformations, costs, and responsibilities remain visible after the novelty of the first answer wears off.

Official sources checked

• HomAI official features and evidence modes
• HomAI official plans and pricing
• HomAI official FAQ and data statements
• HomAI official application and current in-app plans

Product facts reviewed 2026-08-04. Confirm current features, prices, source libraries, and terms with the vendor.