Move your team from Claude Science to Elicit.

Elicit's Reports fully automate a literature overview end to end (search, screen, extract, synthesize into a cited report covering up to 200 papers), customizable after generation and shareable via API. Claude Science does not generate literature-review reports as a distinct product surface; the closest equivalent is its manuscript-drafting capability inside a session/project, with the Reviewer auditing the resulting draft's claims against the artifact's provenance record before the researcher relies on it. Teams replacing Elicit Reports with a Claude Science workflow should expect to author the literature-synthesis prompt themselves (there is no '200 Paper Reports' style dedicated product), then lean on the Reviewer pass to catch citation errors and unverifiable numbers in the drafted manuscript the same way Elicit's per-claim quote grounding does inline. Conversely, a Claude Science project needing a literature-overview section is often better served by generating that section in Elicit as a Report and importing the cited output as a reference artifact, rather than re-deriving broad literature synthesis inside Claude Science's compute-oriented workbench.

Elicit's Research Agent decomposes a natural-language question into a search/screen/extract/synthesize program and runs it autonomously over the literature corpus, emitting a grounded deliverable (report, tables, figures, slides). Claude Science's coordinating agent plays an analogous decomposition role but is generalist and computational: it orchestrates 60+ skills/connectors, spins up parallel delegated sessions to compare alternate approaches, and produces manuscripts alongside live code execution rather than a single literature synthesis. Moving a literature-driven research program from Elicit into Claude Science: recreate the research question as a session (optionally a project for persistent folder permissions/custom instructions), and use delegation to fan out into parallel tracks the way Elicit's agent fans out into search/screen/extract steps — but expect to compose the literature-search step yourself via a connector or skill rather than getting Elicit's purpose-built citation-grounded pipeline for free. Moving the reverse direction (a Claude Science project that needs a literature-synthesis sub-task): hand that sub-task to Elicit's Research Agent for its purpose-built evidence grounding, then pull the resulting cited report back into Claude Science as an artifact/reference for the computational analysis.

Elicit backs every AI claim (summaries, extractions, Reports, Research Agent output) with an exact sentence/figure quote from the source paper, applied uniformly and for free across all tiers. Claude Science's nearest analog is its versioned artifact provenance plus the background Reviewer agent, which cross-checks claims against the recorded code/environment/conversation that produced them — verifying that reported numbers match source files, that citations support attributed claims, and that DOIs resolve correctly. Migrating trust-in-output workflows from Elicit to Claude Science: treat the Reviewer as the provenance layer, but note it operates on computational artifacts (figures, notebooks, structures, manuscripts) and their execution history, not on sentence-level literature quotes the way Elicit's grounding does — it checks 'did this claim match what actually ran/what the source file says', not 'does this exact paper sentence support this exact claim' across a paper corpus. For manuscript drafting in Claude Science that cites literature, pair it with Elicit (or its API) as the citation-grounding source: pull Elicit's quote-grounded claims in, then let the Claude Science Reviewer verify the computational claims layered on top.

Elicit's paper-search indexes 138M+ academic papers (Semantic Scholar, PubMed, OpenAlex) with semantic ranking and per-paper AI summaries, unlimited on every plan including free. Claude Science does not ship a general literature-search index; instead its 60+ connectors give read-only access to domain databases (Ensembl, UniProt, PDB, PubChem, GEO, etc.) plus a literature-review skill, aimed at pulling structured scientific records (sequences, structures, assay data) rather than ranking papers by semantic relevance. For a lab moving research off Elicit into Claude Science: keep using Elicit (or its API) as the literature-discovery front end, and use Claude Science's connectors for the downstream structured-data pull once specific accessions/identifiers are known (e.g. a paper found in Elicit references a PDB structure or a GEO dataset — fetch that directly via the matching Claude Science connector inside the same coordinating-agent session). The reverse direction — a Claude Science session that needs broad literature discovery — should delegate that sub-task to Elicit's paper search via its API rather than trying to approximate semantic paper ranking with connectors that are not built for it.

Elicit sells a standalone four-tier ladder (free Basic, Pro $49/mo, Scale $169/mo, custom Enterprise) with feature/quota gating specific to research workflows (Reports/year, columns, screening scale, alerts, API). Claude Science has no standalone price at all — it is a capability bundled into the existing Claude plan ladder (Pro, Max, Team, Enterprise; not on Free), with Team/Enterprise requiring an Owner to flip it on org-wide before members get access. When comparing cost for a research team: Elicit's Pro ($588/year billed annually) buys a dedicated literature-review product with its own quotas; Claude Science's cost is whatever the org already pays for Claude Pro/Max/Team/Enterprise, with Claude Science usage drawn from the same shared 5-hour/weekly limit as Claude Code and Cowork rather than a separate research-specific quota. A lab consolidating tools onto Claude Science does not get an Elicit-style Reports-per-year or columns-at-a-time allowance — capacity is just general Claude usage-budget, which can be better or worse depending on how heavily the team already uses Claude Code/Cowork. Note Anthropic's academic/nonprofit discounted Team plan and the time-boxed 'AI for Science' credits program (applications due 2026-07-15) as an adjacent cost lever with no exact Elicit counterpart, versus Elicit's own academic-adjacent free Basic tier.

Elicit's guided systematic-review workflow (search, title/abstract screening, full-text screening, extraction, with PRISMA 2020 exclusion reasons and per-criterion scores) is a fixed, plan-gated pipeline purpose-built for PRISMA-auditable reviews. Claude Science has no equivalent guided review wizard, but its sandboxed Python/R/shell environment with persistent kernels can replicate the extraction-and-scoring mechanics as a bespoke pipeline: import a reference set (e.g. exported from Elicit as RIS/CSV), write screening/extraction code against it in a live kernel, and keep the dataframe of included/excluded studies alive across the session instead of re-running from scratch each turn. Recommended migration for labs that need PRISMA compliance: keep Elicit for the guided screen (it has purpose-built PRISMA scoring/audit trail), and use Claude Science only for downstream statistical synthesis (e.g. meta-analysis, forest plots) once Elicit has produced the extracted dataset — export from Elicit, load into a Claude Science kernel, and let the Reviewer agent check the computed statistics against source code.