Use the engine to organize benefits and concerns, test whether either option matches your stated priority, and identify the missing evidence most likely to change the comparison.
Write one concrete claim per line. The engine audits what you provide. It does not fill gaps with invented facts.
The analysis runs in this browser using visible matching and balance rules. No remote model receives your decision.
The brief will show priority coverage, input balance, evidence quality, reversibility, and the next fact worth checking.
The engine does not produce a mysterious confidence score. It checks five visible parts of the record and explains which one limits the comparison.
| Audit | What it checks | How to respond |
|---|---|---|
| Priority coverage | Whether your notes contain concrete language connected to the outcome you named. | Add evidence about the missing outcome rather than more general pros and cons. |
| Input balance | Whether both options received a comparable number of benefits and concerns. | Research the thinner side before accepting a lead. |
| Evidence quality | Whether the claims are mostly verified, mixed, or assumptions. | Do not let a longer list of guesses defeat a shorter list of facts. |
| Exit cost | Whether a close choice can be tested or reversed without serious loss. | Prefer a safe test when evidence remains weak. |
| Missing facts | Which incomplete part is most likely to change the reading. | Verify that fact next and rerun the brief. |
The engine turns comma-, semicolon-, or line-separated notes into benefit and concern lists. It then compares words from your stated priority with words in those lists. A benefit that overlaps with the priority strengthens that option's signal; an overlapping concern weakens it. If one signal leads by more than one point, the result names that option. Otherwise, it reports that the notes do not create a clear lead. The comparison and scoring methodology explains how the site handles criteria, weak evidence, and close results.
The result can expose an uneven comparison, such as listing detailed benefits for one option and almost no risks. It can also show whether your notes actually discuss the priority you named. It cannot understand context, verify a claim, search for current facts, or decide how serious one consequence is. The number of notes is not a measure of real-world quality.
Use one concrete claim per line, cover the same categories for both choices, and separate known facts from estimates. Replace broad labels such as "better" with an outcome you could check. If the reading changes when you rewrite one vague note, gather evidence before treating either option as the leader.
Early-stage decisions where your notes are scattered and the next useful question is unclear.
Decisions that require current facts the tool cannot verify, or professional medical, legal, financial, or safety judgment.
Move the most important criteria into the weighted decision matrix and test how stable the result is.
Check what the browser-based comparison does, where the inputs go, and how to investigate a result that is too close to trust.
No. The engine runs transparent comparison rules in your browser. It organizes what you enter, checks whether your notes cover the stated priority, and identifies missing evidence. It does not send the decision to a remote model, search the web, or pretend to know facts you did not provide.
See how EITHER.SO handles evidence and scoringNo. Text entered into this comparison stays in the browser and is not submitted to the EITHER.SO server by the tool interface.
Read the decision-input privacy explanationFind the important input with the weakest evidence. Verify it, test a realistic range, or choose the option with the cheaper exit. A close result is a reason to improve one input, not to add false precision.
Learn how to decide with incomplete information