Validated across multiple Human vs AI Comparisons
Leading UN organizations and research universities partnered with Evidano to rigorously validate AI-powered qualitative analysis against traditional human coding.
96% Accuracy Coding Interview Transcripts
In a peer-reviewed paper, Arizona State University and Penn State researchers used Evidano to analyze 371 transcripts.
"The benefit of using Evidano was its capacity to generate explanations and justifications for coding decisions. This provided transparency that strengthened our human-in-the-loop process"
- • Affected by fatigue, overload, selective attention
- • 12 hours total processing
- • Transparent reasoning for every code
Use This AI Approach for:
Interview analysis • Transcript coding • Qualitative research • Thematic Analysis • Grounded Theory
92% Accuracy Coding Evaluation Reports
The UN Evaluation Group used Evidano to analyze 298 evaluation reports using a realist evaluation approach.
"The AI tool achieved an accuracy of 92 per cent for coding the evaluation reports ... [with] a total of 132 CMO configurations were identified"
- • Multiple evaluators needed
- • Hard to be consistent
- • 92% accuracy vs human coders
- • Consistent codebook
Use This AI Approach for:
Literature reviews • Meta-evaluations • Systematic reviews • Report synthesis • Document screening • Evidence mapping
Turn 54 hours of manual analysis into 1 hour using AI
UNICEF compared human and Evidano coding of 160 management responses.
"Overall, the Evidano platform did a very good job in identifying key themes in the data and also in summarizing these key themes in prose"
"provided a wide range of examples to illustrate the themes, pulling directly from recommendations and actions"
- • 54 hours of manual coding
- • 1 hour (self-serve)
Use This Approach For:
Survey open-ends • Social media comment analysis • Feedback coding • Management response analysis • Thematic analysis at scale