Simple, transparent academic pricing

Yes, that is what it is built for. Use literature review mode for your review chapter and interview mode for your own participant data. You get codes with a quote behind each one, themes with the sources that support and contradict them, and a Word report to work from. Treat it as a first pass: review and rename the codes yourself, cite the framework you chose (Braun & Clarke, Thomas & Harden and so on) as your method, and disclose AI assistance where your university requires it.

Your first 3 sources are free, with 2 runs, no signup and no card. For more, the $9 Thesis Sprint Pass covers up to 20 sources and 5 runs, and the $15 Advanced Project Pass covers up to 50 sources and 10 runs plus the Advanced tools. Both are one-time payments for 30 days, with no subscription. Paid passes also accept much longer sources (about 20,000 words each). A run that fails is not counted.

Up to 50 sources and 10 runs, plus tools that appear under your results. For literature reviews: the Research Gap Finder and Theoretical Underpinnings. For interviews and surveys: a participant demographics table (Table 1), theme comparison by participant group, and a code saturation curve with a methods paragraph (Guest, Namey & Chen, 2020). Both modes get Ask Your Data chat (7 questions). The gap finder, theory and demographics tools include 3 generations each; the group comparison and saturation curve are calculated from your results and are unlimited.

For a literature review, upload each paper as a PDF or Word file. The tool keeps the methods, findings, discussion and conclusion, reads the authors and year for the citation label, and leaves out the rest, so you do not need to trim anything. For your own research, upload interview or focus group transcripts (Word, PDF, TXT or VTT) or survey exports (CSV or Excel). A file holding several participants is split into one each. If a file cannot be read, such as a scanned PDF, you are told which one and how to fix it.

Every code carries a quote, and every quote is checked word for word against the text you uploaded. A code whose quote cannot be found is removed and listed in the audit trail at the end of your report. Each theme lists the sources and codes behind it, and you can click any code to see its quote in the original document.

Five: Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke), the default; Thematic Synthesis (Thomas & Harden) for literature reviews; Framework Analysis (Ritchie & Spencer); Grounded Theory with constant comparison; and Qualitative Content Analysis. The analysis follows the terminology of the framework you pick, and the report names it so you can cite it.

For most student projects, yes. A student NVivo licence costs about $125 a year, and more with the AI add-on. Here 3 sources are free and a whole project costs $9 or $15 once, with nothing to install. You can also export to NVivo, MAXQDA or ATLAS.ti. Check your university library first, since a site licence may make NVivo free for you, and for a large funded study with hundreds of transcripts NVivo or ATLAS.ti is still the better fit.

Your text is sent to our AI provider to produce your results and is not stored on our servers. We use providers that do not train their models on API data. Your project is saved in your own browser on this device, and you can download the report or a .ta project file to keep a copy. Remove names and identifying details from participant data before uploading.

Yes, within 7 days of buying a pass, if an analysis fails and still fails when you retry. Email hello@thematicanalysis.ai with the email you paid with, the pass and the error you saw. Refunds are not given for completed analyses, files that could not be imported or a change of mind. Full details are on the Refund Policy page.

No. Open the tool, add your data, run the analysis and download the report. There is nothing to sign up for or cancel.