Yes — it's what the tool is built for. Use literature review mode for your review chapter, pasting the findings of each study you're synthesising, or primary research mode for your own interview, focus group, and open-ended survey data. Either way you get named codes, a verbatim quote behind every code, themes with the sources that support and contradict them, and a Word report you can work from. Two things to do before you submit: review and rename the codes yourself — AI-assisted coding is a first pass, not a finished analysis — and check your institution's policy on AI assistance, disclosing it in your methods chapter where required. Cite the framework you chose (Braun & Clarke, Thomas & Harden, and so on), not this tool, as your method.

Substantially. A student NVivo licence runs about $125 a year and past $400 with the AI add-on, before the week you'd spend learning it. Here the first 3 sources of every analysis are free, and everything beyond that is one flat £5.99 (or $5.99/€5.99) for the whole analysis — up to 20 sources, with no word limit per source. A twenty-study review chapter costs £5.99, nothing to install, and you're running your first analysis within a few minutes. Check your university library first, though: a site licence sometimes makes NVivo free for you.

In literature review mode: the findings or results section of each study — the part that reports what was found. You don't need the whole paper: skip the abstract, methods, and references. Paste one study per box and label it with a short citation like “Smith et al. (2021)”. In primary research mode: your own participant data — one interview transcript, focus group, or respondent's open-ended survey answers per box. You can also upload a PDF per box (up to 3MB): it's read in your browser, we pull out the findings section where there is one, and you can edit the text before running.

Yes — switch to primary research mode on the analyse page. Paste or upload each participant's responses (interview transcripts, focus group excerpts, or open-ended survey answers), pick a framework, and the engine codes every participant with verbatim quotes and clusters the codes into themes across your dataset. Your first 3 participants are free; a full analysis of up to 20 is a flat £5.99 (or $5.99/€5.99).

Five: Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke) — the default and the most widely taught; Thematic Synthesis (Thomas & Harden) for systematic-review style syntheses; Framework Analysis (Ritchie & Spencer); Grounded Theory with constant comparison; and Qualitative Content Analysis. The engine follows the phases and terminology of whichever you pick, and the report names the method so you can cite it.

The first 3 sources of every analysis are free — studies or participants, no signup, no card, up to 15,000 characters (~2,500 words) in each box. Analysing more than 3 puts the whole analysis on one flat £5.99 (or $5.99/€5.99), up to the 20-source maximum: the same price whether you run 4 sources or 20, no subscription, and the per-source word limit is lifted to around 20,000 words so whole papers and full transcripts fit. Paying unlocks the full analysis for 30 days, so you can run and re-run it as much as you need. No account, no card stored.

Yes — this is one. NVivo runs about $125 a year on a student licence and north of $400 once the AI add-on is included; here the first 3 studies of every analysis are free and anything beyond that is one flat £5.99 (or $5.99/€5.99) for the whole analysis, so a ten-study synthesis costs £5.99 with nothing to install and no week spent learning the software. Other affordable options for qualitative analysis are Taguette (free and open source, manual coding only), Quirkos (~$21 a quarter) and ATLAS.ti (~$50–99 a year on a student desktop licence). Check your university library first, though: a site licence often makes NVivo free for you. And if you're hand-coding hundreds of primary transcripts for a funded study with a formal audit trail, NVivo or ATLAS.ti is still the right tool — this is built to get you from a pile of findings to defensible themes fast.

Yes — as an AI-assisted first pass, not a replacement for your judgement. Review every code against its quote, rename themes to fit your research question, and follow your institution's or journal's policy on disclosing AI assistance. The report includes a limitations note that says exactly this.

Every code carries a verbatim quote copied from the text you pasted, and every theme lists the studies and codes behind it — so each claim is checkable in seconds. The engine is instructed never to paraphrase or invent quotes, and anything you can't verify against your own sources, you should cut. That audit trail is the difference between this and asking a chatbot.

Your text is processed to produce your results and is not stored on our servers — analyses live in your browser session and disappear when you leave (so export your report before closing the tab). To run the analysis your text is sent to a third-party AI provider whose API we use; we choose providers that do not use API data to train their models, and may change provider over time. Anonymise participant data before analysing it.

No. Open the tool, paste your studies, run the analysis, download the report. Nothing to sign up for, nothing to cancel.

At least 3 — below that, cross-study themes aren't meaningful — and at most 20 per analysis. If you have more than 20 sources, run them in batches by sub-topic and merge the themes in your write-up, or start with your 20 most central studies.