Test Studio
Proven, Not Just Promise.
Our Test Studio reruns real-world surveys on the Synthetic People platform and measures how closely outcomes align with human results.
The benchmarks are transparent. The methodology is visible. We measure ourselves publicly.
Key Metrics
Tests Conducted
Validation runs are executed across surveys to test how closely Synthetic People replicate human survey responses.43
Total studies executed across scenarios.
Avg. Similarity
Average statistical similarity between human and synthetic responses at a question and distribution level.91.9%
Average similarity between human and synthetic results.
Avg. Directional Alignment
How often Synthetic People arrive at the same conclusion as humans, even when exact numbers differ.74%
Alignment of directional trends across outputs.
Scenarios Covered
Types of research problems tested - pricing, behaviour, adoption, intent.1
1
Breadth of scenarios tested in the suite.
Industries Covered
Industries where validation has been executed.3
3
Industry mix represented across all studies.
Individual Study Comparison
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:PWC SP Output
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
340,136
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
424,352
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
2,931
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
183
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
76.7%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
76.7%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
53.2%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
53.2%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in core demographic profiles.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in granular questions with higher respondent variance.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas reproduce the dominant market signal well, but naturally compress some of the variance seen in real human responses.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:SP Anarock Questions Upload File
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
319,587
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
175,635
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,697
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
475
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
72.1%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
72.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
78.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
78.4%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in exact spend and price recall questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans estimate exact spend using recall shortcuts, while synthetic personas smooth those answers using aggregated behavior patterns.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:SP Anarock Questions Upload File
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
629,143
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
118,437
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
6,837
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
326
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
72.1%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
72.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
78.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
78.4%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in exact spend and price recall questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans estimate exact spend using recall shortcuts, while synthetic personas smooth those answers using aggregated behavior patterns.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:SP Anarock Questions Upload File
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
441,530
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
187,810
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
3,512
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
286
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
72.1%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
72.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
78.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
78.4%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in exact spend and price recall questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans estimate exact spend using recall shortcuts, while synthetic personas smooth those answers using aggregated behavior patterns.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:SP Anarock Questions Upload File
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
572,394
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
126,177
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,563
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
383
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
72.1%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
72.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
78.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
78.4%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in exact spend and price recall questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans estimate exact spend using recall shortcuts, while synthetic personas smooth those answers using aggregated behavior patterns.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:questionnaire overview
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
124,959
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
225,304
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,062
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
667
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
83.9%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
83.9%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
68.7%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
68.7%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in granular questions with higher respondent variance.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas reproduce the dominant market signal well, but naturally compress some of the variance seen in real human responses.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:SP output
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
313,892
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
192,969
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
6,388
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
597
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
82.3%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
82.3%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
72.0%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
72.0%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in granular questions with higher respondent variance.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas reproduce the dominant market signal well, but naturally compress some of the variance seen in real human responses.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:SP output
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
486,446
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
642,181
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
3,545
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
594
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
82.3%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
82.3%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
54.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
54.5%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in granular questions with higher respondent variance.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas reproduce the dominant market signal well, but naturally compress some of the variance seen in real human responses.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:questionnaire (16)
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
483,175
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
644,702
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
3,122
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
383
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
91.5%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
91.5%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
68.9%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
68.9%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in granular questions with higher respondent variance.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas reproduce the dominant market signal well, but naturally compress some of the variance seen in real human responses.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Synthetic People survey
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
465,134
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
192,317
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,087
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
197
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.4%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
100.0%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
80.7%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
80.7%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in value perception and pricing sensitivity.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Synthetic People survey
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
315,108
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
597,338
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,158
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
342
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
95.0%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
95.0%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
75.7%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
75.7%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in value perception and pricing sensitivity.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in exact spend and price recall questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans estimate exact spend using recall shortcuts, while synthetic personas smooth those answers using aggregated behavior patterns.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Synthetic People survey
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
606,677
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
287,546
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,210
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
589
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
88.4%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
88.4%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
75.7%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
75.7%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the broad commercial story.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Food Delivery Behavior in India
Publisher Name:
Industry:Food
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
142,965
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
694,563
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
6,990
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
250
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
93.6%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.7%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
93.6%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
96.5%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in emotionally nuanced questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic respondents capture the direction of sentiment well, but emotional intensity is often compressed compared with real human expression.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:EV Adoption Bangalore
Publisher Name:
Industry:Automotive
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
406,088
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
500,350
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,001
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
508
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.6%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.3%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
93.9%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
94.8%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in feature trade-off questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans often balance competing attributes inconsistently, while synthetic personas resolve trade-offs more systematically.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Banking Fintech Adoption
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
182,398
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
385,912
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,916
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
289
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
98.0%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.2%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
97.8%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in feature trade-off questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans often balance competing attributes inconsistently, while synthetic personas resolve trade-offs more systematically.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Fintech Adoption
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
345,750
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
443,330
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
5,052
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
346
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
97.2%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.5%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
94.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
94.5%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in exact spend and price recall questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans estimate exact spend using recall shortcuts, while synthetic personas smooth those answers using aggregated behavior patterns.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Fintech Adoption
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
547,628
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
146,228
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,990
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
185
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.8%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
94.1%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
95.7%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in feature trade-off questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans often balance competing attributes inconsistently, while synthetic personas resolve trade-offs more systematically.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Fintech Adoption
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
548,837
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
659,212
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
6,873
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
430
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
95.3%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.4%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
94.7%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
93.9%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Car Sales Whitefield
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
240,368
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
265,209
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
2,825
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
105
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.4%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.6%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
96.6%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
97.0%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Banking Fintech Adoption
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
581,221
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
203,223
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,367
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
138
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
95.1%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
94.8%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
95.0%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:test_jag
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
483,733
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
625,836
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,635
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
458
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.1%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
96.6%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
97.2%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in highly specific quantitative recall questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans rely on estimation heuristics and recall bias for exact historical metrics, while synthetic personas generate smoother aggregated values.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:car sales
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
143,185
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
292,729
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
3,946
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
661
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.7%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.3%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
97.0%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
97.4%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in emotionally nuanced questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic respondents capture the direction of sentiment well, but emotional intensity is often compressed compared with real human expression.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Car Sales Whitefield
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
495,043
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
603,852
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
5,722
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
115
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.9%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.6%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
98.2%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
95.1%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:public transport
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
304,273
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
414,518
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
5,658
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
607
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
96.0%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.9%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
96.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
93.6%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in emotionally nuanced questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic respondents capture the direction of sentiment well, but emotional intensity is often compressed compared with real human expression.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Food Delivery
Publisher Name:
Industry:Food
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
308,030
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
595,294
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
2,938
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
516
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
95.5%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.2%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
93.6%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
96.0%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Healthcare
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
324,821
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
553,444
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
5,061
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
681
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.6%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.5%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
97.1%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
95.3%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:public transport
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
491,059
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
440,439
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
2,334
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
590
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.5%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.4%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
94.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
95.0%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in narrow demographic edge cases.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Synthetic personas model population shape well, but thinner edge segments can exaggerate small distribution differences.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:health2
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
482,617
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
449,654
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,218
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
445
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
97.9%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.7%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
93.7%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
95.3%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in overall sentiment, trust, and recommendation signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The biggest gaps appear in feature trade-off questions.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans often balance competing attributes inconsistently, while synthetic personas resolve trade-offs more systematically.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:public transport
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
318,221
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
410,660
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
6,939
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
121
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
97.9%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.8%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.6%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
93.6%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:healthcare
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
430,864
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
349,927
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
2,266
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
162
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
97.7%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.3%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
96.0%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
94.2%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:travel tourism
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
370,364
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
282,054
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,360
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
511
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
96.9%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.4%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.2%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
97.0%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Realestate
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
423,263
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
226,656
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
2,179
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
689
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
93.6%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.2%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.1%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
96.7%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Banking Fintech
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
688,097
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
526,332
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,628
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
565
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.7%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.3%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
96.2%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Banking_Fintech_Adoption
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
290,005
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
307,104
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
2,469
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
557
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
97.3%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
98.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
97.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
97.1%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:updatedsur
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
460,142
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
527,058
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,064
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
609
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
96.2%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.3%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
96.8%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
93.8%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:test with new values
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
641,301
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
184,583
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,991
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
315
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
97.7%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.3%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
93.5%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:one more test
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
646,407
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
513,499
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
3,556
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
192
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
94.3%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
98.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
96.1%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
96.3%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:new survey
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
604,260
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
502,357
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
6,125
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
196
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
97.4%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.2%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
96.1%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Vand
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
689,300
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
598,134
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,791
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
605
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
96.5%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.1%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
97.0%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:cricket
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
360,936
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
423,789
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,580
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
455
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
96.1%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
96.5%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
94.5%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Medicine
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
442,994
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
287,694
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,927
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
548
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
96.4%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.5%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.4%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
94.3%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Ice cream
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
487,498
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
172,439
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
1,551
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
258
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
93.9%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.5%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
96.5%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
94.8%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.
Same study. Two techniques. One comparison.
One built on stated responses. One built on behaviour. Both answering the same questions.
Human Survey
Survey Title:Travel and Tours
Publisher Name:
Industry:General
Scenario:General Consumer Behavior Study
Geography:India
Sample Size:100 respondents
No. of Questions:10
Economics (Human)
Calculated based on actual human survey execution dynamics, so what you see reflects what it really takes.Estimated CostEstimated using $5-$8 per response across the sample size.
$500-$800
Estimated TimeTypical fieldwork duration based on sample size.
1-2 weeks
Estimated EffortGeneral time required for cleaning, analysis, and reporting.
80-120 hours
Synthetic-People Simulation
Distinct personas modelled to represent the audience segments defined in the human survey, aligned to its demographics, context, and decision environment.
Personas Calibrated
100
Purchases, transactions, and intent patterns analysed as per the human survey context, reflecting how similar audiences actually act, not just how they respond.
Behavior Signals
590,273
relevant people's actions
Subconscious decision signals aligned to the same audience and scenario as the human survey, capturing how choices are formed, not just stated.
Neuroscience Signals
155,193
indicators ingested
Multi-platform conversations aligned to the survey's audience and scenario, ensuring temporal context is extracted.
Contextual Threads
4,613
conversations inferred
Various high-quality sources aligned to the human survey's topic, industry and audience, reinforcing the context and simulation scenarios.
Knowledge Bank
489
sources analysed
Economics (Synthetic)
Nothing changed but the method, so efficiency isn't claimed, it's directly comparable.Estimated CostAligned to human survey coverage, same depth, no fieldwork.
$2,499
Estimated TimeWeeks of survey cycles, compressed into hours, same baseline.
3-4 hrs
Estimated EffortSame rigor as human analysts, without the operational drag.
1-2 hrs
Outcome Matrix
What holds. What shifts. What matters.
Avg. SimilarityHow closely synthetic responses match human distributions across all questions, calibrated to the same survey structure, audience, and context.
96.5%
Directional AlignmentHow often both systems point to the same conclusion, even when the exact numbers differ.
97.0%
Prediction AccuracyHow reliably synthetic outputs anticipate the dominant human choice across questions within this study.
95.7%
Relationship StrengthHow consistently patterns between options hold across both datasets, not just individual answers, but how they move together.
94.1%
Signal Performance
AttributeQuestions about respondent facts, context, or profile. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are closely matching stable human characteristics.BehaviourQuestions about actions, habits, or past activity. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human behavioural patterns with consistency.KnowledgeQuestions about awareness, recall, or recognition. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well on what people know or remember.PreferenceQuestions about what respondents choose or favour. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing human choice patterns well.EvaluationQuestions that ask respondents to rate, judge, or assess something. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align with human judgment and perceived value.EmotionQuestions about feelings such as worry, confidence, or excitement. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are capturing affective patterns with nuance.ReasoningQuestions that ask why respondents think, choose, or behave a certain way. High similarity suggests synthetic personas are reflecting human rationale and explanatory logic.IntentQuestions about future plans, likelihood, or willingness to act. High similarity suggests synthetic personas align well with forward-looking human intent.A signal-level view of where synthetic persona mirrors human response patterns.
The Verdict
If everything matched, this wouldn't be real.
What MatchesWhere SP and human responses converge on the same signals.
The strongest alignment appears in the main commercial signals.
Where It DiffersTopics and scenarios where SP and human results do not align.
The main divergence appears in questions about more granular human response patterns.
Why The DifferenceMost mismatches come from the messy parts of human judgment - social pressure, recall bias, memory gaps, weak samples, and the classic say-vs-do divide.
Humans introduce more variance when responding to recall-heavy and judgment-based responses, especially when memory, estimation, or situational context influence the answer.
Go beyond the summary. Inspect every question, every distribution, and every gap - side by side.