Compare A different job
7Analytica and fact-checking
Fact-checking is people examining a specific claim and publishing a judgement with their reasoning. 7Analytica does not judge. It shows the evidence around a claim so that you, or a fact-checker, can. In plain words: how this way of working differs from 7Analytica, and when to pick which.
Read About this comparison
A different job, set out the same way every time
Fact-checking is people examining a specific claim and publishing a judgement with their reasoning. 7Analytica does not judge. It shows the evidence around a claim so that you, or a fact-checker, can.
A different job Reviewed 1 October 2026
01 What each is for
Two different jobs.
Read What each is for, in full
What fact-checking are for
A person or team picks a claim, investigates it with primary sources and expert help, then publishes a verdict such as true, false or misleading, with the reasoning set out. The strength is human judgement and public accountability for it.
What 7Analytica is for
Describing what was said, where and when, and the evidence behind it. It traces a claim to its first report, scores how well it stands with the inputs shown and keeps the edit history. It never states that a claim is true or false.
02 Side by side
Seven points, one at a time.
Read The full table, what it leaves out and where 7Analytica fits
Seven points, compared plainly
| Point | Fact-checking | 7Analytica |
|---|---|---|
| Main output | A published verdict and the reasoning behind it. | A record of origin, corroboration, framing and edits. No verdict. |
| Who judges | A trained person or team, accountable under a published method. | You. The scores are estimates with their inputs shown, not findings. |
| Which claims | Those the team chooses or is asked about. | Any claim in the record, but the record covers one sector. |
| Speed | Hours to days for a careful check. | The origin and repeat view appears once a report is in the record. It is a starting point, not a check. |
| Primary sources | Contacts experts, reads documents, checks images and data. | Marks where primary documents are linked and where they are not. It does not collect them for you. |
| Scope of the finding | The truth of the claim. | How the claim spread and was told. A well-sourced claim can still be false, and a poorly sourced one can be true. |
| Where it stops | Covers a fraction of what is published. | Cannot replace someone with direct access to the ground. |
What it leaves out
Not faults. Each of these is outside what fact-checking are for, and it is where a second kind of tool can help.
- Only chosen claims are checked
- A fact-check exists for a small share of what is said. Most claims never get one.
- The check comes after the spread
- A careful verdict takes time. Meanwhile the claim has travelled, and the verdict rarely reaches as many people.
- A verdict does not show the path
- It says whether the claim holds. It seldom shows how many outlets repeated it, where wording drifted or what was edited away.
- Framing sits outside the question
- A report can be accurate and still be framed so that it points one way. A true or false rating does not capture that.
When it helps
Reach for 7Analytica when the question is about a claim and the reporting behind it. It works with the methodology shown in full, and you can try it in the live demo.
You are a fact-checker or editor and want to see a claim's origin and repeats before you start.
You need to cite how widely a claim was repeated and by whom, with dates.
You are teaching how claims spread and want every step and score inputs open to inspection.
You want to read published fact-checks as sources and see them linked to the claim they address.
03 When not to use it
When to use something else.
For some jobs 7Analytica is the wrong choice. Each of these says so plainly, and says what to reach for.
4Situations where it is the wrong choice
- You need a verdict on a claim
- You need a legal or regulatory determination
- You need images, video or documents authenticated
- You want a score to settle an argument
Read When to use something else, in full
When to use something else
Four situations where 7Analytica is the wrong choice. The coverage page and the page on AI and limits say more about what it does not do.
- You need a verdict on a claim
- 7Analytica will not give one. Ask a fact-checking organisation, or do the work with primary sources yourself.
- You need a legal or regulatory determination
- A is an estimate of how well the evidence stands. It is not a finding and not advice.
- You need images, video or documents authenticated
- 7Analytica does not verify media files. Imagery and document forensics need specialist methods.
- You want a score to settle an argument
- A score is a prompt to look at the inputs. If a high ends your checking, it is being misused.
Read Questions
Questions people ask
Is 7Analytica a fact-checker?
No. Fact-checkers examine a claim and publish a verdict. 7Analytica publishes no verdicts. It records where a claim began, who repeated it, how it was framed and what was edited.
What is the difference between fact-checking and verification here?
Fact-checking decides whether a claim is true. Verification, as 7Analytica uses the word, is tracing and testing the evidence behind a claim. It leaves the conclusion to the reader.
Can a fact-checker use 7Analytica?
Yes, as a starting point. It shows the origin and repeats of a claim and keeps a record of what was seen. The checking itself still needs primary sources and judgement.
Does a high trust score mean a claim is true?
No. It means the evidence in the record stands up well on source reliability, , recency and primary documents. A claim can score high and still be wrong.
Related comparisons
Next
See the record for yourself.
The demo needs no sign-up. Open a record, read the inputs behind each score and judge for yourself.