Lens

Comparison · Lens vs Condens

Lens vs Condens

Condens is a well-regarded, focused research repository. If you're comparing it with Lens, the two overlap on the essentials — and differ most on evidence, governance, and how AI fits in.

Both help you store interviews and turn them into insights. Teams tend to choose Lens when they want findings that stay tied to their evidence, research data that stays under their control, and AI that's optional and grounded.

Where Lens is different

Testing lives with the research

Condens focuses on analysing interviews. Lens covers the step before it too: unmoderated tests — tasks, first-click, preference, five-second, and embedded Figma prototypes — shared as one link, with no account for participants, and results filed next to the interviews that raised the question. Viewers are free and responses are never metered.

Evidence that stays linked

In Lens, every insight is rated (severity, impact, confidence) and traces back to the exact interviews and participants behind it — so a claim is always one click from its proof, and findings stay reusable across projects instead of being rewritten each study.

Governance and data residency

Lens hosts in the EU and can run on your own infrastructure, with role-based access, tenant isolation, encryption, and built-in consent, anonymization, export, and erasure — a strong fit where research data governance is scrutinized.

Optional, grounded AI

AI in Lens is off by default and, when enabled, answers only from your repository — suggesting themes, opportunities, and duplicates — using your own AI key. It supports your judgment rather than replacing it.

When Lens is the better fit

See also: all Lens alternatives · Lens vs Dovetail · Lens vs Maze

Condens is a trademark of its owner and is not affiliated with Lens. Product capabilities change often — check Condens's website for the latest details. This page describes Lens's own approach.

See how Lens compares on your own research

Request access