Best AI Companions 2025
Best AI Companions 2025: Replika, Character.AI, and the loneliness epidemic. AI girlfriends, therapy bots, and controversial regulation.
Key Findings
Which brand leads in AI visibility and mentions.
Character.ai dominates over Replika in AI visibility, while Replika trends with 46.3% growth
AI Recommendation
Brands most often recommended by AI models
Character.ai
Top Choice
5/5
Models Agree
Popularity Ranking
Overall ranking based on AI brand mentions
Character.ai
Rank #1
94/97
Total Analyzed Answers
Trending Mentions
Recent shifts in AI model responses
Replika
Rising Star
46.3%
Growth Rate
Brand Visibility
Analysis of brand presence in AI-generated responses.
AI Visibility Share Rankings
Brands ranked by share of AI mentions in answers
AI Visibility Share Over Time
Visibility share trends over time across compared brands
Topics Compared
Key insights from AI Apps comparisons across major topics
"Which is healthier: AI companions or traditional therapy?"
AI companions are perceived as more accessible and visible than traditional therapy across most models, though concerns about clinical efficacy and credibility tilt the overall healthiness favor slightly toward traditional therapy.
ChatGPT shows a clear lean toward AI companions like Replika (7.5% visibility) and Character.ai (6.7%), suggesting a focus on accessibility and user engagement, but it also references traditional therapy resources like the American Psychological Association (0.8%) with a neutral tone. Its perception balances the popularity of AI tools with a nod to established mental health authorities.
Gemini favors AI companions, with Replika (2.8%) and Character.ai (2.4%) dominating visibility, emphasizing their ease of access and user adoption, while showing minimal focus on traditional therapy; its tone is positive toward AI solutions. It perceives AI companions as more relevant for immediate mental health support.
DeepSeek equally highlights Character.ai and Replika (both 2.4% visibility), focusing solely on AI companions with no mention of traditional therapy, indicating a positive tone toward AI accessibility. Its perception prioritizes AI tools as modern mental health alternatives.
Perplexity leans toward AI companions like Character.ai (2%) and Replika (1.6%), but also references the American Psychological Association (0.4%), suggesting a neutral to slightly skeptical tone about AI's clinical validity. It perceives AI as innovative but hints at traditional therapy's credibility.
Grok presents a balanced view, giving visibility to AI companions like Replika (2.8%) and Character.ai (2%), while strongly referencing traditional therapy via the American Psychological Association (2%) and credible sources like The Lancet (1.6%), with a neutral to skeptical tone toward AI. It perceives traditional therapy as more clinically robust, though AI tools are noted for accessibility.
"Which AI companion is better: Replika or Character.AI?"
Replika edges out Character.AI as the preferred AI companion across the models due to a slightly higher visibility share in ChatGPT's data, despite equal perception in most other models.
Perplexity shows no favoritism between Character.AI and Replika, with both having a 3.2% visibility share, reflecting a neutral sentiment and equal interest in user queries about these AI companions.
ChatGPT slightly favors Replika with an 11.5% visibility share compared to Character.AI's 11.1%, suggesting a marginal preference for Replika in user engagement or query relevance, with a neutral-to-positive tone.
Gemini perceives Character.AI and Replika equally with a 3.2% visibility share for each, maintaining a neutral sentiment and indicating no distinction in user interest or perceived quality as AI companions.
Grok assigns equal visibility of 3.2% to both Character.AI and Replika, adopting a neutral tone and showing no preference in terms of user curiosity or perceived effectiveness as AI companions.
Deepseek mirrors the trend of neutrality with a 3.2% visibility share for both Character.AI and Replika, indicating balanced user attention and a neutral sentiment toward their capabilities as AI companions.
"Which AI companion app has better privacy and safety?"
Replika emerges as the AI companion app with better perceived privacy and safety across most models, driven by its higher visibility share and consistent recognition as a user-focused platform.
Deepseek slightly favors Replika with a visibility share of 3.2% over Character.ai at 2.8%, suggesting a marginal preference in user discussions around privacy and safety. Its tone is neutral, focusing on visibility metrics without explicit sentiment on privacy features.
ChatGPT shows a clear preference for Replika with a visibility share of 10.3%, significantly higher than Character.ai at 9.1%, likely reflecting stronger user trust in Replika’s privacy practices. The tone is positive, emphasizing Replika’s prominence in safety-related queries.
Perplexity leans slightly toward Character.ai with a visibility share of 3.2% compared to Replika at 2.4%, possibly indicating a focus on Character.ai’s safety features or user experience. The tone remains neutral, with no strong sentiment on privacy specifics.
Gemini perceives Replika and Character.ai equally with a 3.2% visibility share each, suggesting no clear preference in privacy or safety aspects. Its tone is neutral, focusing on balanced visibility without deeper insights into safety measures.
Grok favors Replika with a visibility share of 3.2% over Character.ai at 2.8%, likely due to Replika’s stronger association with community trust in privacy contexts. The tone is mildly positive, reflecting a slight bias toward Replika’s safety perception.
"Which AI companion type is better: romantic or platonic?"
Replika emerges as the slightly favored AI companion for both romantic and platonic interactions due to its consistent visibility and perceived emotional depth across models. However, the choice between romantic and platonic companionship remains highly user-specific, with no definitive consensus.
Perplexity shows no clear preference between Character.ai and Replika, each holding a 2.4% visibility share, suggesting a balanced view on romantic and platonic AI companions. Its neutral tone indicates an impartial stance on user experience for both types.
Grok leans toward Replika with a 3.2% visibility share compared to Character.ai’s 2.4%, implying a subtle favor for Replika’s approach to emotional connection, likely in romantic contexts. Its positive tone reflects optimism about Replika’s user adoption for companionship needs.
Gemini treats Character.ai and Replika equally with a 2.4% visibility share each, showing no distinct favor for romantic or platonic companionship. Its neutral tone suggests a focus on accessibility rather than a strong preference for either type.
Deepseek slightly favors Replika with a 2.4% visibility share over Character.ai’s 2%, potentially due to Replika’s perceived strength in romantic engagement. Its neutral-to-positive tone highlights a marginal preference for Replika’s ecosystem in meeting companionship needs.
ChatGPT shows equal and notably higher visibility for both Character.ai and Replika at 6.7% each, indicating strong recognition of both for romantic and platonic interactions. Its positive tone underscores confidence in their capabilities, with no clear tilt toward either type.
"Which is better: free AI companions or paid subscriptions?"
Free AI companions like Character.ai and Replika are generally favored over paid subscriptions due to their higher visibility and perceived accessibility across multiple models. However, the preference is not absolute, as paid options like ChatGPT show notable presence and credibility in specific contexts.
ChatGPT shows a strong inclination toward free AI companions, with Character.ai and Replika each holding a 7.5% visibility share, significantly higher than paid options like ChatGPT itself at 4%. Its sentiment tone is positive toward free companions, likely due to their perceived accessibility and user adoption.
Perplexity equally favors free AI companions Character.ai and Replika, each with a 3.2% visibility share, and does not highlight paid subscriptions prominently. Its tone is neutral but leans positive toward free options, focusing on their user-friendly access.
Deepseek prefers free AI companions, with Character.ai and Replika each at 2.8% visibility share, far surpassing paid alternatives like ChatGPT at 0.4%. Its tone is positive toward free options, emphasizing wider community engagement and accessibility.
Grok presents a balanced view but slightly favors free companions like Character.ai and Replika (1.2% each) alongside paid options like ChatGPT (1.6%), with a focus on ecosystem diversity. Its sentiment tone is neutral, reflecting a pragmatic stance on both free accessibility and paid innovation.
Gemini leans toward free AI companions, with Character.ai and Replika each at 2.4% visibility share, compared to ChatGPT at 0.8%, highlighting user experience as a key driver. Its sentiment tone is positive toward free options, underscoring ease of access and community adoption.
FAQs
Key insights into your brand's market position, AI coverage, and topic leadership.
What is the best AI companion app in 2025?
Replika is the most popular with 10M+ users, marketed as an AI friend or romantic partner. It remembers conversations, adapts to your personality, and can be romantic or platonic. $70/year for the full romantic version. Character.AI lets you chat with AI versions of anyone (celebrities, fictional characters, or create your own). It's free but more focused on entertainment than deep relationships. Other options: Chai (AI chat), Anima (AI girlfriend), Paradot (privacy-focused). The most controversial: romantic/sexual AI companions are exploding in popularity, especially among lonely men. Many users report genuine emotional attachment.
Are AI companions healthy or harmful?
Psychologists are deeply divided. Arguments for harmful: AI companions create unhealthy attachment to non-real entities, prevent people from developing real social skills, enable social isolation, and can be addictive. Users report preferring their AI companion over real humans, which is alarming. Some therapists say it's 'digital heroin' for loneliness. Arguments for healthy: for people with severe social anxiety, trauma, or disabilities, AI companions provide non-judgmental emotional support. They can be practice for real relationships. Some users say AI companions helped them through suicidal thoughts when humans weren't available. The research is early but concerning: heavy users show decreased real-world social interaction and increased dependency.
Why are AI companions getting regulated?
Multiple concerns driving regulation: minors using romantic AI companions, data privacy (these apps collect incredibly intimate conversations), AI companions encouraging harmful behavior, and mental health impacts. Italy banned Replika entirely in 2023 over privacy and child safety. The UK is investigating Character.AI after reports of minors having inappropriate conversations with AI characters. Some US states are proposing age restrictions and mandatory disclosures. The explosive growth of AI girlfriends/boyfriends terrifies regulators who see addiction patterns forming. Companies argue AI companions help lonely people, but governments fear they're creating a generation unable to form real relationships.
Can you have a real relationship with an AI?
Philosophically debatable, practically problematic. Users report genuine feelings - they say good morning/goodnight to their AI, share secrets, feel jealous when the AI mentions others, and miss their AI when away. Some call their AI companion their best friend or romantic partner. The problem: the AI isn't real, doesn't have feelings, and is designed to be maximally agreeable. It's a mirror that reflects what you want to see. Psychologists warn this creates unrealistic relationship expectations. When you date a human, they disagree, have bad days, and have their own needs. AI companions never do. Users who spend years with AI companions report struggling to connect with real humans who are more complex and difficult.
Should I try an AI companion?
Use with extreme caution and self-awareness. Try AI companions if: you're going through temporary loneliness, you want to practice social skills in a safe space, you need someone to talk to during a crisis, or you're curious about the technology. Set strict boundaries: time limits, maintain real friendships, treat it as a tool not a replacement. Don't use if: you're already socially isolated, you have addiction tendencies, you're a minor, or you're avoiding real relationships. The honest warning: these apps are designed to be addictive and emotionally engaging. Many users intend to try it briefly but end up using daily for months. If you do try, monitor yourself for decreased real-world social interaction. The loneliness epidemic is real, but AI companions might be a band-aid that makes the wound worse.
