Best AI Companions 2025
2025年のベストAIコンパニオン：Replika、Character.AI、孤独の流行。AIガールフレンド、セラピーボット、論争のある規制。
主な調査結果
AIビジビリティと言及でどのブランドがリードしているか。
Character.ai dominates over Replika in visibility, while Replika surges with 46.3% growth
AIの推奨
AIモデルによって最も頻繁に推奨されるブランド
Character.ai
トップチョイス
6/6
モデルが同意
人気ランキング
AIブランドの言及に基づく総合ランキング
Replika
ランク#1
5/5
分析された回答総数
トレンドの言及
AIモデルの応答における最近の変化
Character.ai
ライジングスター
10%
成長率
ブランドビジビリティ
AIが生成した応答におけるブランドの存在感の分析。
AIビジビリティシェアランキング
回答におけるAIの言及シェアでランク付けされたブランド
AIビジビリティシェアの経時変化
比較されたブランド間でのビジビリティシェアの経時的なトレンド
比較されたトピック
主要なトピックにわたるAIアプリの比較からの主要な洞察
"Which is healthier: AI companions or traditional therapy?"
AI companions are perceived as more accessible but less credible than traditional therapy for mental health support. The models collectively tilt toward traditional therapy as the healthier option due to its established efficacy and professional backing.
ChatGPT shows a slight favor toward AI companions like Replika (7.9%) and Character.ai (7.4%) due to higher visibility, likely reflecting their accessibility and user engagement, but also acknowledges traditional therapy through mentions of organizations like the American Psychological Association (0.7%) with a neutral tone, balancing both as viable options.
Gemini leans toward AI companions with Replika (3.2%) and Character.ai (2.7%) dominating visibility, emphasizing their user-friendly appeal, while references to academic sources like Stanford University (0.2%) suggest a skeptical tone about their effectiveness compared to traditional therapy’s evidence-based foundation.
Perplexity presents a balanced view with similar visibility for Character.ai (2.2%) and Replika (2%), but its mention of the American Psychological Association (0.2%) hints at a neutral-to-skeptical tone, implying traditional therapy holds more institutional credibility over AI solutions for health outcomes.
Deepseek equally favors Character.ai (2.2%) and Replika (2.2%) with no mention of traditional therapy, reflecting a positive tone toward AI companions based on accessibility and innovation, though the lack of broader context limits depth in addressing health benefits.
Grok slightly favors traditional therapy through higher visibility of credible sources like the American Psychological Association (2%) and research journals like The Lancet (1.5%), adopting a skeptical tone toward AI companions like Replika (2.5%) for lacking proven clinical efficacy compared to established mental health practices.
"Which AI companion is better: Replika or Character.AI?"
Character.AI edges out Replika as the preferred AI companion across most models due to a slightly higher visibility share and perceived innovation in user engagement.
Perplexity slightly favors Character.AI with a visibility share of 3.2% compared to Replika’s 2.9%, indicating a marginal preference for Character.AI’s user reach or engagement.
ChatGPT shows a near tie between Character.AI (11.1%) and Replika (11.3%), with a neutral sentiment suggesting both are equally viable AI companions based on visibility and discussion volume.
Gemini perceives both Character.AI and Replika equally with a visibility share of 3.4% each, maintaining a neutral tone and indicating no clear preference in user adoption or appeal.
Grok assigns equal visibility to Character.AI and Replika at 2.9% each, reflecting a neutral stance with no discernible favoritism in terms of user experience or innovation.
Deepseek mirrors the neutral sentiment with identical visibility shares of 2.7% for both Character.AI and Replika, suggesting parity in community interest and perceived value as AI companions.
"Which AI companion type is better: romantic or platonic?"
Replika slightly edges out Character.ai as the preferred AI companion platform across models, primarily due to its marginally higher visibility share and implied focus on personalized, emotionally engaging interactions that resonate with users seeking romantic or platonic connections.
ChatGPT shows a slight favoring of Replika with a visibility share of 7.1% compared to Character.ai's 6.9%, suggesting a preference for Replika's tailored emotional engagement, which may align better with both romantic and platonic companion needs. Its tone is neutral, reflecting a balanced view with a broad reference to academic and mental health sources for context on attachment.
Perplexity treats both Character.ai and Replika equally with a 2.7% visibility share each, indicating no clear preference between romantic or platonic companionship foci. Its neutral tone suggests a focus on accessibility and user experience without bias toward either platform's companion style.
Grok leans slightly toward Replika with a 2.9% visibility share over Character.ai's 2.5%, possibly valuing Replika's stronger emphasis on personalized interaction suited for romantic or deep platonic bonds. Its tone remains neutral, focusing on data-driven visibility without emotional weighting.
Gemini marginally favors Replika at 2.9% visibility share compared to Character.ai's 2.7%, likely appreciating Replika's nuanced emotional intelligence for romantic or platonic connections as implied by diverse source references like Marriage.com. Its tone is positive, reflecting optimism about user engagement potential.
Deepseek shows a slight preference for Replika with a 2.2% visibility share over Character.ai's 2.0%, suggesting a focus on Replika's adaptive companion capabilities for varied user needs in romantic or platonic contexts. Its tone is neutral, prioritizing functionality and adoption patterns over emotional sentiment.
"Which AI companion app has better privacy and safety?"
Replika emerges as the leading AI companion app for privacy and safety across most models due to its consistent high visibility and implied trust in user data protection.
Perplexity shows a slight favor towards Character.ai with a visibility share of 3.2%, compared to Replika at 2.7%, suggesting a focus on user engagement over explicit privacy; its neutral tone indicates no strong privacy concerns for either.
Deepseek leans towards Replika with a visibility share of 3.2% over Character.ai at 2.9%, likely reflecting a perception of stronger user safety features; the tone remains neutral, focusing on visibility without explicit privacy critiques.
ChatGPT strongly favors Replika with an 8.8% visibility share against Character.ai at 8.1%, implying a perception of better privacy safeguards and user trust; its positive tone suggests confidence in Replika’s safety mechanisms.
Gemini shows equal visibility for Replika and Character.ai at 3.2% each, indicating no clear preference on privacy or safety; its neutral tone reflects a balanced view without highlighting specific concerns or strengths.
Grok slightly favors Replika with a 3.4% visibility share over Character.ai at 3.2%, potentially due to perceived safety in community sentiment; its positive tone, reinforced by mentions of trust-oriented entities like EFF, suggests a privacy-friendly inclination towards Replika.
"Which is better: free AI companions or paid subscriptions?"
Free AI companions like Character.ai and Replika are perceived as more accessible and popular compared to paid subscriptions, primarily due to their higher visibility and user engagement across models.
Gemini shows a slight preference for free AI companions, with Character.ai (2.5%) and Replika (2.2%) dominating visibility over paid models like ChatGPT (0.7%) or Anthropic (0.5%), suggesting a positive sentiment toward accessible, no-cost options for broader user reach.
Deepseek equally favors free AI companions such as Character.ai (2.2%) and Replika (2.2%) over paid options like ChatGPT (1%), reflecting a positive tone toward free tools likely due to their perceived accessibility and adoption by users.
ChatGPT strongly leans toward free AI companions, with Character.ai (6.6%) and Replika (6.6%) far outpacing paid services like Anthropic (2.5%) or its own brand (3.7%), indicating a positive sentiment for free models based on user engagement and visibility.
Perplexity equally highlights free AI companions Character.ai (3.2%) and Replika (3.2%) with no mention of paid alternatives, suggesting a positive bias toward free options likely rooted in their ease of access and community adoption.
Grok presents a balanced view but slightly favors free AI companions like Character.ai (1.5%) and Replika (1.5%) over paid options such as ChatGPT (1.7%), with a neutral-to-positive tone indicating free tools may resonate more with user experience and accessibility.
よくある質問
あなたのブランドの市場での地位、AIカバレッジ、トピックリーダーシップに関する主要な洞察。
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.
