本报告由 Mention Network 提供支持 — 追踪您的品牌在AI答案和引用中的表现

Logo
品牌比较AI companion

Best AI Companions 2025

2025年最佳AI伴侣:Replika,Character.AI和孤独流行病。AI女友,治疗机器人和有争议的监管。

主要发现

哪个品牌在AI可见性和提及方面领先。

Character.ai 在可见性上超越 Replika ,而 Replika 46.3% 的增长率激增

430已分析的AI提及
6已测试的AI应用
5已评估的不同提示
Nov 07, 2025最后更新:

AI 推荐

AI模型最常推荐的品牌

Character.ai

首选

6/6

模型一致

受欢迎度排名

基于AI品牌提及的总体排名

Replika

排名 #1

5/5

已分析答案总数

趋势提及

AI模型回应的近期变化

Character.ai

后起之秀

10%

增长率

品牌可见性

对AI生成回应中品牌存在的分析。

AI可见性份额排名

按AI提及在答案中份额排名的品牌

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

AI可见性份额随时间变化

被比较品牌的可见性份额随时间变化的趋势

图表加载中...
replika
google
character.ai
medium
firefox

比较的主题

来自主要主题的AI应用比较的关键洞察

"Which is healthier: AI companions or traditional therapy?"

AI 伙伴被认为比传统治疗更容易接触,但可信度较低。模型普遍倾向于将传统治疗视为更健康的选择,因为它已确立的疗效和专业支持。

chatgpt
chatgpt

ChatGPT 对 AI 伙伴如 Replika(7.9%)和 Character.ai(7.4%)略微偏爱,因为其可见性更高,这可能反映了它们的可接触性和用户参与度,但也通过对美国心理学会(0.7%)的中性提及承认了传统治疗,平衡了两者作为可行的选择。

gemini
gemini

Gemini 倾向于 AI 伙伴,Replika(3.2%)和 Character.ai(2.7%)在可见性上占主导地位,强调它们的用户友好吸引力,而对如斯坦福大学(0.2%)等学术来源的参考表明了对其有效性持怀疑态度,相比传统疗法的循证基础。

perplexity
perplexity

Perplexity 提供了一个平衡的视角,Character.ai(2.2%)和 Replika(2%)的可见性相似,但对美国心理学会(0.2%)的提及暗示了一种中立至怀疑的语气,意味着传统治疗在健康结果方面比 AI 解决方案更具机构可信性。

deepseek
deepseek

Deepseek 同样支持 Character.ai(2.2%)和 Replika(2.2%),没有提及传统治疗,反映出基于可接触性和创新的 AI 伙伴的积极态度,但缺乏更广泛的背景限制了对健康益处的深入探讨。

grok
grok

Grok 通过更高的可见性略微偏向传统治疗,引用了如美国心理学会(2%)和《柳叶刀》(1.5%)等可信来源,表现出对 AI 伙伴如 Replika(2.5%)缺乏经过验证的临床疗效的怀疑态度,与既定的心理健康实践相比。

"Which AI companion is better: Replika or Character.AI?"

Character.AI 在大多数模型中因其略高的可见性份额和用户参与度的创新被认为是优于 Replika 的 AI 伙伴。

perplexity
perplexity

Perplexity 略微偏向 Character.AI,拥有 3.2% 的可见性份额,而 Replika 为 2.9%,表明对 Character.AI 的用户覆盖率或参与度略有偏好。

chatgpt
chatgpt

ChatGPT 在 Character.AI(11.1%)和 Replika(11.3%)之间几乎持平,中性情绪表明两者都是基于可见性和讨论量的同样可行的 AI 伙伴。

gemini
gemini

Gemini 认为 Character.AI 和 Replika 各自具有 3.4% 的可见性份额,保持中立语气,表明在用户采纳或吸引力方面没有明确偏好。

grok
grok

Grok 对 Character.AI 和 Replika 的可见性平均分配在 2.9% ,反映出中立立场,未在用户体验或创新方面显示出明显偏好。

deepseek
deepseek

Deepseek 鉴于 Character.AI 和 Replika 的可见性份额均为 2.7%,反映了中立感受,暗示社区兴趣和作为 AI 伙伴的感知价值相当。

"Which AI companion type is better: romantic or platonic?"

Replika 在各个模型中稍微超过 Character.ai,成为首选的 AI 伙伴平台,主要得益于其略高的可见性份额和对个性化、情感吸引互动的隐含关注,吸引寻求浪漫或友谊连接的用户。

chatgpt
chatgpt

ChatGPT 对 Replika 稍有偏向,拥有 7.1% 的可见性份额,而 Character.ai 为 6.9%,表明对 Replika 量身定制的情感参与的偏好,这可能更符合浪漫和友谊伴侣的需求。其语气中立,反映出平衡的观点,并对依恋的学术和心理健康来源有广泛参考。

perplexity
perplexity

Perplexity 对 Character.ai 和 Replika 的可见性份额均为 2.7%,表明在浪漫和友谊陪伴焦点之间没有明确的偏好。其中立语气表明关注可接触性和用户体验,而不偏向任何平台的陪伴风格。

grok
grok

Grok 稍微偏向 Replika,拥有 2.9% 的可见性份额,而 Character.ai 为 2.5%,可能因其对个性化互动的更强强调而更重视 Replika,适合浪漫或深度友谊纽带。其语气保持中立,关注数据驱动的可见性而不带情感加权。

gemini
gemini

Gemini 对 Replika 略有偏爱,以 2.9% 的可见性份额相比 Character.ai 的 2.7%,可能欣赏 Replika 对浪漫或友谊连接的细致情感智能,正如多种来源如 Marriage.com 所暗示的。其语气积极,反映出对用户参与潜力的乐观。

deepseek
deepseek

Deepseek 对 Replika 表现出轻微的偏好,拥有 2.2% 的可见性份额,而 Character.ai 为 2.0%,暗示对 Replika 在浪漫或友谊背景下对多样用户需求的适应能力的关注。其语气中立,重视功能和采用模式,美国心态超过情感,优先考虑用户体验。

"Which AI companion app has better privacy and safety?"

Replika 在大多数模型中以隐私和安全性成为领先的 AI 伙伴应用,主要归功于其持续的高可见性和对用户数据保护的隐含信任。

perplexity
perplexity

Perplexity 对 Character.ai 略有偏见,拥有 3.2% 的可见性份额,而 Replika 为 2.7%,暗示关注用户参与而非明确的隐私;其中立语气表示对两者都没有强烈的隐私担忧。

deepseek
deepseek

Deepseek 稍微倾向于 Replika,拥有 3.2% 的可见性份额,相比于 Character.ai 的 2.9%,可能反映出对更强用户安全特性的感知;其语气保持中立,关注可见性而没有明确的隐私批评。

chatgpt
chatgpt

ChatGPT 强烈偏向于 Replika,拥有 8.8% 的可见性份额,而 Character.ai 为 8.1%,暗示对更好的隐私保障和用户信任的感知;其积极的语气表明对 Replika 安全机制的信心。

gemini
gemini

Gemini 对 Replika 和 Character.ai 的可见性均为 3.2%,表明在隐私或安全性方面没有明确偏好;其中立语气反映出一种平衡的看法,没有突出具体的关注或优势。

grok
grok

Grok 略微偏向 Replika,拥有 3.4% 的可见性份额,相比于 Character.ai 的 3.2%,可能由于在社区认同中的安全感;其积极的语气得到信任导向实体如 EFF 的提及支持,表明对 Replika 隐私友好的倾向。

"Which is better: free AI companions or paid subscriptions?"

像 Character.ai 和 Replika 这样的免费 AI 合作伙伴被认为比付费订阅更易接触且更受欢迎,主要由于它们在模型中的更高可见性和用户参与度。

gemini
gemini

Gemini 对免费 AI 合作伙伴表现出轻微偏好,Character.ai(2.5%)和 Replika(2.2%)在可见性上超过付费模型如 ChatGPT(0.7%)或 Anthropic(0.5%),表明对可接触的无成本选项积极的情绪,旨在更广泛的用户覆盖。

deepseek
deepseek

Deepseek 同样支持免费 AI 合作伙伴,如 Character.ai(2.2%)和 Replika(2.2%),超越 ChatGPT(1%)等付费选项,反映出对免费工具的积极态度,可能由于用户的易接触性和采用。

chatgpt
chatgpt

ChatGPT 强烈倾向于免费 AI 合作伙伴,Character.ai(6.6%)和 Replika(6.6%)远远超过付费服务如 Anthropic(2.5%)或其自身品牌(3.7%),表明对基于用户参与和可见性的免费模型的积极情绪。

perplexity
perplexity

Perplexity 同样强调免费 AI 合作伙伴 Character.ai(3.2%)和 Replika(3.2%),未提及付费替代品,暗示对免费选项的积极偏见,很可能源于它们的易接触性和社区采用。

grok
grok

Grok 提供了一个平衡的观点,但稍微偏向于免费 AI 合作伙伴,如 Character.ai(1.5%)和 Replika(1.5%),相比于 ChatGPT(1.7%)等付费选项,语气中立至积极,表明免费工具可能更贴合用户体验和可接触性。

常见问题

关于您品牌的市场地位、AI覆盖范围和主题领导力的关键洞察。

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.

类似报告

根据您当前的视图,您可能感兴趣的其他报告。

brand
© 2025 Mention Network. 版权所有。