How it works
- Add people to your shortlist. Start with 2, 3, or more people you're evaluating for the same role or partnership. Paste in names, LinkedIn URLs, or brief profiles. Compare People ingests what you've given it and begins pulling structured data across the 52 platforms and sources MentionFox monitors—news sites, forums, social platforms, review sites, podcasts, and more.
- Choose the dimensions that matter. Every decision is different. For a technical co-founder, you might care about engineering background, open-source history, and prior exit experience. For a candidate going into sales, you care about quota attainment, industry relationships, and how they're perceived on LinkedIn. Select the rows you want to compare, or let MentionFox suggest the most relevant dimensions based on the role or context you're evaluating for.
- Read the side-by-side facts. Each cell in the comparison is sourced. If someone claims five years at a FAANG company, you see the reference. If one person has 10x more public mentions than another in your industry, you see that too—and where those mentions came from. Risk signals appear alongside accomplishments: regulatory findings, public criticism, pattern breaks, and gaps in the story you're being told all surface with citations.
- Make a better decision. With facts organized by what matters, patterns emerge. You'll spot inconsistencies between what someone claims and what the public record shows. You'll see who has real traction versus a polished story. You'll find the people others missed. And because everything is cited, you can drill into any claim and verify it yourself.
What you get
Sourced and cited by default
Every fact in your comparison comes with a link back to the original source. MentionFox pulls from 52 platforms—Reddit, X, LinkedIn, Quora, HackerNews, forums, news sites, podcasts, review platforms, TikTok, YouTube, Substack, Medium, and more. You're not reading summaries or AI guesses. You're reading the record, and you can verify it in seconds.
Built for shortlists, not databases
Compare People works best when you've already narrowed the field to 2–5 people. It's designed to answer the question 'Of the finalists I'm considering, who's the best fit and why?' Not to screen thousands of candidates. Deep comparison beats broad search for the decisions that matter most.
Risk signals alongside achievements
Track record matters, but so do gaps, reversals, and public criticism. Compare People surfaces regulatory findings, lawsuits, disputes, evidence of past failures, and public disapproval—all cited and contextualized. You're seeing the full picture, not just the wins.
Coverage tells you what you don't know
One person might have 300 public mentions; another might have 12. Coverage inequality is a signal in itself. High coverage means more eyes, more scrutiny, more proof of work. Low coverage might mean they're private, early-stage, or unknown—useful to know when you're deciding who to trust.
Works for any role, relationship, or decision
Comparing candidates? Co-founders? Panelists or speakers? Sources for a story? Vendors or agency partners? Compare People adapts to the decision you're making. You define the rows and the stakes; the data fills in the facts.
No AI-generated fiction
Every cell is rooted in what MentionFox actually found across its 52 monitored platforms. No fabricated details, no guesses, no filling in blanks. If something isn't in the public record, that's what the comparison shows you.
How it compares
Comparing people on gut feel or credential alone has failed countless teams. Compare People turns the public record into a shared fact base. You see who's been tried, who's been tested, who's been criticized, and who's been ignored. Everyone on your shortlist is measured by the same yardstick, sourced the same way, so the differences are real.
| Alternative | Side-by-side |
|---|---|
| Crystal Knows | MentionFox vs Crystal Knows |