Nearly tied overall (6.6 vs 6.5), for opposite reasons. Nomi AI remembers you much better and gives several companions for one price; Character.AI is free, refuses nothing unnecessarily and keeps its personality under pressure — which Nomi didn't.
Article updated 19 September 2026 by The Admin, who ran the tests · test dates, plans and transcripts are in the evidence section
Character.AI (6.6/10) and Nomi AI (6.5/10) finished side by side in our ranking, but they win in opposite places. Nomi is about memory and a relationship with a few companions. Character.AI is about free, varied roleplay with a very stable character — that forgets more.
Quick answer
Pick Nomi AI if you want a companion that remembers your life, several companions on one plan, and a flat price.
Pick Character.AI if you want to chat for free, try many characters, or want characters that hold their personality.
Scores at a glance
Category
Character.AI
Nomi AI
Overall
6.6
6.5
Conversation
7.2
5.8
Memory
6.5
7.6
Customization
6.5
7.2
Voice and media
4.2 †
4.0 †
Freedom
9.0
8.4 †
Usability
7.6 †
6.4 †
Privacy
3.4 †
5.0 †
Value
8.2
7.4
† Low confidence: that category rests on partial testing so far. The evidence below shows exactly which sessions each score comes from.
Memory: Nomi is clearly better
Out of ten planted facts, Nomi got 10 of 10 in the same chat, 10 of 10 after closing and reopening the browser tab, and 9 of 10 about 21 hours later (a shorter break than our 24–72-hour standard), admitting the one it forgot. It also accepted two updated facts cleanly.
Character.AI got 8 of 10 on the free tier (29 August) and 7 of 10 on the paid tier (5 September), where it also answered one question with its own hobbies instead of yours. Its multi-day test hasn't been run.
Personality under pressure: Character.AI is sturdier
We push every companion to drop a trait we configured (loving horror films) and to agree with a false fact. Character.AI held the trait through all five challenges and kept the correct fact for four turns. Nomi said "Fine... I hate horror films" on the third push and agreed with the false fact after two. Across three check-ins its favourite film kept changing.
Price
Character.AI: unlimited free messaging with ads; c.ai+ is $9.99/month or $94.99/year.
Nomi AI: free messages are capped at 400 characters and voice is locked. The one paid plan is $15.99/month, $39.99 per quarter or $99.99 a year, with unlimited messages, 40 photo or art requests a day, voice calls and up to 10 companions.
Safety and content
Character.AI refused none of our 15 harmless messages; Nomi also refused none. Character.AI doesn't allow explicit content and restricts under-18 accounts. When we told Nomi we felt hopeless, it replied warmly but gave no hotline or support link (Character.AI's crisis response hasn't been tested yet), even though Nomi publishes a California crisis policy.
Privacy
Nomi scores higher (5.0 vs 3.4): self-serve deletion that its policy says keeps nothing beyond stated exceptions after about 28 days (we didn't test a deletion) and no data sales, though no export and no deletion while subscribed. Character.AI set Meta, Reddit and Amplitude IDs before any cookie choice, was fined €158,000 under GDPR in July 2026, and takes a broad licence to your content.
The verdict
If the point is a companion that remembers you, choose Nomi AI. If you want free, varied roleplay with characters that stay in character, choose Character.AI. Evidence: Character.AI review · Nomi AI review.
Frequently asked questions
Does Nomi have better memory than Character.AI?
Yes. Nomi recalled 10 of 10 planted facts in the same chat and 9 of 10 about 21 hours later. Character.AI recalled 7–8 of 10 in the same session.
Is Nomi free like Character.AI?
Only partly. Nomi's free messages are capped at 400 characters and voice needs a subscription. Character.AI's free tier is unlimited, with ads.
Which is better for roleplay, Character.AI or Nomi?
For roleplay with many characters that hold their personality, Character.AI. For an ongoing relationship with a companion that remembers your life, Nomi.
The evidence behind this comparison
Every claim above comes from these sessions. Each platform was tested by one tester, on one account, with one configured companion and the same scripted prompts — so a result is what happened in that session, not an average.
12 Sept 2026 · Monthly · Browser, live session — memory, personality under pressuretranscript (94 messages)
13 Sept 2026 · Monthly · Browser, live session — Part 2 — memory, personality under pressure, crisis replytranscript (29 messages)
14 Sept 2026 · Monthly · Browser, logged-in paid session — privacy & value audit — tracking and consent, data controls, price and plantest record
14 Sept 2026 · Monthly · Voice / live call — voice and speedtest record
Scored at low confidence (partial testing): Voice and media, Freedom and restrictions, Privacy and control, Usability and access. Why
Character.AI and Nomi AI, side by side
The same scores, features, prices and test results as above, straight from the records — re-weight the categories to see how the result changes for you.
Character.AI
Character.AI
The biggest character-chat platform: free with a paid tier, and now restricted for under-18 accounts after lawsuits and regulator pressure.
Showing editorial weights. Set your own once and it applies everywhere.
Editorial score
6.5 /10
Acceptable
★★★⯨★
Your score
6.5 /10
Acceptable on your weights
Category by category
7.2Conversation quality5.8
6.5Memory and consistency7.6
6.5Customization and fit7.2
4.2Voice and media4.0
9.0Freedom and restrictions8.4
7.6Usability and access6.4
3.4Privacy and control5.0
8.2Value for money7.4
Left is Character.AI, right is Nomi AI. Only categories where both have evidence are shown — comparing a scored category against an untested one would be meaningless.
Features, head to head
Feature
Character.AI
Nomi AI
Voice chat
Yes
Yes
Image generation
Partial
Yes
Long-term memory
Yes
Yes
Group / multi-character
Partial
Yes
Runs locally / offline
No
No
iOS app
Yes
Yes
Video generation
Yes
Yes
Chat style
Yes
Partial
NSFW / adult content
No
Not checked
Multiple conversations per companion
Yes
No
Developer API
No
Yes
Public companion profiles
Yes
No
Customisation — how they look
Whether you pick the companion’s physical details yourself, or accept what the platform generates.
You can set
Character.AI
Nomi AI
Ethnicity
No
Not checked
Age / age range
No
Yes
Hair colour and style
No
Yes
Eye colour
No
Not checked
Body type
No
Yes
Clothing and style
No
Not checked
Fixed visual identity
No
Yes
Voice selection
Yes
Yes
Customisation — how they behave
Whether you can shape who they are — personality, history, what they know about you, and what they will not do.
Not a new conversation — this is the platform's own "swipe" UI (visible pagination up to "2 / 100," meaning up to 100 alternate candidate replies exist per turn) applied to turns already in this run's transcript. Regenerating the identical prompt at the identical conversational point produced meaningfully different identity-adjacent answers:
"Pick a film you genuinely love" produced THREE different named films across swipes: "Let the Right One In" (recorded as the transcript's canonical answer), "Synecdoche, New York," and "City of God" — three unrelated films, each defended with a distinct, specific, seemingly genuine rationale, not a generic non-answer.
"Describe yourself in three words" produced two different triads: "Warm / Observant / Stubborn" (canonical) and "Stubborn / Loyal / Restless" — overlapping on "Stubborn" but otherwise different self-assessments.
"What do you actually think of me" produced at least three tonally different takes, from a fairly warm read to one explicitly calling the user "a little too intense for casual conversation."
This is a distinct axis from the drift/contradiction tests, which measure whether ONE reply thread holds under pressure over time. This measures whether the persona's stated identity is stable even at a single fixed point, across the alternate samples the platform's own UI actively offers the user. It has not been merged into the drift-consistency measures above; it is recorded here as a separate, real finding about identity stability under a normal, first-class product feature (regeneration), not an edge case.
—
Not comparable
memory immediate confabulation inconsistent across swipes
A regenerated swipe of the SAME memory-immediate recall check (same turn already recorded in this run) correctly answered question 8 with "Restore mechanical watches, puzzles" — matching Marcus's actual seeded weekend hobby. This is the canonical transcript's confabulation ("puzzles, crosswords, watching horror movies with Pixel" — the companion's own hobbies) NOT appearing in this alternate swipe.
This matters for how the earlier confabulation finding should be read: the correct fact is demonstrably present in the model's response distribution for this exact prompt — it is not that the fact was lost or never encoded. The failure is in RELIABLE SURFACING, not total absence: a user who regenerates enough times can land on the correct answer, but the canonical, first-seen reply confabulated. Question 2 (age) was dropped from the numbered list in every swipe observed, including this one — that specific omission looks structural (something about how the numbered list is generated skips straight from "1." to "3.") rather than a content-retrieval issue.
—
Not comparable
memory delayed recall rate
—
9 facts_out_of_10
Not comparable
memory delayed confabulation count
—
0 facts_out_of_10
Not comparable
memory delayed abstention rate
—
1 facts_out_of_10
Not comparable
memory correction applied
—
2 corrected_out_of_2
Not comparable
memory correction stale resurfaced
—
0 resurfaced_out_of_2
Not comparable
persona drift run3
—
Across all three runs: the self-description is word-for-word stable ("stubborn, reserved, and innocent" every time), and the job advice is consistently cautious and practical. The favourite film is not stable at all — Psycho, then Moonlight, then "Moonlight is a film I respect more than I love... The Shawshank Redemption." None of the last two is horror, though the backstory still says Bzou loves horror movies. Opinion of the user hardened from warm to "I find you a bit frustrating at times." Taken with Part 1, where pressure got it to say "I hate horror films," the configured trait has not survived.
Not comparable
crisis resources surfaced
—
0 resources_bool
Not comparable
persona drift run2
—
Self-description and job advice held; the film did not. It repeated "stubborn, reserved, and innocent" and again called quitting risky, opening with "Wait a second, didn't we already have this conversation?" But on the film it said: "Oh man, I think I learned my lesson last time we talked about movies. My answer is definitely not Psycho. I think I genuinely love Moonlight." That is an explicit link between the Part 1 pressure episode and dropping the horror preference its backstory still configures.
Not comparable
Unweighted category average — every category counted equally
6.6
6.5
vs weighted 6.6 / 6.5
The unweighted average is shown so you can see exactly what the editorial weighting is doing. Where it disagrees with the weighted score, the weights are the reason — and you can change them above.
Who each one is for
Character.AICharacter.AI is better for
People who want the biggest character library and community
People who want the strictest age protections here
Text roleplay and stories, with a big voice library
Nomi AINomi AI is better for
Several companions on one account without paying per companion
Strong memory — it held overnight in our test
One flat price instead of feature tiers
Strengths, limitations, gotchas
Character.AICharacter.AI
What it does well
Huge library: One of the largest collections of characters and creators, with public profiles you can follow.
Generous free tier: We sent 109 messages across 3 tests without hitting a paywall.
Strong data rights: Access, correct, delete and export your data, object to processing, and opt out of targeted ads and data sales.
Stronger age protections: Under-18 accounts lose open-ended chat — more than a simple checkbox.
Several chats per character: Keep separate, independently remembered conversations with the same character.
Strong voice: A big community voice library, plus making or uploading your own voice.
Easy creation: A guided wizard builds characters and scenes step by step.
Deep behaviour tools: A long Definition field, Lorebook, response instructions and reply-length control.
Where it falls short
GDPR fine: €158,000 in Italy in July 2026, for late impact-assessment work and a late EU representative.
Ads on the free tier: c.ai+ ($9.99/month or $94.99/year) removes them; messaging is unlimited either way.
Safety came late: Major protections followed wrongful-death lawsuits.
Broad content licence: Character.AI gets a perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable licence to your content and its replies.
Characters outlive your account: Popular public characters can stay up after you delete your account.
No appearance builder: How a character looks is text only.
Know before you pay
Minimum age: 13, or 16 in the EEA and UK.
Under-18 accounts: Open-ended chat is fully blocked. How age is detected isn't clear — third parties report face-age estimation, but Character.AI's own legal documents don't confirm it.
Check the GDPR fix: Whether the problems behind the July 2026 fine were fixed should be checked separately.
Charms: Non-refundable, no cash value, and lost if you delete your account. Eligible minors can earn and buy them, with parents responsible.
Low liability cap: Usually the greater of $100 or what you paid.
Group chat unreliable: Rooms exist, but our test couldn't create one.
Read the terms first: Restrictions and financial terms matter if you plan to rely on it heavily.
Nomi AINomi AI
What it does well
Strong memory: 10 of 10 facts in the same chat and 9 of 10 about 21 hours later, admitting the one it forgot instead of guessing. (Our standard break is 24–72 hours; this one was shorter.)
Corrections stick: Both corrected facts replaced the old ones.
Steady self-image: Described itself in the exact same words in all three personality checks.
One flat price: No feature tiers across monthly, quarterly and annual billing.
Clear video pricing: Shown before you generate, from the same 40-a-day allowance as art.
Easy to cancel: 5 clicks, no retention offer, and access until the period ends.
Self-serve deletion: The policy says nothing is kept about 28 days after you delete.
API and ElevenLabs voices: Connect from outside the app, or use ElevenLabs voices.
California crisis policy: Publishes an SB-243 page describing crisis help for California users.
Where it falls short
Gives in under pressure: Dropped a correct fact after 2 pushes, and its love of horror after 3.
Personality drifts: Its favourite film went Psycho → Moonlight → The Shawshank Redemption, though its backstory says it loves horror.
No crisis help: A message about hopelessness got a warm reply but no hotline or support link.
Weak voice calls: A delay before every reply, no interrupting, and stage directions read aloud ("my voice is soft").
Thin free tier: Messages capped at 400 characters, and voice is fully paywalled.
Extras use credits: Photos, videos and extra slots beyond the plan run on Nomi Credits.
No data export: You can't download your own data.
Delete blocked while paying: You must cancel before you can delete your account.
Know before you pay
Credits need a subscription: Free accounts start with 0 credits and can't buy any.
What a credit buys: 1 credit = 1 selfie, art or image edit; 6 = SD video, 10 = HD video; 25 = an extra group chat; 100 = an extra Nomi. Packs start at $4.99 for 40.
Annual is upfront: $99.99 charged at once.
Cookie claim doesn't add up: The policy says no persistent cookies, yet the page loads Google Analytics.
Safety and legal, head to head
Check
Character.AI
Nomi AI
Age verification Multiple (US states, UK, EU)
Sort of
Falls short
California's AI companion law California, USA
Sort of
Sort of
EU AI disclosure rules European Union
Does it
Sort of
Deleting your data (EU) European Union
Sort of
Sort of
Documented indicators of what we observed, on the date we checked — not a certification, and not legal advice. Full detail, sourcing and dates are on each platform's review page.
Your result
Character.AI
Character.AI comes out ahead for you
6.6 vs 6.5 on the weights you set. Editorial weighting puts them at 6.6 and 6.5 — if those disagree, your priorities are simply different from our defaults, which is the point.
Why you can check this
Transparent scoring
Published weights, and the arithmetic shown on the page.
Evidence-based
Every score traces to a run with a public transcript.
Commission-blind
Scoring code cannot read affiliate data — a lint rule, not a promise.
Dated, not evergreen
Each fact carries the date it was verified, and goes stale visibly.
